101 réponses à ce sujet

[boissiere]

Honestly, I almost never played the multiplayer in ME3 considering, first I'm really bad in real time fights and I need pushing the stop button to think the better strategy and second because except unlocking the 4th finish, there was no use for multiplayer. I just hope multiplayer will have absolutly no effect on the single player game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Warlock]

Woah, that interview really puts my fears about the future of story driven rpgs to rest...

That was sarcasm by the way. Now we more or less have confirmation they're dying. **** me.

Edit: to clarify, what worries me the most are the Skyrim claims as well as the multiplayer ones. Skyrim was a game I loved (with mods!) but it's not a story driven rpg, which is my favorite genre. DAI is still on preorder, and I think it's gonna be great, and I hope the story is as good as the old Bioware, but looking at the whole picture, it seems the company is moving in the direction of money rather than the direction of their old core values.

[Keroko]

Woah, that interview really puts my fears about the future of story driven rpgs to rest...

That was sarcasm by the way. Now we more or less have confirmation they're dying. **** me.

So, the idea of a fully multiplayer game being rejected in favour of a story-driven RPG means story-driven RPG's are dying?

You've... got to tell me how that works.

[Itkovian]

Thing is, it makes an evil amount of sense if you look at it in hindsight.

 

1) Bioware openly admits that combat was designed hand-in-hand with multiplayer. One is supposedly a real-time with pause party game, and the other is an entirely real time dungeon crawl. This should be worrying.

2) The ability limitations, combined with the complete removal of inventory access within combat, as well as being unable to set abilities or tactics during combat. This is all something multiplayer would be unable to do, and ties in with #3.

3) Parity between SP and MP. If DAI handled anything like the previous games, you'd effectively have to design four different user interfaces - because SP play should allow for more abilities, inventory during combat, and so on. Rather than have to design PC SP UI, PC MP UI, Console SP UI, and Console MP UI, you handcuff it so that there's effectively no change between them, and can use the same user interface across the board.

 

This is pretty farfetched, bordering on conspiracy theorism here.

 

1) How is it worrying? Are you seriously saying that the action mode is to blame on multiplayer, and the game is worse for it? When it's been _explicitely stated_ in dev interviews that the Tactical Camera was part of the core design? You know, the tactical camera mode that is vastly improved over DAO's (full camera control, status display on targets, pathing displays), and is now available on all platforms? How does DAI having a better tactical fit in this claim? Just because they pushed action RPG controls doesn't invalidate the fact they also improved tactical pause and play controls at the same time.

 

2) Why blame ability limitations on multiplayer? There's plenty of multiplayer games out there with more buttons to press. This is purely a design decision to require more "planning" of ability layout, than any limitation dictated by multiplayer. SWTOR isn't limited to 8 abilities, yet Wildstar has their "limited action sets", but both are PC games with the same available controls. The difference is a design decision to limit abilities to enforce "build" choices, which can easily apply to single player (and clearly has in DAI). It's very clear that the 8 ability limit is a design decision that has little to do with multiplayer.

 

As for inventory access, we get the same logic. The restriction is no doubt linked to the greater depth in crafting and equipment, and requiring "tactical" choices when going into battle. By forcing you to pick the right equipment beforehand, they enforce a choice on the player, instead of letting the player rush in and switch gear constantly when fighting different enemies in the same battle. Sure, multiplayer means you can't pause while in the inventory screen, but there's no reason why they couldn't have let players change equipment while the game was unpaused (like in BG). No, this is once again a design decision to force more tactical choices on the player, same as the ability restriction.

 

3) The assumption that SP play "should" allow more abilities and inventory during combat is erroneous, as shown above. Besides, there's no reason they couldn't have built an interface that allowed more abilites and inventory changes while the game was not paused. Furthermore, you forget that they DID design and implement an interface just for Single Player: the Tactical Cam.

 

The arguments for multiplayer somehow being to blame for the things you don't like in DAI are tenuous at best. While it makes a good "excuse" (right up there with blaming EA), it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

Furthermore, it makes ridiculous assumptions about Bioware's design acumen. Bioware is FULLY AWARE that the VAST majority of players will focus on single player, and they put a MASSIVE amount of effort in the single player elements of the game. The idea that they'd compromise the single player design for the sake of multiplayer is quite farfetched, particularly given the outcry over the ME3 MP.

 

No, what's happening here is people not liking certain legitimate design decisions, and looking for something to blame. It's ok not to like their design decisions, nothing wrong with that, but let's not go around imparting some sort of nefarious motive or source behind them.

[animedreamer]

Honestly, it explains why it almost seems like they've been working backwards the entire time, instead of building from the DAO foundation. The ability limitation, the lack of in-battle inventory and ability switching, tactical camera as a toggle mode, no auto attack..

 

And this is what this whole thread is all about.

