Not really. Having both MP and SP means the resources need to be divided, and that means lack of time and resource spent in SP development which can result in poor quality.
Not really. Having both MP and SP means the resources need to be divided, and that means lack of time and resource spent in SP development which can result in poor quality.
If theres no MP, the team for MP will work in other project, and not in SP, maybe another game. SP game have a scope, and Bioware need a x resources(time, budget and peoples) to fulfill this scope. Change the resource, and the scope will not change .
I work in software developer, and this happens more than you think.
Nope. Multiplayer adds more content to the game, a game with more content needs a bigger budget. If the game didn't have multiplayer, then the total budget of a theoretical singleplayer only DA:I would be lower. Adding multiplayer content is simply an investment that boosts sales and generates more income.Anyone who thinks the existence of multiplayer doesn't affect the single player game clearly does not understand economics. Manpower and resources have been used to create the multiplayer, so it has a cost that the company needs to recoup. How do they do that? They either charge more for their product or cut back somewhere else (i.e. single player).
EA wouldn't raise the budget for singleplayer if it couldn't remarkably boost sales or increase profitability, regardless if the game has multiplayer or not.So it is not valid to take the position that multiplayer doesn't affect you if you chose not to play it.
^
If this had seperate budget, and it is completly separated there should be 2 versons to chose from.
I would gladly pay even 1$ less for version without multiplayer built-in, just to show how I not care about that.
You could also look at this from two separate point of views.
Would the game cost less without it?
1. No. Then you're getting something extra for the same amount of money as I have to pay.
2. Yes. Then I am paying for you to have something extra in your game.
It's very easy to say if you don't like it don't play it. But I am paying for something I am not going to play.
Make it free standalone or free DLC product you can download and all will be fine.
This is incorrect, under both scenarios.
Without multiplayer the game would not cost us any less. Box prices are generally quite static, and rarely reflect the amount of work put into the product... which I admit is rather strange and unique to the entertainment industry (for the most part). But the upshot is that the amount of work put into a product is dictated by the projected sales of said product.
This is why games are still worth 60$ (roughly) on release despite production costs skyrocketing: for AAA games the sales keep up with the project costs.
Ultimately it means the argument that you are paying for something you don't want (or others get something they like for free, which is somehow unfair) falls apart: you wouldn't pay more or less anyway, due to how pricing works in the entertainment industry. This is the exact same reason why a DVD of Titanic costs the same as Good Will Hunting. Wildly different budget, same price.
Never mind that the whole sentiment that the game must be specifically tailored for the things you like, otherwise you're somehow being cheated out of money, is a terrible one. Because ultimately, even if you WERE somehow charged for the work spent on multiplayer, there's be nothing wrong with that. Devs are under no obligation to cater to your specific tastes and reject those of other players, and in fact it's very much the opposite, because those other players (AND their tastes) matter just as much as you.
In the end, the game is designed to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, and that's a good thing.
I didn't ask for it.
My main concern is gameplay and immersion.
DAMP did affect DASP. Most of the combat testing was done via DAMP. I would not be surprised to find the combat restrictions we have had came because of balancing issue and that balancing issue pertained to MP.
Why would a SP development team worry about making all classes balanced, for example, by gimping mages in DAI as opposed to the previous two games if not for MP ?
ME3MP players saw for themselves what happened in ME3MP where the MP team would nerf things like Drone and Decoy that will affect SP, making them practically worthless. Whose to say that this will not be repeated again, despite the PR line that "MP will not affect SP" ? Whose to say specific SP abilities that work well in MP will be made worthless because it was nerfed into oblivion thanks to the Nerfallthings Crowd ?
Then there is things like sync-kills which were most likely included in ME3MP and if I am not mistaken, will be in DAI as well, due to MP. There is no reason to give enemies in an SP game sync-kill animations. Sync-kills are good in theory but bad in reality. The poor targeting system made it just an annoyance.
Furthermore, ME3MP showed that Bioware is incapable of maintaining game balance and preventing power creep. The base version of ME3MP with base characters were all very balanced. Then game the Lolgi, Lolreegar, Lolharrier. To compensate, all they did was give enemies Weapons Lvl 10000 and more health which then turned the ME3MP into DPS-fest. This does not really affect SP but this is one of the weakest elements of ME3MP, together with the Trollrngstore.
