74 réponses à ce sujet

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

If it's even half as awesome as ME3 multiplayer, it's well worth the wait. Really, I still love unlocking new characters and buying Spectre Packs just to find out what sort of prize I get...

[HellaciousHutch]

I would not mind running around with a buddy or two in the Dragon Age universe. I think it would be pretty cool, especially if we could use our single player characters. I enjoyed ME3 multiplayer from time-to-time, so...

[berelinde]

Not denying != confirmation. Of course, it's possible that DAI will have a co-op mode or some kind of arena-style content, but I find the latter much more probable. Co-op - where one person is the protagonist and other players replace NPCs - is a whole different animal from Single-Player, and they would pretty much need to design the game that way from the outset, and it would profoundly impact SP content.

 

• Co-op mode would reduce or eliminate follower-specific content. As long as there is a 3-follower limit, you can't randomly drop one of 4 co-op players just because Cassandra is locked into a follower quest.
• For co-op mode to be anything other than mindless button-mashing, quests would need to involve input from up to 4 separate protagonists. That means tracking the input from each player and setting plot flags accordingly. It's like creating two games for the price of one, or up to four, as the case may be. Not going to happen.
• A co-op game would need to be episodic. If a co-op player saved in the Deep Roads with a party of four PCs, they would not be able to complete the quest if one of them was AFK the next time the save was loaded. The only way to avoid this issue would be to have *all* character data stored on the server and retrieved every time a save was loaded or an area transition occurred. Fans would scream bloody murder at the always-online requirement. That's just the technical side. It says nothing about the continuity headache of having characters popping in and out of places with restricted access, like the Fade or the Deep Roads.

 

No, arena-style combat or Persistent World exploration is much more feasible. There, always-online is the norm. And Persistent Worlds are generally created by fans. The lack of a toolset makes that unlikely.

[SwobyJ]

I would not mind running around with a buddy or two in the Dragon Age universe. I think it would be pretty cool, especially if we could use our single player characters. I enjoyed ME3 multiplayer from time-to-time, so...

 

I'd more prefer if another player could control one of my party members... another 'Inquisitor' being around might be an issue...

 

Unless they're labeled not as an Inquisitor, but instead a random adventurer. Not a real part of the story, but nice to include on your own (as host) journey.

[SwobyJ]

Sometimes co-op is nice to just play a game with a friend participating along with it. They don't need progression. They don't need direct story involvement.

 

I had so many fun hours when I was younger, playing Legend of Mana and Final Fantasy IX 'co-op' with my friend, even though both barely had that playstyle implemented. It just allowed another player to pick up their controller and not just observe gameplay, but take part in some of it.

[HellaciousHutch]

I'd more prefer if another player could control one of my party members... another 'Inquisitor' being around might be an issue...

 

Unless they're labeled not as an Inquisitor, but instead a random adventurer. Not a real part of the story, but nice to include on your own (as host) journey.

 

They will probably be labeled as a mercenary or some such, but that's IF this method of multiplayer co-op even happens in the first place.

[Felya87]

if there must be MP (and I hope there isn't) the most away from SP as possible!!! even better if is a totally separated free DLC and is not even in the base game.

 

and, Evron help me, no.interference.of.MP.in.single.player.campaign. AT ALL!!! not as in ME3 pre extended ending DLC. 

[SwobyJ]

They will probably be labeled as a mercenary or some such, but that's IF this method of multiplayer co-op even happens in the first place.

 

Yes and I wouldn't mind that at all. A very optional interference onto the SP campaign.

[NoForgiveness]

I'm not denying that I'm a kitty cat. Does that make me a kitty cat?

[rafoquinha]

If you guys read articles around, you surely noticed that, at least most of the times, when companies dont deny something means they are looking into it and it may come to be true. It may not happen at all, but it surely means they want to do it!

 

I could point some examples: diablo 3 on consoles (and later diablo 3 exclusive to ps3), torchlight on consoles and the lists goes on. These exemples followed the same line of "not denying" and then later diablo 3 and torchlight headed to consoles and Diablo 3 wasnt exclusive at all.

[SwobyJ]

If you guys read articles around, you surely noticed that, at least most of the times, when companies dont deny something means they are looking into it and it may come to be true. It may not happen at all, but it surely means they want to do it!

 

I could point some examples: diablo 3 on consoles (and later diablo 3 exclusive to ps3), torchlight on consoles and the lists goes on. These exemples followed the same line of "not denying" and then later diablo 3 and torchlight headed to consoles and Diablo 3 wasnt exclusive at all.

 

Yes, but, but, Examiner.

[rafoquinha]

Well... Bioware hasnt denied anything on this forum too, anyway. There are some threads about multiplayer and nothing answered.

 

Hopes up!

[Maeshone]

It's boring crap.
Also, something being popular does not mean it's good.

Yes. That is pretty much exactly what it means. Because good and bad are subjective. You may not like it, that does not make it objectively bad. Contrary to what gaming "elitists" think, most people who play games play them because they enjoy them, not because they are popular.

 

 

For example,call of duty

In what possible world is Call of Duty considered a bad game!? Call of Duty does what it does, and it does it extremely well. That's why it became as popular as it is. Earth 2066 is a bad game. Flight Control is a bad game. Call of Duty is a game you do not like. Please, learn the difference.

 

OT: Hell yeah, I'd be down for some multiplayer. But I don't want campaign coop as that wouldn't make sense for DA. Give me something like the flashpoints from SWTOR, where each player controls an Inquisition agent, with conversation rolls and everything.

