And everything sucks if you only see the negatives.
I've defended ME3 and DA2 for a lot of things, and I still don't see the positives in this. In fact, a lot of previously questionable announcements look decidedly worse. There's the chance that the SP will be damn near perfect (or at least Origins tier) but looking at the class system, the equipment system, and the eight slot ability lock, it's a hell of a lot shakier.
Well, what's more important? MP not affecting SP or MP making you feel like you're doing something in relation to SP?
They said that our advisors would tell us the missions in MP and it would flow with the game. It's kind of the best of both, IMO.
I just want the multiplayer to have a point,it does'nt need to affect SP and vice versa.
I've defended ME3 and DA2 for a lot of things, and I still don't see the positives in this. In fact, a lot of previously questionable announcements look decidedly worse. There's the chance that the SP will be damn near perfect (or at least Origins tier) but looking at the class system, the equipment system, and the eight slot ability lock, it's a hell of a lot shakier.
I remember SP elitests claiming these as great victories for SP. "Wow Biower is really committed to making the upgrade system count. I have to be really smart about how I upgrade and approach combat!" and "Wow what a great crafting idea! Like Amalur but not junk! yay SP!"
I just want the multiplayer to have a point,it does'nt need to affect SP and vice versa.
I wonder if this will be like ME3, were in multiplayer you only have access to 3 abilities and 4 items. While in the SP game you still had the full quickbar, and could access every ability you had at the press of a button.
What could that be without affecting SP though?
I think they're talking about story/motivation elements. As in a reason for being at each location doing the things the group of players is doing.
I remember SP elitests claiming these as great victories for SP. "Wow Biower is really committed to making the upgrade system count. I have to be really smart about how I upgrade and approach combat!" and "Wow what a great crafting idea! Like Amalur but not junk! yay SP!"
I don't think I've ever said the crafting system was a good idea, with the sole exception of making later-tier versions of early armors. The only time a crafting system is good is if the entire game is designed around it (the Summon Night Swordcraft Story series, for example) otherwise it just winds up nerfing exploration entirely and making merchants absolutely useless.
And DA2's weapon limitations were always an absolute disaster. DAI isn't even changing that one iota.
Generally from what read basic idea behind most of it is okay but the one thing that sounds very concerning to me is if you pug teammates and no-one picks a specific class then you have to quit midway through because content is locked out based on class composition of the party going by IGN's video. That sounds horrible to me, wasting someones time like that when they have no control over what someone else chooses for their class so could end up prevented from completing the MP session because of it. I don't know if IGN simply got it wrong and I don't want to read 33 pages of this thread to find out but if IGN statement is true then that's a big downside to the mode.
What could that be without affecting SP though?
Have a tangible objective in the MP itself,for example AC's multiplayer had players being trained by Abstergo and was connected to the overall story.
Generally from what read basic idea behind most of it is okay but the one thing that sounds very concerning to me is if you pug teammates and no-one picks a specific class then you have to quit midway through because content is locked out based on class composition of the party going by IGN's video. That sounds horrible to me, wasting someones time like that when they have no control over what someone else chooses for their class so could end up prevented from completing the MP session because of it. I don't know if IGN simply got it wrong and I don't want to read 33 pages of this thread to find out but if IGN statement is true then that's a big downside to the mode.
Unless I'm mistaken, that's not content but loot/treasure being locked off. Kind of like how having to bring a rogue along to unlock chests.
I think they're talking about story/motivation elements. As in a reason for being at each location doing the things the group of players is doing.
I remember SP elitests claiming these as great victories for SP. "Wow Biower is really committed to making the upgrade system count. I have to be really smart about how I upgrade and approach combat!" and "Wow what a great crafting idea! Like Amalur but not junk! yay SP!"
To those people I say:
Have a tangible objective in the MP itself,for example AC's multiplayer had players being trained by Abstergo and was connected to the overall story.
Generally from what read basic idea behind most of it is okay but the one thing that sounds very concerning to me is if you pug teammates and no-one picks a specific class then you have to quit midway through because content is locked out based on class composition of the party going by IGN's video. That sounds horrible to me, wasting someones time like that when they have no control over what someone else chooses for their class so could end up prevented from completing the MP session because of it. I don't know if IGN simply got it wrong and I don't want to read 33 pages of this thread to find out but if IGN statement is true then that's a big downside to the mode.
I think they were just saying you may miss some content, like a hidden chest or something, because only certain classes can get into certain areas.
It's not like you can't still complete the mission or dungeon or whatever.
I think they were just saying you may miss some content, like a hidden chest or something, because only certain classes can get into certain areas.
It's not like you can't still complete the mission or dungeon or whatever.
And its most likely that chest is an extension of the "store" where you get a free set of items, probably all marginally useful mid-tier.
Have a tangible objective in the MP itself,for example AC's multiplayer had players being trained by Abstergo and was connected to the overall story.
So just pretend the chars in DA:I MP are training for the espionage missions they get sent on SP.
You keep bringing up AC's MP as one that has a "point", but judging by your definition of "having a point", AC's mp is just as "pointless" as what DA:I mp is shaping up to be. It has no bearing on the main story and its only connected to the SP by being in the same universe, nothing you do in it is referenced or has an impact on the SP story, same as what we know of DA:I mp.
Hell, you could argue that since it's all simulated stuff it's even more "pointless".
Thats the whole theme of the MP.
"Inquisitor, we need to send some soldiers to go to this area"
*sends soldiers which you can "play" in MP*
"The soldiers were successful!" Woo!
"The soldiers were captured and died" Awh shucks
Thats the whole theme of the MP.
MP tying into SP was a damn great idea. It was implemented poorly in ME3 with the best ending fiasco and thus Bioware scrapped the entire concept in its next game. Tying MP into SP in a game like DAI could work on so many levels. SMH thanks anti MP BSN.
I have questions:
Is MP cross-platform?
Do MP and SP share the same mechanics?
Do MP and SP share the same UI?
As long as no SP content is locked behind MP content (I don't even approve of SP content being locked behind SP content, like NG+), and the SP is balanced to suit the lack of MP play, I would have no objection.MP tying into SP was a damn great idea. It was implemented poorly in ME3 with the best ending fiasco and thus Bioware scrapped the entire concept in its next game. Tying MP into SP in a game like DAI could work on so many levels. SMH thanks anti MP BSN.
Retour en haut