1807 réponses à ce sujet

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

I think MP, if it's in, will tie into SP. Although not in the way most people think it will. I think SP will be used to unlock certain things in MP, like playable characters. Why do i think this? When I saw the Avvar we could recruit to the Inquisition:

 

I immediately thought that he looked far too fleshed out to be just a regular agent NPC. The fact that he has combat animations (in the IGN video) and he can be recruited makes me think that if they are announcing MP later this month, then the Avvar Barbarian is something that's going to be playable in it and unlocked by getting him recruited to the Inquisition through the SP.

 

The combat animation idea doesn't hold water.

 

In the video we fight Avvars. Avvars are a fightable enemy in game. That is why they have combat animations, and this avvar shares an animation with them.

 

Could your idea still be true? It's definitely a possibility. But there isn't really any evidence for it, as this Avvar has the same model as they do.

[Adhin]

@Shinian : It was basically straight campaign co-op. Party sizes where bigger, mind you, so you could technically have 6 people in total. But the gist of it was this, the host was the protagonist, any additional players took up a party slot with whatever character they brought in. Weather it was made for that MP session or a char they already had. Besides that it was identical to single player. The host was the only one who could initiate conversations, and while they where doing that everyone else didn't have choice in said conversation so was all up to the host.

 

I do remember, and this could be a misremembering, but I think you where able to assign prior to launching the game who gets to control who but that may of just been in Icewind dale since EVERYTHING was player made. There where no story/written companions in Icewind Dale. In fact, some people would use MP to 'create' a full party of 6 made chars for there SP campaign. Get it going then swap it over to SP heh.

 

I have a feeling with the way they've done a lot of the conversations in DAI with not being in a cutscene (well I dunno if its the bulk, but a good amount of em lets say) co-op partners will be able to move around while the hosts is doing chats n such. If they really go do this route, it'll either be the full campaign where 1-3 friends can join you taking up party slots, or the main story is deactivated while you have co-op partners in the game and it's all just the side missions. Considering they mentioned heavily considering and looking at how BG did it - I'd imagine it would be possible to do the full campaign with friends.

 

...but I don't wanna get my hopes up. But I REALLY want that to happen.

[Vandicus]

Those games had level scaling.  DAI will not.  And we will have to manage resources, as certain items will be limited

 

I don't care about players god-modding.  What concerns me is that the game (or subsequent dlcs) will be balanced for that in mind.  Therefore, forcing me to.

Fair point that DA:I seems to be more oriented towards resource management than the previous two games. Don't know that it'll be the same type that we're discussing here(limited gold and items) or simply the limited potions on an expeditions type(like Vancian magic)

 

 

It was possible to make an 100% magic immune character through entirely legitimate means in DA:O and the game wasn't balanced around that. It was possible to make an 100% dodge rate and magic immune character in DA:A. The power level for different builds in the DA series has been very wide, but they've never required us to use the best build to complete content.

 

I don't think the addition of an element that allows us to grind(kind of a more negative connotation than I feel it deserves, really just play whatever gameplay we're talking about) for more power necessitates balancing the game around excessive grinding.

 

I too don't enjoy being forced to grind an activity to get extra items/gold in games, but I like having the option.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

@Shinian : It was basically straight campaign co-op. Party sizes where bigger, mind you, so you could technically have 6 people in total. But the gist of it was this, the host was the protagonist, any additional players took up a party slot with whatever character they brought in. Weather it was made for that MP session or a char they already had. Besides that it was identical to single player. The host was the only one who could initiate conversations, and while they where doing that everyone else didn't have choice in said conversation so was all up to the host.

 

I do remember, and this could be a misremembering, but I think you where able to assign prior to launching the game who gets to control who but that may of just been in Icewind dale since EVERYTHING was player made. There where no story/written companions in Icewind Dale. In fact, some people would use MP to 'create' a full party of 6 made chars for there SP campaign. Get it going then swap it over to SP heh.

 

I have a feeling with the way they've done a lot of the conversations in DAI with not being in a cutscene (well I dunno if its the bulk, but a good amount of em lets say) co-op partners will be able to move around while the hosts is doing chats n such. If they really go do this route, it'll either be the full campaign where 1-3 friends can join you taking up party slots, or the main story is deactivated while you have co-op partners in the game and it's all just the side missions. Considering they mentioned heavily considering and looking at how BG did it - I'd imagine it would be possible to do the full campaign with friends.