 

Seriously? is it killing you that much that people aren't ranting and raving over how much they hate the changes from DAO a game that came out over 6 years ago? How many RPG's actually use the same systems every time a new installment of the game comes out? None, absolutely none. If they had kept the exact same system as they did in DAO i'd be less excited about it, because for me and I assume many others, part of the draw of a new RPG is mastering the new system in which playing is done. It shows that BioWare is being creative both in story and in system. Admittedly DA2's button mashing was bad but DAO auto maneuvering/attack was bad to in that it drew out combat with slow animation and with wonky character shuffling.

[KoorahUK]

Honestly, I almost never played the multiplayer in ME3 considering, first I'm really bad in real time fights and I need pushing the stop button to think the better strategy and second because except unlocking the 4th finish, there was no use for multiplayer. I just hope multiplayer will have absolutly no effect on the single player game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't. You can ignore it utterly and your SP game will unaffected. 

[Itkovian]

So if someone's looking to mock the graphics, he doesn't need to look as far as 7 years ago. All you can need to is go back 3 years.

 

To be fair, you're pretty much cherry picking the worst shots possible.

 

But you know full well that DAO looked far better than the demo shots, and DA2 generally looked even better. Heck, if we're going to mock the horrid Merrill in bed weirdness, let's not ignore the terrible female build in DAO. DAO was forced to use the same skeleton for males and females, which is why every woman in DAO is strangely broad shouldered with very sharp shoulders.

 

Now as I recall, what we may be seeing in those early shots is the demo they did in the Neverwinter Nights engine. I remember a dev (vaguely, I'm afraid) posting that they did a proof of concept in NwN. That looks like that's what those demo shots were.

[TheJediSaint]

The article for IGN's title is inaccurate, to say the least.

 

Bioware was prototyping Frostbite before Dragon Age 2's release.  The basic tech used in the prototype was used to develop DAI later on.  I don't see anything worth getting upset over.

[KoorahUK]

2) Why blame ability limitations on multiplayer? There's plenty of multiplayer games out there with more buttons to press. This is purely a design decision to require more "planning" of ability layout, than any limitation dictated by multiplayer. SWTOR isn't limited to 8 abilities, yet Wildstar has their "limited action sets", but both are PC games with the same available controls. The difference is a design decision to limit abilities to enforce "build" choices, which can easily apply to single player (and clearly has in DAI). It's very clear that the 8 ability limit is a design decision that has little to do with multiplayer.

Agree with your position on this and just wanted to add that that in DAMP each player only uses 4 active abilities, not 8.

I'd think the "ability limit to support multiplayer" argument would hold more water if SP and MP had the same number of abilities. 

[Paul E Dangerously]

And this is what this whole thread is all about.

 

Seriously? is it killing you that much that people aren't ranting and raving over how much they hate the changes from DAO a game that came out over 6 years ago? How many RPG's actually use the same systems every time a new installment of the game comes out? None, absolutely none. If they had kept the exact same system as they did in DAO i'd be less excited about it, because for me and I assume many others, part of the draw of a new RPG is mastering the new system in which playing is done. It shows that BioWare is being creative both in story and in system. Admittedly DA2's button mashing was bad but DAO auto maneuvering/attack was bad to in that it drew out combat with slow animation and with wonky character shuffling.

 

There is nothing wrong with changing or improving. In fact, I was really on-board with it until Bioware tried to sneak out all of the questionable stuff right before the launch window.

 

It seemed like they actually may do like they did for ME3, and take the strengths of both games and use that as a base to upgrade from.

 

But they aren't. The only fashion it resembles Origins is in the race selection. There's a lot of new stuff, granted, but I'd argue that they're aiming for breadth over depth. The foundation underneath doesn't go very far down, but you can give it a lot of new hats.

[Itkovian]

So, the idea of a fully multiplayer game being rejected in favour of a story-driven RPG means story-driven RPG's are dying?

You've... got to tell me how that works.

 

This. Please do, as I'm getting rather depressed at all the baseless "concerns" popping up on this forum.

 

Here we are, posting on the forum of the premier AAA story-driven RPG, that's coming out in less than 2 weeks, worried that these games are dying?

 

If this were a kickstarter-funded niche game with low visibility, I might be worried. But this is basically the biggest release of the holiday season, from the biggest games publisher in the industry, and it's a story-driven RPG.

 

Clearly this genre is dying out.

[Warlock]

Made some edits to my post to clarify. The fact that a studio which only dealt in sp rpgs looks at Skyrim as the epitome of rpgs, considered making an all multiplayer rpg, the diminished quality in the story of the games we've seen from them lately, etc etc... I'm not saying "woe rpg, doom is upon you", but these are all red flags to me, which seem to indicate the studio is headed in a different direction. And again, this direction may not at all be bad in and of itself, but it's certainly not the optimum direction to take if one would want to make the best sp story driven experience possible, imho. I know I will greatly enjoy DAI, but some of the changes made are not, imho, an evolution of their previous style of games, but changes introduced to cater to this generation of 30 seconds long attention spans. Which is arguably not a bad thing, but not what I like the most. Hopefully the story and character development hasn't gone this route, as some of the previews seem to so cynically suggest.

