665 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

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.

The N7 missions in ME3 were quite obviously recycled multiplayer maps and had paper-thin stories to go with them.

 

I have no doubt that a great deal of game balancing in MP affected single player content.

 

And then of course, there's the big one:  4000 EMS

[Lee80]

If there is multiplayer, the only way I'll play it is if there are no weekly balance changes and/or nerf herding.  Mass Effect 3 multiplayer was ruined by elitism.  (yes I know that is just an opinion, but it is based on factual events that the more the game got nerfed the less people played)

[Master Race]

I support multiplayer. It just gives me reason to sink more hours into this game and feel better about spending $60 about it. Will be kind of sad if the leak is fake and also Multiplayer.

[chris2365]

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.

 

I'm no dev, so take my answer how you will, but like you said, they are separate teams. Different teams with different specializations. The designers making MP maps aren't necessarily designing the massive open spaces. Of course some things like art and animation are common, but how would that dilute their focus? Both single-player and multi-player are the same base game. For them, it's another thing to do on the checklist, nothing out of the ordinary that would cause confusion. 

 

For an artist, what is different about creating a character in single-player vs a squadmate in multi-player?

 

For an animator, does it matter whether they are animating a creature in single-player vs a boss in multi-player?

 

It's all the same job. I don't see how it would dilute their focus. The only way it could would be if they didn't have enough time to do it properly, but with all the delays DAI has had I don't think that's an issue.

[Iakus]

I support multiplayer. It just gives me reason to sink more hours into this game and feel better about spending $60 about it. Will be kind of sad if the leak is fake and also Multiplayer.

 

I will be much less inclined to pay full price.  Games have a short enough lifespan without adding servers being sunsetted into it.

[Inquisitor7]

I really don't understand what's so hard about saying "No there is no Multiplayer." Or "Yes we are working on it."

Maybe they feel people will get angry either way?

[Killdren88]

Maybe they feel people will get angry either way?

 

Better to rip the Band aid off Asap rather than waiting.

[Reofeir]

If there is multiplayer, the only way I'll play it is if there are no weekly balance changes and/or nerf herding.  Mass Effect 3 multiplayer was ruined by elitism.  (yes I know that is just an opinion, but it is based on factual events that the more the game got nerfed the less people played)

Eh, I think it was more a "You can only play the same thing so many times before you get bored". While I loved playing it a lot some of my friends got bored over time. It was an amazing addition to the game, and the free DLC was always great and brought back life into the game...but you can only keep that spark alive for so long. Especially since it's only one game mode and not the core feature of the game that the devs are putting work into.

[ElitePinecone]

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.

 

I think there's inevitably some degree of overlap, but the overlap isn't detrimental to the singleplayer by default - more often than not, it's neutral or even beneficial. 

 

But overlapping design is a separate issue from resource allocation, which is what I think many of the complaints are about. 

 

In some situations, the shared assets between MP and SP won't actually amount to much (in ME3 I think they just used the MP levels as N7 side missions), and in some cases it can actually make the game better overall. ME3's combat was arguably improved because they had to develop new enemy ecosystems and archetypes that could work for MP and SP, and they tweaked the gameplay mechanics too.

 

What I think is a more important question is not whether MP affects SP in any way at all, but whether the SP is something that you find appealing. At some point investing more in singleplayer is going to be a waste of resources due to diminishing returns - and if people are happy with a singleplayer of some arbitrary quality level, it shouldn't matter if there's also a multiplayer mode included. 

[Lee80]

Eh, I think it was more a "You can only play the same thing so many times before you get bored". While I loved playing it a lot some of my friends got bored over time. It was an amazing addition to the game, and the free DLC was always great and brought back life into the game...but you can only keep that spark alive for so long. Especially since it's only one game mode and not the core feature of the game that the devs are putting work into.

That's certainly one way to look at it, but I know there are people who quit the game for the other reason.  Some of them I played with.  So I would say there is value in not going too far with making everything harder just to please a vocal set of people who feel they know better then the rest of the world. 

[Sidney]

That's certainly one way to look at it, but I know there are people who quit the game for the other reason.  Some of them I played with.  So I would say there is value in not going to far with making everything harder just to please a vocal set of people who feel they know better then the rest of the world. 

 

 

I will say that while the constant balance tweaks to handle the ubermensch of the MP board didn't drive me off it was offputting because the game changed with really no notice (short of following the change notes which most players didn't do) and so there was no indictaion as to why what worked last week no longer worked this week.

[Lee80]

I will say that while the constant balance tweaks to handle the ubermensch of the MP board didn't drive me off it was offputting because the game changed with really no notice (short of following the change notes which most players didn't do) and so there was no indictaion as to why what worked last week no longer worked this week.

Almost nothing worked at the end, unless you were playing with a team of experts.  Which is great if you want to play with your friends always, but if you want to just have a quick match with randoms it was a nightmare.  The fun was sucked out of it. 

[rubynorman]

I wouldn't have played ME3 for over 800 hours (crap, I have no life) if it hadn't had MP mode So yes I support MP.

[Stiler]

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.

 

They want to surprise us, is that a bad thing?

 

 

 

Plenty of developers have tried to wait til close to launch to reveal things, it's all part of marketing and hype.

 

I mean say they do mention MP right now, 4 months before launch, how long do you think people will talk about the big reveal? It won't be 4 months long I can tell you that.

