665 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonKingReborn]

Nah, it's in the game.

 

Sorry. But it is. 

 

I'm sorry, but source?

 

Otherwise, this is just as inflammatory as saying it isn't in and should never be.

[Morroian]

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

 

The actual game is not proof that MP has an entire separate budget that wouldn't be available to the SP game otherwise.  

[Deflagratio]

I'm sorry, but source?

 

Otherwise, this is just as inflammatory as saying it isn't in and should never be.

 

Proof, deal with it.

[KaiserShep]

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

 

This is what concerns me as well. I'd hate for the influence or resources to be made arbitrary by the implementation of multiplayer, like Mass Effect 3 was. Fun or not, its connection to the single player campaign was a huge design flaw.

[Sidney]

This is what concerns me as well. I'd hate for the influence or resources to be made arbitrary by the implementation of multiplayer, like Mass Effect 3 was. Fun or not, its connection to the single player campaign was a huge design flaw.

 

 

I'm more concerend that your influenece can be improved by fidning turians medals or asari writings or some other boring hidden package type quests in SP.  That would be a lot worse than the MP bleed over....and again you didn't need the MP to "win" so why does anyone care?

[Aaleel]

I'm more concerend that your influenece can be improved by fidning turians medals or asari writings or some other boring hidden package type quests in SP.  That would be a lot worse than the MP bleed over....and again you didn't need the MP to "win" so why does anyone care?

 

Because in ME3 it affected what endings you could get, what things you could accomplish at the end of a three game five year journey.  People who don't care for MP shouldn't have to miss out anything, especially story related content in the SP character driven game.  If you want to give some items to decorate your house or something fine.  But the endings available to the player or anything relating to the main story of the game should be completely separate. 

 

I'd rather go find a sword for the leader of a faction to gain his support than have to be bored fighting hordes and hordes of demons on repeating maps just to gain influence in the SP game. 

[Red Panda]

Kind of hoping we get PvP and competitive leaderboards with stats like K/D ratio.

[Iakus]

I'm more concerend that your influenece can be improved by fidning turians medals or asari writings or some other boring hidden package type quests in SP.  That would be a lot worse than the MP bleed over....and again you didn't need the MP to "win" so why does anyone care?

I will cheerfully hunt down every Dissonant Verse, Dwarven Clan Pin, and writing of Koslun in Thedas rather than risk MP bleed-over,

[Deflagratio]

Kind of hoping we get PvP

 

 

I don't see that working out particularly well. It would probably mean the classes would get watered down way too much in the name of a level playing field, plus a lot of the mechanics of warriors are built around threat control.

 

Competitive leaderboards and K/D ratios on the other hand aren't a bad idea necessarily. Well, I don't mean to imply PVP is a bad idea either, just not something I think fits well with what we've seen in terms of combat. But I'm open to being proven wrong.

[Chron0id]

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.

Did you not read the damn article?  Or is your reading comprehension a little lacking?  The game developers themselves admitted that the multiplayer was a cancerous tumor, detracted from the SP experience they wanted to weave, and that it was forced upon them by the publisher.   If this isn't a huge red flag for other game companies then I don't know what is.  But no, keep using IGN in your logical fallacies. 

[Iakus]

Kind of hoping we get PvP and competitive leaderboards with stats like K/D ratio.

Yeah, cause nothing says narrative-based rpg than...that.  

[Deflagratio]

Did you not read the damn article?  Or is your reading comprehension a little lacking?  The game developers themselves admitted that the multiplayer was a cancerous tumor, detracted from the SP experience they wanted to weave, and that it was forced upon them by the publisher.   If this isn't a huge red flag for other game companies then I don't know what is.  But no, keep using IGN in your logical fallacies. 

 

 

But then he doesn't bother to elaborate on how it actually detracts from the experience, he just complains that it was of poor quality and reflected upon the SP game negatively.

 

For my comprehension, that reads like a problem with execution, not the fact that it was a multiplayer mode, and since the whole debate is that Multiplayer itself devalues a single player experience, I say you still have all your work ahead of you in terms of finding support and evidence for the claim.