 

...but I don't wanna get my hopes up. But I REALLY want that to happen.

 

 

It does sound like fun, but my first impression is I don't think they'd go this way. You never know though!

[Deadmuskrat]

The combat animation idea doesn't hold water.

 

In the video we fight Avvars. Avvars are a fightable enemy in game. That is why they have combat animations, and this avvar shares an animation with them.

 

Could your idea still be true? It's definitely a possibility. But there isn't really any evidence for it, as this Avvar has the same model as they do.

 

I just watched the Demo again, and I can't see any of these Avvars with the same model. The Defenders, the archers, and whatever the 3 around the cauldron are, did not have that model.

[ghostzodd]

Bring on the Baldur's gate multiplayer woot woot!!

[Eelectrica]

Another interesting nugget from Pax East April 2012

(yes over 2 years ago)

 

was that IF MP would be adopted, then Baldur's Gate MP would be the place to look for inspiration.

 

http://www.gamespot..../embed/6370991/

 

Edit - date wrong in first post

Something like that could be cool.

Keep the multi and Single playthroughs separate.

With the multiplay side, the host is the inquisitor, the save game is stored on the hosts pc/keep. Co-op partners perhaps take the role of cole,solas etc.

Perhaps co-op partners could download character builds/equipment from there own keep to use with the character they'd assuming while questing and journeying about the whole world they've created.

 

I could get on board with something like that. As much as I hate microtransactions, that could still be implemented. If someone wants to buy a +6 sword of hack'n'slash instead of finding it in game I guess that could be thing too.,

[Adhin]

I don't wanna play as Cole or Solas in my friends game, or blackwall or Iron bull for that matter (as I'd probably end up being Iron Bull). I'd want to be my 'own' character when I join his game. Obviously with out the Mark but I'd rather be able to just pull from one of my other play throughs, even if that means making a new playthrough I rarely touch just to play with him.

 

Now if that involved online saves that're MP only that's fine but I really don't wanna be controlling predefined characters. But I would if it's the only choice, obviously, but It would be a damper for me. Now, having the option would be great. Bring a char in or don't and just swap between the other party members would be fine too. Either way, in RPG's, folks get tied to 'their character', and disallowing that in MP would be a kick to the nuts, to me at least and I'm sure plenty of others.

[Eelectrica]

I don't wanna play as Cole or Solas in my friends game, or blackwall or Iron bull for that matter (as I'd probably end up being Iron Bull). I'd want to be my 'own' character when I join his game. Obviously with out the Mark but I'd rather be able to just pull from one of my other play throughs, even if that means making a new playthrough I rarely touch just to play with him.

 

Now if that involved online saves that're MP only that's fine but I really don't wanna be controlling predefined characters. But I would if it's the only choice, obviously, but It would be a damper for me. Now, having the option would be great. Bring a char in or don't and just swap between the other party members would be fine too. Either way, in RPG's, folks get tied to 'their character', and disallowing that in MP would be a kick to the nuts, to me at least and I'm sure plenty of others.

True enough. The option to play as a blood mage character would be enticing. My mage characters always somehow end up as blood mages. LOL

 

Other things they'd need to factor, or I suppose allow the host to control is the conversation system. Does the Host decide or is it put to vote what conversation choices are selected.

 

Point is there's more ways of doing it other wave 1- here's some undead. Wave 2- here's a few skeleton archers added to the mix. Wave -3 deliver this package to that person over there, oh here's skeleton warrior as well etc.

 

Lately friends have been going back to ME3MP. I just do the bare minimum lately. Couldn't care less I suppose.

[ElitePinecone]

True enough. The option to play as a blood mage character would be enticing. My mage characters always somehow end up as blood mages. LOL

 

Other things they'd need to factor, or I suppose allow the host to control is the conversation system. Does the Host decide or is it put to vote what conversation choices are selected.

 

Point is there's more ways of doing it other wave 1- here's some undead. Wave 2- here's a few skeleton archers added to the mix. Wave -3 deliver this package to that person over there, oh here's skeleton warrior as well etc.

 

Lately friends have been going back to ME3MP. I just do the bare minimum lately. Couldn't care less I suppose.

 

SWTOR did something similar to this with its flashpoints, but I didn't think they were executed all that successfully. There was a 'dice roll' conversation system where everyone would select an answer and the highest score would get to talk. Conversations and combat worked reasonably well, but the stories were generally paper-thin, there were no other "RPG" gameplay elements and everything became quite repetitive after two or three runthroughs. 

