217 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

@ Lilithor and o Ventus: arguing about the meaning of "dumbed down" always ends up in the same place. It turns out to mean that the game has a lower level of perceived complexity than the speaker would prefer.

But if you find this fun, carry on.

Edit: "perceived" above because games which are simple to play but difficult to learn score highly on this metric.

[Sartoz]

What, Mike Laidlaw tweeted that ME4 will be mostly multiplayer? You got a link to that tweet?

https://twitter.com/...upport&src=typd

[Sartoz]

He linked a blog that stated that was the case.  I'd take anything with a grain of salt from any other source from BioWare.

 

Back before release, there was a German article about Inquisition.  They got so much wrong.  They stated that the central plot involved Darkspawn starting another Blight just like DA:O (they were careful to point that out) that you could romance Vivienne, that there was player blood magic, and other details which I can't remember at the moment.  This was at a point in time that the media outlets that had known about Inquisition knew that an Elder One was involved; that is was different from the Blight in Origins, that had the question about Vivienne's possible LI status, ect.

 

It was...I don't know, about 5 weeks or so of various folks coming onto the forums and claiming that was the gospel truth before the rumors calmed down.  As a result, I never trust anything any blog/website says about the game unless it comes from BioWare directly.  Mike Laidlaw and CO are usually really good about linking the interviews they've done on their tweeter feeds, so go with that.  

https://twitter.com/...upport&src=typd

[AlanC9]

https://twitter.com/...upport&src=typd

So, he said nothing of the sort. Thanks.

[Sartoz]

So, he said nothing of the sort. Thanks.

exactly ongoing support for multiplayer,whichever way you may interpret that statement. 

[phantomrachie]

Not dumbing the game down in order to bring in every player imaginable, not putting an unnecessary multiplayer in the game, no DRMs, free DLCs and so on is kinda unique among western RPGs or for that matter games in general.

 

Quite frankly the Witcher series needs streamlining, many of its features & UI are horribly over complicated.

 

Personally I felt like I was fighting the UI & menu system every step of the way, that combined with an annoying protagonist and a lackluster story is why I never managed to finish the Witcher or the Witcher 2

 

I feel like CD Projekt Red have a lot of features in the Witcher because that is the way RPGs have always done them, rather than because they thought they were good or would be user friendly.

 

I am looking forward to their Cyberpunk game though, cos I love me some Cyberpunk

 

https://twitter.com/...upport&src=typd

 

The only official DLC announcements for DA:I have been Multiplayer = ME4 will be mostly multiplayer.

 

Sure ok, that makes total sense. 

[durengo]

news about the work on a  dlc:

 

Mark Darrah announced that DLC is now officially in development.

This means that it is likely for the upcoming DLC add-on to focus on new single player content for Dragon Age: Inquisition.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr...xs83m1cLKsby.99

 

and:

 

http://www.gamespres...nt-future/28584

[Sartoz]

 

news about the work on a  dlc:

 

Mark Darrah announced that DLC is now officially in development.

This means that it is likely for the upcoming DLC add-on to focus on new single player content for Dragon Age: Inquisition.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr...xs83m1cLKsby.99

 

and:

 

http://www.gamespres...nt-future/28584

 

Yeah, I read that.

 

But with the horrible awkward PC  KB+M game controls, that DLC does me no good. Console players should be OK with it.

[phantomrachie]

Yeah, I read that.

 

But with the horrible awkward PC  KB+M game controls, that DLC does me no good. Console players should be OK with it.

 

I don't even get you.

 

Sartoz:          DA:I DLC and ME4 will be multiplayer focused

Everyone:     Really? How do you know that

Sartoz:         This tweet

Everyone:     but it doesn't say anything like that

Everyone:     and look they are developing Story DLC for DA:I

Sartoz:          Well that is no good to me 

 

It's like you want to be annoyed

[durengo]

I don't even get you.

 

Sartoz:          DA:I DLC and ME4 will be multiplayer focused

Everyone:     Really? How do you know that

Sartoz:         This tweet

Everyone:     but it doesn't say anything like that

Everyone:     and look they are developing Story DLC for DA:I

Sartoz:          Well that is no good to me 

 

It's like you want to be annoyed

 

you make my day.buddy  

 

well at least this  announcement from Mark Darrah prevent all the 'there will be no dlc.. never ever... not in this lifetime...only for multiplayer' nonsense

[Nefla]

Well, you can make an argument that the lack of DRM doesn't really hurt CDPR. It's hard to tell because there are no apples-to-apples comparisons in gaming. Whatever TW3 does in sales relative to DAI, or Skyrim, or any other game we pick, we'll never be able to disaggregate the DRM from all the other differences.

