362 réponses à ce sujet

[Deturis90]

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?

If it's enjoyable I don't see a big deal why I should whine about it.

Also when you are going to spend 50+ hours (and even more) in single player mode, you can after that at least try multiplayer and get additional hours in it.

For me it's a win win ratio, also multiplayer is completely optional. 

[Maeshone]

Alright smartass. Name them.

 

 

Aside from the ones mentioned above, there's Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, Divinity: Original Sin, Orcs Must Die! 2, Trine 1 & 2, Magicka...

[Dermain]

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?

 

While this likely has been brought up by someone in the previous 15 pages...

 

I think it's important to note that "multiplayer" could mean any number of modes that allowed interacting with other people. In fact, I believe KOTOR, Jade Empire, and Mass Effect 1/2 are the only BioWare games that did not involve multiplayer in some fashion.

 

It's quite possible by "multiplayer only" they meant having a co-op campaign. 

[xkg]

 

So, in other words what you're saying is that the very inclusion of any optional feature in a product that you do not want is a bad thing and effects you directly? Holy heck. By your logic, anything optional that is put into a video game that you perceive as costing you extra money for its inclusion should be excluded. I'm baffled. Last time I checked, this game is going to cost 59.99 retail. Along with all the other games that have come out recently that cost the same thing, without MP. Evil Within. Alien Isolation. Bayonetta 2. 

 

What other features in this game, or any other game you buy, will you not use yet are forced to pay for, I wonder? Trophies? Inverted controls? Nightmare difficulty? 

 

 

Trophies, Inverted controls, Nightmare difficulty are part of the singleplayer game. I know what I am paying for.

As I heard, multiplayer is completely separate. If it's separate like let's say an extra in-game stuff that comes with DE, why isn't it sold separately. Is it separate or not. Make up your mind guys.

 

And yes, the less things in game that I won't use, the better for me. Isn't it obvious ?

[SofaJockey]

I hope that at some point they will add the ability to have AI characters in MP because no one I know is getting the game and I don't trust matchmaking to make a proper team or randoms to properly function as one.

 

I'm looking forward to the random parties - it's one of the challenges of the game.

I played most of my 900+hours on MEMP with randoms.

 

AI never fails to be A.

(Real people sometimes lack I - but that adds to the challenge  )

[Star fury]

@ Star fury: I can't think of how you'd get reliable stats for BG. Bio would have good stats for NWN a few years later, though, since they ran the authentication server.

As for the rest, my point is just that Bio's always liked doing MP, when they can find a way. Obviously a co-op DAI campaign is a bit of a dicey proposition since lots of the cinematics would break, which IIRC is why the HotU campaign didn't support co-op.(And it's not at all clear that such a campaign would actually be all that popular.) A standalone MP mode is much easier to implement, since there aren't any dependency issues that are going to screw up the SP game .

 

Wrong. On the contrary, adding the multiplayer requires far more money and resources.

 

MAC: Obsidian has been hit hard in the past by having games released before they seemed as polished as they needed to be technically. How does having crowd-funding over publisher-funding change the way you'll plan to tackle QA down the line?

TC: The biggest change is that we will decide on each and every feature in the game, and we can avoid the ones that add little to the game's content but a lot to its complexity. For example, we are not supporting consoles or multiplayer, both of which make the game far more complex and hard to debug. Instead, we are focusing on making the best single-player PC RPG we can make, and that focus is simplifying a lot of our choices.

© Tim Cain.

 

 

To make a good multi-player RPG, design concessions must be made on the single player side of the game. This is especially true for titles with a lot of interactive dialogue and/or narrative delivered via text. George Ziets and I have had this conversation many times over the last few years, and it always boils down to one simple truth. Reading is not a team sport.

If you don't make those concessions, you end up with sub-par multiplayer. As much as I love the Baldur's Gate series, the multi-player aspect took a lot of patience (putting it mildly), as the design focus of those titles was the single player experience.

I do believe you can create an awesome multi-player experience with dialogue and choice and consequence, in my mind it would require a very large budget. I'll let you guys decide what that may or may not mean.

© Another Obsidian developer.

[theflyingzamboni]

It requires money and resources, but for a company working with a big publisher like EA, it is incorrect (as many devs have written about many times) to think that the game's budget would be the same with or without an MP component. Take out the MP, and the publisher simply gives them the budget to make a SP-only game. That MP cash doesn't get reallocated.

As for who asked for it, I did not. But it will probably be the first thing I play on release night, to meet up with some other BSNers. Should be good fun.

[RenegadeRoy]

Wrong. On the contrary, adding the multiplayer requires far more money and resources.

 

© Tim Cain.

 

 

© Another Obsidian developer.

That's a completely different form of MP they're talking about though. That is more of a co-op version of the same SP game. The DAMP is more of an arcade experience.

[AlanC9]

Wrong. On the contrary, adding the multiplayer requires far more money and resources.
 
© Tim Cain.
 
 
© Another Obsidian developer.

I said saying standalone MP was easy compared to a co-op campaign. That Tim Cain quote is about MP in general being expensive. And the second quote you posted supports my point, since it seems to be specifically about the difficulty of a co-op campaign mode.

[AlanC9]

Trophies, Inverted controls, Nightmare difficulty are part of the singleplayer game. I know what I am paying for.
As I heard, multiplayer is completely separate. If it's separate like let's say an extra in-game stuff that comes with DE, why isn't it sold separately. Is it separate or not. Make up your mind guys.

It isn't sold separately because EA feels that bundling the high-margin MP and lower-margin SP together makes sense. It's the same bundling logic behind, say, HBO or AMC, which are a few hours of expensive original productions bundled together with many hours of relatively cheap movie reruns. One could even structure the business plan so the SP game is a loss leader with all the profits coming from the MP microtransactions. I don't think EA's actually doing that with DAI, but this sort of thing is quite common in, say, legal publishing or software services. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's how games like BF4 work too.
 

And yes, the less things in game that I won't use, the better for me. Isn't it obvious ?

Not really. The only thing you're out is disk space. EA'd still charge you $60 for the game without MP.

[Fast Jimmy]

Adam Jensen.

Adam Jensen asked for this.

[Meltemph]

Wrong. On the contrary, adding the multiplayer requires far more money and resources.

 

© Tim Cain.

 

 

© Another Obsidian developer.

Te nuanced lost on you in those quotes is...not surprising. 

[mademan2]

I was terrified when I read it. DA is not supposed to be multiplayer. I learned to suffer it, since it was in ME3 as well, but it is completely unnecesary. I know that people say that it does not have anything to do with single player campaign and as long as these two are separate I am fine with it, I still cant help but feel like the resources for the game should go only towards the single player tho. For people who enjoy the multi player in this DA:I, game on, i bet its awesome. But i beg you Bioware, please do not make multiplayer only games. I see people in RL all the time, is it so hard to understand that when i sit down to a fantasy game, i dont want it spoiled by others. It is my story, if you dont have a party of same minded friends to play with, you will never get any enjoyment out of it, if you are playing the game for immersion or its RPG elements. 

Very dissapointed with that new game that Bioware announced. Dunno what is with everyone doing multiplayers all of a sudden, is it really that popular? Hope they can still incorporate a good story even with multiplayer, but i really doubt it.

I love DA:I and DA in general, please keep it single player, some games are not meant to be anything else and this is one of them.