 

Conversely, I actually really liked ME3 because the combat system was so deep. Loads of levels, character kits, powers and enemy types really helped keep it fresh every game.

 

I'd love something similar for DA:I - they already have at least ten different biomes for the level design, plus four or so enemy factions, a whole heap of customisation, weapons, armour types, powers, skills and abilities. 

[Adhin]

@Eelectrica : I think that depends how its handled. If there is a vote system, where host has priority (in case there are only like 2 people or something) that would work IF it's not part of someones campaign. By that I mean, I doubt any of us want are friends screwing up our actual games story progress. But if this is some kinda MP-only co-op campaign mode with simple quests (maybe semi-randomly generated, like Skyrim) then... yeah alright I can see if there is a choice it being thrown up to a vote makes sense.

 

What I'm trying to get at here is it depends what it involved right? If main story gets put on hold while the co-op is active and all the stuff that involve a choice doesn't directly impact the main story then sure. But if that has any (and I do mean any) direct impact on 'my' characters main story, your story, anyone's story then there will be problems. That just opens it up to trolling. I know my friends, they'll troll at some point, especially when im streaming... gods that would be horrible.

 

So yeah I think it can work, but it depends what it effects. Most recent Divine game, forget the full name, uses rock-paper-scissors for that kinda stuff. It's only 2 player co-op I believe and if both sides don't pick the same thing it gets thrown into a 2 outa 3 rock-paper-scissors match. I think that's a really cool idea, but even when you play solo your making both of those characters. Neither is 'the main guy', you know? Would be super weird having the inquisitor forced to do something else because 2 morons behind him jumping around in circles wanted to do something else (and you know that'll happen, it'll be amusing... but it'll happen).

[puppy maclove]

MP affecting SP = No buy! Why force MP into this game?

 

Skyrim didn't need it and it did pretty well, but this is EA, so who knows! 

[Eelectrica]

@Eelectrica : I think that depends how its handled. If they're i a vote system, where host has priority (in case there are only like 2 people or something) that would work IF it's not part of someones campaign. By that I mean, I doubt any of us want are friends screwing up our actual games story progress. But if this is some kinda MP-only co-op campaign mode with simple quests (maybe semi-randomly generated, like Skyrim) then... yeah alright I can see if there is a choice it being thrown up to a vote makes sense.

 

What I'm trying to get at here is it depends what it involved right? If main story gets put on hold while the co-op is active and all the stuff that involve a choice doesn't directly impact the main story then sure. But if that has any (and I do mean any) direct impact on 'my' characters main story, your story, anyone's story then there will be problems. That just opens it up to trolling. I know my friends, they'll troll at some point, especially when im streaming... gods that would be horrible.

 

So yeah I think it can work, but it depends what it effects. Most recent Divine game, forget the full name, uses rock-paper-scissors for that kinda stuff. It's only 2 player co-op I believe and if both sides don't pick the same thing it gets thrown into a 2 outa 3 rock-paper-scissors match. I think that's a really cool idea, but even when you play solo your making both of those characters. Neither is 'the main guy', you know? Would be super weird having the inquisitor forced to do something else because 2 morons behind him jumping around in circles wanted to do something else (and you know that'll happen, it'll be amusing... but it'll happen).

I'd be keeping MP and SP completely separate. So we have our SP game with our own imported world states, our own decisions etc.

Then we have a different game where we can play through the story with others. It would use the Hosts MP save for that. Of course more than one MP save would have to be allowed for say an 'evil' or 'good' playthrough as a simple example.

 

And yeah I've played the new divinity game, so there are definately a few different methods of handling it out there. It was interesting allowing the RPS system to decide what side quests I did in my SP game. LOL

If

[phunx]

MP affecting SP = No buy! Why force MP into this game?

 

Skyrim didn't need it and it did pretty well, but this is EA, so who knows! 

The devs keep saying "this is the game we always wanted to make". Considering the fact they've made games with MP before and that the social aspect is basically the only thing that drives classic tabletop RPGs, is it really inconcievable that this might've been Bioware's decision?

[SofaJockey]

There a discussion about the reported big announcement that has been polarising opinion about whether more people hate or love multiplayer.

 

So I shared a few of my own thoughts there, but would hate to disrupt their thread too much, so am replicating here.

 

When people make the statements:

• 'More people hate multiplayer'
• 'More people want multiplayer'

those statements are subjective.

