2661 réponses à ce sujet

[strfish1]

Looks fun can't wait!!!

[Zu Long]

My only problem with multiplayer is how much developer resources (zots!) did it pull away from the main game?

And as long as multiplayer servers aren't on the same ones as the authentication servers. The last thing I want is to be unable to play DAI because tens of thousands of people are playing barely-playable multiplayer.

And how it's going to affect singleplayer. If it's an easy to obtain bonus, yay. If it's going to be super annoying, screw it.

 

The answers to your questions in order:

 

1. None. It had an entirely separate budget, and was worked on at a different facility.

 

2. No idea how servers are allocated, but I didn't have any problems playing ME3 the day it dropped.

 

3. It doesn't. At all. Per devs, MP has no effect on the single player experience.

[Wulfram]

Yeah, sorry, I saw that you'd answered someone else and thought about editing my post but figured I wouldn't be fast enough.

 

So my question then is what specific functionality are we worried about losing here? ME2 to ME3 single player pause and play stayed exactly the same despite the inclusion of multiplayer in ME3. We've seen multiple battle layouts in demos that encourage, if not require, the use of pausing and giving orders in order to effectively engage enemies. What are you thinking we're going to lose?

 

What I'm worried about losing is gameplay design that is happy to assume frequent use of pause and play.  Gameplay design that doesn't feel the need to add fiddly micro-management to individual characters so that the player doesn't get bored when controlling a single character.

 

(To be fair, I felt this was an issue with DA2 combat design too, so obviously this isn't something that can solely be attributed to MP.)

 

I don't feel I've seen such battle layouts in gameplay videos.  I mean, they include a pro forma "Here I'm putting my tank to a chokepoint", but that hasn't seemed very necessary, particularly considering aggro mechanics will probably group the enemies where-ever.

 

@Allan  I've just seen your post but it's after midnight so I'm going to bed

[cjones91]

I don't think that is fair. I actually understand why the idea of MP being added frightens them we all love DA and people worry that it's heading in a direction that will ruin what the DA series means to each of us. But, the game isn't out yet and we have people( on both sides freaking out ). I like MP but I also love the single player experience of the DA series all I want is for both groups to get a amazing game.

Same here,I just get surprised when I see other people bash others for not enjoying the type of game play they do.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think that it hits people harder is because people loved DAO and the story of DA. Alot felt disappointed by DA2 and for a lot of people DAI is the last straw or redemption for them. They want to love and have one of their favorite series shine. They have been burned my MP aspect being tacked on. Nothing can really change that now. Just it is pretty world-shaking to hear a MP with only just a few months away. Its like why were they keeping something this big hidden for the most part.

 

I want nothing more than for people to love DAI's single player.

 

 

The reality is that MP's announcement would've been bad regardless of when it happened.  Some of the same critics have, in the past, stated that it's mere inclusion would be a deal breaker.  If we had announced it earlier, then it'd just shift the concern to a different topic.

 

The solution is the game.  That's the only way we can regain the trust.  We'll either succeed or fail at it.

[TheodoricFriede]

Feel free to link me to it (or restate it) since a post like this doesn't tell me what your actual question was.

Done. Thanks very much.

[Iakus]

Feel free to help contribute to breaking the cycle.
 

I'm getting the distinct feeling I'm being told to shut up.

 

Fine...

[dutch_gamer]

Maybe because those game franchises are great enough without a unneeded multiplayer component.
 
I don't really get this attitude some multiplayer enthusiasts have towards single player only games,those who prefer to play alone aren't incapable of having friends,nor are they introverts.
 
I will say this for the first and only time:Not every single game needs multiplayer nor does every gamer feel like socializing.Let them have their games and enjoy your multiplayer,there's no need to force your preferences on those who don't want to or like playing online.

