80 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidney]

Co-op doesn't mean a MMO, I wish people and developers would stop equating the two. I love Co-op in games, because I get to play through a story with my friends, preferably locally but over a server or LAN is just as good.

 

MMOs are all grind, grind, new pants, grind, grind, more new pants.

 

That said I enjoyed the Multiplayer Co-op in ME3 - I thought it was a lot of fun, but its not the same as sharing a story with someone. 

 

 

Borderlands has a drop in drop out MP where the quests you are going on are helping the host basically. I'm not sure if that would be the sort of thing they do here. Thing is in BL2 it is mostly shooting (and MP loot is handled abysmally in that game) whereas Bioware has a lot more talky parts. Some people might enjoy seeing their friends dialog it up and make decisions but I'd think that would have a very limited appeal to people just playing with randoms.

[phantomrachie]

Borderlands has a drop in drop out MP where the quests you are going on are helping the host basically. I'm not sure if that would be the sort of thing they do here. Thing is in BL2 it is mostly shooting (and MP loot is handled abysmally in that game) whereas Bioware has a lot more talky parts. Some people might enjoy seeing their friends dialog it up and make decisions but I'd think that would have a very limited appeal to people just playing with randoms.

 

Yeah, I don't think a drop in drop out system would with with something like DA:I. as I said in a previous post that works better for a more exploration focused game like Fallout or Skyrim. 

 

I just don't get all the hate against Co-op, when done well it can be really fun and a Dragon Age version of NWN would be awesome, but that would have be to built from the ground up and not shoe horned into a game.

[JadePrince]

I heard someone suggest that Co-op could be structured as you (and friends) taking on the role of one of the Inquisition's groups (scouts or spies or soldiers or whatnot) and do quests that let you explore the world together and gather resources together and such. So you wouldn't have to worry about one person being the Inquisitor and the other being just a random person. I dunno, I think it'd be fun to explore Thedas with a friend. I've got no interest in competative MP, but if they find a way to make co-op work as a sort of sidequest feature, I'd probably give it a shot.

[Borosini]

co op doesn't make sense in a story/choice driven game.  Someone would have to be a second class player.  That sits around and does nothing while the real player gets to make all the choices, romance the companions and gets to actually fully enjoy the game.  It wouldn't make sense in any other way, so no thanks to the co-op.  

 

That sort of play is more appropriate in shooters and action/adventure games.  Let it stay there where it actually makes sense. 

Just as a counterpoint:

 

I remember really enjoying my P2 experience in The Lord of the Rings: The Third Age. All I did, really, was control a character during turn-based combat, and watched as my friend progressed the story and controlled the other characters. But I still found this lower-key experience to be fun, and remember it as particularly good quality time with my friend.

 

This works best locally, of course, but with today's interconnectivity I can easily see myself tagging along with a cross-country friend, controlling one or two of her party members in battle, and thoroughly enjoying myself while interacting with P1 via other technology.

 

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I bet I'm not alone.

[Magdalena11]

co op doesn't make sense in a story/choice driven game.  Someone would have to be a second class player.  That sits around and does nothing while the real player gets to make all the choices, romance the companions and gets to actually fully enjoy the game.  It wouldn't make sense in any other way, so no thanks to the co-op.  

 

That sort of play is more appropriate in shooters and action/adventure games.  Let it stay there where it actually makes sense. 

Exactly.  This is why I will not be playing co-op.

[In Exile]

I'm confused as to how you would even think that ALL co op games are the same.  Did you even look at Divinity Sin before you decided it wasn't a good game simply because it was co-op?  It definitely is not real-time hack & slash, it's turned-based and very tactical.  There are no companions but then again it's not a game that even features characters like that.  It definitely IS a party based game; just that all the slots are used up by other players.  In fact, for being a co op game, I would say that it features stronger decision making than most Bioware games.  I wouldn't be so quick to throw particular games under the bus simply because they feature a multiplayer mode.

 

I throw it under the bus because it isn't a party based game. The fact that there are other living people involved doesn't make it a party-based game any more than Call of Duty is a party based game. The fact that the game "doesn't feature companions like that" is exactly a consequence of the fact that it is a Co-Op game. 

 

As for "stronger decision making", I'm highly skeptical of that claim (not because Bioware games are good at this, but because you've offered no evidence for it). The fact that you control one character does not turn it into a tactical game. 

 

So I'd certainly throw the game under the bus specifically for being a Co-Op game, actively designed against features that I like. 

[In Exile]

Just as a counterpoint:

 

I remember really enjoying my P2 experience in The Lord of the Rings: The Third Age. All I did, really, was control a character during turn-based combat, and watched as my friend progressed the story and controlled the other characters. But I still found this lower-key experience to be fun, and remember it as particularly good quality time with my friend.

