No.
I dont feel like looking it up.
However you are more then welcome to find it yourself.
Some conviction you have.
I don't know if he got fired, but the lead designer of Spec Ops: The Line had this to say about MP:
“It sheds a negative light on all of the meaningful things we did in the single-player experience.”
Had the Multiplayer of Spec-Ops The Line been good though, this comment wouldn't exist. It has nothing to do with resource allocation and everything to do with design execution.
Some conviction you have.
Had the Multiplayer of Spec-Ops The Line been good though, this comment wouldn't exist. It has nothing to do with resource allocation and everything to do with design execution.
Spec-Ops is in an rpg.
Had the Multiplayer of Spec-Ops The Line been good though, this comment wouldn't exist. It has nothing to do with resource allocation and everything to do with design execution.
Its pretty clear from his comments that the MP mode is entirely separate from the SP backing up the Bioware devs and others, it was even done by a different company FFS. The fact that the guy disliked it is pretty much irrelevant.
My Shep kept going on and on about stuff, saying things I would never have decided to go for. The game took control of the whole thing. Means the game needed less conversation options.
They said every choice would affect the end of the game, and that we would get at least 6 endings. ME1 and 2 didn't matter at all in the end, and had zero effect on it. We got 3 choices for endings, and 3 different colours. ME 1 and 2 didn't have MP, and their endings were good. Your choices mattered in those games too.
I'm just replaying the whole ME trilogy after 2 year hiatus because of the ending and after replaying ME1 and 2 again, hearing Shepard go on and on in ME3 without player input is so annoying. I loved conversing with the squadmates in ME1/2 but in ME3 it just feels boring to talk them because I hardly feel engaged and involved.
Spec-Ops is in an rpg.
And that matters because?
The argument here isn't if Multiplayer is good or bad (I frankly don't like MP if we get right down to it) the argument is if Multiplayer in itself drains singleplayer resources.
Actually its pretty clear from his comments that the MP mode is entirely separate from the SP backing up the Bioware devs and others, it was even done by a different company FFS. The fact that the guy disliked it is pretty much irrelevant.
That's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to say from his perspective, it was an underdeveloped train-wreck added on as a "Checkbox" and not added on as something to enrich the experience if it was even possible. I would agree with him, it had no business being in the game, but personally I think Spec-Ops failure (The whole game, not the MultiPlayer) was that of marketing. It was trying to appeal to the CoD-Nation, while the game itself was much more nuanced than anything a frothing CoD-Bro could appreciate.
Guest_Stormheart83_*
I dislike CoD in fact I hate it but Spec Ops disappointed me. While there are aspects of the story that I like it was pretty much a generic 3rd person shooter much like Watchdogs.And that matters because?
The argument here isn't if Multiplayer is good or bad (I frankly don't like MP if we get right down to it) the argument is if Multiplayer in itself drains singleplayer resources.
That's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to say from his perspective, it was an underdeveloped train-wreck added on as a "Checkbox" and not added on as something to enrich the experience if it was even possible. I would agree with him, it had no business being in the game, but personally I think Spec-Ops failure (The whole game, not the MultiPlayer) was that of marketing. It was trying to appeal to the CoD-Nation, while the game itself was much more nuanced than anything a frothing CoD-Bro could appreciate.
I am thinking it is real and it's in the game.
The reason Bioware/EA hasn't said anything about whether MP is in or not? Simple, Marketing.
Releasing a game up to it's launch you want to get people talking about it and build hype, having a huge thing like multiplayer in DA: I (when it wasn't in either DA:O/DA2) is a huge thing to add and they likely were "saving" that announcement for closer to launch to get people talking about the game and build up the hype.
As far as the MP itself, I don't mind MP in rpgs if it's done right.
I think for single player focused games like DA:I something like Dark Souls is brilliant for its MP, it fits so well within the game and doesn't feel like a "separate" game mode or anything but rather something that exists within the world and fits with the single player portion of the game and how it's all interwoven throughout.
I'd love to see something similar in DA:I that fits within it's world and the theme of its story and things.
However the achievement sounds like more of a normal competitive mp with "unlocks" and other things, kind of like the mp in ME3.
Em, guys (to all the guys saying it's not confirmed), does anyone remember this: http://www.gamespot....s/1100-6394663/
Now, we know that Simcity made EA dial it down a little (case in point the Sims 4 being a reanimated hybrid, or whatever, of an online game), but I think it's same to assume that, even though this leak is most probably fake, and even though the MP might be a little less intrusive than the one from ME3 (hell, it might only be some integration with facebook for all we know), most probably there is one. The fact that the devs haven't denied the existence of it is actually pretty reassuring of this, I believe.