 

We simply don't have the data, though I'm sure BioWare/EA do.

We know from Pax East that they were open to the idea (Apr 2012) http://www.gamespot..../embed/6370991/ (2:40-4:05)

We know they were surveying people in August 2012 on the matter and they have a load of ME3 MP data. http://www.vg247.com...evealed-report/

 

There is also a balance here:

• If the number of people who hate it so much that a separate MP would stop their purchase of SP
• is less than the number of people who would be attracted to the game because of it
• and it fits with the ethos and story
• and it works technically

Then why not?

 

I would guess that more homophobes who don't like romances they don't have to do, will be put off

than single players who don't like multiplayer they don't have to do, will be put off.

(note: I am not in any way likening the moral or actual equivalence of those two groups of people)

 

I don't think BioWare should be phased by either the former or the latter.

 

The last thought is that the push-back from Fall 2013 to Fall 2014 was surely not simply to add 3 races as protagonists?

The DigiExpo  leaked demo (Finland Nov 2013) was looking in a good state. What else has a year's delay been for? https://www.youtube....h?v=80frogBXfNY

 

The games market is also changing as multiplayer's technical capability increases,

and there's an interesting Den of Geek article about that here.

 

I just wanted to share that there's a great deal that we simply don't know, so getting upset about it is premature in my opinion.

[Vortex13]

I don't wanna play as Cole or Solas in my friends game, or blackwall or Iron bull for that matter (as I'd probably end up being Iron Bull). I'd want to be my 'own' character when I join his game. Obviously with out the Mark but I'd rather be able to just pull from one of my other play throughs, even if that means making a new playthrough I rarely touch just to play with him.

 

Now if that involved online saves that're MP only that's fine but I really don't wanna be controlling predefined characters. But I would if it's the only choice, obviously, but It would be a damper for me. Now, having the option would be great. Bring a char in or don't and just swap between the other party members would be fine too. Either way, in RPG's, folks get tied to 'their character', and disallowing that in MP would be a kick to the nuts, to me at least and I'm sure plenty of others.

 

 

I would expand the highlighted portion of your post to include "I don't want to be limited to just controlling races and classes that are available in SP". Now given the choice of having MP and only being able to play as one of the four races, and having access to only the three classes (just like in SP) or not having MP at all, I would obviously pick the former, but I personally hope that MP offers more variety than that.

 

Now at launch the choice of characters might be limited to those that we have in SP, but I do hope that the roster is expanded via DLC to include not just additional specializations; like Blood Magic, or Dalish Keeper; but to add in the option of playing as things like Golems, and Werewolves, or Sylvans, and Awakened or even Mabari war hounds, and Wyverns or Dragons. I know that there was a Kotau article that mentioned a Dragon Age game with PvP and playable dragons, but I really hope that (if that article was referencing DA:I) being a dragon is not just limited to PvP combat against human, dwarf, elf, and qunari players. I would like to see those creatures playable in a co-operative setting alongside the SP races as well. 

 

Lore wise, such team ups are possible as all of those listed creatures were capable of working with the PC or at least not attacking them on sight. Golems and Werewolves could become allies to combat the Blight. The Grand Oak could help the player get through the forest The Messenger; an Awakened Disciple; could help the player defend Amaranthie. Mabari are intelligent dogs that have been party members in DA:O. Wyverns; while not allied with the player in the games shown so far; are capable of being trained as pets and war mounts. Dragons have been shown to let Dragon cults operate within their lairs, and tend to their young.

 

I might be alone in this; my brother calls me weird  ; but I want to play as the different and non-human things in settings I enjoy. Plus MP offers a great method of allowing players to experience things that will (most likely) never see the light of day in SP; I would love to see a 200+ hour story about a Sylvan PC, but that is not going to be happening in the near future. Why not let players enjoy these things in MP?

[Kidd]

I don't wanna play as Cole or Solas in my friends game, or blackwall or Iron bull for that matter (as I'd probably end up being Iron Bull). I'd want to be my 'own' character when I join his game. Obviously with out the Mark but I'd rather be able to just pull from one of my other play throughs, even if that means making a new playthrough I rarely touch just to play with him.

If we do get to play the main campaign in co-op if we want to, I hope BioWare doesn't force us into creating an alternative character or to play a companion. I'd love the choice. It's probably more interesting overall to play as a character I create myself, but if I'm sitting in on somebody's first playthrough and enjoying their dialogue as cutscenes, I would definitely not want to rob them of their companion banter, etc.