I disagree. Almost any game can use optional, and I repeat optional, multiplayer. Just because a game has optional multiplayer it doesn't mean a gamer is being forced to socialize. It is mainly a feature for gamers who are interested in being able to play multiplayer in the game they like. So no, I don't consider the reasoning of a franchise being single player or not all games needing multiplayer as valid reasoning if multiplayer is completely optional and non-impacting on the SP experience.

Just look at The Elder Scrolls series. Bethesda seems to have felt no need to offer multiplayer for their "single player" franchise and instead gamers interested in both got a weak version of that series in the form of an MMO. So the gamers interested in the series who are also interested in multiplayer got a bad game and have to pay for an extra game. Even in that franchise multiplayer could absolutely work without resorting to making a separate and weaker game experience mainly because some gamers hate multiplayer with a passion as soon as it is added as an optional component.

I have yet to see anyone who is for the inclusion of multiplayer forcing anyone who doesn't want to play multiplayer to play online. It is just an optional component and nothing more.

[In Exile]

Yes, they share systems. To take an extreme example: imagine if we created all new textures and art assets just for the MP, to ensure that MP things didn't have any effect on SP.


"Combat between a purely real-time horde mode and a real-time with pause tactical game should not be that compatible"

Why not? Upon what do you base your assumption here? Because when I watch our single player game, I have no problems imagining how it would play if the companions were all controlled by my friends. (I would be absolutely tickled pink if the game had campaign co-op. Campaign co-op is a force multiplier for me).


At the same time though, how productive is the talk? If I say "Yes these are for MP" does it help? If I say "No, there are other reasons we made this choice" do you believe me? It's not going to change. So is it about educating people? What is it exactly?

The reason the two systems are not compatible is the same reason that purely action oriented gameplay (ala Devil May Cry) is not compatible with purely turn-based RNG driven gameplay (ala XCOM:EU).

It is always possible to automate combos to have an auto-attack that ties in with an action attack (DA2 does this relatively well).

The problem is when we start optimizing combat at high difficulty levels. In an action game that is real time there is a great deal of focus on reflex gaming - and this means making sure latency in response is limited, that enemy challenges push your reflexes and reaction time etc. Whereas in a top-down isometric game the focus is much more on strategy and number crunching - if I make move A then they will make move B which will lead to a TPK, so I will make move C which forces them into D and I can finish it with E.

[Wirbelwind]

I'm getting the distinct feeling I'm being told to shut up.

 

Fine...

 

I think he was telling you to be the more mature one.

[cjones91]

I disagree. Almost any game can use optional, and I repeat optional, multiplayer. Just because a game has optional multiplayer it doesn't mean a gamer is being forced to socialize. It is mainly a feature for gamers who are interested in being able to play multiplayer in the game they like. So no, I don't consider the reasoning of a franchise being single player or not all games needing multiplayer as valid reasoning if multiplayer is completely optional and non-impacting on the SP experience.

Just look at The Elder Scrolls series. Bethesda seems to have felt no need to offer multiplayer for their "single player" franchise and instead gamers interested in both got a weak version of that series in the form of an MMO. So the gamers interested in the series who are also interested in multiplayer got a bad game and have to pay for an extra game. Even in that franchise multiplayer could absolutely work without resorting to making a separate and weaker game experience mainly because some gamers hate multiplayer with a passion as soon as it is added as an optional component.

I have yet to see anyone who is for the inclusion of multiplayer forcing anyone who doesn't want to play multiplayer to play online. It is just an optional component and nothing more.

Yet most are successful without it,I like RPGs with character customization...but that doesn't mean every single role playing game has to offer such options.

 

Many game features are optional,but that doesn't mean all games would really benefit from them.Some games don't need optional multiplayer to be good,and the best part of it all is there is already games that cater to your preferences.Let those who prefer single player games have the same courtesy.

[BananaBoy]

You know, I've given up trying to convince the people who hate multiplayer so much that they'll refrain from buying the game. They've already stated multiple times their opinions. Even if multiplayer and the single-player of DAI becomes a success, even if they are completely separated, even if the game receives good reviews, even if the game is a financial success, they will always cling onto their opinion because THEY DON'T WANT TO BE WRONG.

