665 réponses à ce sujet

[Jorina Leto]

The BioWare fan base spoke with their wallets and they said 'We like MP.'

Ah, anyone who doesn't waste money on Item-Packs is not a fan? Thank you.

[Deflagratio]

Ah, anyone who doesn't waste money on Item-Packs is not a fan? Thank you.

 

That's the most defensive misinterpretation of a comment I've ever seen, and I've seen Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate.

[Chron0id]

That's the most defensive misinterpretation of a comment I've ever seen, and I've seen Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate.

Be that as it may, she implied most fans of ME 3 loved the MP.    Which I sincerely doubt is true.

[Maeshone]

Ah, anyone who doesn't waste money on Item-Packs is not a fan? Thank you.

That's a really nice strawman you got there.

[Burricho]

We uhh already have a thread for this?

[Iakus]

Nope. You can't blame Biowares decision to tie a scene to the amount of galactic readiness you have, on the inclusion of multiplayer. I definately agree that it was one of the stupidest things they could have done, but the decision is not the fault of a multiplayer component

Can and will.  Tying a MP component to a single player game was the direct cause of the problem.

[Iakus]

What about if the singleplayer was fantastic and it had optional multiplayer on the side?

 

Yeah, I trusted in that with ME3.  My trust was...not rewarded.

[N7recruit]

If I could see the multiplayer being a good game mode I'd be interested in it. But I can't.

 

DA:I is a Real time with pause strategy game. It's nothing like Dragon's Dogma hack and Slash or like League of Legends real time team work.

 

The Press who were saying real time is "So responsive" were playing the game on easy with God mode turned on. Look at the health bars on the video, the party should have died 20 times ON EASY. How can this work with multiple players? Some crappy nerfed Horde mode? No thanks, waste of EA's money & Biowares time IMO. 

 

In terms of narrative relevance It's gonna be a carbon copy of ME3 Galaxy at war. Just Replace Alliance with Inquisition & Reapers with Demons.

 

So no dialogue choices AKA the only game play mechanic that tells a story AKA the only reason to play DA:I = Rubbish multiplayer mode that isn't even good for mindless fun. No thanks. 

[SofaJockey]

I understand the hurting single player devotees, though I am a multiplayer enthusiast solely off the back of ME3 MP.

 

Personally I'd ask that they hold their pain until we have a reveal either way which has to happen (or be confirmed not to happen) at some point.

They have made their point clearly and repeatedly (some more eloquently than others).

 

I get the whole trust piece and 'best ending' hurt (I thought 'Control' was the best ending - everyone lives, including Shepard sort of and it's a bit dark and highly ironic but let's not go there). I'd be staggered, simply staggered is BioWare do that again.

 

But more than two years later I think BioWare are entitled to be judged on what they do now, not to be continually lambasted about choices they made 3-4 years ago.

 

People have been pretty clear - they don't want a mandated SP / MP connection. I agree with that.
But if it has a legitimate opt out, those who love it are entitled to play and enjoy it without being considered to have 'sold out'.

 

Let's see what is revealed/not revealed before continuing to beat each other up...

[Maeshone]

Can and will.  Tying a MP component to a single player game is the direct cause of the problem.

Nope. Been done before, and succesfully. Assassins Creed. Uncharted. Mount & Blade. Orcs Must Die. The fault is in the implementation, not the actual multiplayer component.

[Iakus]

If I could see the multiplayer being a good game mode I'd be interested in it. But I can't.

 

DA:I is a Real time with pause strategy game. It's nothing like Dragon's Dogma hack and Slash or like League of Legends real time team work.

 

The Press who were saying real time is "So responsive" were playing the game on easy with God mode turned on. Look at the health bars on the video, the party should have died 20 times ON EASY. How can this work with multiple players? Some crappy nerfed Horde mode? No thanks, waste of EA's money & Biowares time IMO. 

 

In terms of narrative relevance It's gonna be a carbon copy of ME3 Galaxy at war. Just Replace Alliance with Inquisition & Reapers with Demons.

 

So no dialogue choices AKA the only game play mechanic that tells a story AKA the only reason to play DA:I = Rubbish multiplayer mode that isn't even good for mindless fun. No thanks. 

Great now you've got me wondering if DAI has "Action Mode" 

[Deflagratio]

Be that as it may, she implied most fans of ME 3 loved the MP.    Which I sincerely doubt is true.

 

Loved is perhaps too strong a word, but Galactic Readiness notwithstanding, I definitely would argue the ME3 multiplayer was a positive experience.

 

 

 

If I could see the multiplayer being a good game mode I'd be interested in it. But I can't.

 

DA:I is a Real time with pause strategy game. It's nothing like Dragon's Dogma hack and Slash or like League of Legends real time team work.

 

The Press who were saying real time is "So responsive" were playing the game on easy with God mode turned on. Look at the health bars on the video, the party should have died 20 times ON EASY. How can this work with multiple players? Some crappy nerfed Horde mode? No thanks, waste of EA's money & Biowares time IMO. 

