80 réponses à ce sujet

[sunnydxmen]

even if there is co op dont mean im gonna use it im a solo man.

[In Exile]

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.

Controlling hivemind killing robots does not mean that the game is a "party-based" game. XCOM:EU is not a party based game, even though you create your entire squad. There is more to something being a party based game than controlling replaceable killing drones.

A basic series of random conditions and robot NPCs attacking you - ala Skyrim - is not real or meaningful CC. It's the same reaction you get from bees if you mess with their hive.

Choice and consequence and party based games require a basic level of simulating human behaviour.

[In Exile]

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

Of course not. But it's important to realise that when what you want out of your game is different, your POV on whether features are the same or not is very different.

[Borosini]

Of course not. But it's important to realise that when what you want out of your game is different, your POV on whether features are the same or not is very different.

I'm honestly not sure I follow.

 

But I also realize that what I mean by co-op, and the kind of co-op I enjoy, is not what people usually think of. An example of a co-op I enjoy immensely but which I do not think would serve as a good model for DA is Castle Crashers. It's mindless social hilarity, but not well suited to Thedas. I'm also not looking for an MMO-type dungeon crawl, because it's really difficult to implement strong story elements. I can't get into Divinity: Original Sin despite my best efforts because it seems like the co-op considerations handicap the story.

 

What I might like: SP campaign with the possibility for a P2, local or via network, to drop in and out. P2 assumes control of one follower's movements in exploration and in battle, and can loot and deal with locks/traps, but doesn't have any input in conversations or decision making.

 

I could use such a mode to play ranged backup to a friend who prefers real-time Warrior combat, or introduce the series to a (possibly non-gamer) friend or family member, or host a Let's Play streaming session where viewers can join in. I'd still go back to single player when I want to play for myself, at my own speed, and with optimized control over my party.

 

I don't anticipate something like this would be implemented, nor do I think it would be to everyone's liking. But I also think it could be more fun and more useful than it might seem at first. It also seems to me to be the most setting-appropriate way of doing things.

[Boss Fog]

Controlling hivemind killing robots does not mean that the game is a "party-based" game. XCOM:EU is not a party based game, even though you create your entire squad. There is more to something being a party based game than controlling replaceable killing drones.

A basic series of random conditions and robot NPCs attacking you - ala Skyrim - is not real or meaningful CC. It's the same reaction you get from bees if you mess with their hive.

Choice and consequence and party based games require a basic level of simulating human behaviour.

All I see you saying here is that your definition of a "party based game" is the correct one.  Sorry, I'm not buying into it simply because you're saying "there's something more."  You're going to have to provide some evidence for that one.

 

Are you assuming that the game at hand doesn't even have a main quest or scripted encounters?  That the entire game is one big randomized encounter?  There IS a story to the game.  It's just bigger than the characters that you control.  That doesn't make it not a party based game.

[aTigerslunch]

I would say, fine for the OP that wants it I guess but honestly...

 

No.

[In Exile]

All I see you saying here is that your definition of a "party based game" is the correct one. Sorry, I'm not buying into it simply because you're saying "there's something more." You're going to have to provide some evidence for that one.

Are you assuming that the game at hand doesn't even have a main quest or scripted encounters? That the entire game is one big randomized encounter? There IS a story to the game. It's just bigger than the characters that you control. That doesn't make it not a party based game.

I'm saying that if you take "party based" to mean controlling multiple characters in (turn-based) combat, then XCOM:EU or the SNES Tactics Ogre or even the Super Robot Warriors series on GBA are all "party-based" games.

The standard has to involve a more precise definition that excludes those games. That's why we have to have some element of set characteriation - the best examples being BGII or PS:T.

As for the game having a story, I'm not contesting that.

[In Exile]

[Double Post]

[rafoquinha]

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.

 

There is a lot of dialogue. A lot!
There is also tons of co-op videos on youtube.

 

Oh, and the game has been remastered last year and launched on Steam.

 

And there is neverwinter nights too. Dialogue, story and combat... all in co-op. Made by bioware too.

 

It worked with these games, so it would work with DA. There will always be people that would love to play it this way

[Boss Fog]

The standard has to involve a more precise definition that excludes those games. That's why we have to have some element of set characteriation - the best examples being BGII or PS:T.

No it doesn't and no just because you keep saying there needs to be something more doesn't make it any more true.  There's no universal rule that the characters you control need deep characterization in order for it to be a party based game.  At the very least, the developers of Divinity disagree with you.  Taken from the description on Steam:

 

About the Game

Gather your party and get ready for a new, back-to-the-roots RPG adventure! Discuss your decisions with companions; fight foes in turn-based combat; explore an open world and interact with everything and everyone you see. Join up with a friend to play online in co-op and make your own adventures with the powerful RPG toolkit. 

[Reidbynature]

I think some form of light co-op could be an interesting/fun proposition for Dragon Age.  Though not something I'd want as a major part or crucial to the enjoyment of the game.  If it's non-invasive and completely optional and easy to grasp then I wouldn't be against playing Dragon Age with friends.

 

Also by co-op I think more along the lines of playing the main story together and not a horde mode addition which would just seem a bit needless imo.

[Harlot]

I just need one thing from it BioWare. Make it completely optional. I will play it after I finish the game. But god damn it don't force us to play it during SP campaign like you did with ME3. I think I speak for plenty of people when I say that most of us play your games to take a break from other people. Not play with them.

If it's optional it's +1 to the game. If it the game forces me to play co-op to get the most out of single player like with ME3 than it's a big minus.

Please. Make it completely optional.

[Kantr]

It's completely optional as it doesnt affect the story at all.

[rafoquinha]

Guys, Dragon Age is a co-op game, but you play co-op with AI's. It would be awesome to at least have the option to replace these AI's for real people. Why not?

No one would be forced to play with ṕeople anyway.

 

The thing I love about co-op is that you can always choose not to play it in co-op. But when a game is single-player only there is nothing you can do. You have to play it alone!

[Harlot]

Guys, Dragon Age is a co-op game, but you play co-op with AI's. It would be awesome to at least have the option to replace these AI's for real people. Why not?

No one would be forced to play with ṕeople anyway.

 

The thing I love about co-op is that you can always choose not to play it in co-op. But when a game is single-player only there is nothing you can do. You have to play it alone!

"Option" is ok. It's not ok when it affects the SP game like MP did in ME3. I got burned on this game bad and really hope DA Inquisition doesn't repeat its mistakes.

I will play co-op after I finish the game and reach a satisfying ending. I don't want it messing with my SP experience. That said:

 

 

It's completely optional as it doesnt affect the story at all.

Kantr. Could you please provide me with a source on that?

[Boss Fog]

"Option" is ok. It's not ok when it affects the SP game like MP did in ME3. I got burned on this game bad and really hope DA Inquisition doesn't repeat its mistakes.

I will play co-op after I finish the game and reach a satisfying ending. I don't want it messing with my SP experience. That said:

 

Kantr. Could you please provide me with a source on that?

You can see for yourself.  Go take a look at the last few pages on the Twitter thread.

[Harlot]

Yeah. I just saw. Seems like they can still learn from their mistakes. Not cancelling the preorder just yet...

[rafoquinha]

CO-OP confirmed!!! Yay!!!!! Separate mode that wont affect single-player campaign!

[Shapeshifter777]

I would rather play competitive... with bots.

[wholegrain]

Well, just adding the option to let other players take control within a certain boundary would actually work. If they stray away, the AI could take over of the affected party member(s) until it is near the host.

[aTigerslunch]

Companions are co-op?!  Oh my, who'da thunk that bizarro up? 

 

I wont do co-op with other live players but yes, companions are co-oping technically. 

[Boss Fog]

I would rather play competitive... with bots.

Me too, actually.  I prefer PvP to co-op.

[aTigerslunch]

I changed my mind.  I would play with other players, in MP side, just not the SP side.

[In Exile]

No it doesn't and no just because you keep saying there needs to be something more doesn't make it any more true. There's no universal rule that the characters you control need deep characterization in order for it to be a party based game. At the very least, the developers of Divinity disagree with you. Taken from the description on Steam:
About the Game
Gather your party and get ready for a new, back-to-the-roots RPG adventure! Discuss your decisions with companions; fight foes in turn-based combat; explore an open world and interact with everything and everyone you see. Join up with a friend to play online in co-op and make your own adventures with the powerful RPG toolkit.

The developers can disagree with me all they like. Their hive mind murder robots aren't party members any more than XCOM toons are party members.

Final Fantasy tactics is not the same kind of game as BGII, and calling the former a party based game is a misnomer.

[Boss Fog]

The developers can disagree with me all they like. Their hive mind murder robots aren't party members any more than XCOM toons are party members.

Final Fantasy tactics is not the same kind of game as BGII, and calling the former a party based game is a misnomer.

You keep bringing up games that I'm not even talking about.  I'm talking about Divinity: Original Sin.  A game which you seem to literally have no knowledge of; first or second hand.  I'm just going to end the conversation by telling you that you're wrong.  Divinity Original Sin is very much a party driven game.  You start with 2 characters that you create and can hire up to 2 people (hirelings).  These hirelings are not just faceless mooks.  They are characters each with their own dispositions that will change depending on decisions you make.  At any point in the game except for combat, you can stop and talk to them and ask them questions about themselves.  In combat, you control their actions as if they were your own characters.

 

Regardless, I'm done having this conversation with you.  You have not played the game at hand and therefore have no real knowledge of it; you've shoved your bias fueled erroneous opinion at me as if somehow I'm supposed to just accept it as a fact while at the same time providing absolutely no evidence to support the point you're trying to make.  You really should just watch a video of the game to get an actual idea of what I'm talking about; otherwise everything you say from here is just garbled gibberish trying to pass itself off as intelligent discussion.