[Allan Schumacher]

The reason the two systems are not compatible is the same reason that purely action oriented gameplay (ala Devil May Cry) is not compatible with purely turn-based RNG driven gameplay (ala XCOM:EU).

It is always possible to automate combos to have an auto-attack that ties in with an action attack (DA2 does this relatively well).

The problem is when we start optimizing combat at high difficulty levels. In an action game that is real time there is a great deal of focus on reflex gaming - and this means making sure latency in response is limited, that enemy challenges push your reflexes and reaction time etc. Whereas in a top-down isometric game the focus is much more on strategy and number crunching - if I make move A then they will make move B which will lead to a TPK, so I will make move C which forces them into D and I can finish it with E.

 

Do you think that our Single Player is like XCOM while the Multiplayer is Devil May Cry?

 

I wouldn't consider a game like Devil May Cry to be anything like Dragon Age while unpaused.  The example has more confused me.

[cjones91]

You know, I've given up trying to convince the people who hate multiplayer so much that they'll refrain from buying the game. They've already stated multiple times their opinions. Even if multiplayer and the single-player of DAI becomes a success, even if they are completely separated, even if the game receives good reviews, even if the game is a financial success, they will always cling onto their opinion because THEY DON'T WANT TO BE WRONG.

I think that could apply to anyone who is stubborn.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm getting the distinct feeling I'm being told to shut up.

 

Fine...

 

I think he was telling you to be the more mature one.

 

I'm more saying "If people are being snarky to you, being snarky back doesn't help."  Both sides need to disengage along that perspective.  It seems we're at an impasse.  Both sides being loud about it to each other doesn't help.

[SofaJockey]

I'm getting the distinct feeling I'm being told to shut up.

Fine...

 

As Allan says ^^^   .

 

But if it turns out you were right all along when the game is released, I'll be the first to say 'Iakus said so'.

And if MP turns out to not impact SP and actually be a lot of fun, I hope you can at last rest your prior valid disappointment.

Time will tell...

[dutch_gamer]

Yet most are successful without it,I like RPGs with character customization...but that doesn't mean every single role playing game has to offer such options.
 
Many game features are optional,but that doesn't mean all games would really benefit from them.Some games don't need optional multiplayer to be good,and the best part of it all is there is already games that cater to your preferences.Let those who prefer single player games have the same courtesy.

There is a big difference between character customization and offering a single player and multiplayer experience. Character customization isn't actual gameplay.

There may already be games which offer multiplayer but this doesn't mean franchises gamers like should only always remain single player.

And what same courtesy? You are pretty much denying gamers who like both in their games to get multiplayer in the franchise they want because of no real reason. And no, I don't think multiplayer being offered with other games is a real reason. If optional multiplayer doesn't affect your single player experience in any way whatsoever there is no reason to not have it. The gamers who prefer a single player experience still have their single player experience even with optional multiplayer. Nothing is being taken away.

[cjones91]

There is a big difference between character customization and offering a single player and multiplayer experience. Character customization isn't actual gameplay.

There may already be games which offer multiplayer but this doesn't mean franchises gamers like should only always remain single player.

And what same courtesy? You are pretty much denying gamers who like both in their games to get multiplayer in the franchise they want because of no real reason. And no, I don't think multiplayer being offered with other games is a real reason. If optional multiplayer doesn't affect your single player experience in any way whatsoever there is no reason to not have it. The gamers who prefer a single player experience still have get their single player experience even with optional multiplayer. Nothing is being taken away.

I'm not denying anyone anything since I can't actually do so,there is a market for both single player and multiplayer games.I'm advocating that neither group forces their own preferences on the other.Would you like it if every single game had a feature you didn't want just because there are other people who do?Then you would understand why some have a aversion to in their opinion a unneeded multiplayer component in the games they enjoy.

[Dan Fango]

It's no surprise to me that Inquisition has a MP mode. Looks terrible. Again, no surprise!