210 réponses à ce sujet

[Catastrophy]

You might be a pleasant person to hang with. But I will say this. Playing Ride to Hell: Retribution(Said to be among the worst games ever made) Is a more pleasing idea to me than playing with anyone here.

Playing the ME3MP is hardly involving any interaction with players on PC. The mics are largely mute, there is no "OMGyou&%$!§NOOB" text chat and there are very limited occassions when you can troll other players. It's in fact like playing the SP with super AI team mates (mostly). It may be different on consoles given they have certain platform possibilities to communicate.

[Vapaa]

Tying mechanically SP and MP is an all-around terrible idea because it affects people who only plays one of the modes.

 

A bit like the Granturismo in NFS rivals, why should I care about overwatch to have it ?

[AlanC9]

There will be likely interaction between the two modes and it will be a necessary interaction to interest players in playing both modes. MP will always benefit from a larger playerbase so it makes sense to put in incentives to SPlayers for playing it.

I still don't get the theory behind the incentives. An SP-only player already has a free MP version of a game he already plays on his system. If it still takes an SP incentive to get that player to try MP, what's the chance that he's going to like MP when he does try it?

[AlanC9]

The end of ME3 both removes player agency and obviates narrative thematics and that BioWare spent 6 years and over a hundred million dollars developing and presenting, nevermind dev and player time and resource investment, and those aren't subjective interpretations.

What does this have to do with the rest of your post? (Yeah, I know it's this board's version of Godwinning a thread, but why now?)

Time for the pro forma reply: The only player agency removed in the ending was the right to make a futile argument. -- a bad thing, but not nearly as important as people pretend it to be. And the narrative themes that were violated turned out to be ones that Bio didn't consciously intend in the first place.

[Catastrophy]

I still don't get the theory behind the incentives. An SP-only player already has a free MP version of a game he already plays on his system. If it still takes an SP incentive to get that player to try MP, what's the chance that he's going to like MP when he does try it?

It is my impression that SPlayers rather stick to SP. Why would someone try out MP if they bought it just for the story?

 

Thing is: You got a customer. Actually lots of them. They buy your product which comes with extra stuff they aren't interested in beforehand. This extra stuff might generate more bucks for you if you can make the buyers take interest in it. And it will not just make more bucks by forcing everyone to pay for things inside it - it is sufficient to provide those who would like to pay extra money with player base, because players loathe a MP without people to play with.

 

There is that and maybe people might just find the extra is fun. Imagine you did all the work and then noone took steps to advertise it. It'd be an utter waste of time and creativity.

[AlanC9]

So even if only, say, 5% of the players who are incentivized into playing MP actually stick with it, that's still enough of a plus to make the incentive worth doing? I suppose; depends on how much you want to count the goodwill loss from the other 95%.

But isn't this the exact same logic that led to day 1 DLC, except with worse numbers? Not that I have a problem with day 1 DLC myself, but it looks like they're getting away from that.

[FKA_Servo]

At the end of the day, it's still baffling to me that EA chooses Bioware's single player RPGs as the vehicle for their RMT laden multiplayer. I have no doubt that they gained some new fans in doing so, but I also think that there are thousands - maybe millions - of longtime fans (who very specifically play Bioware's games for the SP) who are either annoyed with or indifferent to its inclusion.

 

Personally, I had a lot of fun with ME3's MP, but I also had a friend I played it with. Circumstances have prevented us from playing together since 2013 (and will continue to prevent it in the future), and without that one familiar face, I have zero interest in playing it at all. I can't imagine I'd spend much time in it (similarly, with DAI's, I've played two partial matches since release - enough to convince me that it's a waste of my time).

[Beerfish]

Just keep them totally separate and people will be happy enough for the most part.

[LinksOcarina]

At the end of the day, it's still baffling to me that EA chooses Bioware's single player RPGs as the vehicle for their RMT laden multiplayer. I have no doubt that they gained some new fans in doing so, but I also think that there are thousands - maybe millions - of longtime fans (who very specifically play Bioware's games for the SP) who are either annoyed with or indifferent to its inclusion.

 

The key there is the indifference. 

 

If folks who play the regular game are indifferent to the multiplayer, then there is not much of a change in the end; they wont play it while others will get into the game instead, and I guarantee it will be vice-versa for some; people who only play multiplayer because its fun.

