Forum:DA3 news

Forums: Index > Game DiscussionDA3 news

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4522 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

http://kotaku.com/5863668/surprise-dragon-age-getting-multiplayer

I found this article on Kotaku and I was interested to know what you guys was thinking about it. If it's true, I'm seriously disappointed that Bioware took this decision and I hope that the SP won't be affected by this. Itrandir (talk) 16:52, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to cross my fingers, knock on wood, and pray to the powers that be that this is only a rumor. I'm not a big fan of deathmatch multiplayers. I'd rather them spend time on story and characters than this. GoldenNightKnight (talk) 17:02, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

At least it will look good. DICE's Frostbite 2 engine is the sexRathian Warrior (talk) 17:07, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oooooh Maker noooo ! This is the WORST possible way DA3 could go... They had better make an AMAZING single player experience to make up for this. (I almost feel betrayed by just reading this article)

I really hope with all my heart that this is just an afterthought, and won't shape the whole game... Better yet, I hope this article is just a hoax, or written by a very misinformed ... writer.

If I wanted a multiplayer RPG I'd just play WOW. --Nihilarian (talk) 17:11, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

this could be good or bad. first, it might be some kind of DLC and not DA3. I wouldn't mind it as long as it doesn't become all about multiplayer and screw up (or just flat out replace) the single player. playing as a dragon sounds awesome though. I hope if it does have multiplayer that it's not just online. I hate how so many multiplayer games are online only. it's just a total slap in the face for people who have real friends. but at least it's a better idea than multiplayer God of War 4. --Vampire Damian (talk) 17:51, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

God I hope not. Equally as terrifying is the story that they almost killed Dead Space 3 but have decided instead to drive it into the ground. I really hope this is BS but I have a terrible feeling it is. Wsowen02 (talk) 20:31, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

F Me, why did I ever make that forum post? Oh well, this doesn't necessarily mean that the single player will be bad, though good single player and good multiplayer don't seem to go together. --Isolationistmagi (talk) 20:44, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Reread the article, and two things are making me go hmmmm. First, the source is not named. If it is legitimate, it should be cited unless they asked for confidentiality, and why might they ask for confidentiality. Secondly, said "source" is not even on the developement team, so how much are they likely to know? That being said, I am marginally more optimistic than my first post implies. --Isolationistmagi (talk) 20:49, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Single player games can sometimes become awesome multiplayer games. Uncharted 2 & 3 are great examples. The difference there of course is that the Uncharted series was already primarily a third person shooter, not an RPG. Wsowen02 (talk) 20:59, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Very true, I feel that Saints Row II is another good example of this. My point was mainly that a lot of the games I've personally experienced either had an amazing multiplayer or an amazing single player, rarely both. It happened far more often that both sucked. --Isolationistmagi (talk) 21:11, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it takes a very talented studio with the actual desire to create multiplayer to pull it off. Multiplayer that was shoehorned in has never worked. Wsowen02 (talk) 21:21, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Just as I thought the franchise wasn't going to be any worse... But as Isolationistmagi said, the source may not be accurate, so I'm also crossing my fingers hoping that they won't actually make multiplayer--Stwsdv (talk) 22:24, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I... I dont know what to think... I REALLY hope this is a rumor. Dragon Age is one of those games that doesnt need multiplayer. And dont get me wrong, I have nothing against multiplayer games, its just that there are so few games that are devoted to its single player and roleplaying aspects. Dragon Age Origins was that. DA2 wanted to test it. But this game? I feel like I just found out my child isnt really mine. 76.194.247.180 (talk) 23:42, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

^That was me, didnt know I was logged out. Crimpycracker (talk) 23:44, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why people are so upset. Many previous Bioware games had multiplayer components (Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights) and were well-received. I think a multiplayer component would be great for co-op; DA's party-based system would lend itself well to such a feature. Whocares65 (talk) 23:48, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

If this is true... I never thought I would say this, because regardless of the changes in DA2, I still rather enjoyed the game and have some faith left in the series. But if this is true, I will leave the franchise.Rennadahsim (talk) 23:51, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

This might be good, if say it was singleplayer, then a co-op campaign. who knows? --SpectreAngel (talk) 23:54, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I play Dragon Age for the story. Why would I play a special mode just for combat? No, no, keep the Dragon Age a role-playing game, not hacking and slashing 24/7. Henio0 (talk) 00:05, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

If it is true it's most likely going to be a DLC or spin-off title. However there are a few things that don't really sound right. First is an "insider." That sure as hell sounds like a trusted source to me (as it's hard to point in text that was sarcasm.) Second, it's using a shooter engine, Bioware devolped inhouse engines for every rpg since (atleast) Neverwinter Nights. WHY WOULD THEY USE A SHOOTER ENGINE FOR AN RPG FRANCHISE!? Ahem, sorry about that. Finnaly it's in early stages but the graphics look great. BS. I addmit I don't know very much about production order but isn't the engine and such devolped on lower end graphics to work the mechanics and kninks before the higher-resolution stuff is put in.CrowInvictus (talk) 02:38,December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Low end graphics are used for things like working out basic mechanics. If we're talking about DA, then we can assume that, from two games, the combat mechanics are well-enough defined to allow higher-end graphics to be put in place earlier. Also, I don't really understand why people are upset about this. No one is forcing you to play the multiplayer, you're acting like they said they're going to completely ignore single-player entirely and shove something terrible down your throats. There's no proof this will end badly. If anything, there's proof it will come off quite well (according to Neverwinter and Baldur's Gate). Further, I can't fathom how this will ruin the single-player for you, unless you consider multiplayer the Taint of the videogame world or something. Rathian Warrior (talk) 12:40, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

I think most of us don't have a problem with multiplayer itself, what we have a problem with is if they concentrate on the multiplayer part, the story and other aspects of the game may suffer greatly (ie. when they focused too much on the combat system in the last game, and not enough on the choices/dungeons etc). I think most of us agree we would prefer a great singleplayer game than a mediocre single and multiplayer one. Basically it all depends on whether they rush production or not... --Nihilarian (talk) 15:07, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

I would've believed that graphics could be high-end if they were using the same engine. According to the article they're using a totally different engine. Finnally, I wouldn't multiplayer but the engine is used in Battlefield 3 (that's straight from the article.) Bioware can produce decent shooters (Mass Effect) but this Dragon Age spiritual succesor to Baldur's Gate, an rpg, not an shooter. P.S. I'm not giving negitive to the idea of multiplayer but the credibility of the article.

CrowInvictus (talk) 15:43, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Generally developers have different teams devoted to different parts of the overal project, or game. If a game adds a multiplayer-component, then it's simply a matter of hiring people with experience in that particular facet of gaming, not redirecting the focus of existing studio members. The issue here is money, not time or labor. Accommodating multiplayer doesn't need some overarching change to the narrative or a drastic shift in the direction of the game, just additional gameplay elements that require additional team members. The focus isn't shifting away from single-player in the way people are fearing. Rathian Warrior (talk) 15:34, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I have no idea how game development works, but what you're saying makes sense. Still, it's kind of the same problem if you look at it money-wise, isn't it? What if they invest a lot in the multiplayer and not enough for the single-player? (I'd rather they hire level designers...)--Nihilarian (talk) 15:56, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Three words: EA owns BiowareRathian Warrior (talk) 16:39, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

So? That doesn't mean they have an unlimited budget... Does it? --Nihilarian (talk) 16:54, December 1, 2011 (UTC)