60 réponses à ce sujet

[cronshaw]

Mass Effect 3's Multiplayer was successful, as you concede in your OP, and yet Bioware still decided to make their largest SP game ever

that seems to run directly contrary to your argument

[Zjarcal]

I would have formed it better if I could have but summing an entire argument up in one line is a bit of a struggle at times. That's why I did clarify it with the first sentence. If it makes you feel better I can once again say I don't pretend or claim to speak for the entire community but simply that I believe multiplayer could hurt the series in the long run.

Replace "us" with "the series" and I wouldn't even have brought this up in the first place.

Anyway, I get your point, in fact I talked about this with a friend a few days ago, but I view from a different perspective. The costs of making the MP modes of DA or ME are nowhere near as high as those of the SP, while the profits they bear are very likely quite high even in comparison to SP profits. While it may be hard to sway a publisher into funding a SP only game that will barely be profitable, adding a relatively (keyword being "relatively") inexpensive MP mode that boosts the profits by a tremendous magnitude, makes it a much easier sell. Anything that helps them keep EA's pockets happy while still allowing them to create the content they want to create is a good thing in my book.

Now if the concern is that Bioware will simply go "oh screw SP story driven content, too much effort", err, I just don't see that happening ever. Even in their MP franchises or modes they make the effort to inject story driven content, it's not something I see them ever dropping.

[Eelectrica]

The main SP game looks amazing this is a like nice little dessert. You can skip the dessert if you want.
or skip the main course and only have the dessert.

I'll probably end up having more 'dessert' than I think.

I do worry the next step is an MMO DA game though but its also pointless to worry about the things we can't control.

as long as they don't abandon the SP game that'll be awesome. And no microtransactions in SP either. Paid story based DLC is the way to go if they wish to expand the game further.
At the end of the day SP and MP can co exist.

[theflyingzamboni]

Baldur's Gate series and NWN all had multiplayer WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW??

[Cyonan]

The main SP game looks amazing this is a like nice little dessert. You can skip the dessert if you want.
or skip the main course and only have the dessert.

I'll probably end up having more 'dessert' than I think.

I do worry the next step is an MMO DA game though but its also pointless to worry about the things we can't control.

as long as they don't abandon the SP game that'll be awesome. And no microtransactions in SP either. Paid story based DLC is the way to go if they wish to expand the game further.
At the end of the day SP and MP can co exist.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about a MMO Dragon Age on account of the fact that BioWare is already running one MMO, and they are among the most expensive type of game to make and maintain.

[Loki_344]

Define 'successful.' Multiplayer doesn't require cinematics, a ton of voice work, or massive environments. If multiplayer costs less to make but makes the same amount of money, it's more profitable.

The other side of that coin is that the MP would be extremely unlikely to attract the same or even a significant amount of players if it was released as a stand alone product. Bioware doesn't have the pedigree or the goodwill to sell a co-op multiplayer game on its own merits, especially when heavy hitters like Destiny and Ass Creed are releasing in the same timeframe. If DA MP does end up having a high number of regular microtransaction gorging active players it'll be because the single player's quality, hype, and production values brought them to the table in the first place. That's why EA is putting so many resources behind the single player, because its the main attraction of the game and will hopefully work as the bait so EA can spring the trap and bleed them dry.

[JosephShrike]

I remember back when DA:O was first announced and running up to its release and after that people were constantly asking for/about co-op. The same thing with Mass Effect. People like playing with friends, and this multiplayer offers the ability to do that. Even more so, I think (based on what we've seen), then Mass Effect 3 multiplayer. Even if it is just a carbon copy of ME3 MP (which it is not just on the limited information so far), I would say that I will enjoy it as I did that MP.

