164 réponses à ce sujet

[- Archangel -]

This is a question I asked around ME3 and never saw an answer to. I'm not sure if it applies to DAI or not as I haven't touched the MP.

If game assets are shared, how seperate can the resources be? In ME3 in particular, they had the same enemies. Similar, if not same, AI and abilities. Seems that one of the two teams took lead on designing the enemies and the other used them, if not the two collaborating to create something that worked for both.

 

The "split budget" thing is a fantasy the MP supporters have conjured from thin air.

 

Split budget is not the same thing as split development teams, they are trying to conflate the two to support their position.

 

Seriously, the big bosses say "you have X dollars to make your next title, make sure it has MP".  They don't say "you have X dollars to make your next title...and oh by the way here is Y dollars to put MP in it".

[AlanC9]

Seriously, the big bosses say "you have X dollars to make your next title, make sure it has MP". They don't say "you have X dollars to make your next title...and oh by the way here is Y dollars to put MP in it".

What's your point? Why would the big bosses give X+Y to make the game without MP if they think that SP should only be funded at level X? And if the argument is just that SP ought to have more funding because you really want that, why stop at Y? Why not X+ 2Y, 3Y, 4Y? If they're not making MP the cost of the MP they aren't making isn't a number anyone's going to work out.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I wouldn't touch multiplayer with a barge pole, so I don't care much either way for the most part. My only concern is that the multiplayer places limits on the design of single player combat mechanics (like the removal of most healing), which may diminish the single player experience. If multiplayer is completely separate from single player, then fine, do whatever, but if it interferes with single player, they should flush it immediately.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

This is a question I asked around ME3 and never saw an answer to. I'm not sure if it applies to DAI or not as I haven't touched the MP.

If game assets are shared, how seperate can the resources be? In ME3 in particular, they had the same enemies. Similar, if not same, AI and abilities. Seems that one of the two teams took lead on designing the enemies and the other used them, if not the two collaborating to create something that worked for both.

 

Borrowing/sharing resources is one thing. Collaborations without a doubt happen, but they don't -for lack of better term- steal the resources of the other, if they did then it's being done wrong , and Bioware/EA are professionals (disregarding your views on either) so I'm pretty sure they handled it correctly. 

[Chewy]

Meh.... Don't care about mp and don't think I'll be touching it....
Some people like it and it's all good) I just hope they won try to go full MP and small story line

[Kendaric Varkellen]

Multiplayer like Baldur's Gate, maybe. Though I'd rather see that budget spent on a toolset than multiplayer, especially when multiplayer is basically just an MMO instance run.

[AlanC9]

Though I'd rather see that budget spent on a toolset than multiplayer, especially when multiplayer is basically just an MMO instance run.

I don't see how those amounts of money are related. You're making the same mistake Archangel's making.

Edit: well, they can be related if the company's pushing the edge of some sort of envelope. Say, if EA itself is becoming financially overextended, the DAI project is getting so bloated that failure would raise unacceptable risks if it got any bigger, or Bio's used up the pool of potential internal and external recruits for the project.

[ORTesc]

I feel that multiplayer stole resources from our game. I think if the didn't waste anytime with it we wouldn't be lacking in so many aspects that would of made DA:I a 10/10 game. Can we make our voice heard and let Bioware know that we never want to see multiplayer again?

 

Of course it stole resources from the game. But it's EA and when there's a possibility to make more money (microtransactions), it's going to be done. And since ME3's mp did well, Bioware now puts that system in everything they release.

 

Numbers don't matter to these people, but the average person that buys a video game never even finishes it. Time spent in tacked on mp modes is even less (like 2 hours average). But they fish for that slim minority that wips out the CC and starts buying everything available.

 

Nothing said here is going to change the minds of the suits in charge. Nothing said within the developer is going to change the minds of the suits in charge. These people see nothing but money even when making a quality product would result in larger profits over the long run. These people want short term gain, return on investment and care about nothing but the bottom line.

[Kyrion Reaper]

Normally, I don't care if there is a multiplayer aspect or not. I'm not likely to play this one. However, if I can't modify my single player experience because of restrictions to multiplayer, then that sucks and I don't want it.

Single Player isn't effected. Its a must get, You are missing out

[Taleroth]

Borrowing/sharing resources is one thing. Collaborations without a doubt happen, but they don't -for lack of better term- steal the resources of the other, if they did then it's being done wrong , and Bioware/EA are professionals (disregarding your views on either) so I'm pretty sure they handled it correctly.

This illustrates a very important idea, they're not separate.

It also brings into question about which team is taking lead on any resource. Most people will want single player to take lead. But if multiplayer is designing systems that single player has to live with, I don't think much of the audience will appreciate it.