 

The logic behind it is that I am sure; it's a non-intrusive mode that you can do if you want. BioWare I presume is trying to showcase that there is overlap with their games.

[FKA_Servo]

The key there is the indifference. 

 

If folks who play the regular game are indifferent to the multiplayer, then there is not much of a change in the end; they wont play it while others will get into the game instead, and I guarantee it will be vice-versa for some; people who only play multiplayer because its fun.

 

The logic behind it is that I am sure; it's a non-intrusive mode that you can do if you want. BioWare I presume is trying to showcase that there is overlap with their games.

 

Yes, but one can turn to the other quickly enough, because it's not always non-intrusive. And when they lock story outcomes or singleplayer content behind multiplayer, there's a problem.

[LinksOcarina]

Yes, but one can turn to the other quickly enough, because it's not always non-intrusive. And when they lock story outcomes or singleplayer content behind multiplayer, there's a problem.

 

I can agree on story outcomes, but "singleplayer" content is always locked behind conditions. If the conditions for some items include playing multiplayer and you don't want to do that, that is a player choice in the end.

 

Got to remember, back in the day games had locks on content through different game modes, story progression, even which game you pick up; titles like Pokemon force you to trade with people, and until three years ago trading was difficult if you had no friends around to do it. Hell, Dragon Age as a series did that with those weapon drops you get from the DLCs, content you had to pay money for to get excellent equipment and the Reapers Cudgel for a ton of gold.

 

I don't buy the argument that content being locked out due to what game mode it's under is a bad thing necessarily. It's just a fact of how some games are made. If the argument is that BioWare shouldn't be doing that, or if the content being locked away is vital to the game, well thats another story. I don't think they should or would put something vital behind it again in that regard.

 

But considering they do put some content in there...and it apparently has worked in bringing people to try out multiplayer modes, then their strategy has more or less worked in getting people to play, if for nothing else to unlock some baubles that don't detriment the entire experience. 

[Iakus]

I can agree on story outcomes, but "singleplayer" content is always locked behind conditions. If the conditions for some items include playing multiplayer and you don't want to do that, that is a player choice in the end.

 

Got to remember, back in the day games had locks on content through different game modes, story progression, even which game you pick up; titles like Pokemon force you to trade with people, and until three years ago trading was difficult if you had no friends around to do it. Hell, Dragon Age as a series did that with those weapon drops you get from the DLCs, content you had to pay money for to get excellent equipment and the Reapers Cudgel for a ton of gold.

 

I don't buy the argument that content being locked out due to what game mode it's under is a bad thing necessarily. It's just a fact of how some games are made. If the argument is that BioWare shouldn't be doing that, or if the content being locked away is vital to the game, well thats another story. I don't think they should or would put something vital behind it again in that regard.

 

But considering they do put some content in there...and it apparently has worked in bringing people to try out multiplayer modes, then their strategy has more or less worked in getting people to play, if for nothing else to unlock some baubles that don't detriment the entire experience. 

You shouldn't need a second player to unlock content for a single player game.  It's just that simple.

[In Exile]

You shouldn't need a second player to unlock content for a single player game. It's just that simple.

Strictly speaking, neither DAI nor ME3 are purely SP games. A better argument is that you should have to play one game mode to unlock content in another, and to the extent old games did do this, it was bad design.

[FKA_Servo]

I can agree on story outcomes, but "singleplayer" content is always locked behind conditions. If the conditions for some items include playing multiplayer and you don't want to do that, that is a player choice in the end.

 

Got to remember, back in the day games had locks on content through different game modes, story progression, even which game you pick up; titles like Pokemon force you to trade with people, and until three years ago trading was difficult if you had no friends around to do it. Hell, Dragon Age as a series did that with those weapon drops you get from the DLCs, content you had to pay money for to get excellent equipment and the Reapers Cudgel for a ton of gold.

 

I don't know. I really don't agree that these are the same things. I am not about to complain about not being able to access items in a DLC or expansion if I don't buy it. I have no objection to certain things being locked behind a difficulty level (or an SP achievement). Point is, I can get it or do it if I want to. Myself, in the single player game.