That depends on the definition. I can think of a few DLCs released without charge. But yeah, in the "there's no such thing as a free lunch" sense, you're obviously right. In retrospect, maybe Bio should have held a bunch of content off of the DAI disc and released it as a free DLC this month.

There's not enough content in DA:I for them to have done that

[MACharlie1]

There's not enough content in DA:I for them to have done that

They probably could have gotten away with the Hissing Wastes or Emprise Du Lion.  

[Nefla]

They probably could have gotten away with the Hissing Wastes or Emprise Du Lion.

They could have cut any of those zones really. Most of the main story quests are self contained in their own little areas and the zones that did have plot involvement, the involvement was quick and could have been done anywhere ex: talking to Stroud/Alistair/Loghain in that Crestwood cave or talking to lord Erimond in the western approach. Quick interactions like that could have been moved elsewhere if they'd wanted to cut a zone and sell it back.

 

I wonder how that would have gone over anyways? A lot of people complained about the empty maps with no content of any substance. If they'd given us another zone along the same lines right now for free would that change anything? Would people that had that opinion of DA:I have complained because it was more of the same, boring stuff that they didn't like? (I know I wouldn't be interested and wouldn't want it even if it was free) Or would people in general have liked it because it was free?

[AlanC9]

Yeah, that was kind of where I was going with that.

What's that old joke... "The food is terrible! And such small portions!"

[Jeffry]

Quite frankly the Witcher series needs streamlining, many of its features & UI are horribly over complicated.

 

Personally I felt like I was fighting the UI & menu system every step of the way, that combined with an annoying protagonist and a lackluster story is why I never managed to finish the Witcher or the Witcher 2

 

Yeah, some streamlining wouldn't hurt. For that reason I liked TW2 more than TW1. I also liked ME2 more than the first ME. There are some really good cases of streamlined features when the game itself doesn't lose anything from its complexity and depth (for example Civ V and Europa Universalis IV) and becomes more enjoyable at the same time. Unfortunately more often than not streamlining goes hand in hand with dumbing stuff down for one reason or another and I say this approach is wrong, because it could always be done better.

 

 

Witcher 3 is 60euro in my country for PC version and 70euro for Xbox and PS4.

 

What country do you live in and where do you get these prices from? Retail? Try to look up TW3 on GoG.com where you'll find the best price (and a fair one for all customers no matter where they live, because only there CD Projekt has full control over the final price).

 

Also the console prices are ridiculous in my country as well, the consoel games are always much more expensive than PC versions here, yet in USA everything is 60 USD. Right now (and converting the retail prices from my currency to EUR using google), TW3 PC from local retail store is for 43 EUR, Xbox/PS4 is for 62 EUR, on Steam it is for 50 EUR (a pre-order discount from 60) and on GoG it is as I stated above (40 EUR base price, 36 for standard pre-order, 32 if one owns both TW1 and TW2).

[Sartoz]

I don't even get you.

 

Sartoz:          DA:I DLC and ME4 will be multiplayer focused

Everyone:     Really? How do you know that

Sartoz:         This tweet

Everyone:     but it doesn't say anything like that

Everyone:     and look they are developing Story DLC for DA:I

Sartoz:          Well that is no good to me 

 

It's like you want to be annoyed

Sigh....

Let's just say I read a lot. Here:

EA Games chief Frank Gibeau confirmed the move in a recent interview with Develop, saying that all of the company's studio heads are on the same page. "They're very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay – be it co-operative or multiplayer or online services – as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours – and you're out. I think that model is finished."

 

Here is the link if you wish to read it:

http://www.gamesrada...s-are-finished/

 

Edit: It doesn't mean there won't be any SP campaigns.... but the trend is there

[Captain Wiseass]

I don't even get you.

 

Sartoz:          DA:I DLC and ME4 will be multiplayer focused

Everyone:     Really? How do you know that

Sartoz:         This tweet

Everyone:     but it doesn't say anything like that

Everyone:     and look they are developing Story DLC for DA:I

Sartoz:          Well that is no good to me 

 

It's like you want to be annoyed

It's called a victim narrative.

[Jeffry]

EA Games chief Frank Gibeau confirmed the move in a recent interview with Develop, saying that all of the company's studio heads are on the same page. "They're very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay – be it co-operative or multiplayer or online services – as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours – and you're out. I think that model is finished."

