665 réponses à ce sujet

[Paul E Dangerously]

Except that the game makers on numerous occasions have come out and said mp has a totally separate budget and team.  thus making it counter intuitive.  Also it is incredibly antagonistic to assume all multiplayer people are slathering morons or 12 year olds that throw tantrums.  The basis of quite a few comments I see that are very anti multiplayer from step one assumes that the game makes are bald face liars.

 

You can argue that it does have an effect, though. Unless I'm missing anything, Bioware has done:

Baldur's Gate 1/2: Simply "had" a multiplayer mode.

NWN: Designed entirely around MP and the toolset, campaign suffered.

ME3: Added a multiplayer mode, intruded into the campaign, forced people to MP to get best ending (pre-patch).

 

The more of a focus MP is, the worse the SP gets.

[Deflagratio]

I don't consider it rude to point out facts.  But I apologize if I offended you.

 

 

Well, I will point out that all of your arguments use slippery slope and anecdotal fallacies. That doesn't mean you're wrong necessarily, it just means your reasons are flawed and invalid for argumentative purposes.

 

I'd do just as well to say that BioWare promised customization, and we have customization in ME3 therefore BioWare is telling the truth.

 

Even though in hindsight the facts and conclusion are true, it's very poor reasoning.

[Chron0id]

Well, I will point out that all of your arguments use slippery slope and anecdotal fallacies. That doesn't mean you're wrong necessarily, it just means your reasons are flawed and invalid for argumentative purposes.

 

I'd do just as well to say that BioWare promised customization, and we have customization in ME3 therefore BioWare is telling the truth.

 

Even though in hindsight the facts and conclusion are true, it's very poor reasoning.

And obviously, all the reasons FOR having multiplayer in DA:I are perfectly logical and sound?

[addiction21]

And obviously, all the reasons FOR having multiplayer in DA:I are perfectly logical and sound?

 

If at the end of the day they see that having multiplayer in some form would turn them a profit then yes. It is a sound and logical reason for a company (not a charity) to pursue profit.

 

 

[Aaleel]

Well, I will point out that all of your arguments use slippery slope and anecdotal fallacies. That doesn't mean you're wrong necessarily, it just means your reasons are flawed and invalid for argumentative purposes.

 

I'd do just as well to say that BioWare promised customization, and we have customization in ME3 therefore BioWare is telling the truth.

 

Even though in hindsight the facts and conclusion are true, it's very poor reasoning.

 

Some things are subjective some things aren't.

 

"We won't pull a Lost and leave you with more questions than answers."  The fact that they had to release a free off schedule DLC to explain everything says the statement was misleading to put it mildly, but at the end of the day it's subjective.

 

They're enough War Assets to get all the endings without playing the MP on the other hand to me was just a outright lie.  I hate to use the word lie, but they're either enough points in the game or they're not.  There were thresholds at 4000 and 5000, and they're weren't enough to get the one at 4000 let alone 5000 even if you did the pre release stuff.

 

So if someone wants to say they're taking something said with a grain of salt I don't blame them at all.

[Chron0id]

If at the end of the day they see that having multiplayer in some form would turn them a profit then yes. It is a sound and logical reason for a company (not a charity) to pursue profit.

That's not exactly what I was asking.  But whatever.   This is going nowhere.

[Zatche]

And you take what game makers say at face value? lawlz

 

Game makers lie just as much as politicians.  The only difference is that politicans tend to do it less tactfully because they don't have the luxury of a computer screen between them and their audience.  Game makers also said that ME 3 wouldn't have  A, B, or C, endings.  We all know how that turned out.  Game makers also tend to make bogus exaggerations, false promises, bloated claims, and other such nonsense to hype their games and do damage control.   Point is, I take what game makers say with a mountain of salt.

 

But you're not just denying what game devs are saying. You're denying basic business principles.

 

I have project. It requires a certain amount resources. I predict it will get me more revenue than the required resources, so I go ahead with the project.

I want to add to the scope of the project by adding feature. If I predict that the additional revenue will be greater than the additional resources to add the feature, then I will add the feature. Simply using a portion of the already allocated resources would be poor management.

 

It is exactly how the business cases at my company work. This is what happened when they extended the game by an extra year to add playable races and other features. And this is what has happened if Multiplayer has indeed been added to DAI.

[Deflagratio]

And obviously, all the reasons FOR having multiplayer in DA:I are perfectly logical and sound?