 

MP, though, is just a fraught subject. Someone here (I think In Exile) compared it with trying to make a vegan eat meat, and I think that's an accurate comparison. A lot of players, justified or not, do not want anything to do with it. They don't like playing with other people, and I can't blame them. Like I said, my interest in it is contingent upon playing with a friend. If I'm restricted to playing with a bunch of randos, well... no. I don't care, I don't want anything to do with it.

 

And furthermore, depending on their platform of choice, they might not even be able to access it. Not everyone has a paid Xbox Live or PSN account. I just think it's an unreasonable hurdle. I don't mind if there's overlap, as long as it's just an alternative. Otherwise, I think MP rewards should stay in MP, and SP rewards should stay in SP.

[Quarian Master Race]

I still don't get the theory behind the incentives. An SP-only player already has a free MP version of a game he already plays on his system. If it still takes an SP incentive to get that player to try MP, what's the chance that he's going to like MP when he does try it?

 

 

So even if only, say, 5% of the players who are incentivized into playing MP actually stick with it, that's still enough of a plus to make the incentive worth doing? I suppose; depends on how much you want to count the goodwill loss from the other 95%.

But isn't this the exact same logic that led to day 1 DLC, except with worse numbers? Not that I have a problem with day 1 DLC myself, but it looks like they're getting away from that.

Just going by anecdotal experience but I'd say the number is much greater than 5%. Being a regular of the ME3MP section, I frequently hear comments from MP regulars that they would have never even tried the mode (and many were actively opposed to its inclusion just as people in this thread) without the way it being implemented encouraging them to try it. I don't have the data, only EA/Bioware does, but I'd be willing to bet that tying the two modes together resulted in gaining a significant profit and marketshare that they otherwise wouldn't have. The design decision wouldn't have been made otherwise.

Moreover, assuming that you automatically lose goodwill from the people who don't try it is reaching a bit. Most people who play the game for SP are probably indifferent. Looking at SP statistics for ME3, most players didn't even manage to get anything but the really bad endings, let alone getting anywhere close to the breath scene. It's likely they didn't even know or care how the TMS/EMS system worked. This few dozen regulars on this forum aren't representative of the mass opinions of the playerbase of Bioware games even in the slightest. Moreover, it doesn't seem this feature is actually causing even many of those people whom are vehemently opposed to not buy the games. Virtually everyone posting in this thread has an ME3 or DAI icon linked to their account, so this probably isn't a major detriment to purchasing in reality. The comments are hyperbolic, as is the nature of the internet.

 

You shouldn't need a second player to unlock content for a single player game.  It's just that simple.

It's a good thing that ME3 and DAI aren't singleplayer games then, no? Besides, you don't need a second player. Both can be soloed.

[FKA_Servo]

It's a good thing that ME3 and DAI aren't singleplayer games then, no? Besides, you don't need a second player. Both can be soloed.

 

Not if the play on Xbox and don't have a gold account, they can't.

[LinksOcarina]

I don't know. I really don't agree that these are the same things. I am not about to complain about not being able to access items in a DLC or expansion if I don't buy it. I have no objection to certain things being locked behind a difficulty level (or an SP achievement). Point is, I can get it or do it if I want to. Myself, in the single player game.

 

MP, though, is just a fraught subject. Someone here (I think In Exile) compared it with trying to make a vegan eat meat, and I think that's an accurate comparison. A lot of players, justified or not, do not want anything to do with it. They don't like playing with other people, and I can't blame them. Like I said, my interest in it is contingent upon playing with a friend. If I'm restricted to playing with a bunch of randos, well... no. I don't care, I don't want anything to do with it.

 

And furthermore, depending on their platform of choice, they might not even be able to access it. Not everyone has a paid Xbox Live or PSN account. I just think it's an unreasonable hurdle. I don't mind if there's overlap, as long as it's just an alternative. Otherwise, I think MP rewards should stay in MP, and SP rewards should stay in SP.

 

If MP is considered just another mode of play though, then the question of content is a bit different, because all content is still available to you. It just based on the mode you play. It would be more like a Vegan whose not being forced to eat meat, but choosing not to while sacrificing the bacon on their plate when its made available to them. See, the bacon is already on the table, the Vegan just doesn't have to touch it. Yeah you lose flavor in the end, maybe some protein, but that's the choice you make. 