 

While I know many people don't want and won't play any kind of multiplayer, the fact is that I like to play games with my friends. It's the only reason I still have Payday 2, for example. While I definately don't want to play every game with my friends, I like having the ability to run around in the DA universe with them. I also very much enjoy the DA single player experience. I eagerly awaited Dragon Age; Origins for years, through all the reskins and those like three years where nothing was said about the game (I'm sure plenty of people remember that) and I also really enjoyed Dragon Age 2 for all its undeniable faults. I enjoy the stories in both games, stories which I believe could be more negatively impacted by co-op than any additional mode-style multiplayer could ever do. As was mentioned previously, co-op/multiplayer was always a part of the isometric RPG games and to have Dragon Age, the spirtual successor to those franchises, not have it was always something that seemed strange. When considering it, however, I adamently believe that there would be a great disconnect and a lack of impact for the story and the choices in it if a co-op mode was available in the single player game.

 

Again, I like playing games with my friends. I like playing games by myself. To have a 'dungeon-crawler' style multiplayer mode to one of my favorite game series seems like a no brained. I even like the format they're rolling it out more then the standard horde modes and Vs modes many games do. I'm looking forward to it and I honestly think it will be beneficial to the franchise, assuming the story is done well. After all, most people remember the multiplayer and the terrible ending/consequences of the other two games of Mass Effect 3. How cool would it be if most people remember DA:I for the multiplayer and the awesome ending/consequences of the other two games? I'm also one of the few people (or at least few vocal people) who would enjoy some kind of tie in between the multiplayer and single player, even if it's just like gold or items (I agree with everyone about the stupid Readiness thing), but you don't see the complaint of no connection being thrown around much so it's just something I intend to eat and forget about.

 

Bottom line, I think multiplayer was both inevitable and beneficial to the Dragon Age series, and I'm glad they're doing it the way they're doing it. As was mentioned, multiplayer doesn't take that many resources to implement given how they're doing it, especially since balancing is less of a major issue in co-op style multiplayer. Additionally, there is an issue in diminishing returns to single player content, IE even if they took every resource they put into multiplayer and put it into single player, it's unlikely there would be much additional content beyond a map or two and a few additional enemies. Certainly nothing with any story behind it. Now, if it comes out and it is obvious that the single player suffered from multiplayer development, I'll be right there with everyone else sharpening my pitchfork, but for THIS moment, all the concerns I hear are people basing them largely on their biggest fears and they are generally unfounded. If it is bad, it's bad and there ain't nothing that can be done about it now, but we should all be calm and at least wait until we actually see/play what we are getting before rising up in arms over it all.

[CronoDragoon]

With Mass effect 3 it could be argued that the multiplayer was already more successful then the singleplayer campaign. Not because the multiplayer was that good but simply because fans were unhappy with how the series ended. If Dragon Age ever does the same mistake and mess up the story in this or a future game it's entirely possible that the main focus for Bioware will eventually shift to the multiplayer part of their games. After all if the multiplayer start to bring in a different crowd that stick around longer and/or the singleplayer fans are unhappy to begin with why not put greater focus on the part that brings in more money/success? Especially with micro-transactions.

 

The flaw I see in this logic is that if SP screws up enough to warrant shifting the focus of the series to MP, then the alternative in a world without MP would have been for either the SP budget to be drastically reduced, or for the series to die in totality like Dead Space did.

 

In other words, it seems to me your concern isn't really about multiplayer at all, and is instead contingent on the devs screwing up SP, which would have negative repercussions for SP regardless of MP.

[Deflagratio]

That's not the point if you read what I wrote but lets make it simple then. If Multiplayer ever proves more successful of the two it could simply lead to more focus on it in future games and Bioware eventually turning into a co-op multiplayer focused company in order to hunt better sales and microtransactions. EA told their companies in the past to change direction in game in order to get more sales and often to put greater multiplayer focus then earlier titles. Tiberum Twilight, Bullfrog with Dungeon Keeper comes to mind to name a few.

Just because multiplayer has no affect on this game it won't change what happen in the next one. I can't imagine EA will ever allow Bioware to make a singleplayer only game ever again, can you?

 

The Slippery Slope is strong with this one.

[Star fury]

You should ask Bioware why they let the multiplayer to influence so much their vaunted "rich stories, unforgettable characters and vast worlds".

[schall_und_rauch]

First of all, thanks for expressing your concern in a respectful manner. I don't agree with your opinion, but I understand your worries.