Em, guys (to all the guys saying it's not confirmed), does anyone remember this: http://www.gamespot....s/1100-6394663/
Now, we know that Simcity made EA dial it down a little (case in point the Sims 4 being a reanimated hybrid, or whatever, of an online game), but I think it's same to assume that, even though this leak is most probably fake, and even though the MP might be a little less intrusive than the one from ME3 (hell, it might only be some integration with facebook for all we know), most probably there is one. The fact that the devs haven't denied the existence of it is actually pretty reassuring of this, I believe.
I believe that the multiplayer exists, but I'm just wary of this supposed "leak".
While the previous leaked concepts for DAI have turned out to be true, those leaks were not posted on a Russian site, where everything but the "leaked" content was in Russian.
And that matters because?
The argument here isn't if Multiplayer is good or bad (I frankly don't like MP if we get right down to it) the argument is if Multiplayer in itself drains singleplayer resources.
That's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to say from his perspective, it was an underdeveloped train-wreck added on as a "Checkbox" and not added on as something to enrich the experience if it was even possible. I would agree with him, it had no business being in the game, but personally I think Spec-Ops failure (The whole game, not the MultiPlayer) was that of marketing. It was trying to appeal to the CoD-Nation, while the game itself was much more nuanced than anything a frothing CoD-Bro could appreciate.
Rpgs have alot more single player resources than action games. thousands of conversation options, choices that affect the story. Companons, npcs. Loads.
i think it's real or at least there is multiplayer in DAI. Cats out of the bag now, any day now...
Rpgs have alot more single player resources than action games. thousands of conversation options, choices that affect the story. Companons, npcs. Loads.
While I'll be diplomatic and say that you're mostly right, remember that GTA5, before Destiny, was the most expensive game, and it was an Action game. Of course, I've heard a disproportionately large chunk of the total cost was actually securing music rights.
I'm not sure what your overall point is though. If you're just staying random facts then all I can say is Penguins have a gland behind their eye that converts saltwater into freshwater.
While I'll be diplomatic and say that you're mostly right, remember that GTA5, before Destiny, was the most expensive game, and it was an Action game. Of course, I've heard a disproportionately large chunk of the total cost was actually securing music rights.
I'm not sure what your overall point is though. If you're just staying random facts then all I can say is Penguins have a gland behind their eye that converts saltwater into freshwater.
Yet all that money that went into GTAV payed off exponentially
Since I'm seeing a lot of ''MP takes away resources from SP!!!'' and ''MP cuts content from SP!!!'', I figured I would repost something I wrote a while back in the suggestions forum for the next Mass Effect. Same principles apply.
'' Just to clarify to those saying that the MP is not needed, that it's resources should have gone to the single-player, etc. :
What most people believe is that, for example, Bioware is given a budget of 100 million $ to make Mass Effect 3. Then the team splits the resources to 60 million $ for single player and 40 million $ for multi player.
This is simply not true. As multiple game devs around the web have explained (even Bioware devs), it goes more like this. Bioware is given a budget of 100 million $ to make Mass Effect 3. Then, they decide they can throw in a multiplayer component which could generate potential revenue and increase the longevity of the game. Bioware asks for an extra 40 million $ to make this new mode. Bioware would never have gotten that money if they weren't making multiplayer, because it adds more appeal to the game because it adds more variety and income. Putting that money into the single-player is not justified because it wouldn't make the game a more complete and varied. Most gamers would rather have more options to explore than having one extremely polished and detailed game. That is the sad reality because most gamers never even finish the games. The money isn't justified going into more single-player content when what we get is already enough for multiple playthroughs.
Long story short, the quality of the single player does not depend on new content like multiplayer added to the game, they are independant of each other. Resources from the budget are not diverted to multi-player, they are added. As such, everyone can enjoy the game they want, whether it's for the single-player experience or the multi-player LAN parties, without thinking about lost potential. ''
As you can see, multiplayer isn't the evil some make it out to be 
While nothing is confirmed until Bioware or EA makes a statement, I am not surprised by this development. Multiplayer has been talked about since the game's initial announcement, but Bioware has remained surprisingly tight-lipped on the subject. This could be due to a multitude of reason, the foremost being that it simply isn't ready to show. That being said, I am excited. Mass Effect 3 had great multiplayer despite some flaws, so I am eager to see what Bioware will do with Dragon Age and how they will implement fan feedback.
