992 réponses à ce sujet

[Kidd]

This is not really logically correct... the main purpose of pause & tactical view is to give the other three party-members more mindful agency (from the controlling player) than the AI can deliver on its own - it allows the play to consider all four party-members at once. But if all 4 party members have their own player behind them, then it would not be necessary to tactically manage the other players and therefore the combat would not be compromised.

Indeed. Having played multiplayer in Infinity Engine games, I can confirm that as long as you control but one character, pause is unnecessary. Even with those games' quite clumsy way of selecting spells, there is usually plenty of time.

[CronoDragoon]

There are actually few if any mmos that would function like a da 4 player horde mode. One notable difference is all the mmo baggage outside of the instances with which you have to deal.

also, lol @ BG being single player only

[Ianamus]

I don't play mmos, I don't go out of my way to play mp.  I do however like bridge components of games to keep me interested in the series.  As for the point all you have to do is look at the popularity of ME mp.  The lore is popular, the classes were popular the classes were popular.

 

The difference is that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer let you play as new races and let you use abilities and weapons that you did not have access to in single player. 

 

In Inquisition I can't imagine they would make new abilities for the multiplayer mode, we can already play as all the races, and abilities like rift mage abilities and ones that could be used to harass other players like wall of ice would have to be removed. 

 

Whereas ME3's multiplayer provided new options I can't see how Inquisitions could be anything other than the same combat, classes and customization options as singleplayer... but with no ability to control your party, less abilities, no fade rift closing mechanics, no gathering/crafting system and no pausing. 

 

So basically just an incredibly watered down version of the single player mode. What's the point? Does the fact that the "party members" are being controlled by other people make up for the fact that it has about half as many gameplay features? 

[The Night Haunter]

Depends on how it is done.

 

SP only: 'your troops are defending you keeps, Inquisitor...'

MP also: your troops are defending you keeps, Inquisitor...' - and then you do multiplayer to defend them...

That is actually much worse than ME3's MP. Now you have to do MP to save your keeps. It isn't even pretending to be optional, that is forcing you to play MP to get an 'optimal' experience in SP (Not losing your keeps).

Very, very bad decision if Bioware went that route (which I am confident they didn't because they are familiar with the backlash of ME3's MP and going further down that rabbit hole is something no-one with any sense would do. That's why they made a new IP focusing exclusively on MP).

[SofaJockey]

I understand the case you make, but those points don't really stand up from my perspective because:

 

I just don't see what the point would be when there are literally dozens of MMO's that already do the same thing. And do it better. 

 

So no remakes of movies are allowed? No game formats are allowed that someone else has already done?

The buying public will decide if the attempt is pointless, after the game is released (assuming it's there).

 

Things like switching to different abilities on consoles, laying traps or glyph's and placing AoE abilities like wall of ice/fire would be much more difficult without the use of pause or the tactical view. Particularly since Inquisition is placing more of an emphasis on those elements than ever. 

 

There are plenty of successful multiplayer games, ME3 being an example where one party member is occupied while other party members distract or cover them. Doing a hack in ME3 is no different conceptually to laying traps, planting glyphs or assembling obstacles. If the challenge or difficulty would challenge you then I trust multiplayer will be optional or play a class with less abilities requiring a lead-time.

[dekkerd]

You could get all the readiness you needed from SP. That shouldn't be playing on your mind.
 
Plus, what if it is about intent why isn't the story intent to show the role of non-Shep actors doing things - all species working together to sustain the galaxy while Shep races to save it?

At launch you could not. You were forced to do MP or use iOS apps to raise readiness to get all endings. It's a well worn topic.

[SofaJockey]

That is actually much worse than ME3's MP. Now you have to do MP to save your keeps. It isn't even pretending to be optional, that is forcing you to play MP to get an 'optimal' experience in SP (Not losing your keeps).

Very, very bad decision if Bioware went that route (which I am confident they didn't because they are familiar with the backlash of ME3's MP and going further down that rabbit hole is something no-one with any sense would do. That's why they made a new IP focusing exclusively on MP).

 

I've mis-explained my point.

 

In MP+ I would expect my keeps to degrade requiring multiplayer action.

In SP only I would expect to either be able to completely avoid the mechanic that led to keep degradation or to replace whatever multiplayer did with a simple timed advisor mission that I would control in single player. 

In other words, I would expect the multiplayer+ player to be choosing to do a pile more work to gain the same story as the single player, but it would be fun.

Not everyone has to do alchemy/crafting, I'm sure you can buy those things instead, same principle.

[Ianamus]

 

Options in Dragon Age combat have never really been more tactically complex than any MMO. People manage this in MMOs just fine. It's really not an issue.

 

I'm sure it would be manageable on the PC, but I don't have much experience with MMO's on consoles, and from what little I have played things like AOE targeting and managing all of your abilities are a colossal pain to do on a controller in real time. 

 

Then again maybe people who use consoles regularly don't find it difficult at all, I can't say. 

[The Night Haunter]

I've mis-explained my point.

 

In MP+ I would expect my keeps to degrade requiring multiplayer action.

In SP only I would expect to either be able to completely avoid the mechanic that led to keep degradation or to replace whatever multiplayer did with a simple timed advisor mission that I would control in single player. 

In other words, I would expect the multiplayer+ player to be choosing to do a pile more work to gain the same story as the single player, but it would be fun.

Not everyone has to do alchemy/crafting, I'm sure you can buy those things instead, same principle.

Ahh, as an alternate path to saving your keep. If it were possible to save a keep using both SP mechanics and MP mechanics that would be fine. As long as the SP doesn't depend on the MP it's good. I would be happiest if MP didn't affect SP at all, but if it does it in a completely optional way (which ME3 wasn't) and a way that isn't notably harder (ME3 made you do 2x the work if you didn't do MP, which was bad), then I'll live with it.