I would rather Bioware have their MP games on a new IP, not on an existing IP that is mainly SP.
Anyone who thinks the existence of multiplayer doesn't affect the single player game clearly does not understand economics. Manpower and resources have been used to create the multiplayer, so it has a cost that the company needs to recoup. How do they do that? They either charge more for their product or cut back somewhere else (i.e. single player).
Now obviously I am not privy to the extra cost of including multiplayer, but it is undeniable that DA:I is anomalously expensive in comparison to other games. Even if that entire extra cost wasn't attributable to multiplayer it is certainly a factor and they could have cut the cost by not including it.
So it is not valid to take the position that multiplayer doesn't affect you if you chose not to play it.
KoorahUK already rebutted this quite well, and you should read his reply. Short version is: project management doesn't work that way. More features are added when they project added revenue, and budgets are adjusted accordingly. This isn't a two bit operation run by amateurs, you know.
Secondly, there's also a huge difference here: Multiplayer is meant to pay for itself through microtransactions, just like ME3's multiplayer did. They're basically adopting a F2P model for the multiplayer, hence why multiplayer DLC is free: the cost is recouped through the sales of equipment packs (which are not mandatory, but purchased to reduce the grind). If MP didn't generate its own revenue stream, they wouldn't have done it.
So, yes, multiplayer will not affect you if you chose not to play it. You wouldn't have paid less money, and you wouldn't have gotten a bigger, better game if they had decided not to do MP.
And here's a thought: instead of being angry that the Devs dared spend time and effort developing something you aren't interested in, how about you be happy that the Devs were able to include something that will please a good amount of fans, and make the game more successful?
I'm not sure how much MP I'll do, but I'm glad they did it. I know lots of people love MP, and more power to them for being catered to in DAI. This is just like how I feel when it comes to same sex romances. I'm not interested in them, but I'm glad the devs spent time and effort to be more inclusive and broaden the game's appeal. This is a _good_ thing, and I certainly don't begrudge the devs for spending time and money on something I'll probably never see.
Thank you.
It was a fact you could not get enough EMS to get the breath scene at the end of destroy by playing single player only.
If Bioware had just acknowledged that there was a problem and that they would get round to fixing it there wouldn’t have been so many angry SP fans (Me being one of them).
First we had ‘ yeah you can get enough EMS on single player only’, then silence, then many threads on the subject being LOCKEDDOWN by Chris, then threads being moved to technical forums. Then 3 months on we got the extended cut with this post from Chris.
‘’The original experience of the game was meant to reward players who did extra work (multiplayer, importing a save, playing the iOS games, etc) with greater levels of success in the end, which is appropriate to a story about a war that needs every possible advantage in order to win. But now that we are moving to a post-launch period and have additional content for the endings, we wanted to make it easier for all players to experience even the best-cast endings. Playing multiplayer is just one component is a sea of variables that can affect your ending. If you don't play MP, you have to find other ways raise to raise your EMS before attempting to retake Earth, including a comprehensive single player play through. Likewise if you suffered some blows to your EMS prior to assaulting Earth, MP is a great way to raise your score high enough for the final assault.
Keep in mind that the results of having a very low EMS rating can have distinct effects on the outcome of the game in teh same way having a high EMS can.
http://forum.bioware.com/topic/358647-on-the-ems-and-the-extended-cut/
http://forum.bioware.com/topic/333820-sp-ems-value/
http://forum.bioware.com/topic/298088-can-you-really-get-4000-ems-points-without-multiplayer/
Which of course got a lot of peoples backs up as Bioware had originally said……
Quote
You can get the best possible outcome in the game by just playing single player if you want, as long as you are willing to do a lot of the side missions and content.
Quote
you can play the game how you want and not be negatively punished if you don’t want to play multiplayer or don’t own any iOS devices.
Sources:
http://blog.bioware....-jesse-houston/
http://penny-arcade.com/2012/02/17
I just think the whole situation was handled very badly.
As you can tell I'm not an MP fan but I don't mind it being added as long as it doesn't affect SP. 