 

This works best locally, of course, but with today's interconnectivity I can easily see myself tagging along with a cross-country friend, controlling one or two of her party members in battle, and thoroughly enjoying myself while interacting with P1 via other technology.

 

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I bet I'm not alone.

 

To me it basically sounds like people who want Co-OP are people who have gamer friends who share their specific interests and who they want to play with, and see the feature as basically "hang out with a friend doing something". 

[powerXmad]

Co-op might be cool but it will greatly subtract from someone who wants to use the tactical approach and pause time and issue orders. I can see a multiplayer feature that is different from the solo portion of the game were you can fight against another inquisitor and their party but thats about it.

My overall opinion is against co-op/mp but if its done right and doesn't interfere with any aspects of solo play then I'm cool with it. It would be fun to have every member of your party controlled by a friend and you issue orders to them over your mic.

Hey which one of you is the healer I'm dieing, damn it joe why didn't you heal me.

[Boss Fog]

I throw it under the bus because it isn't a party based game. The fact that there are other living people involved doesn't make it a party-based game any more than Call of Duty is a party based game. The fact that the game "doesn't feature companions like that" is exactly a consequence of the fact that it is a Co-Op game. 

 

As for "stronger decision making", I'm highly skeptical of that claim (not because Bioware games are good at this, but because you've offered no evidence for it). The fact that you control one character does not turn it into a tactical game. 

 

So I'd certainly throw the game under the bus specifically for being a Co-Op game, actively designed against features that I like. 

It IS a party based game.  If you decide to play it solo, you create 2 characters at the beginning of the game and can hire henchman and equip them the same way you would equip hirelings in Skyrim AND control their actions.  The maximum number of characters you can have in your party at any given time is 4.  Not only that, there isn't just one character doing all the dialogue; it is a co-op dialogue experience meaning that all characters (except the hirelings) have a say in the matter.  So if your only real point is that it isn't a party based tactical game because it doesn't feature "companions" each with their own storyline, then you point is pretty much moot because characters that you control do not need backstories or voice actors in order for it to be a "party based game."  What defines a tactical party based game isn't based off your own personal bias.

 

This game features real decision making not only in the way Bioware does it with branching story narrative but also in real time gameplay.  For example, if you loot a grave site with a grieving widow nearby, she will attack you for disturbing her loved ones grave.  Or, if you go into a random house and just start looting everything, you will draw the ire of the local guards.  Almost everything you do has some sort of consequence later on.  

[JasonPogo]

If there is Co-Op I will use the pause and play formula extensively.  To the point where no one will ever want to play with me.  Then it will be SP for me anyway! heh

[Innsmouth Dweller]

co-op on D:OS level would be great, a bit polished maybe. nah... i don't see it.

[TurretSyndrome]

If there is Co-Op I will use the pause and play formula extensively.  To the point where no one will ever want to play with me.  Then it will be SP for me anyway! heh

 

If there is ever a multiplayer element in the game, there will be no pause and play during that mode. You can bet on it.

[cronshaw]

PLEASE allow for co-op play. It doesnt matter if you make it to where you can bring in your personal character, or even just take controll of one of the party members kust please let this happen.

I'm all for a separate co-op MP similar to what they had in ME3

and I am beginning to like MP games in general more than I have in the past

But I have absolutely zero desire to play through the Single Player campaign with friends

[Borosini]

To me it basically sounds like people who want Co-OP are people who have gamer friends who share their specific interests and who they want to play with, and see the feature as basically "hang out with a friend doing something". 

 

Sure. I don't see anything wrong with this. Is there something wrong with this?

[rafoquinha]

Sure. I don't see anything wrong with this. Is there something wrong with this?

 

Dont see anything wrong with it. People play Dragon Age for the great story and lore, but you bet there are people that also play it for other reasons and couldnt care less about its story.

[Magdalena11]

Sure. I don't see anything wrong with this. Is there something wrong with this?

Of course not.  It just suits some gamers better than others.  I wouldn't play co-op because I would slow everyone else down and don't enjoy being told to sit down and shut up while the big kids play.  More assertive players, and those with groups of gaming partners who work well together, would have a blast.  I would just like to be given the option not to have to pay for something I'm never going to use.  As a stand-alone game, I truly hope they can make it happen.

[berelinde]

I would love to see an interactive RPG scenario set in the DA universe as a stand-alone game.  NWN seemed to be pretty sucessful and my partner had a lot of fun with it.  He was playing with people he knew, though, and they could send tells back and forth.  It has the potential to be as satisfying as herding cats if each player decides to lead at once, however.  For that reason, if they do decide to release one, I won't be participating. (OK, that, and I'm a more...contemplative...player and would just slow the game down.)