 

In terms of narrative relevance It's gonna be a carbon copy of ME3 Galaxy at war. Just Replace Alliance with Inquisition & Reapers with Demons.

 

So no dialogue choices AKA the only game play mechanic that tells a story AKA the only reason to play DA:I = Rubbish multiplayer mode that isn't even good for mindless fun. No thanks. 

 

Maybe it's just that I have a viciously intuitive sense of game mechanics, but I definitely see it working... Of course, the game wouldn't be pause&play in multiplayer, but then you have to realize that the Pause feature exists because most (Perhaps all) people don't have the mental bandwidth to juggle four things at once.

[Maeshone]

If I could see the multiplayer being a good game mode I'd be interested in it. But I can't.

 

DA:I is a Real time with pause strategy game. It's nothing like Dragon's Dogma hack and Slash or like League of Legends real time team work.

 

The Press who were saying real time is "So responsive" were playing the game on easy with God mode turned on. Look at the health bars on the video, the party should have died 20 times ON EASY. How can this work with multiple players? Some crappy nerfed Horde mode? No thanks, waste of EA's money & Biowares time IMO. 

 

In terms of narrative relevance It's gonna be a carbon copy of ME3 Galaxy at war. Just Replace Alliance with Inquisition & Reapers with Demons.

 

So no dialogue choices AKA the only game play mechanic that tells a story AKA the only reason to play DA:I = Rubbish multiplayer mode that isn't even good for mindless fun. No thanks. 

You obviously wouldn't be controlling multiple characters in MP. You'd just be controlling your character. Exactly like ME3 MP. Also, I intend to play DAI as much for the gameplay as for the story, as the combat actually looks halfway engaging now, unlike DAO. I really don't see any issues with a ME3 like implementation unless it has some sort of effect on the SP part of the game.

[Maria Caliban]

I don't play dwarves. Only 5% of the fanbase does. Yet BioWare is willing to put time and money into implementing them in Dragon Age: Inquisition.

As someone who doesn't play dwarves, I know that they're going to take up 1/4th of the cinematic/modeling/animation zots for the PC. If they were cut, it would do nothing but benefit me. Given how small the player base for dwarves are, the ROI for including them seems questionably low.

I don't spend time complaining about their inclusion though or saying that if they're in the game, I'm not going to buy it.

That's because I know BioWare wants to make a game many people will enjoy -- not just Dragon Age: Stuff Maria Likes.

[DragonRacer]

And I'm going to be frank with you, if you're looking for multiplayer in story-driven RPGs like this one, I can't help but wonder why you're even playing this series to begin with. 

 

Maybe because they were single player story-driven RPG fans before... then tried out ME3's MP and, to their surprise, found that they liked it and enjoyed it, too? So, based on that, they might not have a problem if such an MP were added to another single player story-driven RPG that they love.

 

Because I am the example of that story. I fail to see how me having enjoyed ME3MP - a game I bought because I was (and still am) a fan of the single player story in the Mass Effect series - suddenly means I am no longer a lover of single player story-driven RPGs.

 

I don't see this as mutually exclusive, honestly. Unless you'd consider someone like me to suddenly be a traitor who craves MP and no longer cares about the quality of the SP.

[slimgrin]

I don't play dwarves. Only 5% of the fanbase does. Yet BioWare is willing to put time and money into implementing them in Dragon Age: Inquisition.

As someone who doesn't play dwarves, I know that they're going to take up 1/4th of the cinematic zots for the PC. If they were cut, it would do nothing but benefit me. Given how small the player base for dwarves are, the ROI for including them seems questionably low.

I don't spend time complaining about their inclusion though or saying that if they're in the game, I'm not going to buy it.

That's because I know BioWare wants to make a game many people will enjoy -- not just Dragon Age: Stuff Maria Likes.

 

That sounds like a pretty awesome game.

 

With the resources EA has, I'm not sure anyone need fret. If they do MP, they probably have a separate team on it. MP didn't ruin ME3 even though they should have kept it distinct from the SP mode.

[Chron0id]

I understand the hurting single player devotees, though I am a multiplayer enthusiast solely off the back of ME3 MP.

 

Personally I'd ask that they hold their pain until we have a reveal either way which has to happen (or be confirmed not to happen) at some point.

They have made their point clearly and repeatedly (some more eloquently than others).

 

I get the whole trust piece and 'best ending' hurt (I thought 'Control' was the best ending - everyone lives, including Shepard sort of and it's a bit dark and highly ironic but let's not go there). I'd be staggered, simply staggered is BioWare do that again.

 

But more than two years later I think BioWare are entitled to be judged on what they do now, not to be continually lambasted about choices they made 3-4 years ago.

 

People have been pretty clear - they don't want a mandated SP / MP connection. I agree with that.
But if it has a legitimate opt out, those who love it are entitled to play and enjoy it without being considered to have 'sold out'.

 

Let's see what is revealed/not revealed before continuing to beat each other up...