I believe it required a very specific set of choices. It was a problem for anyone who hadn't played ME1( or have the Genesis comic) or ME2.
It was a fact you could not get enough EMS to get the breath scene at the end of destroy by playing single player only.
If Bioware had just acknowledged that there was a problem and that they would get round to fixing it there wouldn’t have been so many angry SP fans (Me being one of them).
First we had ‘ yeah you can get enough EMS on single player only’, then silence, then many threads on the subject being LOCKEDDOWN by Chris, then threads being moved to technical forums. Then 3 months on we got the extended cut with this post from Chris.
‘’The original experience of the game was meant to reward players who did extra work (multiplayer, importing a save, playing the iOS games, etc) with greater levels of success in the end, which is appropriate to a story about a war that needs every possible advantage in order to win. But now that we are moving to a post-launch period and have additional content for the endings, we wanted to make it easier for all players to experience even the best-cast endings. Playing multiplayer is just one component is a sea of variables that can affect your ending. If you don't play MP, you have to find other ways raise to raise your EMS before attempting to retake Earth, including a comprehensive single player play through. Likewise if you suffered some blows to your EMS prior to assaulting Earth, MP is a great way to raise your score high enough for the final assault.
Keep in mind that the results of having a very low EMS rating can have distinct effects on the outcome of the game in teh same way having a high EMS can.
http://forum.bioware.com/topic/358647-on-the-ems-and-the-extended-cut/
http://forum.bioware.com/topic/333820-sp-ems-value/
http://forum.bioware.com/topic/298088-can-you-really-get-4000-ems-points-without-multiplayer/
Which of course got a lot of peoples backs up as Bioware had originally said……
Quote
You can get the best possible outcome in the game by just playing single player if you want, as long as you are willing to do a lot of the side missions and content.
Quote
you can play the game how you want and not be negatively punished if you don’t want to play multiplayer or don’t own any iOS devices.
Sources:http://blog.bioware....-jesse-houston/http://penny-arcade.com/2012/02/17
I just think the whole situation was handled very badly.
As you can tell I'm not an MP fan but I don't mind it being added as long as it doesn't affect SP.
In answer to the OP's question, I asked for MP as did my friends.
In fact I know of two close friends that are going to be getting DA:I on day 1 because of MP; instead of bumming off me once I finished my SP campaign run throughs.
So by adding a MP component to DA:I BioWare/EA has earned at least two purchases that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.
I think that multinationals like EA have evolved in there view of MP. After the enormous succes of WOW every multinational seemed to be intend on producing MP worlds. Total control + monthly fees was not to be passed by. Investors drewling by the prospect. It is not the lack of trying but ultimately and reluctandly reality has more and more seeped in. It has produced in my opinion a more balanced approche. ME3's MP has pleased a lot of players and initially pushed upon SP players by incentive with the breathing ending scene that later was revised.
Not being a MP player myself I have no problem by pleasing both groups of players in the way ME3 or DAI are inplementing both genres. In fact I welcome this because I know people who also like 30' skirmishes then only story based RPG's. Maybe those skirmishes are not hardcore but I think there is a public out there that wants a different MP then the COD's, Titanfalls ect. Finally they are being served as well.
So no, ultimately I don't think recources are taken from the SP but actually added. The more people in a positive way are attracted to a product and boost sales the better also for the SP crowd. I think the way MP is implemented in DAI and previous ME3 does this and I am all for it.
I definitely asked for multiplayer, and I am definitely one of those "singleplayer" fans who loved Origins. One does not preclude the other.
I'm going to have fun with it. All I really care about.
I definitely asked for multiplayer, and I am definitely one of those "singleplayer" fans who loved Origins. One does not preclude the other.
I'm going to have fun with it. All I really care about.
Same here. I absolutely love immersing myself in a story and getting lost in the world building and the lore of the setting, but I also love to enjoy those things with my friends.
Slightly off-topic: When you think about it, the MP being offered in DA:I is actually pretty rare in video games that do offer MP. How many other (non-MMO) games out there offer a co-operative focused RPG with a strong story and interesting setting that is available on both consoles and PC?
I can only really think of Borderlands and Diablo 3, everything else is either PvP oriented (CoD, Halo, etc.), or has almost no story aspects to it (Destiny).