Regarding the specific points:

 

Multiplayers buying the game who don't care for SP: That will mean that the game will benefit from their money both by the purchase price and by microtransactions. From the first, you will benefit directly, because solo play will have a bigger budget.

 

Direction of the game: Bioware makes story-heavy, decision oriented games. One of their USPs is the whole romance schtick. All that is thrown out of the window in a purely MP environment (unless you count shad0wkill0r52 having "hawt sex" with eliter0xx0r1072 -- i.e. making frantic jumping movements). They don't need a whole team of writers for MP. And they would lose most of their existing playerbase by focusing on MP.

 

Mass effect 3 ending and MP: I think these are largely unrelated. I feel the quality of DA II would have been attributed to MP if it had an MP component. However, it lacked quality even though it was a pure SP game.

 

effect MP has on the game: shared ressources. You come up with new models, areas and artworks for both SP and MP and finance half of it from microtransactions and the other half from purchase price. Everybody wins!

 

effect on combat system: yeah, that might be a tacky one. On one hand, they are putting tactical cam back into the game. We just have to see how things work out. I still think and hope it will be good but there is a good chance that aspects of previous games -- use of dozens of skills -- is left to competitors like Divinity and Pillars of Eternity. Even though I think all the buffing/debuffing prior to combat was more of an annoyance rather than a sign of mastery of the game. I wouldn't miss it if that busywork was simply handled more elegantly.

[simpatikool]

I see it from the other perspective. The way Bioware is currently implementing MP in the current game is adding tremendous Intellectual Property and Story Telling to the Dragon Age Franchise. It is prolonging the game life. That helps secure the companies revenue, if not through sales then possible DLC and or Micro transactions. Why do people think that is a bad thing? People working and a Company making a profit means that the game will be supported and future games will be developed. Bioware is taking a lot of pains to get the mix right to appeal to multiple generations and play styles all while delivering a top notch product. These are all good things. I don't just want to play this game, I want games in the future as well. Games maybe even better, or bigger. To me, those are all great things.

[Patersonski]

A lot of long posts here that I haven't read so apologies if this has already been said, but with regard to your "slippery slope" argument I don't think you have anything to worry about. I'm no expert on video games but I know companies pretty well and they are extremely reluctant to abandon their core competencies. In the case of BioWare their brand is built around great storytelling in immersive single player experiences. For them to stop doing that would be like MacDonalds deciding not to sell hamburgers anymore. The other company that obviously matters is EA. To account for the fickle tastes of gamers they've clearly adopted a portfolio approach: sport games, shooters, RPGs, etc. BioWare checks the RPG box for them and Battlefield, primarily, checks the MP box. BioWare might dabble in MP tack-ons like DAMP and ME3MP, and limited scope stand alone games like Shadow Realms, but it doesn't make business sense for EA to try to turn BioWare into DICE-Lite and complete for players with Battlefield.

[Cirvante]

Well that's just like your opinion man

[Maria Caliban]

The other side of that coin is that the MP would be extremely unlikely to attract the same or even a significant amount of players if it was released as a stand alone product. Bioware doesn't have the pedigree or the goodwill to sell a co-op multiplayer game on its own merits, especially when heavy hitters like Destiny and Ass Creed are releasing in the same timeframe. If DA MP does end up having a high number of regular microtransaction gorging active players it'll be because the single player's quality, hype, and production values brought them to the table in the first place. That's why EA is putting so many resources behind the single player, because its the main attraction of the game and will hopefully work as the bait so EA can spring the trap and bleed them dry.

BioWare is currently working on a co-op multiplayer only game called ShadowRealm, not to mention [Sekret Project].

That said, yes, multiplayers success is greatly helped by having a fat, AAA single player game attached to it.

[Sasie]

A lot of long posts here that I haven't read so apologies if this has already been said, but with regard to your "slippery slope" argument I don't think you have anything to worry about. I'm no expert on video games but I know companies pretty well and they are extremely reluctant to abandon their core competencies. In the case of BioWare their brand is built around great storytelling in immersive single player experiences. For them to stop doing that would be like MacDonalds deciding not to sell hamburgers anymore. The other company that obviously matters is EA. To account for the fickle tastes of gamers they've clearly adopted a portfolio approach: sport games, shooters, RPGs, etc. BioWare checks the RPG box for them and Battlefield, primarily, checks the MP box. BioWare might dabble in MP tack-ons like DAMP and ME3MP, and limited scope stand alone games like Shadow Realms, but it doesn't make business sense for EA to try to turn BioWare into DICE-Lite and complete for players with Battlefield.

