1807 réponses à ce sujet

[mopotter]

Just no no and no having to play MP to unlock any single player content is not different and totally unacceptable it would be no better then the ME3 pre patch BS

Agree, Agree and Agree.  I don't play MP games and have no interest in doing so.  To have something from the single player game depend on the MP would be totally unacceptable.  

 

I don't care if they add MP, but I want to be able to pretend it does not exist and if it doesn't exist, that would be totally ok.  Do a DLC or something I don't have to get, would be even better.  

[Vortex13]

Really. Since when do all modern games these days need Multiplayer to be a success? Origins was perfect the way it was. It did not need Multiplayer to get to where it was in 09 where it was one of the best games of the year. And really....when you make a MP game you invite all sorts of toxic individuals into the game. From those who do nothing more than attempt to lord their skills over you telling you how to play and come the simple trolls who go out of the way to ruin the experience. The game will be better off for not bringing in Multiplayer. Sometimes it seems like you hinge the success of the game as a whole on a feature the majority of players don't care about when it comes to the genre.

 

 

I look at MP as an additional option to enjoying my game; just like how others enjoy the option to play as multiple races for the PC, or the multiple options of LI, or the multiple options in terms of weapon and armor customization for the player and their companions. More options in a game is always a good thing IMO.

 

Now in my time as a gamer, I have never seen a video game made worse by the inclusion of MP. Oh I have encountered bad MP in the past; namely pay2win MP, or an unbalanced mess of competitive only MP full of glitchers and cheaters; but I have never played a title that became less because of the additional feature.

 

There have even been times when MP is actually a saving grace for a game with a rather lack luster plot. For example the video game Conflict: Desert Storm has a very generic "Soldier story" and would have faded into obscurity among the countless other war titles I have seen, if not for the fact that the co-operative campaign that had one player being held in a POW camp; being tortured/beaten to near death, while the other had to go mount a rescue operation, as the opening mission. Or the Lucasarts game: Gladius; a rather hum-drum story about an elder god of death coming to threaten a not-Roman civilization, oh and also gladiator fights in arenas. But the ability to play the game with drop in/drop out co-op, and have the other players get to play as the other gladiators and creatures in the party (my personal favorite being the walking skeleton of the Undead Summoner) really made it one of my favorite original Xbox/Gamecube titles.

 

 It probably has to do with me growing up with two brothers as into video games as much as me, but having the option to play MP; especially co-op MP; can only bring more enjoyment out of a game IMO. 

[J-Reyno]

 

But then we to right back to discussion of focus and attention, not resources. If the lead designer and producer are having to oversee an entire different department (and in the case of ME, an entirely different LOCATION) to complete the MP component, that is less time and oversight they give to other areas of the project. The fact it was stated that Casey Hudson and Mac hammered out the ending to ME3 over a weekend with no time for peer review says that there wasn't much focus or attention given to the endings at all. Was that because Casey was visiting Bioware Montreal twice a week to oversee the MP team and didn't notice Mac had completely hit a wall on the development of the story arc?

We won't know, but the fact that it is a possibility has me saying "hold off on putting in a MP component in the DA franchise for the first time until you release a game that knocks one out of the park." Bioware should be using a "better safe than sorry" approach for DA:I, given some of the perceived shortcomings in their last two or three titles.

It's only your personal perception that MP requires such focus and attention from the SP designers as to be detrimental to the development of the game.  You're only talking about possibilities and hypotheticals.  The only glaring flaw of ME3 was the ending.  You aren't going to convince me that it wasn't possible for them to have done a better job on the endings, a very small portion of the game, because they spent too much time on MP.  All you're saying is "what if?" and using that as a reason to condemn MP.  There's nothing reliable in your argument at all.

[iSousek]

Multiplayer is a yes x 1000 !

It keeps the game and community alive even after the SP content has been drained and discussed.