I'm having flashbacks to Diablo III multiplayer, where people joined a game, ran the level in 3 seconds flat vacuuming up the loot, and then quit the game the instant their inventory was full. They'd pretty much ignore the monsters entirely and chase the gold fairy all over the map. Fun times... or not.

[Boss Fog]

I'm having flashbacks to Diablo III multiplayer, where people joined a game, ran the level in 3 seconds flat vacuuming up the loot, and then quit the game the instant their inventory was full. They'd pretty much ignore the monsters entirely and chase the gold fairy all over the map. Fun times... or not.

Because any or all sorts of co-op experiences must pan out exactly like this one?

[berelinde]

Because any or all sorts of co-op experiences must pan out exactly like this one?

Actually, it isn't all that bad, if you're capable of tanking the level by yourself and don't mind your "party" changing every 5 minutes. Loot drops are player-specific, so any treasure on the ground is yours. The other players won't be able to see your loot, and you won't be able to see theirs, but it's pretty obvious when characters are hanging back during combat and then scooping up the treasure from other people's kills. They still count toward combat scaling. Before they introduced scaled Monster Power, or whatever they called it, that was actually a really good way to increase the difficulty level.

 

But Diablo III is pure hack-and-slash, with exactly the same story repeated 5 times as your character transitions to higher levels. There's dialogue, but it's pure auto-dialogue with no player input. That isn't what Dragon Age is about. Sure, they could introduce some kind of persistent world setup for multi-play like that, and it would be fun for occasional bouts of mayhem, but that niche is filled by other games.

 

Baldur's Gate/Baldur's Gate II had co-op multiplayer where player characters could take the place of followers. That was my introduction to video gaming, in fact. Fiance (merely boyfriend at the time) wanted somebody else to play Baldur's Gate with him, and I was getting tired of watching him bash monsters for hours at a time without having any clear idea what he was doing. It was OK, but it wasn't much fun watching the story revolve around his character, the Bhaalspawn, while my character was never even mentioned. I had very little investment in the game. And then I started my own game and discovered that there were actual followers with personalities and banter and romances, and that was the last time we played in co-op mode. We still play Diablo II and Diablo III together, but when it's a story-heavy game like Baldur's Gate II or Dragon Age, I'd rather stick to the single-player experience.

 

TL; DR: Co-op works great for hack-and-slash games, but it's less satisfying in story-rich games with a single protagonist supported by a cast of followers.

[simpatikool]

Diablo III is CO-OP and it is not an MMO. It of course, is also not a single player RPG with a story either. (Compared to the DAO Franchise at least)

[berelinde]

Diablo III is CO-OP and it is not an MMO. It of course, is also not a single player RPG with a story either. (Compared to the DAO Franchise at least)

Yup. The story is the same as the single-player campaign, such as it is, and in co-op mode, player characters replace the followers that single-player has. It works in Diablo III because there isn't a lot of follower-specific content and there are literally no secondary quests, let alone follower-specific ones, but as you say, Dragon Age is a completely different animal.

 

Branching out into new areas is great, and I would not mind if Dragon Age had some kind of arena mode, or completely separate levels for multi-player exploration, but I would not want it to come at the expense of the single-player experience. IMO, that's the strength of the Dragon Age franchise, and that's what keeps people returning to it again and again. Don't get me wrong. I like Diablo II/III (for a change of pace). But Dragon Age is its own animal.

[Eralrik]

Co-op in Mass Effect 3 was fun in the begining now it just plain sucks with all the cheaters, I could see a Stand alone CO-OP in DAI if it didn't have any effect on the single player campaign.

I disliked that aspect of it in ME3!

 

 

[rafoquinha]

Baldurs Gate has one of the best stories of any RPG games out there. And guess what? It is just like Dragon Age: you control a party all the time and you also have some dialogue choices when talking to NPCs. But you can experience the full game in coop.

 

Ans guess what too? Made by Bioware!!

[berelinde]

Baldurs Gate has one of the best stories of any RPG games out there. And guess what? It is just like Dragon Age: you control a party all the time and you also have some dialogue choices when talking to NPCs. But you can experience the full game in coop.

 

Ans guess what too? Made by Bioware!!

Baldur's Gate had 10% of the dialogue that Dragon Age Origins had, and believe me, playing as Player2 was *not* fun. Sure, if all you want out of an RPG is to walk around behind somebody else and listen to somebody else play a game and occasionally hit things, it's OK, but if you want to be the one making the quest-related decisions, it was a real disappointment. If all you want to do is hit things and not interact with the game at all, there are better games out there. People are still playing it in single-player mode. A few people may still play it in co-op mode if they have networked computers in their homes, but public support died off years and years ago.