Going to toss a few more random thoughts into this thread since it's still alive and going. I know many of you don't agree with me but I'm quite happy we at least can have a civil conversation about it.

That said Bioware already changed their direction quite a bit and story telling is almost the one thing left untouched and even then they experimented quite a bit with it in Mass effect 3 with less choices and more auto dialog, considering they said years ago that they were seeking larger audiences and even wanted to draw in the crowds that cared little about roleplaying games I wonder where all this will stop.

The problem I have is that I don't so much think that if the story is not good enough or don't interest enough people they will move the focus to multiplayer. Instead I think they created a situation where those elements I personally care for is already starting to become reluctant due to the shift of focus on the games. All of this already happened as well so the question now is where it will all end. Look at Mass effect 2, when they already had a perfect mix of the old and the new that most people found amazing they didn't stop there but instead took it one step further in Mass effect 3 and resulted in a game that less people enjoyed. The hunt for first time customers seems to be more important then the long term fans at times and that does have an impact on the storytelling as well.

Dragon Age despite being a huge success did not get a huge deal of time to make it's expansion and sequel. Awakening was underwhelming and Dragon Age 2 even more so. Not only that but they changed things up almost right away and started copying things over from Mass effect or a more console friendly userface despite the fact that Origins sold well the way it was. 

At any rate when Dragon Age 2 was less then perfect they didn't return to what Origins did but instead made a sort of mix between the two and on top of that added on the Mass effect 3 multiplayer. It honestly sounds to me like Bioware is still hunting for the larger fanbases and try to draw in new fans even if it means giving up what the old ones liked to make it happen. They don't seem to ever be happy with what they actually have right now even after a big success like Origins or Mass effect 2 and that attitude I believe is what can cause the singleplayer to eventually fail just like it did in ME3.

I'm not saying companies should not try new things but the way they keep changing the series up with each title it's hard to know exactly what they are aiming for in the end. I don't think they will ever reach the 25 million sales with a cinematic strong storytelling game with choices without removing most things that makes it a interactive cinematic story along the way.

 

 

Well that's just like your opinion man

 

 

Thoughts expressed on forums tend to be that yes. I'm sure we could all sit around discussing things without expressing any opinions what so ever but what would be the fun/point in that?

[JosephShrike]

At any rate when Dragon Age 2 was less then perfect they didn't return to what Origins did but instead made a sort of mix between the two and on top of that added on the Mass effect 3 multiplayer. It honestly sounds to me like Bioware is still hunting for the larger fanbases and try to draw in new fans even if it means giving up what the old ones liked to make it happen. They don't seem to ever be happy with what they actually have right now even after a big success like Origins or Mass effect 2 and that attitude I believe is what can cause the singleplayer to eventually fail just like it did in ME3.

 

Except the problems with Mass Effect 3 went beyond anything the multiplayer did or didn't do. The shift in writing style and direction was a big part, as well as the transition between the games from high sci-fi to more low sci-fi to a weird mix between the two. I would actual suggest that MOST of the writing in Mass Effect 3 was mediocre with very limited ability shown to create a gripping narrative. It simply broke everything into sections and played the same emotional beats through each one. Lazy isn't the right word, but to suggest multiplayer was to blame is mistaken. There were so many flaws and issues people take with that game, and multiplayer is hardly one of the major ones.