 

ME3 ending was the way it was because they made a certain creative decision, not because of the MP, so dont blame it for that

 

[Iakus]

Multiplayer is a yes x 1000 !

It keeps the game and community alive even after the SP content has been drained and discussed.

 

ME3 ending was the way it was because they made a certain creative decision, not because of the MP, so dont blame it for that

 

I play rpgs that are 10-15 years old.

 

Is EA really going to keep MP servers up that long?

[Vortex13]

I play rpgs that are 10-15 years old.

 

Is EA really going to keep MP servers up that long?

 

I hear you. That is the biggest gripe I have with EA's take on MP. Once the servers go down you are stuck with zero MP.

 

I wish that we could get some 'old school' MP back in our current gen games; things like LAN and split screen/same screen capabilities. I can understand why developers and publishers want to have games only be one person per system, but it doesn't mean that I like it. 

[Beerfish]

I play rpgs that are 10-15 years old.

 

Is EA really going to keep MP servers up that long?

No but mp is still a decent bridge between games.  How long has ME3 been out?  Between then and now I've played a lot of me3 mp.  Dragon age will arrive and I will play that single player alot and if it happens to have multiplayer I'll probably play that as a bridge between dragon age/expansions and the next Mass Effect game.

[TheodoricFriede]

The only way i would want this multiplayer garbage in my RPG would be if i also had the option to not purchase the multiplayer data and get a 20 dollar discount.

 

I hope whatever it was, its been abandoned.

[SofaJockey]

I put in >820 hours into ME3 MP, much more than the SP game, but I played the SP game first.

The devs even fixed a banner glitch 1.5 years in, past the point that public support had stopped.

[Killdren88]

The only way i would want this multiplayer garbage in my RPG would be if i also had the option to not purchase the multiplayer data and get a 20 dollar discount.

I hope whatever it was, its been abandoned.

Agreed. I would rather not have to pay for something I know for a fact I will not touch.

[SofaJockey]

IF it is included I can completely understand why BioWare would not share its inclusion until the last minute.

Then people could judge it on its actual merits, not the assumed anticipation of it being nirvana or garbage...

[Fast Jimmy]

No. What evidence do you have that the ME3 team took nothing from DA2? Or that Bioware, as a company, took no lessons from DA2?
 
They could've taken a thousand lessons, but all of them were completely useless if they had no time or resources to change anything.

If you don't apply proper time and resources to correct from what you've learned, then you haven't learned anything. Especially with DA2, where one of the biggest lessons was that crunching time and resources to meet a deadline when the product isn't ready will result in bad reception.

[robertthebard]

tinfoil hat: The reason they aren't saying anything is because it's going to wind up being exactly like ME 3's, right down to Thedas at War, with assets that you can't get any other way, and they know if they announce it too soon, a lot of people will be cancelling their pre-orders. I know I would be. /tinfoil hat

If there's a Thedas at War map, and I can't get above the hypothetical 50%, as was the case with ME 3, then it's a no sale for me. If they tie it in so that you can get more than the hypothetical 50% readiness through SP missions that you can do, so that it's totally possible to get 100% readiness, again, hypothetically within the SP campaign, then no problem. Requiring MP to achieve that, a fact that is still true for ME 3, despite the fact that you can actually achieve "better" endings w/out it, is a deal breaker for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone. MP should not add anything to the SP campaign that cannot be attained in the SP campaign.

[Zakhar]

I'm of the opinion that if EA really demands a multiplayer of some sort attached... If it has no effect on my single player game, they can slap it on all they like. They can put pay walls out the wazoo but as long as it leaves my single player campaign unaffected if I don't play it then I could care less if they added it on.

[Beerfish]

Agreed. I would rather not have to pay for something I know for a fact I will not touch.

We need to expand this to single player games as well.  I don't like some companions and weapons and some quests.  I don't want to pay for that crap.