[Iakus]

That is a lie. Only one of the possible endings did it affect.

 

If gamers want to be taken more seriously then politicians they should stop spewing the same lies and rhetoric.

One is all it takes.  Especially if it's one that was highly desired.

[Chron0id]

But then he doesn't bother to elaborate on how it actually detracts from the experience, he just complains that it was of poor quality and reflected upon the SP game negatively.

 

For my comprehension, that reads like a problem with execution, not the fact that it was a multiplayer mode, and since the whole debate is that Multiplayer itself devalues a single player experience, I say you still have all your work ahead of you in terms of finding support and evidence for the claim.

Oh for the love of....it's straight from the horse's mouth!  What more could you possibly want? 

[Ihatebadgames]

If "fans" want MP they should pay 79.99 for it. Then we would all see how popular MP really is. Pay for what you play. Keep it away from SP, and BW don't lie about it .

[CronoDragoon]

It's not about purity.  Let me put it this way.  Single player only games are pretty much the trees in the Amazon rainforest.  People like you are the bulldozers.   We are simply trying to hold onto whatever we can before the last tree is torn down in favor of a shopping mall (multiplayer). 

 

Of course, trees produce tangibly useful things to the world like oxygen, habitats for an ecosystem, etc. There's nothing useful about a "single-player only tree" that you wouldn't also get with a "single player tree" that had a multiplayer rope swing attached to a limb.

[Zjarcal]

Did you not read the damn article?  Or is your reading comprehension a little lacking?  The game developers themselves admitted that the multiplayer was a cancerous tumor, detracted from the SP experience they wanted to weave, and that it was forced upon them by the publisher.   If this isn't a huge red flag for other game companies then I don't know what is.  But no, keep using IGN in your logical fallacies. 

 

What does this have to do with DA:I though?

 

ME3 MP isn't something Bioware is ashamed of, they're quite proud of it actually, it's pretty safe to say that if DA:I does have MP (it will) it's not something they're being forced to do, but actually something they want to do.

 

Regarding Spec Ops, I respect the devs at Yager a ton, Spec Ops: The Line is an incredible SP experience, and while I understand their negative feeling towards an unspired co-op mode being included at all (it's really lame), it's honestly quite an exaggeration to say it tarnished their SP game in anyway whatsover, because it didn't, at all. Hell, I didn't even realize there was such a mode until after finishing the game, never even saw the option in the menu till later. Playing it for a bit didn't brought down my opinion of the game as a whole at all either, it was just this lame extra that was there, nothing more to it.

 

Considering the development of such mode wasn't even handled by them (and the resources that went to it more than likely wouldn't have been given to SP if it wasn't there), their comments are more of a "ugh, I hate sharing a room with that thing" rather than something relevant when it comes to other MP projects, especially when the studio involved in those other projects isn't down on including MP in their games.

[Star fury]

Kind of hoping we get PvP and competitive leaderboards with stats like K/D ratio.

That would be awesome tbh. Imagine competitiveness like in CoD and League of Legends.

[Star fury]

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.

1) True.
2) True.
3) True. But on the other hand me3 mp was the best part of the game.

[Ihatebadgames]

3) True. If you played it and enjoy MP. Otherwise it killed ME,ME2 and the reason to play 3.

Why did we fight Saren? Cause he wanted to merge with the machines.

Why did we fight Timmy? Cause he wanted to control. What were two of the three(later 4) endings?

All so newbies who knew nothing of the plots and interaction with the team could go pewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpewpew(reload)epewpewpew. :(Best place to start my patootie.

[DadeLeviathan]

The only way I could see multiplayer even remotely working would be either similar to Neverwinter Nights (where you could have other players stand in for your party members) or in some sort of battle arena where you pit your inquisitor against the inquisitors of other players. 

 

Given, however, that an arena or really any other major multiplayer framework would require an entirely different balance to be done well, I highly doubt that Inquisition will have any sort of multiplayer component at all. 