[Sanunes]

 

The last thought is that the push-back from Fall 2013 to Fall 2014 was surely not simply to add 3 races as protagonists?

The DigiExpo  leaked demo (Finland Nov 2013) was looking in a good state. What else has a year's delay been for? https://www.youtube....h?v=80frogBXfNY

 

The games market is also changing as multiplayer's technical capability increases,

and there's an interesting Den of Geek article about that here.

 

I just wanted to share that there's a great deal that we simply don't know, so getting upset about it is premature in my opinion.

 

The thing is we really don't know how far BIoWare was along in development at that time, they might have only had an area or two complete and needed the extra year to finish environments and add the three races.  BioWare knows why they wanted the extra time, just like they know if multiplayer would be a good addition or not.

[ghostzodd]

I would expand the highlighted portion of your post to include "I don't want to be limited to just controlling races and classes that are available in SP". Now given the choice of having MP and only being able to play as one of the four races, and having access to only the three classes (just like in SP) or not having MP at all, I would obviously pick the former, but I personally hope that MP offers more variety than that.

 

Now at launch the choice of characters might be limited to those that we have in SP, but I do hope that the roster is expanded via DLC to include not just additional specializations; like Blood Magic, or Dalish Keeper; but to add in the option of playing as things like Golems, and Werewolves, or Sylvans, and Awakened or even Mabari war hounds, and Wyverns or Dragons. I know that there was a Kotau article that mentioned a Dragon Age game with PvP and playable dragons, but I really hope that (if that article was referencing DA:I) being a dragon is not just limited to PvP combat against human, dwarf, elf, and qunari players. I would like to see those creatures playable in a co-operative setting alongside the SP races as well. 

 

Lore wise, such team ups are possible as all of those listed creatures were capable of working with the PC or at least not attacking them on sight. Golems and Werewolves could become allies to combat the Blight. The Grand Oak could help the player get through the forest The Messenger; an Awakened Disciple; could help the player defend Amaranthie. Mabari are intelligent dogs that have been party members in DA:O. Wyverns; while not allied with the player in the games shown so far; are capable of being trained as pets and war mounts. Dragons have been shown to let Dragon cults operate within their lairs, and tend to their young.

 

I might be alone in this; my brother calls me weird  ; but I want to play as the different and non-human things in settings I enjoy. Plus MP offers a great method of allowing players to experience things that will (most likely) never see the light of day in SP; I would love to see a 200+ hour story about a Sylvan PC, but that is not going to be happening in the near future. Why not let players enjoy these things in MP?

 

 

As long as the Single Player is completely balls to walls amazing I could care less, with what happens to the unannounced multiplayer we all know is coming

[Judge Bro]

The devs keep saying "this is the game we always wanted to make". Considering the fact they've made games with MP before and that the social aspect is basically the only thing that drives classic tabletop RPGs, is it really inconcievable that this might've been Bioware's decision?

It's totally conceivable in my opinion.

Looking at the ME1 multiplayer files right now, lol.

[ElitePinecone]

Looking at the ME1 multiplayer files right now, lol.

 

Really? I've never heard of those

[SofaJockey]

"They considered having multiplayer all the way back in the first Mass Effect

 

One of the biggest controversies about Mass Effect 3 is the introduction of multiplayer mode for some of the game's segments. But according to Hudson, they considered including multiplayer in the first game, because it was the end of the xBox cycle, and "by then, it was pretty rare to find a game that was single player only." They tried really hard to develop a multiplayer component, but at the same time, they were trying to figure out "what the Mass Effect experience was about." And in the end, having other heroes running around took away from Commander Shepard's experience — so they cut the multiplayer stuff out of Mass Effect 1. They also tried to introduce it for Mass Effect 2, but it didn't work there, either. Finally, it was able to fit into Mass Effect 3 because of the huge, sweeping galactic war storyline."

 

http://io9.com/58904...out-mass-effect

[Iakus]

As of January of this year, Bioware was uncertain about MP in the game.

[ElitePinecone]

As of January of this year, Bioware was uncertain about MP in the game.

 

They said the same thing about Mass Effect 3's MP, to be fair - and that comment by Jesse Houston seems more unequivocal than anything the DA team's ever said, even though it was announced six months later.

 

Obfuscation and evasion are pretty standard parts of PR and marketing

[SofaJockey]

1st rule of marketing: