2661 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Eh, let him go. The less irrational complaints about something that we havent played yet. The better

But it's like watching a carcrash in the making... We gotta do something 

[DiscreetAesthete]

oh holy crap this game is going to consume my life

 

(...i cant wait!!!)

[EmperorSahlertz]

You know what's funny? Plenty of people actually complained about the lack of MP in DA:O.

I remember that... Good times.. Back then it was probably also evil EA's fault for not allowing BioWare the creative freedom to add multiplayer.

[Kage]

Im going to DAMP a lot of time in multiplayer. Seems pretty fun!!

[Crackseed]

I don't think it was necessarily intentional misleading (though Chris Priestly's post on the change implies it was)  It could have been a simple screw-up.

 

But it was a screw-up that took months to fix, and the first I heard it called a mistake was by Alan only a couple of weeks ago.

 

But in any case, the real problem was that deliberately planned or honest mistake. we were repeated assured that it couldn't possibly happen.  Before, during, and after launch.  And yet it happened anyway.  And, as I said, took months to fix.  

 

And I'm seeing the same thing unfolding now.  "No, it can't possibly happen, they're totally separate..."

 

*nods* I see us basically just sitting on opposite sides of the fence. As I said initially, I respect and appreciate your opinion on it - I hope you are pleasantly surprised.

 

Until then, we are simply playing the waiting game for our respective reasons.

[LinksOcarina]

First of all, I'd have liked those options back, to be clear.
Second, we still couldn't know if they'd chosen to brought them back without MP. They didn't bring everything back from DAO even with feedback.

 

I'm more curious as to what type of options are you referring to? Most of the choices in Origins were pork, stuff that was there for no reason but to fatten the game out like trap-making, the double ups for Warriors/Rogues (which im glad they got rid of, made no sense to give them the same abilities) and the items and armor being...well...kind of pointless because the major sets  and named items were all you need.

 

If were really going to hold Origins up as the gold standard, we need to at least be honest and admit a lot of the stuff in the game had to go because it was not useful. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Yep. This is most likely the reason why warriors cannot dual wield anymore, why warriors cannot use bows, why rogues cannot use swords, why we have Focus, why healing and support magics are gimped, why the abilities are locked and only allowed up to 8 for consoles (won't be surprised if this holds true to PC as well)....

 

As for restricting the classes to make them unique...Why is it that armors are not restricted (you can technically wear any armor) but weapons are ? 

 

DA2 had the same weapon restrictions and had no Multiplayer.

 

Healing and Support magics have been changed because we wanted to add a strategic component to the exploration aspect that made health a resource to be managed.  This was stated as a goal internally probably as early as late 2011.

 

Armors are not restricted while weapons are because most of the abilities/feats feed into weapon types.  We'd have to make the ability trees for each class overlap (which we didn't want to do) or create custom abilities for the types (i.e. bow skills for a warrior).

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Let' see....

 

We cannot have :- 

 

- Weapon placement that makes sense and proper quivers. Floating back daggers  and shabby quivers anyone ?

 

- Decent weapon selection for rogues. Well, unless we count the DLC axes in DA2, there was nothing but daggers. No swords, no mauls. 

 

- Dual-weilding warriors or bow warriors. Evidently warriors are not weapon specialists and they can only either use sword & broad or two-handed weapons. All in the name of "making each class feel unique."

 

- Support and healing mages. Healing spells now use Focus. I don't know, my spirit healers never had to use such resources, they just used mana. 

 

- More than two armor slots.

 

- More than eight slots for skills for consoles and this most likely will happen to PC as well. 

 

- Modding toolset 

 

But...

 

We can have:- 

 

- A dungeon crawling MP mode...for loot..and...stuff...

 

What was the point of all those surveys or have a game called Dragon Age Origins which had a lot more abilities, weapons, spells, specializations ?

[.shea.]

I was hoping for a BG/IWD style campaign co-op, but this is much better than a horde mode clone. And that it doesn't affect the main game at all is fantastic, multiplayer should be it's own reward, if you need to 'reward' people for doing it then you're something wrong.

[LinksOcarina]

DA2 had the same weapon restrictions and had no Multiplayer.

 

Healing and Support magics have been changed because we wanted to add a strategic component to the exploration aspect that made health a resource to be managed.  This was stated as a goal probably as early as late 2011.

 

Armors are not restricted while weapons are because most of the abilities/feats feed into weapon types.  We'd have to make the ability trees for each class overlap (which we didn't want to do) or create custom abilities for the types (i.e. bow skills for a warrior).

 

I still say, Crossbows for Warriors man would be the way to go. 

[Wulfram]

Armors are not restricted while weapons are because most of the abilities/feats feed into weapon types.  We'd have to make the ability trees for each class overlap (which we didn't want to do) or create custom abilities for the types (i.e. bow skills for a warrior).

 

Well, you could allow auto attacks but not talents.

[Crackseed]

I certainly would have loved to see DW warriors return but it's not a deal breaker for me in any way. 

 

Archery just screams rogue only to me at this point though.

[SmilesJA]

Worst news ever....

 

Best news ever!!!!! Multiplayer looks great!

[ElitePinecone]

And I'm seeing the same thing unfolding now.  "No, it can't possibly happen, they're totally separate..."

 

At some point this irrational paranoia has to start cracking, though.

 

Why would they do that again? Why risk another, bigger backlash? What company deliberately goes out and lies to people multiple times after an initial misunderstanding or mistake cost them enormous amounts of goodwill?

 

What part of this is so hard to understand and accept?

 

User

Does affect any of the single player story? I.e. Strength of the Inquisition to get better outcomes for ending/or other plots

 

Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw

Nope. No story impact, aside from themes.

 

 

John Epler ‏@eplerjc 

To clarify, playing MP vs. not playing MP will have no impact on your SP experience.

 

 

Mark Darrah ‏@BioMarkDarrah 

And no, singleplayer content is NOT locked behind MP.

[soren4ever]

I'm honestly not surprised and was expecting this announcement. It looks fun and its a free dlc, so maybe it won't affect sp at all. As long as there is no "Galactic Readiness" mechanic trying to handcuff sp and mp together. As long as I don't end up playing it because I feel like I have to in order to get the best outcome in SP, I'll be happy.

[Dr. Rush]

I really wish people would get over the "all zots are the same" argument. No, MP doesn't directly equate with the things you wish were in SP. That is not how budgets or teams or zots work, yet that doesn't stop countless people from spewing that nonsense. 

 

Anyway, I am surprised that anyone else is surprised with MP. Didn't you all see how successful ME3 MP was? It was a smash hit, both critically and commercially. After ME3 MP there was no way that DAI wouldn't have MP. Also, plan on MP being in future Bioware games too. Jade Empire 2? Yeah it will have MP. The new IP from Edmonton, it will have MP. Mass Effect 4 will have MP too. This is now a thing and its not going away as long as it is successful. 

[Steelcan]

Not excited about this but not surprised

[Crackseed]

I think some fans are just a touch more jaded/wary than we are Pinecone. I don't fault them when they are at least fair/reasonable in their discussion about it. What rankles me is the subset of "fans" that seem to think MP is just being added to screw them over or draw in some obscure "CoD RPG" gamer that doesn't really exist.

[Allan Schumacher]

Why have MP? Because EA loves MP

 

To be fair, I like MP as well.  (I have played BG, BG2, NWN, ME3, and SWTOR via MP.... and that's just BioWare).

[KaiserShep]

This thread puts my mind at ease regarding MP's effect on SP. I'll probably end up creating a character or two, because the option is there and I like to select things, but it's a relief that there won't be any arbitrary nonsense like there was for ME3.

[N7recruit]

In almost all single player games I am a serial pauser.  Always have been always will be.  When I decided to try out ME3 mp I was VERY concerned about a no pause dynamic.  I was totally unsure if I could pull it off at all.  And as with about 90% of the people that tried it who were pausers we all sucked....for a number of games.  But got better at it and better still until we became decent at it.  It is amazing how much your overall play improves in a single player game after playing the no pause for while.  I went back to ME3 single player and was a vastly better player even if I still paused.

Oh but I like real time games as well, probably better @ them. ME3 was easy peasy on insanity, so the grand total of 2 ME3MP Match's I played didn't help me improve that much  . 

 

I didn't like the MP in that game because there are FAR better shooter's on the market IMO. Plus I prefer Competitive Multiplayer games, at least on line. Co-op is only good with Buddies, Couch Co-op is the best though.

 

DA:I is a strategy game (IMO) & that's what I want to play, so I won't go anyway near the multiplayer mode because 1) that's not why I'm here & 2) there are Better Hack & Slash games I could be playing instead.

 

Again More power to the people who are pumped for it, it's just not the type of MP I would enjoy for DA:I.   

[Fiery Phoenix]

To be fair, I like MP as well.  (I have played BG, BG2, NWN, ME3, and SWTOR via MP.... and that's just BioWare).

Allan, can please you chime in on this?

[Vapaa]

This is true, but if it only gave you small bonuses to loot, money or maybe materials, it would probably feel less mandatory than ME3's multiplayer, and it would give people who wanted to do multiplayer a slight SP bonus. 

 

That would kind defeat the point of SP crafting relying on a finite (albeit quite large) amount of resources.

[ElitePinecone]

I think some fans are just a touch more jaded/wary than we are Pinecone. I don't fault them when they are at least fair/reasonable in their discussion about it. What rankles me is the subset of "fans" that seem to think MP is just being added to screw them over or draw in some obscure "CoD RPG" gamer that doesn't really exist.

 

There's being jaded, and then there's being paranoid to the point of absurdity.

 

Anyone can look at the FAQ and developer statements and realise that the one big thing Bioware want to get across is that MP will have no story impact on SP, period.

 

I don't care how much ME3 ruined their childhoods, people who wilfully ignore that are behaving incredibly weirdly.