[Deflagratio]

Oh for the love of....it's straight from the horse's mouth!  What more could you possibly want? 

 

What exactly is straight from the horses mouth that's relevant to the debate? He doesn't say resources were taken from the core experience, actually somewhat the opposite is said, with the Multiplayer being developed independently.

 

Now, I would happily entertain the argument (And this is one he doesn't even mention) that because Multiplayer was mandated by 2k, the Single Player experience had to be created in a fashion that translated into a multiplayer experience. Even though that's not directly a resource allocation, it's still an impact that could have a traceable negative effect.

 

But as of right now, the only conclusion is that a poorly developed, poorly implemented multiplayer mode can reflect negatively on a game as a whole. I could take the low road and also say that maybe this developer is trying to absolve himself and his studio of Spec Ops failures, but I think Spec Ops had a marketing and image issue more than anything. Even Tomb Raider had a terrible and worthless MP and managed to survive.

[PlasmaCheese]

The only way I could see multiplayer even remotely working would be either similar to Neverwinter Nights (where you could have other players stand in for your party members) or in some sort of battle arena where you pit your inquisitor against the inquisitors of other players. 

 

Given, however, that an arena or really any other major multiplayer framework would require an entirely different balance to be done well, I highly doubt that Inquisition will have any sort of multiplayer component at all. 

 

I always see this but no one ever elaborates. Is it that a player will take control of a party member (so, like, they could control Varric/Merill/etc)? Or will their own, customized PC be put into the story? I think the latter sounds awesome, even if it doesn't really make sense.

[phunx]

I always see this but no one ever elaborates. Is it that a player will take control of a party member (so, like, they could control Varric/Merill/etc)? Or will their own, customized PC be put into the story? I think the latter sounds awesome, even if it doesn't really make sense.

 

Their own. (computer) RPGs wanted to emulate the tabletop RPG experience, which is all about co-operative play. I think it could make sense in this story, the host would be the Inquisitior while the "guest" would just be a member of the inquistion Inquisitor is taking along.

 

I don't think that's how multiplayer will work in DA:I. I believe the missions we send our agents on will actually be playable co-op missions. Those are my wild speculations anyway.

 

Somehow along the way that got lost and certain players are not fond of the co-op experience.

[ElitePinecone]

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.

 

Just to come back to this point: it's been stated many times that if a game is planned with a singleplayer and multiplayer mode, it gets budgets for both modes. The publisher and developer gives it the amount of time, money and people that it believes the game needs to be successful. Budgets are influenced by how much the game is expected to sell, and multiplayer is a selling point.

 

It's not the case that pulling money from multiplayer would mean it could be allocated to singleplayer. More likely, those funds wouldn't exist at all. EA would use them for something else, and the singleplayer would just keep the budget it was originally given. Given the production pipelines for singleplayer content, what could a multiplayer team do to help anyway? The game has been planned and budgeted to have 1000 arbitrary zots, what's it going to do with another 500? Making up extra stuff just to use up those resources is dangerous, and might even make the game worse if the team can't keep up.

 

After all, there's a problem of diminishing returns with a singleplayer mode. You could take the zots from MP (the people, time and money) and pour it into the campaign to get an arbitrary amount of additional content - let's say another five or ten hours of "stuff" or features. Unless that extra stuff is going to be the tipping point for another X or Y amount of people to buy the game, what's the point in doing it? That's not the most efficient use of their resources, especially if multiplayer is going to be a selling point and a way to keep people playing the game and buying DLC.

 

I would argue that *if* the singleplayer campaign is already excellent, pouring extra money into making more SP content isn't really useful. It's certainly not as a big a feature as multiplayer, which is probably why the studio are doing it.

 

(There has to be a limit to the game's budget and development time at some point, after all - and it's always going to be arbitrary based on what the developer and publisher think is necessary. Asking why multiplayer resources aren't spent on singleplayer makes about as much sense as asking why EA doesn't divert all its Battlefield teams and budgets to make Dragon Age a 300-hour monster - it's because it doesn't want to, and it hasn't planned to.)