Ouch man.  Very ouch.

[Deflagratio]

Ouch man.  Very ouch.

 

 

Sadly, I have to at least back you up on this one... Early criticism is the most effective, arguably even more so in the absence of confirmation as it's a clear showing that we won't let things fly under our sight unchallenged. At least if I understand what you're going for with the somewhat ambiguous comment.

[Chron0id]

I don't play dwarves. Only 5% of the fanbase does. Yet BioWare is willing to put time and money into implementing them in Dragon Age: Inquisition.

As someone who doesn't play dwarves, I know that they're going to take up 1/4th of the cinematic/modeling/animation zots for the PC. If they were cut, it would do nothing but benefit me. Given how small the player base for dwarves are, the ROI for including them seems questionably low.

I don't spend time complaining about their inclusion though or saying that if they're in the game, I'm not going to buy it.

That's because I know BioWare wants to make a game many people will enjoy -- not just Dragon Age: Stuff Maria Likes.

Dwarves is an astronomically different example to compare to something like multiplayer.  It doesn't work like that.  Dwarves is race within the game that fits within the lore and the universe.  Multiplayer is a whole other beast.  It's a seperate mode entirely that can, and often does detract from the impact of the SP.  Also known as "Call of Duty" syndrome.  You really can't make such a comparison. 

[Chron0id]

 

 

Sadly, I have to at least back you up on this one... Early criticism is the most effective, arguably even more so in the absence of confirmation as it's a clear showing that we won't let things fly under our sight unchallenged. At least if I understand what you're going for with the somewhat ambiguous comment.

Sadly?  Am I truly that detestable?  But yes, I agree.

[Aaleel]

I understand the hurting single player devotees, though I am a multiplayer enthusiast solely off the back of ME3 MP.

 

Personally I'd ask that they hold their pain until we have a reveal either way which has to happen (or be confirmed not to happen) at some point.

They have made their point clearly and repeatedly (some more eloquently than others).

 

I get the whole trust piece and 'best ending' hurt (I thought 'Control' was the best ending - everyone lives, including Shepard sort of and it's a bit dark and highly ironic but let's not go there). I'd be staggered, simply staggered is BioWare do that again.

 

But more than two years later I think BioWare are entitled to be judged on what they do now, not to be continually lambasted about choices they made 3-4 years ago.

 

People have been pretty clear - they don't want a mandated SP / MP connection. I agree with that.
But if it has a legitimate opt out, those who love it are entitled to play and enjoy it without being considered to have 'sold out'.

 

Let's see what is revealed/not revealed before continuing to beat each other up...

 

It wasn't even about a best ending.  MP shouldn't have been tied to the ending of the SP game in any way shape or form.  The fact that it was the ending of Shepard's three game journey made it even more absurd.  You couldn't even get enough points to save Anderson from TIM without MP.  Luckily I was on the PC and could just alter the save game file.

 

I still don't see the appeal of MP though.  I tried the ME3 MP with my friends, but after the 5th, 6th...10th 'Survive', 'Hold the position', 'stay alive until extract', all started looking the same I got bored and excused myself.  Never touched it again.

[Maria Caliban]

Dwarves is an astronomically different example to compare to something like multiplayer.  It doesn't work like that.  Dwarves is race within the game that fits within the lore and the universe.  Multiplayer is a whole other beast.  It's a seperate mode entirely that can, and often does detract from the impact of the SP.  Also known as "Call of Duty" syndrome.  You really can't make such a comparison.

You can have a game without dwarves as a PC race. You can have a game without MP. You can add either of them and they're going to cost time and money. I'd suggest that for a non-dwarven player, dwarves are more of a drawback then MP is for an exclusively SP player.

Personally, if dwarves were never included in another fantasy game, let alone as a Dragon Age PC, I'd be fine with this.

Whatever your justifications, there's content you value and content you don't value. Content you don't value is only a waste if you believe the game ought to be built around your tastes and preferences.

[Gamemako]

You couldn't even get enough points to save Anderson from TIM without MP.  Luckily I was on the PC and could just alter the save game file.

Er, that was tied to having used 3 persuade/intimidate marks against him.

[SofaJockey]

We know from infographics that in it's first year people played the ME3 MP game for (in total) around 30,000 years.

I reckon that would be about 50 hours in MP each on average (though clearly that's skewed from none to many hundreds of hours).

So the average time in multiplayer is more that the c.35 hours to complete a single player play-through of a game which in any event less than half of players (42%) even completed.

 

On that basis it would be fairer to say that the ME3 multiplayer was more popular than the ME3 single player.

 

But this is all about choice.

 

It would be great (assuming it exists) that those who want to only play one or the other or both all get their wish.

[Aaleel]

Er, that was tied to having used 3 persuade/intimidate marks against him.

 

No it wasn't.  If that were the case, me increasing the WA on the save file wouldn't have allowed me to get that.  I would have had to replay the game.  You had to have used paragon or renegade a certain number of times and have I think it was 4000 WA to do that.