 

It seems ot me that your issue is less with multiplayer and more with developers changing games that you like. As I mentioned before, I thought that Dragon Age 2 was far superior then the first one in terms of creating a personal narrative, and its failings in my mind were on the technical side of things, what with the reused environments and magical enemy spawns. But even using your Mass Effect 2 example, the difference between ME2 and ME1 is staggering. Many people consider ME2 to be the best game in that franchise (many also like ME1, just so I'm not overly generalizing) and that was created with massive changes from the first game. Slippery slope as an argument in general is a logical fallacy for the very reasons you're showing. It tends to assume that just because A happened, B, C and D will happen also, even though there is nothing truly connecting them all. Quite frankly, I think what you are concerned about in this specific discussion is fairly ambiguous and not really evidenced by any games. When multiplayer is a seperate experience, as it is in this game, it's easy to avoid. When it's also integrated into the world, as it is in this game (and was not in, say, SpecOps: The Line), it makes it easy to enjoy if you wish to. Again, it's early, so nobody really knows what will happen, but what they have presented shows, in my opinion, an actual awareness of the single player narrative and that informs upon the multiplayer. That's a good thing.

[Maria Caliban]

Dragon Age: Origins might have seemed like a huge success, but given the time it was in development, it probably wasn't the sort of profit EA was looking for. I wouldn't be surprised if DA II made more money despite selling fewer copies.

In a previous topic, you suggested you'd be happy with BioWare and other RPG studios making smaller games. Well... DA II was a smaller game than DA:O or Inquisition. I enjoyed it (more than DA:O) but wouldn't want BioWare locked into making one Dragon Age game a year.

Anyways, it seems like BioWare is making a broad number of design changes you dislike, and you're worried that multiplayer is acerbating them. I think that's a legit viewpoint.

[Sasie]

Dragon Age: Origins might have seemed like a huge success, but given the time it was in development, it probably wasn't the sort of profit EA was looking for. I wouldn't be surprised if DA II made more money despite selling fewer copies.

In a previous topic, you suggested you'd be happy with BioWare and other RPG studios making smaller games. Well... DA II was a smaller game than DA:O or Inquisition. I enjoyed it (more than DA:O) but wouldn't want BioWare locked into making one Dragon Age game a year.

Anyways, it seems like BioWare is making a broad number of design changes you dislike, and you're worried that multiplayer is acerbating them. I think that's a legit viewpoint.

I quite liked Dragon Age 2 to tell the truth, story wise in many ways it was just as good as Origins. It allowed a more personal touch on a story in ways many Bioware games doesn't have it's just the small step little but little that does worry me exactly like you said. But there is no real need for me to keep repeating my arguments more then I already have so I think I will leave it with this, you almost summed up my own opinion better then I could.

[Cyonan]

Dragon Age: Origins might have seemed like a huge success, but given the time it was in development, it probably wasn't the sort of profit EA was looking for. I wouldn't be surprised if DA II made more money despite selling fewer copies.

In a previous topic, you suggested you'd be happy with BioWare and other RPG studios making smaller games. Well... DA II was a smaller game than DA:O or Inquisition. I enjoyed it (more than DA:O) but wouldn't want BioWare locked into making one Dragon Age game a year.

Anyways, it seems like BioWare is making a broad number of design changes you dislike, and you're worried that multiplayer is acerbating them. I think that's a legit viewpoint.

 

I think the issue is that nobody can really prove one way or the other which way BioWare is going to take their MP in games and if they'll shift focus or not. It's a legit concern and fine if somebody thinks that they could do that, but when your answer to most things are "It's just my opinion" there is very little discussion value in that so everything just ends up going in circles.

 

I wouldn't mind BioWare putting out smaller games more frequently if that's the route they wanted to go, but not of the quality that Dragon Age 2 was at. I don't think it was a bad game, but definitely not their best work.

 

I will say that at least they're trying to improve combat in their games. As good as the stories of the classic RPGs might be, I usually end up feeling like those games just fall apart once the combat begins. Mass Effect 3 was actually a competent shooter on its own despite the fumble on the story while I don't feel either of the previous two games were. For me Mass Effect 2 ended up in this weird place of reduced RPG mechanics but still mediocre gunplay.

[Angloassassin]

Just tossing my hat into the ring - but I believe in many of the videos concerning the Multiplayer; they've stated that it was developed side-by-side with the Single Player, mainly as a testing arena for monsters, tactics, animations, abilities, and environments.