The whole "story driven rpgs are dying" was more a gut reaction I wrote on the phone to the gamespot article more than a well thought out argument, but I wouldn't say a new golden era for them is coming. Not completely sure at least.

Rant over, sorry

[Itkovian]

But they aren't. The only fashion it resembles Origins is in the race selection. There's a lot of new stuff, granted, but I'd argue that they're aiming for breadth over depth. The foundation underneath doesn't go very far down, but you can give it a lot of new hats.

 

I'm not sure how you can argue that at all, aside from the opinion of a handful of previews, that are drowned out by a whole lot more positive previews. But beyond that, how can you know there is no depth? Ability restrictions and lack of pause inventory changes don't denote a lack of depth in any way shape or form.

 

That said, DAI does draw on DAO for a lot more than race selection. Tactical camera,companion inventory, speaking to companions, combat pacing, and the narrative design itself are clearly drawn closer to DAO than DAI. And that's just what we can tell from previews, more will no doubt emerge while playing.

 

Of course, none of these are identical, and in most cases are improved (tactical camera, for example, is much better in DAI than DAO), and there's a whole bunch of new designs and systems (the crafting is far deeper, for example) as well, but none of this implies breadth over depth.

 

In any case, hopefully you'll be pleasantly surprised once you finally get your hands on DAI.

[CronoDragoon]

Honestly, it explains why it almost seems like they've been working backwards the entire time, instead of building from the DAO foundation. The ability limitation, the lack of in-battle inventory and ability switching, tactical camera as a toggle mode, no auto attack..

 

It does? Are we ignoring all the multiplayer games that have auto-attack and no ability limit?

[Paul E Dangerously]

I'm not sure how you can argue that at all, aside from the opinion of a handful of previews, that are drowned out by a whole lot more positive previews. But beyond that, how can you know there is no depth? Ability restrictions and lack of pause inventory changes don't denote a lack of depth in any way shape or form.

 

That said, DAI does draw on DAO for a lot more than race selection. Tactical camera,companion inventory, speaking to companions, combat pacing, and the narrative design itself are clearly drawn closer to DAO than DAI. And that's just what we can tell from previews, more will no doubt emerge while playing.

 

Of course, none of these are identical, and in most cases are improved (tactical camera, for example, is much better in DAI than DAO), and there's a whole bunch of new designs and systems (the crafting is far deeper, for example) as well, but none of this implies breadth over depth.

 

In any case, hopefully you'll be pleasantly surprised once you finally get your hands on DAI.

 

I hope so, but what I see is a more coherent DA2. It's still severely limited in terms of build options, which are now entirely reliant on gear. Same guy, different hats.

[Medhia_Nox]

So they decided to make a tawdry romance novel instead of a multiplayer game?  Kewl.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I am a big Elder Scrolls fan and a Skyrim fan...

 

However, Skyrim is Skyrim, Witcher is Witcher and as such, Dragon Age should be Dragon Age.

 

Just putting it out there. I like variety in my RPGs, not sameness. 

[Meltemph]

I am a big Elder Scrolls fan and a Skyrim fan...

 

However, Skyrim is Skyrim, Witcher is Witcher and as such, Dragon Age should be Dragon Age.

 

Just putting it out there. I like variety in my RPGs, not sameness. 

But the gameplay looks like neither of those...>.>

[SolNebula]

And it turns out to have a fantastic SP experience for what we can see.

The end is what matter.

[TsaiMeLemoni]

Wasn't DAO originally intended to have a multiplayer component?

[Keroko]

Made some edits to my post to clarify. The fact that a studio which only dealt in sp rpgs looks at Skyrim as the epitome of rpgs, considered making an all multiplayer rpg, the diminished quality in the story of the games we've seen from them lately, etc etc... I'm not saying "woe rpg, doom is upon you", but these are all red flags to me, which seem to indicate the studio is headed in a different direction.

 

But they didn't. They looked at multiplayer, played around with it for a bit, then went "nah, we don't want to focus on this" and instead chose to make another story-driven singleplayer RPG.

 

That sounds like a winning flag for the SPRPG, not a red one.

[Star fury]

From the article:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also from the article:

 

 

 

 

And I sent you the link so you wouldn't miss it if you came on later. I'm considerate that way.

 

I'd also like to point out that this was WELL before they became a part of EA. So saying Bioware was only ever interested in making Dragon Age a Single Player focused game is a fantasy I hope we can finally put to bed.

 

Don't make me laugh, your quote proves nothing and is irrelevant. Do not send me a private message again.

[Star fury]

Faaaar, very far ... wait. You mean this graphics :

 

Spoiler

 

2004 year. What's exactly wrong about it ?

 

In the meantime, 7 years later

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

First picture (from an early DA:O build I assume) looks a lot like Jade Empire. Yeah, still looks better than DA2 graphics.

[Keroko]

First picture (from an early DA:O build I assume) looks a lot like Jade Empire. Yeah, still looks better than DA2 graphics.

 
In what way, exactly?

[Shylocken]

Perhaps the Multi-player idea was what turned into Shadow Realms.