 

I do see the possible issue, and I guess it boils down to what is actually being rewarded in the end. I saw people complaining about the Dragon decor being a multiplayer unlock, but in truth how much value does this unlock really have? It was content added for a DLC after the game was released, and it is free content too as well, so anyone can access it so long as they have online acces ( that's another problem all together.)

 

I feel like the argument that it should be single player content is fine, I can respect that at least. But I feel like it's a battle over nothing again; if the game had content where you were stopped from say, killing a dragon in the singleplayer until you do it in multiplayer, then you have a bigger point, then you are forcing that vegan to eat bacon. It feels this argument is being made for the wrong reasons, because BioWare only made one mistake with their multiplayer modes right now that I see, and that was the Galactic Readiness algorithm.

[LinksOcarina]

Strictly speaking, neither DAI nor ME3 are purely SP games. A better argument is that you should have to play one game mode to unlock content in another, and to the extent old games did do this, it was bad design.

 

Well, it's not necessarily bad design. It is a design choice.

 

We live in an age now where most modes are separated because of personal preference. "I don't want my chocolate in your peanut butter" kind of mentality. Nothing wrong with that either, but it does get boring sometimes.

 

The bad design would be keeping everything gated until you play the game a few times. You want to play level 4? You need to play this game mode here first to get the points for it? You want to unlock this weapon or character skin? You need to score a 10/10 here before you do. Repetitiveness for completionists, that is rough design that only rewards your time and effort if you are skilled enough to do it, and often does so with rewards that can be either very minimal or very good depending on the game.

 

So it's case by case, really. 

[FKA_Servo]

If MP is considered just another mode of play though, then the question of content is a bit different, because all content is still available to you. It just based on the mode you play. It would be more like a Vegan whose not being forced to eat meat, but choosing not to while sacrificing the bacon on their plate when its made available to them.

 

I do see the possible issue, and I guess it boils down to what is actually being rewarded in the end. I saw people complaining about the Dragon decor being a multiplayer unlock, but in truth how much value does this unlock really have? It was content added for a DLC after the game was released, and it is free content too as well, so anyone can access it so long as they have online access.

 

I feel like the argument that it should be single player content is fine, I can respect that at least. But I feel like it's a battle over nothing again; if the game had content where you were stopped from say, killing a dragon in the singleplayer until you do it in multiplayer, then you have a bigger point, then you are forcing that vegan to eat bacon. It feels this argument is being made for the wrong reasons, because BioWare only made one mistake with their multiplayer modes right now that I see, and that was the Galactic Readiness algorithm.

 

My issue with the dragon decor is mostly in principle. It's SP content any way you spin it, and they're on the record as saying none of the SP content would be locked behind MP participation. There's no barrier to making the decor available through both SP and MP, unless the SP dragons don't have skeletons or something.

 

And still... not everyone plays on PC or considers a elite account necessary for their gaming, so they couldn't play MP if they wanted to without shelling out further. This is a lousy thing to do when we're talking a single player game from a developer that's been making single player RPGs (and cultivating that fanbase) for the better part of two decades.

[LinksOcarina]

My issue with the dragon decor is mostly in principle. There's no barrier to making the decor available through both SP and MP, unless the SP dragons don't have skeletons or something.

 

And still... not everyone plays on PC or considers a elite account necessary for their gaming, so they couldn't play MP if they wanted to without shelling out further. This is a lousy thing to do when we're talking a single player game from a developer that's been making single player RPGs (and cultivating that fanbase) for the better part of two decades.

 

The connectivity argument is a moot point for those not online, they either don't even know about the content or may not even care about the content at that point. Access to it is again usually a choice if they are willingly choosing to not be online. 

 

Not to mention, since it is DLC content, it becomes the same situation of items found in other DLCs like Wardens Keep or Golems or something from Origins. The only time they got that content in the end was re-buying the double pack that was released a few years back with the DLC in it for Origins. So if the choice is you don't want online capabilities or what not, you don't really have a right to complain about things, you made that choice and the DLC offers rewards if you want it. 