[Beerfish]

tinfoil hat: The reason they aren't saying anything is because it's going to wind up being exactly like ME 3's, right down to Thedas at War, with assets that you can't get any other way, and they know if they announce it too soon, a lot of people will be cancelling their pre-orders. I know I would be. /tinfoil hat

If there's a Thedas at War map, and I can't get above the hypothetical 50%, as was the case with ME 3, then it's a no sale for me. If they tie it in so that you can get more than the hypothetical 50% readiness through SP missions that you can do, so that it's totally possible to get 100% readiness, again, hypothetically within the SP campaign, then no problem. Requiring MP to achieve that, a fact that is still true for ME 3, despite the fact that you can actually achieve "better" endings w/out it, is a deal breaker for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone. MP should not add anything to the SP campaign that cannot be attained in the SP campaign.

Almost every single player agrees with this.  Even the biggest multiplayer fans and supporters agree that it should be totally optional and have no bearing on the single player game at all. 

[Heimdall]

Almost every single player agrees with this.  Even the biggest multiplayer fans and supporters agree that it should be totally optional and have no bearing on the single player game at all. 

I personally don't think it has to be quite such a hard line though.  I'm not opposed to things like (As mentioned earlier in the thread) "promoted" multiplayer characters model swapping with generic Inquisition soldiers, or other things of a purely cosmetic nature.  Certainly, nothing should be needed to unlock anything in single player, but I like little nods.

[Vandicus]

Bioware used to do such great MP fantasy rpgs, here's hoping DA:I has some of that.

[Beerfish]

I personally don't think it has to be quite such a hard line though.  I'm not opposed to things like (As mentioned earlier in the thread) "promoted" multiplayer characters model swapping with generic Inquisition soldiers, or other things of a purely cosmetic nature.  Certainly, nothing should be needed to unlock anything in single player, but I like little nods.

That kind of thing would not bother me but I would just as soon do without considering how the boards would be inundated with people howling that they can't get the best game possible without being forced to play multiplayer.

[DragonKingReborn]

I play rpgs that are 10-15 years old.

 

Is EA really going to keep MP servers up that long?

 

Me too.  Just picked up Quest for Glory on GoG.  I spent the first hour giggling (in a manly way, of course) with pure nostalgic pleasure.  That ended when a cheetaur ripped my hero to pieces and things got serious after that, but still playing.
 

[Paul E Dangerously]

No MP is best MP. Just make the best damn SP game you can, and don't worry about pandering to absolutely everyone.

[mopotter]

I play rpgs that are 10-15 years old.

 

Is EA really going to keep MP servers up that long?

Me too.  I play for the story.  I still play  KOTOR, Morrowind and have even pulled out BG, plus I still play the more recent single player games like FA3 and FANV as well as my BioWare collection.  .  I have TOR but I stopped going there pretty much just don't enjoy on line stuff.  

 

I just don't care about playing with other people. Even family or friends.  It takes me out of my fantasy world knowing all these people on line with me are all sitting at their computers or console.  

 

Have no real problem with people who enjoy it, but if it's not there I won't miss it.

[Sanunes]

We need to expand this to single player games as well.  I don't like some companions and weapons and some quests.  I don't want to pay for that crap.

 

Don't forget romances too.

[Sanunes]

Me too.  I play for the story.  I still play  KOTOR, Morrowind and have even pulled out BG, plus I still play the more recent single player games like FA3 and FANV as well as my BioWare collection.  .  I have TOR but I stopped going there pretty much just don't enjoy on line stuff.  

 

I just don't care about playing with other people. Even family or friends.  It takes me out of my fantasy world knowing all these people on line with me are all sitting at their computers or console.  

 

Have no real problem with people who enjoy it, but if it's not there I won't miss it.

 

Even though Knights of the Old Republic doesn't have multiplayer, I can no longer play it because the disk is no longer readable.  So multiplayer servers don't always mean the game has an expiry date.

[MarchWaltz]

The base game looks fantastic already, and if they can promise everything they are saying, then the addition of MP is a-okay in my book.