 

So - on the whole, it was a way for them to tweak and mold the Single Player experience better, and given how successful the ME3 MP was (With me investing 200hrs into it and maybe 80-120hrs in the SP, despite loving the SP to pieces) I think that this is only going to be good for the game. 

They've stated that there will be no pay walls, there will be free DLC, you can do everything in-game -- meaning no Micro-Transactions needed (If you prefer), There will be class dynamics as in: Warrior A, can knock down Wall B, where as Rogue C, can unlock Door D. As well as party banter, as unlike the Idle dialogue that ME3's MP had with the various characters, these will be characters with backstory's and personalities.

 

So - I don't think it's going to be a detriment on the whole. 

Especially since they said that Completionist playthroughs will be 150-200+ hours.

[Broganisity]

Before I begin I would like to say that this is a good topic for discussion, even before the game comes out. I also would like to say that I am a supporter of more Multiplayer aspects in the franchise's future.

The Dragon Age universe is wide and wonderful, and one I would like to see venture further into the world of Multi-player gaming. To explain this feeling more, I'm going to have to talk about Mass Effect, apologies on that. Mass Effect Three was a solid conclusion to the Shepard Trilogy (I liked the original ending, even in it's vagueness), but my fondest memories of this game are not interactions between characters such as Grunt or Zaeed, but of the Multiplayer.

Charging across a Tuchunka battlefield and backhanding a cannibal away from my downed Quarian teammate, only for them to later save my hide after I got reckless and charged a Banshee. The satisfaction of novaing a group of enemies just hit by a teammates Warp. Huddled side-by-side in cover with a Turian, before giving each other a sort of 'nod' before both climbing over and jumping into the thick of combat...I didn't need the characters talking to one another...heck, I didn't even need to exchange words with the players I was with (we did, though. There was laughter and comradery from Wave one to Extraction): In those moments I wasn't playing someone else's story; I was creating my own story alongside others...or maybe I was part of their story?

I think the reason I enjoyed the multi-player far more was not so much the gameplay as it was the fact that I could finally make my own mark on a world I had become enamored with, even if it was all just in my head. In Mass Effect I was Shepard, but in Multiplayer? I got to be me...even if 'me' was a krogan running around smacking enemies, teammates, and inanimate objects with his face while we both laughed like psychopaths. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that multiplayer is more than just playing a game with people, but the prospect of joining other people in a rich and vibrant world is a major draw-in for me...the fact that the gameplay itself is fun is icing on the cake.

Circling back to actually talking about Dragon Age, I find it's world more lively/diverse than Mass Effect's, and the ability to play alongside others in it is easily the main reason I'll pick up Inquisition. If the multiplayer is as any good as it was in Mass Effect 3 (while retaining that Dragon Age feel), I can only hope that they keep up the trend for future games.

...Final note, though? I'm in opposition of multiplayer only ventures into these worlds: I like to partake in jolly co-operation, but there are just some stories you can only venture into in Single Player; the type of Story that Bioware excells at crafting.

[AwesomeLion]

Considering how many actually showed up here only because of the multiplayer (look here for an example: http://forum.bioware...-popular-is-mp/), I would say this multiplayer step is very good for the game series. Increased funds and popularity, bigger player group, etc.

 

This is of course my opinion and I'm no expert on sales and marketing at all so =p

[LinksOcarina]

Considering how many actually showed up here only because of the multiplayer (look here for an example: http://forum.bioware...-popular-is-mp/), I would say this multiplayer step is very good for the game series. Increased funds and popularity, bigger player group, etc.

 

This is of course my opinion and I'm no expert on sales and marketing at all so =p

If nothing else, we might get to play with each other more, and that can never be a bad thing!

[cronshaw]

Considering how many actually showed up here only because of the multiplayer (look here for an example: http://forum.bioware...-popular-is-mp/), I would say this multiplayer step is very good for the game series. Increased funds and popularity, bigger player group, etc.

 

This is of course my opinion and I'm no expert on sales and marketing at all so =p

The ME Multiplayer forum has half of all the topics/posts in the entire ME section

and almost as many posts/topics as the entire DA section combined