 

This oozes so much PR BS it is not even funny Ofc the studio heads are on the same page when they don't have the chance to really oppose any EA order, the best they can do is try to fight and postpone the ridiculously set launch dates, but their "power" ends there. Yeah, I can only imagine how all of them are very comfortable with this, heck not only comfortable, I can see their joy over such a brilliant decission Fire-and-forget, yup, that was always the biggest problem of any BW game ever, as well as their meager 25 hours long SP campaigns. I am glad someone from EA corporate leadership saw those shortcomings and was able to come up with this excellent solution.

 

I think this gif conveys my feelings about this statement pretty well

 

[phantomrachie]

Sigh....

Let's just say I read a lot. Here:

EA Games chief Frank Gibeau confirmed the move in a recent interview with Develop, saying that all of the company's studio heads are on the same page. "They're very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay – be it co-operative or multiplayer or online services – as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours – and you're out. I think that model is finished."

 

Here is the link if you wish to read it:

http://www.gamesrada...s-are-finished/

 

Edit: It doesn't mean there won't be any SP campaigns.... but the trend is there

 

But this is a post from 2010, it's 5 years later and BioWare games still have SP experiences, all be it with added multiplayer or social components.

 

Things like the Keep also meet any social requirement EA might have and BioWare themselves have made it clear that they don't want multiplayer to impact single player.

 

Frank Gibeau is now head of EA's Mobile division, so he no longer has any input in what BioWare do.

 

You're basing your opinion on evidence that is no longer valid. 

[SwobyJ]

Sigh....

Let's just say I read a lot. Here:

EA Games chief Frank Gibeau confirmed the move in a recent interview with Develop, saying that all of the company's studio heads are on the same page. "They're very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay – be it co-operative or multiplayer or online services – as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours – and you're out. I think that model is finished."

 

Here is the link if you wish to read it:

http://www.gamesrada...s-are-finished/

 

Edit: It doesn't mean there won't be any SP campaigns.... but the trend is there

 

That still doesn't mean what you said.

[Jeffry]

But this is a post from 2010, it's 5 years later and BioWare games still have SP experiences, all be it with added multiplayer or social components.

 

Things like the Keep also meet any social requirement EA might have and BioWare themselves have made it clear that they don't want multiplayer to impact single player.

 

Frank Gibeau is now head of EA's Mobile division, so he no longer has any input in what BioWare do.

 

You're basing your opinion on evidence that is no longer valid. 

 

A post from 2010, but look at what BW have done since that. DA2 doesn't really count, because it has been in development since 2010. Then we had SWTOR, ME3 and DAI. One MMO and 2 originally SP games with added MP component that was not needed. Sure, in ME3 it turned out to be actually pretty damn awesome and it prolonged the interest in the game, but that is not the case in DAI. Then we also had the pure MP game Shadow Realms or what was its name. So this piece of evidence is still pretty valid, because you can clearly see that MP has been added in some form to all BW games released after DA2.

 

But as of now, we have very little idea what exactly will ME4 be. There will be a MP component, but we don't know what will be its extent. We can only guess. There are some hints pointing out it will be more substantial portion of the game than it was in ME3, but as I said, that is still only guessing.

[phantomrachie]

A post from 2010, but look at what BW have done since that. DA2 doesn't really count, because it has been in development since 2010. Then we had SWTOR, ME3 and DAI. One MMO and 2 originally SP games with added MP component that was not needed. Sure, in ME3 it turned out to be actually pretty damn awesome and it prolonged the interest in the game, but that is not the case in DAI. Then we also had the pure MP game Shadow Realms or what was its name. So this piece of evidence is still pretty valid, because you can clearly see that MP has been added in some form to all BW games released after DA2.

 

But as of now, we have very little idea what exactly will ME4 be. There will be a MP component, but we don't know what will be its extent. We can only guess. There are some hints pointing out it will be more substantial portion of the game than it was in ME3, but as I said, that is still only guessing.

 

Added too sure but not making up the majority of the game. EA have been pretty clear they love multiplayer, I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing the notation that we have any evidence that multiplayer will be anything more than just a part of of the game.

 

SWTOR and Shadow Realms were both new games for BioWare, so there is no indication they would take an existing IP and turn it into a multiplayer game.