 

Note: I'll probably play MP, I enjoyed ME3's. However, I didn't enjoy that my first play through suffered because I hadn't done MP first.

[JoltDealer]

Multiplayer is the most likely to be revealed.

[The Night Haunter]

Multiplayer is the most likely to be revealed.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised, but given Bioware's history of big announcements (anyone remember that date left in DAA game boxes? Turned out they revealed some crappy online thing and the forums turned into super raging fan inferno.) I would not be at all surprised if the big announcement is a release date for the Keep, or even just an unveiling of the full keep UI. 

[aaarcher86]

I honestly can't see them offering up a release date for the Keep - only because they wouldn't want to be locked into it IF it needs an extra week of tweeking or something.

[Maria Caliban]

In Inquisition I can't imagine they would make new abilities for the multiplayer mode...

I can.

Blood Mage? Ranger? Bard?

They don't have to give these backstory and fleshing out; they can just provide the abilities.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised, but given Bioware's history of big announcements (anyone remember that date left in DAA game boxes? Turned out they revealed some crappy online thing and the forums turned into super raging fan inferno.) I would not be at all surprised if the big announcement is a release date for the Keep, or even just an unveiling of the full keep UI.

You think that's bad?

Before DA came out, we were told to check the website where there was just an image that said JULY 6th. On July 6th, we hopped on the forums, and hit f5 on that page over and over and over.

They waited until *8 pm* before switching the image to July 12th. On July 12th, they changed the image to.... Dragon Age: Origins.

Previously, they'd just called it 'Dragon Age.'

All that, just to add ONE WORD TO THE TITLE.

[The Night Haunter]

I honestly can't see them offering up a release date for the Keep - only because they wouldn't want to be locked into it IF it needs an extra week of tweeking or something.

Well they already are locked into a date. If it comes out less than a week before DAI's release then xbox players with Early Access won't be able to use the Keep for their early access games. (not something I am a fan of, but it is a commitment Bioware has). In addition to that it is almost certainly going to come out at least a week before even then, as it takes time to build a world and they no doubt want to give players time to plan and build their World States.

So they are already locked into a release window, just solidifying the date isn't going to change much. Plus Bioware has delayed DAI twice (that we know of) so they obviously don't consider release dates immutable.

[JamieCOTC]

You could get all the readiness you needed from SP. That shouldn't be playing on your mind.

 

Plus, what if it is about intent why isn't the story intent to show the role of non-Shep actors doing things - all species working together to sustain the galaxy while Shep races to save it?

 

Actually you couldn't get all the readiness at launch (and for six more moths) to get all the endings. And MP should always, always be an option. I shouldn't have to play MP to get the impact of a SP story any more than I should have to read the novels and comics.

[aaarcher86]

Well they already are locked into a date. If it comes out less than a week before DAI's release then xbox players with Early Access won't be able to use the Keep for their early access games. (not something I am a fan of, but it is a commitment Bioware has). In addition to that it is almost certainly going to come out at least a week before even then, as it takes time to build a world and they no doubt want to give players time to plan and build their World States.

So they are already locked into a release window, just solidifying the date isn't going to change much. Plus Bioware has delayed DAI twice (that we know of) so they obviously don't consider release dates immutable.

 

Yeah, I know they have a timeframe.  I just have a hard time seeing themselves into a solid date (that they might have to change) instead of seeing how it all plays out as time goes on over the course of the month. 

[ElitePinecone]

I just don't see what the point would be when there are literally dozens of MMO's that already do the same thing. And do it better. 

 

This is a tough call to make without playing it, though.

 

Plenty of people derided ME3 as a Gears of War clone, but it was phenomenally successful.

 

Besides, a game doesn't have to be the best in its class to still be fun. Would something that's 90% as good as the best MMO still be worth doing, if players enjoy it and the gameplay is fulfilling? 

[Sidney]

At launch you could not. You were forced to do MP or use iOS apps to raise readiness to get all endings. It's a well worn topic.

 

The only ending you couldn't get was the gasp so other than that you could get all the endings and make all the choices. That alone isn't worth the caterwauling and if they want to throw a bone to MP players....so what? It shouldn't so personally wound your psyche. 

[shinyfirefly]

The only ending you couldn't get was the gasp so other than that you could get all the endings and make all the choices. That alone isn't worth the caterwauling and if they want to throw a bone to MP players....so what? It shouldn't so personally wound your psyche.

Players had no way of knowing that at the outset. We only knew that we couldn't get max readiness within single-player. It was a mistake that Bioware later corrected and I don't think they'll make that mistake again.

[Iakus]

The only ending you couldn't get was the gasp so other than that you could get all the endings and make all the choices. That alone isn't worth the caterwauling and if they want to throw a bone to MP players....so what? It shouldn't so personally wound your psyche. 

Yes it is.  It was the only ended that even hinted at Shepard's survival. In that sense, it was a truly unique ending which, accidentally or deliberately, was locked out of purely SP play.  Despite repeated assurances that such a thing would not happen.

 

And that can and should make people suspicious about any future attempts to put MP in a primarilly SP game.

[Legenlorn]

Will be funny if the big announcement turns out to be neither the keep nor MP:P

[The Night Haunter]

Will be funny if the big announcement turns out to be neither the keep nor MP:P

It could be the next web based DA game, lol.

[JeffZero]

It could be the next web based DA game, lol.

 

Thing of it is, though, if this were BioWare itself hyping the news, anything goes. But it's Destructoid, and other gaming press, and I dare say they wouldn't care! 

[Basement Cat]

Will be funny if the big announcement turns out to be neither the keep nor MP:P

If it's neither of those things it'd better be something really, really good because otherwise the forum will break out the torches and pitchforks. Again.