[Pateu]

It's boring crap.
Also, something being popular does not mean it's good.

 

You having an opinion a lot of people do not share doesn't mean you're right.

 

And ''good'' is a subjective term.

 

If a lot of people play it, then they consider it ''good''. 

[frylock23]

Honestly, if we were going to have to have some form of multiplayer, my husband and I would prefer it to be a campaign co-op just so we could play the game together. However, we realize that we are likely in a very small demographic, but we are perfectly set up to enjoy and play full campaigns in co-op and would prefer that to any other multi-player format.

 

We would also, of course, have our single-player campaigns.

[Gamemako]

Not denying != confirmation. Of course, it's possible that DAI will have a co-op mode or some kind of arena-style content, but I find the latter much more probable. Co-op - where one person is the protagonist and other players replace NPCs - is a whole different animal from Single-Player, and they would pretty much need to design the game that way from the outset, and it would profoundly impact SP content.

I disagree here in the sense that drop-in-drop-out SoM-style co-op would work just fine. There's nothing in any previous DA game's design that would prevent that from functioning just fine. The only potential issue I see would be that you'd need to find good ways to manage character selection with full parties (a spectate mode would work just fine by my measure). Obviously, companion selection would have to be done by the host and progress would not be shared, but you could do it, and I reckon a lot of people would play it if the combat were entertaining enough. I personally doubt they'll do it that way, but it would work just fine.

If you want to include multiple player characters, then yeah, you need to pull away from campaign content, but that becomes messy no matter how you handle it unless you do it in dedicated areas. If your co-op campaign area doesn't depend on what is alive in both campaigns (preventing players from helping with any content unless they've not done it yet), then it offers infinite leveling potential up to the cap right from the second you get access to open-world/co-op content. Further, it's almost impossible to avoid this without deliberately avoiding content as above, which is no better than just blocking it. Good way to shoot your gameplay balance right in the face, regardless.

As for disconnection in any content, that's not hard to handle at all. You can either decide to just apply AI to that person's character or you can just remove the person (and possibly scale difficulty accordingly). The former is a better method when you have the ability to control multiple characters and can complete the content on your own time, but if you're doing more arena-style stuff (see: ME3MP), then you'd probably rather remove the character and hunt for a replacement.

[mikeymoonshine]

People who write for the examiner get paid by views. This seems to cause some of them to post loads of useless articles about nothing with completely dodgy information. Especially if that subject is popular at the time so there will always be people looking for new news and reading new articles. I have seen a whole article about DA:I on there centered around one tweet that was several months before the article was posted. 

 

The "journalists" on there are not professionals, anyone can write for it. So basically don't trust anything on there that doesn't have some official source, the site is notorious for misinformation. 

[BENIIICHAT]

Just stay away from SP experience .I'm cool with MP

[Deflagratio]

The article crashes my browser (Firefox30).

[Nayawk]

 

 

OT: Hell yeah, I'd be down for some multiplayer. But I don't want campaign coop as that wouldn't make sense for DA. Give me something like the flashpoints from SWTOR, where each player controls an Inquisition agent, with conversation rolls and everything.

I think this is the only way it could work. 

 

The way you are some grunt in the Alliance in ME multi player, here you would have to be some grunt/agent in the Inquisitor’s little army sent on missions to hold that region, attack that other region etc.

 

Playing co-op with the Inquisitor as a player character is asking for someone in that co-op to be gimped story-wise.

[RebbyWriter]

I've been wanting my fiance to play Bioware game for ages but he only shows slight interest before asking me to play Halo co-op with him. I don't like Halo, though (gasp). So, if I can have an excuse to get him to play Dragon Age, campaign co-op would be it. I wont get my hopes up, though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm always shocked at the level of pissing and moaning not getting that *gasp* causes people -- in endings everyone claims to hate anyways.

Your argument anyways makes about as much sense as me saying I don't want to play the exploration part of the game (...and really I'd rather not hated Skyrim and it's parents with a passion) so as long as wandering around vast empty parts of the map doesn't uncover anything useful to the game like money, items or crafting materials.

If I buy a game, I should get access to all of its content without having to jump through ang extra hoops.

Also, some of us REALLY HATE multiplayer. So if multiplayer is a necessary component, then there's just no point in us playing the game at all.

Moreover, multiplayer isn't an expected core component of the game the way that exploration is in TES games. No one could follow the development of a TES game and realistically hope to enjoy all of the game's content without having to do any exploration. But it's highly unusual for single-player content to be restricted by multiplayer participation like that, so it makes much more sense for someone to have that expectation with regard to a Dragon Age game, none of which have any multiplayer component at all at this point.

That's largely why ME3 annoyed so many people. Neither of the earlier games had contained any MP at all, and then when MP was announced for the third game, BioWare explicitly denied that any MP play would be required to experience all of the SP content. And that wasn't true.

People don't like those sorts of surprises. People don't like having the rug pulled out from under them like that.

[Realmzmaster]

I have no problem with multiplayer as long as it has no effect on the single player campaign. If I have to go online and participate in multiplayer to get certain endings in the single player campaign I will not be happy because I have zero interest in multiplayer. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I have no problem with multiplayer as long as it has no effect on the single player campaign. If I have to go online and participate in multiplayer to get certain endings in the single player campaign I will not be happy because I have zero interest in multiplayer. 

Such a design harms the coherence of the setting, thus possibly damaging single player.

[Enigmatick]

You can stop shilling your Examiner articles here any time, you know.