Yet all that money that went into GTAV payed off exponentially
Isn't that the goal of investing? Though exponentially may be a bit generous, as that implies they at least squared their investment as of now. The only games that tend to get exponential payoffs are things like Farmville and CandyCrush. Hence the boner for micropayment opportunities. (which I believe is the driving force behind DA:I multiplayer more than anything)
Isn't that the goal of investing? Though exponentially may be a bit generous, as that implies they at least squared their investment as of now. The only games that tend to get exponential payoffs are things like Farmville and CandyCrush. Hence the boner for micropayment opportunities. (which I believe is the driving force behind DA:I multiplayer more than anything)
So this does not count as exponentially
http://www.guinnessw...-records-51900/
Depends on if you're speaking literally or figuratively.
Literally no, figuratively: Subject to personal interpretation and expectation.
It's a pointless semantic debate, if what you want is me to admit that GTA5 was a huge financial success, congratulations you win. I was about to put forth the notion that GTA5 bankrupted Rockstar and put the studio out of business.
Depends on if you're speaking literally or figuratively.
Literally no, figuratively: Subject to personal interpretation and expectation.
It's a pointless semantic debate, if what you want is me to admit that GTA5 was a huge financial success, congratulations you win. I was about to put forth the notion that GTA5 bankrupted Rockstar and put the studio out of business.
Do I get a cookie for the win
Do I get a cookie for the win
A like is the best I can do. I suck at baking.
I dislike CoD in fact I hate it but Spec Ops disappointed me. While there are aspects of the story that I like it was pretty much a generic 3rd person shooter much like Watchdogs.
Generic 3rd person shooter like Watchdogs?
Are you just stringing words together?
Generic 3rd person shooter like Watchdogs?
Are you just stringing words together?
Well Watchdogs was a generic third person shooter with an open world...that thought everyone that played it how to hack into things... 
While I liked it, the overall execution of Watchdogs really wasn't anything special, but it could be improved upon.
Having not played Spec Ops I can't comment on it, but from what I gather it doesn't have a lot in common with Watchdogs besides being a third person shooter...
Question:
It's been asserted that single-player and multiplayer are allocated separate budgets in publisher-funded environments. As such, developing a mutliplayer component should have no effect on the quality of the single-player campaign. There are separate single-player and multiplayer teams.
However, would these teams really be working in isolation? If, for example, BioWare opts for implementing a co-op horde mode in DAI, wouldn't its integration depend on collaborative work between the two teams (e.g., in gameplay design and programming, animation, UI art)? As a consequence, wouldn't that focus on developing the single-player campaign be diluted to some degree in several disciplines to account for integrating the multiplayer? Wouldn't the higher leadership, at least, have to split some of their focus?
I just find myself unconvinced that--however compartmentalised the AAA development process might be--implementing a multiplayer component would have no effect whatsoever on the development of the single-player.
Edit: P.S. Sorry for thr armchair dev-ing.
Guest_Stormheart83_*
No it's just my opinion. I liked aspects of it like the fact you could alter the battlefield by shooting out windows that held back a metric **** ton of sand and bury enemies ect. But see there's this old P2 game called Red Faction where you could alter the battlefield with explosives. I remember creating tunnels through the terrain when playing against my friends it was a blast. So no Spec Ops didn't really impress me if you like it that's cool but i don't share you're opinion as I'm sure you don't share mine.Generic 3rd person shooter like Watchdogs?
Are you just stringing words together?
I am thinking it is real and it's in the game.
The reason Bioware/EA hasn't said anything about whether MP is in or not? Simple, Marketing.
Releasing a game up to it's launch you want to get people talking about it and build hype, having a huge thing like multiplayer in DA: I (when it wasn't in either DA:O/DA2) is a huge thing to add and they likely were "saving" that announcement for closer to launch to get people talking about the game and build up the hype.
Thing is, this is not going to generate the hype they'll want. This is going to make people wonder what they have to hide. Especially after ME3. It's one thing to not go into detail about known features yet: like crafting, skills trees, Skyhold Keep, etc. To to refuse to even confirm or deny a feature is in the game? Especially a controversial feature like multiplayer? Bioware is no longer the top-dog rpg developers with nothing to prove. They've squandered a lot of trust. This isn't the way to earn it back.
Retour en haut