In ME3 we had restrictive army lists even in singleplayer. In ME2, you'd have levels with droids mixed with mercenaries and Krogan. Or an entire level that's about mercenaries and Krogan/Vorcha fighting. ME3 is absent anything like that and it seems as if MP is a factor.

The only fights that used anything that wasn't also used in multiplayer were the absolutely atrocious boss fights. And I have nothing good to say about them. Making me suspect that the single player team was left with some inexperienced designers to do their encounters.


Thankfully DAI doesn't have any similar flaws as a result of its MP. So maybe they've learned. Or maybe we're going to see that kind of thing pop up in DA4.

[Gilbert Salarian]

I'm resigned to the fact that MP will be included in pretty much every game from here on out, though I'd much rather play local MP than online MP.  I'd rather play with a group of friends than be subjugated to random matchmaking with combat I'm frankly not that good at.  I didn't care for ME3s multiplayer - combat was too twitchy and fast-paced, and until the patch it was forced on us (I don't care what PR says).  That said, the one thing I did like about ME3s multiplayer was being able to promote your MP characters "into" the SP campaign, if only as war assets (the way implemented post-patch rather than pre​-patch)

 

Something like that would be nice for Dragon Age.  For example, rank up an artificer to 20 in MP and then promote him/her to the Inquisition's cause.  In SP you'd gain something like 1 power and 25 influence, and possible have the character show up as an NPC in the tavern or on the battlements.

[EdwinLi]

I enjoy multiplayer as a side activity. It a good way to wait out the long Operations advisors need to complete.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I agree for the simple reason I do not like what Multiplayer is doing to the Single Player stuff in this game. 

 

The combat mechanics and systems, they were tested on the multiplayer platform first before being ported onto single player. That is why the Single Player feels like a spamfest and things such as Tactical View appear to be after-thoughts. 

 

Also the 8 ability skill lock. Multiplayer has them, it was 4 skills + 4 consummables I think. If

 

I would rather Bioware ditch multiplayer and use that fund to develop a toolset like Skyrim's Creation Kit. 

[ORTesc]

Wait...  I don't mean to derail this, just a quick affirmative or not and then back to the MP discussion!  Are you saying those timers don't have to count down in-game?  That would be kinda nice if that's the case!

 

They don't. Set them going before you sleep and wake up to them completed. It goes by the time on your system.

[Darkly Tranquil]

They don't. Set them going before you sleep and wake up to them completed. It goes by the time on your system.

Supposedly, you can also log out of the game, adjust the time/date on your computer, start the game again and have them done instantly. Haven't tried it myself, though.

[Bizantura]

If the suits really want to have skyrim sales a creation kit for DAI will be more enriching then a game botched by bad combat mechanics system due to MP.

 

But money may not be the only reason, a total leash on gamers is best served by MP and not a creative creation kit.

[AlanC9]

In ME3 we had restrictive army lists even in singleplayer. In ME2, you'd have levels with droids mixed with mercenaries and Krogan. Or an entire level that's about mercenaries and Krogan/Vorcha fighting. ME3 is absent anything like that and it seems as if MP is a factor.

I don't follow the argument. Are you saying that MP leads to fewer enemy types? What's the mechanism?

[TripGodblossom]

In ME3 we had restrictive army lists even in singleplayer. In ME2, you'd have levels with droids mixed with mercenaries and Krogan. Or an entire level that's about mercenaries and Krogan/Vorcha fighting. ME3 is absent anything like that and it seems as if MP is a factor.
 

 

They mixed them up plenty in Platinum.

 

ME3 multiplayer was just so awesome that I'm glad they're going to keep doing it. I've tried DAI's multiplayer once and got disconnected in exactly the same way as would happen in me3. I'd be very happy if they took away resources from the pathetic single player "romance" content to fix that.

 

Also anything that annoys the conspiracy theorists is good by me!  

[Taleroth]

I don't follow the argument. Are you saying that MP leads to fewer enemy types? What's the mechanism?

The mechanism is that the enemies were all built to be slotted into the MP's wave system. In quite possibly, the enemies were created by the multiplayer team and the singleplayer designers just used them.

It's not about fewer enemy types, though that's part of it. It's the entire encounter design. The encounters in ME3 were vastly limited compared to the predecessors. You could have wide varieties within a mission in ME2. Some vorcha, some Krogan, some droids, some humans, varryl or whatever those things were called. In ME3 it's only Geth or only Reapers or only Cerberus. Because that's how they designed the multiplayer to operate.

[ZoliCs]

Can we vote to never have bugs?

 

I feel that fixing bugs stole resources from our game. I think if the didn't waste anytime with it we wouldn't be lacking in so many aspects that would of made DA:I a 10/10 game. Can we make our voice heard and let Bioware know that we never want to see bugs again?

[herkles]

I would kill if we had a toolkit + Persistant world MP like NWN has.