I wanted this kind of thing, the MP of Dragon Age seems super interesting to me and I could not be more excited about it.
So to answer your question OP, I did ask for this. And I am so happy that the MP is a cooperative dungeon crawling experience, it is just what I would have chosen!
My main problem is that not only do I feel it was unnecessary - you don't need multiplayer to sell if you build a game right (Witcher) or strike the needs of your core audience (Skyrim). You just do what you do well.
I also feel that a lot of the "simplification" to put it kindly, just happens to play nicely with the added multiplayer mode. I'd gladly sacrifice it at an altar if it meant getting my attribute choices, full weapon and armor abilities, ability bar, weapon swap, inventory in combat, tactical change in combat, auto-attack and tactics back.
When multiplayer for ME3 was announced i wasnt sure what to think.
But after playing it i was very surprised and very happy with how it turned out.
So if DA:I multiplayer is anywhere near as good as ME3 MP was, then im sold
DA:I was supposed to be multiple player only? Where did you read that? Well, I guess it's not an issue since that isn't the case.
I'm not a fan of the multiple player concept either, but I know a lot of people like that kind of thing and so that's why they're doing it. I'm sure their future plans on stuff like this will rely heavily on the outcome of it's success. I still don't see the DA franchise ever becoming a multi-player only game.
I have a feeling though, if it is successful, it could possibly benefit the single player game with rewards. I haven't played Mass Effect multi-player in a long time, but there were bonuses given for playing MP. In fact, it helped a lot which almost made it almost mandatory to play it for a higher "campaign" rating. I hope this isn't the case for DA:I.
If there are general rewards for playing it, it might not be so bad to try.
DA:I was supposed to be multiple player only? Where did you read that? Well, I guess it's not an issue since that isn't the case.
I'm not a fan of the multiple player concept either, but I know a lot of people like that kind of thing and so that's why they're doing it. I'm sure their future plans on stuff like this will rely heavily on the outcome of it's success. I still don't see the DA franchise ever becoming a multi-player only game.
I have a feeling though, if it is successful, it could possibly benefit the single player game with rewards. I haven't played Mass Effect multi-player in a long time, but there were bonuses given for playing MP. In fact, it helped a lot which almost made it almost mandatory to play it for a higher "campaign" rating. I hope this isn't the case for DA:I.
If there are general rewards for playing it, it might not be so bad to try.
They recently said that they started building a Dragon Age multiplayer-only game before DA2 came about and people took that as "DA:I started as MP only. Oh noooooooo! [insert typical BSN rage]"
And Bioware has already said DAMP won't affect SP at all. They're doing that because of the crap they took for the multiplayer in ME3 affecting the single player game so significantly before they patched it.
I never asked for it but I'm not going to lament over its existence. I'm actually looking forward to playing it with my best friend who's now interested in Dragon Age.
I liked ME3's multiplayer even though I didn't really get into it too much so I'm curious to see Dragon Age's take on it. I'm getting the game for the singleplayer, if the multiplayer's brilliant then that's just a bonus.
I was hoping they would put MP in, and I'm still going to play the hell out of the SP.
I do find it amusing how people are going to blame the MP for everything they don't like, including the stuff that makes no sense.
I was hoping they would put MP in, and I'm still going to play the hell out of the SP.
I do find it amusing how people are going to blame the MP for everything they don't like, including the stuff that makes no sense.
You mean that DAMP isn't the reason we have no Varric romance?
After reading an article today which mentions how DA:I was originally planned as a multiplayer only game, and reading more and more about how the first DLC is going to be for multiplayer, I have to wonder.... Who the hell ever asked for multi player Dragon Age?
It's a single player game, which was built on single player fans. I hate multiplayer games. People generally completely ruin the immersion and fun of these games. Why make such epic companions if youre going to make us meet other players?
I played Neverwinter nights and never touched their multiplayer. Who honestly want this kind of thing?
I absolute despise multiplayer. But I know plenty of people who are into it in a major way because it is more social. I don't mind it being there if it gives people a more personally interesting/relevant reason to play it.
BG 2 had MP and good for it.
