criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
July Community Calendar
Obi-Wan Kenobi Community Quests

I cried on Bethesda E3

Raylol
1109 posts Member
It was so amazing omgggg

Replies

  • Empire_TW
    6081 posts Member
    Jello770 wrote: »
    Very detailed thread. I appreciate all of the thought you put into it.

    I'm gonna speculate that he is talking about a country road in West Virginia.
    Janina Gavankar/Iden Versio Fan
    hojevrxvarht.png
    PSN: Empire_TW. Twitter: Empire_TW. Youtube: Empire_TW.
  • Raylol
    1109 posts Member
    Empire_TW wrote: »
    Jello770 wrote: »
    Very detailed thread. I appreciate all of the thought you put into it.

    I'm gonna speculate that he is talking about a country road in West Virginia.

    When they announced The elder scrolls Iv,omg
  • Anakin Skywalker, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Sith Lord Count Dooku, and General Grievous CONFIRMED!!!
  • Alex64
    7036 posts Member
    It seems that all multiplayer videogames are following the same path as Monster Hunter, and even also Anthem too.
  • So glad they've finally announced Skyrim for the fridge
    Ponds main

    Officer of The Knights of Gareth
    uruzea55jgr4.png
  • Lonnisity
    1945 posts Member
    Todd Howard killed that conference :) The man is a legend
    "Yeah, I'm responsible these days. It's the price you pay for being successful."
  • I just watched their livestream from last night. They continue to impress as one of the best in the business.
  • Quizolio
    3221 posts Member
    I was not expecting the Doom Eternal announcement. Aside from Metro Exodus earlier in the day, that one reveal was enough to make the entire show, IMO.
    doometernal.png
    "A thing called grammar needs a buff."
    - tankertoad
  • I felt so disappointed by both BioWare and Bethesda with their upcoming games :(

    My two favorite game studios have broken my heart with the games they are making :( Both are developing multiplayer games instead of singleplayer RPGs... I cant believe it :(
    "The question," she replied, "Is not whether you will love, hurt, dream, and die. It is what you will love, why you will hurt, when you will dream, and how you will die. This is your choice. You cannot pick the destination, only the path." - Oathbringer.
  • LaurenXIV wrote: »
    I felt so disappointed by both BioWare and Bethesda with their upcoming games :(

    My two favorite game studios have broken my heart with the games they are making :( Both are developing multiplayer games instead of singleplayer RPGs... I cant believe it :(

    See I felt the exact opposite about them. I like when game devs who normally make 1 thing and are known for making that one thing and then do something different.

    Like FromSoft used to make mech games with Armored Core before Dark souls. Or Volition with going from Red Faction to Saints row.

    Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/TroopperFoFo/ .
    Battlefront 2 , Battlefield and more.
  • LaurenXIV wrote: »
    I felt so disappointed by both BioWare and Bethesda with their upcoming games :(

    My two favorite game studios have broken my heart with the games they are making :( Both are developing multiplayer games instead of singleplayer RPGs... I cant believe it :(

    See I felt the exact opposite about them. I like when game devs who normally make 1 thing and are known for making that one thing and then do something different.

    Like FromSoft used to make mech games with Armored Core before Dark souls. Or Volition with going from Red Faction to Saints row.

    I can understand that :)

    If it was just a new game, I wouldn't mind. I can be very open minded when game developers try new things. Im not necessarily complaining because its something different, but because of what the SOMETHING is.

    It's so incredibly rare for me to enjoy a predominantly multiplayer game, even coop ones. Like... Im pretty sure there are only 3 multiplayer modes Ive enjoyed like... ever. Mass Effect 3 multiplayer (an additional multiplayer mode to an otherwise 100% singleplayer experience), Dragon Age Inquisition multiplayer (Same idea) and Battlefront II.
    I have tried many multiplayer games other than those, GTA Online, Mass Effect Andromeda Multiplayer, DC universe online, SWTOR, ESO, various games on the PC, a few others on the PS4... and Ive disliked all of them. SWTOR would be the one Ive come closest to liking but still I dont have any love for it.

    So when BioWare and Bethesda, both my favorite developers, have upcoming games that are both multiplayer shooters... I feel sad. Because its a genre Im known to dislike, and the companies are turning their backs on everything I like about their previous games in the complete change of direction.

    With BioWare, Anthem has been developed at the EXPENSE of their other games. Because they were busy making Anthem, the team that had developed the previous 3 Mass Effect games WERENT the ones to make Mass Effect Andromeda, and it was made by a team in Montreal instead. They prioritized Anthem over Mass Effect, ie multiplayer over singleplayer and Mass Effect Andromeda suffered a LOT because of it.

    Not only that, but because BioWare have used up so much resources to develop what they are hoping will be a 10+ year lifespan for Anthem, the developers have said that if Anthem isnt successful the studio will suffer and will end up looking "very different". Because they are focused ENTIRELY on Anthem, if it isnt successful there might never be a Dragon Age 4 - one of my favorite franchises of all time might be a casualty in the push for MP games

    And Im just supposed to be happy that theyre making Anthem, even though it's a cooperative shooter, draining resources from their other games and has turned away from many of what I love about previous BioWare games like dialogue choices and romance options in favor of catering to an oversaturated market of multiplayer shooting games and MMOs.