 

I also never understood the comment that multiplayer is 'not needed' Multiplayer, if done well, can add an additional experience for fans of the game and prolong how long it is played for. If we broke down DA:I & ME3 into component parts, I'm sure we'd find a lot of things that aren't 'needed' but added to improve the experience for fans and add longevity to the game.

 

Off the top of my head, multiple romances and different outcomes of quests based on your decisions would be two.

[Jeffry]

Added too sure but not making up the majority of the game. EA have been pretty clear they love multiplayer, I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing the notation that we have any evidence that multiplayer will be anything more than just a part of of the game.

 

SWTOR and Shadow Realms were both new games for BioWare, so there is no indication they would take an existing IP and turn it into a multiplayer game.

 

I also never understood the comment that multiplayer is 'not needed' Multiplayer, if done well, can add an additional experience for fans of the game and prolong how long it is played for. If we broke down DA:I & ME3 into component parts, I'm sure we'd find a lot of things that aren't 'needed' but added to improve the experience for fans and add longevity to the game.

 

Off the top of my head, multiple romances and different outcomes of quests based on your decisions would be two.

 

Well, they took KotOR and turned it into SWTOR Was it what the fans actually wanted or more fans wanted KotOR 3 and not another WoW clone?

 

MP in a pure SP game is inherently not needed. Could it help the game? It could. It absolutely can make the game more interesting and more enjoyable if done well, even when it was not needed in the beginning. Could it hurt the game? Yes it could. When the MP is just an optional part of the game it can hurt the SP too. Even when a different team is responsible for the MP's creation, they are in the end of the day payed from the same big budget and all those resources could be spent in another way.

 

My point is there are plenty of pure MP games or games with strong both SP and MP parts. There is no need to shoehorn the MP into the rest of the SP games that don't have it yet. That is why I dislike this EA's policy, some SP games should just stay SP games and every last available cent should be spent in order to perfect them. Not for creating a MP part that in reality is there just for the reason of microtransactions.

 

Again, in ME3 it was great. We don't know what it will be in ME4, but I for one dread what it might turn out to be, just because of EA and because of how DAI turned out to be.

[phantomrachie]

Well, they took KotOR and turned it into SWTOR Was it what the fans actually wanted or more fans wanted KotOR 3 and not another WoW clone?

 

MP in a pure SP game is inherently not needed. Could it help the game? It could. It absolutely can make the game more interesting and more enjoyable if done well, even when it was not needed in the beginning. Could it hurt the game? Yes it could. When the MP is just an optional part of the game it can hurt the SP too. Even when a different team is responsible for the MP's creation, they are in the end of the day payed from the same big budget and all those resources could be spent in another way.

 

My point is there are plenty of pure MP games or games with strong both SP and MP parts. There is no need to shoehorn the MP into the rest of the SP games that don't have it yet. That is why I dislike this EA's policy, some SP games should just stay SP games and every last available cent should be spent in order to perfect them. Not for creating a MP part that in reality is there just for the reason of microtransactions.

 

Again, in ME3 it was great. We don't know what it will be in ME4, but I for one dread what it might turn out to be, just because of EA and because of how DAI turned out to be.

 

I don't think you can say that they took KOTR and turned it into an MMO just because they are both Star Wars games produced by the same company, that would be like saying Lucas Arts took Tie Fighter and turned it into a racing game. There are lots of different types of Star Wars games 

 

Also that is not how budgets in large companies work. The SP and MP budget don't come out of the same pot, just like the budget for SP and stationary don't come out of the same pot.

 

BioWare would've been given a certain amount of SP and a certain amount for MP. Without MP there wouldn't have been additional funding for SP, in fact EA probably gave BioWare a larger budget for both to encourage them to put in MP. Even if they didn't, with two budgets they could've fudged the numbers a bit to add more to SP from the MP budget, for example, since combat is in both SP & MP they could've taken some of the costs to develop that for both from the MP budget to leave more money for VAs for SP.

 

We do something similar in work sometimes, like if our Stationary Budget is particularly big one month and our PC Hardware Budget is a bit low, we can move some money around between the two because there is overlap between what comes under stationary & what comes under hardware.

 

Maybe MP did take money & resources away from SP but given my experience with budgets in big corporations, I doubt it.

[AlanC9]

Could it hurt the game? Yes it could. When the MP is just an optional part of the game it can hurt the SP too. Even when a different team is responsible for the MP's creation, they are in the end of the day payed from the same big budget and all those resources could be spent in another way.

The italed is just silly. The budget is based on what's in the plan for the game. It's not like EA just hands Bio a pile of money and lets them do whatever they want with the money.