But there could be many reasons for them considering it. I don't know much about gaming to know the exact lingo here, but games requite zots. The biggest complaint about DA2 was repetitive areas, and that got way more criticism than interesting companions/banter got praise. If they create a big game what zots can they give up based on that feedback? Companions, right? That is what takes a whole bunch of zots. Writers will still be writing great NPCs and plots for a big world, but they don't have to write a character who reacts six ways to the eighty ways you play, including getting naked, in love, in angst or having a "crisis" moment.
Besides, you find their companions awesome. I find their companions awesome too. A lot of people feel that conflict, different values and the like make companions interesting. But let us face it, companions get so much hate because a lot of people feel that companions should be willing toadies, or completely of the same mindset, or physically stunning and willing, to be legitimate options or "give me the option to kill them nao". (I am not talking about people who just didn't like the way a character was written. That is different)
There were thread after threads of complains about how ugly and skanky Isabela was, how stupid Anders was, how annoying Fenris was, how much of a pedo Merill made the player feel, and how dare Aveline not be romanceable, and how dare Bethany (shudder) not be romanceable, and what the heck was Varric's problem. All that time and zots to create characters, and all that for so much hate.There is no surer way to take away from companion hate by saying hey- if you hate this companion it is all on you because you chose to play with him as you could do if it was all multiplayer..
But honestly, here is what I think the truth is.
I feel like it was one of the things bantered. I am sure they might have bantered equally weird things like- what if we had no companions and only hirelings? What if the fade ripped open and out emerged adorable puppies because someone has surely thought of that? Initial game development- if it is anything like other forms of creative endeavors start with total, absolute pie in the sky, no holds barred, madness. Then the practical people start chipping in and saying "hey now, we are known for our party system with these whacky, interesting fake people"...and it all becomes normative.
My main problem is that not only do I feel it was unnecessary - you don't need multiplayer to sell if you build a game right (Witcher) or strike the needs of your core audience (Skyrim). You just do what you do well.
I also feel that a lot of the "simplification" to put it kindly, just happens to play nicely with the added multiplayer mode. I'd gladly sacrifice it at an altar if it meant getting my attribute choices, full weapon and armor abilities, ability bar, weapon swap, inventory in combat, tactical change in combat, auto-attack and tactics back.
If it makes the game better for a large chunk of the population, and makes the game more profitable, then it pretty much IS necessary. EA is, in fact, under obligation to maximize shareholder value.
Now if it ends up making the game worse, then it's a problem, but it would seem the devs are confident it doesn't (and it didn't for ME3).
That said, I don't agree that any of those things "play nicely" with multiplayer mode, and indeed some of them STILL exist in DAI even though they're only useful in single player, which does rather undermine your argument.
- Attribute Choice. No impact on multiplayer. Being able to choose a new ability or a new ability AND attributes makes no difference whatsoever, whether it be in SP or MP. Either way you need to choose and assign something.
- Full weapon and armour abilities. Hum, not sure I follow here. In depth crafting is in both SP and MP.
- Ability Bar. MP is not a real factor in this limitation, there's plenty of MP games with tons of abilities. The 8 ability restriction is meant to require player choice and "builds" at more than just the skill tree level. It's a _very_ common design element found in many games out there, and has no real relation to multiplayer.
- Weapon Swap. We didn't have that in DA2, a single player game. Meanwhile, ESO _HAS_ weapon swap, an MMO. Clearly no relation with MP.
- Inventory in combat. The decision to restrict inventory in combat is obviously a design decision to prevent players from carting around 2942 weapons and swapping them all the time: by preventing mid-combat inventory changes, it forces yet another tactical choice on the player (I'm going to be fighting enemies vulnerable to fire, and others to lightning... which enemy do I want to prepare for more?).
- Tactical change in combat. I think that's a point in favour of the devs actively coding in features only used in DAI. How come there's a Tactical Cam mode that is only used in single player, when the devs "simplified" everything for multiplayer?
- Auto-attack. How is this an MP simplication? For one thing, there IS autoattack in single player (in tactical cam mode), and there's no reason why multiplayer couldn't have auto-attack. It was just clearly a design decision to require a button press to attack (maybe to make action mode more visceral, or some such), and certainly is not some sort of limitation imposed by MP.