 

A shaky example of what I mean. My laptop will never be able to Play Witcher 3, and apparently the PS4 version is terrible, so i'm stuck not playing that for a while, but that is my choice. I'm not going to complain about it with CD Projekt Red for focusing on PC over console, or making their games look so good I need a huge rig to make it run because I can't afford that high end PC on my teacher salary. It's the nature of their model in the end. Nothing to do with multiplayer, but moreso my enjoyment of a game people seem to like a whole lot, which kinda sucks. 

 

Now, for those who just cant get online, that is again another problem, and mostly a modern one on how games are being developed now a days. That there is little I can say to make that better, but thats an industry-wide issue, not just a BioWare issue.

 

Regardless, if people don't want to play multiplayer when it is their choice, frankly, you only get to complain if the game is forcing you to play the multiplayer for something huge that either affects the game, or is a gateway to actual story content. You say on principle the decor is a problem, I say if you want and can get it, then the only one stopping you from doing so is yourself. There are no principles at risk here because the content is extremely negligible.

 

If you said the ending to Inquisition was locked behind multiplayer...then I agree with you. That is the difference i'm arguing. 

[Iakus]

 

It's a good thing that ME3 and DAI aren't singleplayer games then, no? Besides, you don't need a second player. Both can be soloed.

The Single player campaign is purely single player.  I shouldn't need a second player to unlock anything in it.

 

And I did try soloing the MP.  I didn't get far.  Which only added to my frustration.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

OK, so basically it's as I suspected. The game constantly beats the same message throughout its narrative. No one should be surprised when it actually delivers on that message should you ignore it. 

 

However, when you go to the galaxy map, when you're at 100% galactic readiness you constantly get the message that "we're holding steady and winning in key sectors." Really?

 

Ah yes, I know. It's like 1944 and it's your Field Marshals telling The Fueher that the Russian Front is in fine shape. "We are launching an offensive that will push the enemy back to Moscow!" "That's not what's happening." "But he'll have us shot if we don't give him good news."

[FKA_Servo]

The connectivity argument is a moot point for those not online, they either don't even know about the content or may not even care about the content at that point. Access to it is again usually a choice if they are willingly choosing to not be online. 

 

Not to mention, since it is DLC content, it becomes the same situation of items found in other DLCs like Wardens Keep or Golems or something from Origins. The only time they got that content in the end was re-buying the double pack that was released a few years back with the DLC in it for Origins. So if the choice is you don't want online capabilities or what not, you don't really have a right to complain about things, you made that choice and the DLC offers rewards if you want it.

 

Mmm... not really what I'm saying, again. I'm not assuming they're not online, I'm assuming they're not paying every month for a premium xbox or playstation account. If I have a silver Live account, I can't play online multiplayer, but that doesn't matter because I don't care about playing online multiplayer games. I can still buy and download DLC, though.

 

It's crappy that a single player RPG is what might necessitate them having to shell out more money for an otherwise useless service. Sure, that's a choice, one that they can choose to pass on, but it's also an annoying and exploitative hurdle to present to those players.

[Iakus]

However, when you go to the galaxy map, when you're at 100% galactic readiness you constantly get the message that "we're holding steady and winning in key sectors." Really?

 

Ah yes, I know. It's like 1944 and it's your Field Marshals telling The Fueher that the Russian Front is in fine shape. "We are launching an offensive that will push the enemy back to Moscow!" "That's not what's happening." "But he'll have us shot if we don't give him good news."

So I guess all that Galactic Readiness and War Assets was all funneled into the propaganda department.

 

Were all those N7s used to just  promote buying War Bonds, like Steve Rogers?

[LinksOcarina]

Mmm... not really what I'm saying, again. I'm not assuming they're not online, I'm assuming they're not paying every month for a premium xbox or playstation account. If I have a silver Live account, I can't play online multiplayer, but that doesn't matter because I don't care about playing online multiplayer games. I can still buy and download DLC, though.

 

It's crappy that a single player RPG is what might necessitate them having to shell out more money for an otherwise useless service. Sure, that's a choice, one that they can choose to pass on, but it's also an annoying and exploitative hurdle to present to those players.

 

Except there is not exploitation going on. Remember, people out to play the game for the story or gameplay or exploration or what not are indifferent to the multiplayer. If it was exploitation it would prevent them from finishing the story, or locking out story-based content. 

 

So it again likely doesn't register at all for them, hence the choice you propose for not buying into the service. At worst, it's just annoying.