 

I personally would give the weight to Pro-Multiplayer in terms of logic. Certainly not all, but a couple key pieces. It might be argued that in the case of art, rationality is overrated. Most of the "Logic" behind multiplayer comes from monetary justification, does that even have a place in art is a debate unto itself.

 

That doesn't necessarily make it the right decision, sadly only history will be able to vindicate that, if it's possible at all. And of course, we'll never have the whole picture.

[TheEgoRaptor]

There might be multiplayer, but I pray to Xenu that there isn't. Take the time and resources it would take to bring about Multiplayer and use it to make the game better. Dragon Age DOES NOT NEED Multiplayer, nor should it ever have it.

[addiction21]

That's not exactly what I was asking.  But whatever.   This is going nowhere.

 

Would you prefer I approach this from the angle that RPG as in the pen and paper table top games these were oringinaly first and foremost a social game? Something that had to be played with other? Most often a DM (much like a developer) laying the groundwork of what you can and can not do?

 

Of course multiplayer is not even confirmed at this point and we all have no idea what form if any it will take.

 

So yes this is going nowhere.
 

[Aaleel]

There might be multiplayer, but I pray to Xenu that there isn't. Take the time and resources it would take to bring about Multiplayer and use it to make the game better. Dragon Age DOES NOT NEED Multiplayer, nor should it ever have it.

 

I don't care for MP as I've said on many occasions but I doubt not adding MP would let them improve the SP.  If they had budget 'X' for the SP that's probably all its ever going to be.  If they decide it's worth it from a revenue standpoint to add MP they'll make budget 'Y' for the MP.  If they decide it's not worth it from a revenue standpoint the money that would have went to budget 'Y' won't automatically get added the the original budget, they just won't spend the money.

 

I'm more worried about potential MP affecting your Inquisitor's influence in the SP game or some nonsense like that.

[TheEgoRaptor]

I don't care for MP as I've said on many occasions but I doubt not adding MP would let them improve the SP.  If they had budget 'X' for the SP that's probably all its ever going to be.  If they decide it's worth it from a revenue standpoint to add MP they'll make budget 'Y' for the MP.  If they decide it's not worth it from a revenue standpoint the money that would have went to budget 'Y' won't automatically get added the the original budget, they just won't spend the money.

 

I'm more worried about potential MP affecting your Inquisitor's influence in the SP game or some nonsense like that.

 

I understand what you mean but I talking more about features that could have been added, features that the dev's wanted but didn't have either enough time or manpower to implement them in the time frame they had. Existing content might not get a boost in quality, if that is even needed, but as I've said the game could be bolstered by the assistance of any teams that may have been working solely on the possible MP aspects of the game.

[Chron0id]

Would you prefer I approach this from the angle that RPG as in the pen and paper table top games these were oringinaly first and foremost a social game? Something that had to be played with other? Most often a DM (much like a developer) laying the groundwork of what you can and can not do?

 

Of course multiplayer is not even confirmed at this point and we all have no idea what form if any it will take.

 

So yes this is going nowhere.
 

That's not the point and you know it.  If there is anything BioWare should be dedicating additional resources to, it's to the single player and making it the best it can possibly be.

[addiction21]

That's not the point and you know it.

 

At this point I don't even know what your point is.

 

Do you even have one other then "I don't like MP"?

[Morroian]

And you take what game makers say at face value? lawlz

 

Game makers lie just as much as politicians.  The only difference is that politicans tend to do it less tactfully because they don't have the luxury of a computer screen between them and their audience.  Game makers also said that ME 3 wouldn't have  A, B, or C, endings.  We all know how that turned out.  Game makers also tend to make bogus exaggerations, false promises, bloated claims, and other such nonsense to hype their games and do damage control.   Point is, I take what game makers say with a mountain of salt.

 

OK then you're making an accusation the onus is on you prove it. And as has been said many times before there have been others working in the game industry who have verified what bioware have said. 

[Chron0id]

At this point I don't even know what your point is.

 

Do you even have one other then "I don't like MP"?

Yes, actually.  I don't like you and I don't like your snarky, uppity attitude.  It's grating. 

[Chron0id]

OK then you're making an accusation the onus is on you prove it. And as has been said many times before there have been others working in the game industry who have verified what bioware have said. 

ME 3 is my proof.   You want proof of egregious lies?  Play that game.  But now we are heading off on a tangent.