- Tactics. Hum, there is still a Tactics and Behavior menu in DAI, which is entirely useless in MP (as you're always controlling 1 character). This is yet another system that was coded in specifically for single player, undermining the claim that MP simplified SP.
MP isn't an evil boogeyman that corrupted our pure single player. Devs made design decisions you don't agree with, that's fine, but don't blame MP for it.
If it makes the game better for a large chunk of the population, and makes the game more profitable, then it pretty much IS necessary. EA is, in fact, under obligation to maximize shareholder value.
Now if it ends up making the game worse, then it's a problem, but it would seem the devs are confident it doesn't (and it didn't for ME3).
That said, I don't agree that any of those things "play nicely" with multiplayer mode, and indeed some of them STILL exist in DAI even though they're only useful in single player, which does rather undermine your argument.
- Attribute Choice. No impact on multiplayer. Being able to choose a new ability or a new ability AND attributes makes no difference whatsoever, whether it be in SP or MP. Either way you need to choose and assign something.
- Full weapon and armour abilities. Hum, not sure I follow here. In depth crafting is in both SP and MP.
- Ability Bar. MP is not a real factor in this limitation, there's plenty of MP games with tons of abilities. The 8 ability restriction is meant to require player choice and "builds" at more than just the skill tree level. It's a _very_ common design element found in many games out there, and has no real relation to multiplayer.
- Weapon Swap. We didn't have that in DA2, a single player game. Meanwhile, ESO _HAS_ weapon swap, an MMO. Clearly no relation with MP.
- Inventory in combat. The decision to restrict inventory in combat is obviously a design decision to prevent players from carting around 2942 weapons and swapping them all the time: by preventing mid-combat inventory changes, it forces yet another tactical choice on the player (I'm going to be fighting enemies vulnerable to fire, and others to lightning... which enemy do I want to prepare for more?).
- Tactical change in combat. I think that's a point in favour of the devs actively coding in features only used in DAI. How come there's a Tactical Cam mode that is only used in single player, when the devs "simplified" everything for multiplayer?
- Auto-attack. How is this an MP simplication? For one thing, there IS autoattack in single player (in tactical cam mode), and there's no reason why multiplayer couldn't have auto-attack. It was just clearly a design decision to require a button press to attack (maybe to make action mode more visceral, or some such), and certainly is not some sort of limitation imposed by MP.
- Tactics. Hum, there is still a Tactics and Behavior menu in DAI, which is entirely useless in MP (as you're always controlling 1 character). This is yet another system that was coded in specifically for single player, undermining the claim that MP simplified SP.
MP isn't an evil boogeyman that corrupted our pure single player. Devs made design decisions you don't agree with, that's fine, but don't blame MP for it.
1) Attributes. Combat is designed in conjunction with multiplayer, and you can't deny this. Balance is one of the things they were doing, and MP characters have set abilities, set attributes, and the like. SP characters should not, like in DAO, DAA, DA2.. How do you balance this? You take away the ability for the SP player to change the attributes - you can only do this through crafting now, which also happens to line up with MP.
2) Weapon and armor are class restricted, again.
3) The previous games utilized a system where you could pause, in order to better do crazy things like glance through your abilities, and if you didn't have the right setup or didn't have an ability hotkeyed, change them or use Ability X on an enemy when it made sense. With MP - an entirely real-time mode - this wouldn't work. Therefore, the whole thing has just suddenly been removed and there's now a hard cap in place, and even SP players can't change abilities without exiting battle. Why?
4 - 5) You could still go to the inventory in DA2 and swap weapons the hard way. And yet, DAI actually encourages one-man army mode more than the previous games. Now all you have to do in order to become a completely different character is run out of combat, switch hats, and you have more CON than Iron Bull or more DEX than Varric. So why is this limitation necessary? Because the combat is entirely designed for characters that can only run one spec - ie, MP. If you could do crazy things like switch to a ranged weapon, you might actually be able to pull off interesting tactical maneuvers.
6) Again, once you're in combat, you can't change character abilities or tactics whatsoever.
7) The tactics screen itself has basically been gutted. There's no "if-then" system to it, only being able to toggle abilities on and off. It's been dumbed down to all hell for no real reason.
Retour en haut