 

Now imagine the game is out in a month or less and they announce it, and each week they reveal info about mp and what you can do and how it works? PEople will keep talking about it right up to release, it will create hype/excitement (at least for people that like MP which is a large part of the average joe public).

 

Will some die hard single player rpg players not sure? Sure, but the vast majority of gamers these days like MP and to get it on top of a great single player rpg is icing on the cake to them.

[ElitePinecone]

More to the point, why do they have to mention anything?

 

Anyone who sees silence as "tricking the fans" or "BW having something to hide" or even "luring people in with false promises" is being conspiratorial and totally unfair. As long as they announce it eventually, why does the timing matter?

 

You do not have to buy the game. Right up until the day of release you can choose to withdraw your money if you don't like what's been announced. Nobody is forcing you to be interested or pay attention. If something emerges now and you don't like it, tough luck. Don't buy the game and move on with your life. 

[addiction21]

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.

 

I find it a rather ignorant  opinion if you are going to boil one of the better shooters in terms of story and flipping the usual genres tropes upside to "I can shoot windows out and I have seen destructible terrain before"

 

What does Watchdogs have to do with any of that then being the new whipping boy for angry gamers online?

[Darvins]

You're essentially rooting for Bioware to chase after two hares here.   If you're going to make a series that is solely single-player and story-driven for the first two games, you don't go and make the third game some weird hybrid between single-player and mutliplayer.   That's a recipe for disaster.   Bioware needs to decide if they're going to focus on making this is the best single-player RPG ever or something else entirely.  You can't have both.  And as we all know....If you chase after two hares, you'll catch neither. 

 

Why not, ME 3 Multiplayer was great, and most of the single player campaign was, the two complemented each other making ME 3's multiplayer one of the most enjoyable MP experiences I have had. So this idea doesn't seem to be an objective reality. 

[Dubya75]

I'm quite certain this is a hoax.

I also suspect that the art style of achievement badges will resemble DA:O more than the crappy looking 5 minute jobs of DA2.

It's also been mentioned that there are no plans for a multi player element to the game.

 

I hope they don't do this, because games with multi player always end up just making DLC for multi player, forgetting about the single player side...

[ElitePinecone]

I hope they don't do this, because games with multi player always end up just making DLC for multi player, forgetting about the single player side...

 

DA:I is already getting at least one singleplayer DLC, it's a timed exclusive on Xbox. 

 

And ME3 manged to produce three singleplayer DLCs - five, if you count From Ashes and Extended Cut. 

 

The multiplayer got five DLCs too, but those were paid for by income from the multiplayer portion of the game.

[Dan Fango]

I'm not at all positive about the inclusion of MP in Inquisition, though I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. If it absolutely must be shoehorned into the game, I hope its done in such a way as to not influence the design of the singleplayer experience at all.

[DragonKingReborn]

More to the point, why do they have to mention anything?

Anyone who sees silence as "tricking the fans" or "BW having something to hide" or even "luring people in with false promises" is being conspiratorial and totally unfair. As long as they announce it eventually, why does the timing matter?

You do not have to buy the game. Right up until the day of release you can choose to withdraw your money if you don't like what's been announced. Nobody is forcing you to be interested or pay attention. If something emerges now and you don't like it, tough luck. Don't buy the game and move on with your life.

Well, to the first part, they don't HAVE to, you're right. But they should. Because the topic in question is one that generates a great deal of passion, if not outright antagonism on both sides and silencing the is there/isn't there debate would go a long way towards making the forums a more pleasant place to be. I imagine that if the topic in question was "will there or won't there be stamina potions for rogues and warriors" that very few people would be getting upset or even talking about it at all.

For a number of reasons, most likely, MP generates a large amount of feeling. I know the reasons I don't like it, but that's just me. I don't know why you like it, but I know that you do because you've said so. Attempting to Keep everyone happy all the time is undoubtedly an exercise in futility, however I can see no harm being caused by treating the group likely to be unhappy/least satisfied with the truth of this matter like their opinion doesn't matter. They've already broken the 'show, don't tell' mantra, by talking about the in depth crafting and the deep character customisation and the two voices for each gender etc etc. Saying "yes, DA:I has MP and we will show it soon", surely can't be considered worse than anything else they've told and not shown. The reverse is also true, of course. Then, at least, the trolling comments of, "it's confirmed, get over it" or, "it's not confirmed and I'll never trust Bioware again if it is in" might actually stop.

The last part of your post is simply more of the antagonism I see permeating every single thread on this topic, needlessly aggressive to people who don't agree wih you. You (I'm guessing) are getting frustrated by those people because you don't get (or likely care, I imagine) why they feel the way the do.

So I'll repeat; a simple yes or no, one way or another, will go a long, long way towards making these forums a more welcoming and tension free place.

[Little Princess Peach]

Fake. The image with it is a DA2 achievement. 

you do realise bioware can recycal things right? look at half of whats in da:i right now

[godModeAlpha]

The only problem I have with multiplayer in story driven games, is when players are forced (by uneven levereage, can't defeat such n such boss unless you have this sotre item) down the microtrasactions route.

Secondly as long as they dont require any rubbish EA season pass, I think multiplayer would be decent

[BananaBoy]

I would love some kind of co-op multiplayer. I'll at least try it. If I don't like it, then I'll just play the main story only.

[badboy64]

If they have MP then it should be option to install it when you install the SP game. I live for the SP part of the game and never have had a interest in MP period.