[TheEgoRaptor]

I think that it's more than a disliking of MP, for me a good analogy is BattleField 4. I Loved the campagin, MP died horribly. I understand that DA:I is being made by a completely different company but this is exactly what I don't want to see happen to DA. It doesn't need MP, so why risk it?

[Deflagratio]

That's not the point and you know it.  If there is anything BioWare should be dedicating additional resources to, it's to the single player and making it the best it can possibly be.

 

That's too nebulous a concept, for all you know the Multiplayer could end up benefiting the Single player in equal or greater capacity by fine-tuning the battle content (The bulk of the game) through the additional filter of the MP staff.

 

 

I think that it's more than a disliking of MP, for me a good analogy is BattleField 4. I Loved the campagin, MP died horribly. I understand that DA:I is being made by a completely different company but this is exactly what I don't want to see happen to DA. It doesn't need MP, so why risk it?

 

What is there to risk really? If EA said take this money for Multiplayer or don't take it at all...

 

Mass Effect 3 was the proof of concept, there's obviously an audience for the experience, the only remaining risk is if the battle content of DA:I can carry an experience the same way, combined with Frostbite 3's natural MP strengths I'd say the risks are fairly minimal for a potentially huge payoff financially.

[Chron0id]

Okay, you make some fair points Deflag, but let's view this from another angle, or should I say, another game. 

 

http://www.ign.com/a...hould-not-exist

 

What say you?  So much for the game makers being on the side of multiplayer....

[TheEgoRaptor]

I'd rather not have a massive drawn out flame war appear on these forums again that will last months just because some people are un happy with a small portion of the game. I couldn't bring myself to be on these forums for a while after ME3 was released. I really enjoyed the original endings, and the sheer self-righteousness of the people whining and complaining that it wasn't exactly what they wanted was more immaturity than I could stomach. 

 

If the MP did happen to flop, those who wanted nothing more than to play it would claim the entire game was horrible, that it needs to be re-made. Despite this I can understand that that would only be a relatively small majority of people on these forums, but still enough to get me to scoff and shake my head in disappointment.

[addiction21]

Yes, actually.  I don't like you and I don't like your snarky, uppity attitude.  It's grating. 

 

So you have no argument fair enough.

 

About a later post : OH NOES THAT SPEC OPS THING FROM IGN!!!!!

 

No Spec Ops did not need multiplayer but that does not mean any game ever does not need it or any game you in particular does not need multiplayer. Nor does it mean multiplayer in and of itself lessens a game. (when did people take IGN seriously again around here?)
 

If you don't like MP say it and I am not a fan of it myself but acting like MP is the death of everything and inherently makes everything worse is bs. Especially if you have been a PC gamer since the 90's sine that was something you held over the head of scrubby console gamers.

[ElitePinecone]

No it's not.  And as well it shouldn't be. 

 

Nah, it's in the game.

 

Sorry. But it is. 

[Deflagratio]

Okay, you make some fair points Deflag, but let's view this from another angle, or should I say, another game. 

 

http://www.ign.com/a...hould-not-exist

 

What say you?  So much for the game makers being on the side of multiplayer....

 

I never said game makers were on the side of multiplayer exclusively, plus hasn't that article already come up earlier in the thread? It might have been Venture Beat not IGN but I do remember the whole Spec Ops thing.

 

In terms of how appropriate it is, that's a case-by-case call. I'd definitely hold that Dragon Age: Inquisition represents the type of game that would translate very well to multiplayer. I mean, you could theoretically drop another player into the role of one of your companions and not much would be lost except for the agency over that individual character.

 

Really, when you look at how to translate a DA:I experience into Multiplayer, you need to do little more than isolate the combat game from the narrative and you've got a functioning model already, especially if it's Co-Op. Considering that Dragon Age is often touted as a story of your companions, I'd even argue that the narratives we players form during interaction with other people qualify, if I want to be intentionally obtuse about things.

[Ihatebadgames]

If DA:I smells of MP there is always other companies  that still spell RPG without spotting them the R and the G.

Do I think BW made a FANTASTIC looking game? Oh Yeah! Are the NPC seeming to be interesting? Yep, Sera is going to ROCK! MP is the pus leaking out of a bad wound, smells wrong.

My net speed(which I'm paying a premium for) is 65 k, takes me 10 seconds to download a MB. Games use to be put in disk download and play. 10 min with codes and everything. Now it can be a 3-4 day all hands on deck evolution just trying to get the game I paid for to play. And I don't want to play with anyone to enjoy the game.

Different strokes for different folks. We're BSN the loudest of the proudest 1 percent.