    And then Bethesda. Instead of making a real Fallout game, and after their campaign to SAVE singleplayer games, theyve... turned one of their most beloved singleplayer games into... a multiplayer shooter. *sigh*

    Im not angry. Im just disappointed :P I guess Ill have to turn to Assassin's Creed for my fix of singleplayer RPG goodness, which isnt a phrase Id ever thought Id be saying... at this point i think The Flash has changed the timeline, it can really be the only explanation.
    "The question," she replied, "Is not whether you will love, hurt, dream, and die. It is what you will love, why you will hurt, when you will dream, and how you will die. This is your choice. You cannot pick the destination, only the path." - Oathbringer.
  • That's a lot of text.

    But I understand most of what you are saying.

    One of my favorite developers is Farm 51. Because they are a strange developer that have such bad story writing that I love them.

    Necrosivion has to be one of my most favorite games as well as its Prequel Lost Company. You start fighting ww1 and then by the end of the game you are flying a dragon to fight satan with a talking magical glove. And there was some kind of spirit lady in cut scene that never appears again. I cant explain necrovision.

    But then after that they started getting a little serious . Deadfall adventures a mediocre game was based on some books from the 1890s. Deadfall Adventures still has the feel of Necrovision a bit but a little more serious.

    After that it was even more serious with Get Even. Its still a single player FPS like their last games, but it more serious in the writing.

    And now they are making basically a Battlefield game with World War 3.

    Sure I like when companies do thing that are different but it has to be a sudden change and still be fun, Like I enjoy Armored core and Dark Souls. But Farm 51 slowly went away from what I liked about them. I enjoyed Necrovision and Deadfall adventures , I didn't enjoy Get Even and Idk about ww3.


    I try to look at as many game companies as I can so if the Developer stops doing what I like and replaces it with something else I don't really like I would still have somewhere to go.


    Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/TroopperFoFo/ .
    Battlefront 2 , Battlefield and more.
  • Spiito
    1846 posts Member
    edited June 2018
    Alex64 wrote: »
    It seems that all multiplayer videogames are following the same path as Monster Hunter, and even also Anthem too.

    I was so excited to play Monster Hunter, but when I got it... It was less engaging than I was hoping. Apparently, I was playing online with people? But I never would have known, if it weren't for random people showing up in my ""Players recently met"" section under xbox menus...
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    I felt so disappointed by both BioWare and Bethesda with their upcoming games :(

    My two favorite game studios have broken my heart with the games they are making :( Both are developing multiplayer games instead of singleplayer RPGs... I cant believe it :(

    See I felt the exact opposite about them. I like when game devs who normally make 1 thing and are known for making that one thing and then do something different.

    Like FromSoft used to make mech games with Armored Core before Dark souls. Or Volition with going from Red Faction to Saints row.

    I can understand that :)

    If it was just a new game, I wouldn't mind. I can be very open minded when game developers try new things. Im not necessarily complaining because its something different, but because of what the SOMETHING is.

    It's so incredibly rare for me to enjoy a predominantly multiplayer game, even coop ones. Like... Im pretty sure there are only 3 multiplayer modes Ive enjoyed like... ever. Mass Effect 3 multiplayer (an additional multiplayer mode to an otherwise 100% singleplayer experience), Dragon Age Inquisition multiplayer (Same idea) and Battlefront II.
    I have tried many multiplayer games other than those, GTA Online, Mass Effect Andromeda Multiplayer, DC universe online, SWTOR, ESO, various games on the PC, a few others on the PS4... and Ive disliked all of them. SWTOR would be the one Ive come closest to liking but still I dont have any love for it.

    So when BioWare and Bethesda, both my favorite developers, have upcoming games that are both multiplayer shooters... I feel sad. Because its a genre Im known to dislike, and the companies are turning their backs on everything I like about their previous games in the complete change of direction.

    With BioWare, Anthem has been developed at the EXPENSE of their other games. Because they were busy making Anthem, the team that had developed the previous 3 Mass Effect games WERENT the ones to make Mass Effect Andromeda, and it was made by a team in Montreal instead. They prioritized Anthem over Mass Effect, ie multiplayer over singleplayer and Mass Effect Andromeda suffered a LOT because of it.

    Not only that, but because BioWare have used up so much resources to develop what they are hoping will be a 10+ year lifespan for Anthem, the developers have said that if Anthem isnt successful the studio will suffer and will end up looking "very different". Because they are focused ENTIRELY on Anthem, if it isnt successful there might never be a Dragon Age 4 - one of my favorite franchises of all time might be a casualty in the push for MP games

    And Im just supposed to be happy that theyre making Anthem, even though it's a cooperative shooter, draining resources from their other games and has turned away from many of what I love about previous BioWare games like dialogue choices and romance options in favor of catering to an oversaturated market of multiplayer shooting games and MMOs.

    And then Bethesda. Instead of making a real Fallout game, and after their campaign to SAVE singleplayer games, theyve... turned one of their most beloved singleplayer games into... a multiplayer shooter. *sigh*

    Im not angry. Im just disappointed :P I guess Ill have to turn to Assassin's Creed for my fix of singleplayer RPG goodness, which isnt a phrase Id ever thought Id be saying... at this point i think The Flash has changed the timeline, it can really be the only explanation.

    As someone who played Gears Of War completely co-operative, I was really spoiled into enjoying multiplayer with my mate. I've played through so many games since then, WISHING that we could share in our gaming experiences online. We're so excited to finally leave a Vault TOGETHER!!! And survive the Wastelands with one another, as it should have been. Npcs in Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and Fallout, should have been able to be filled by another real life player. (I could have tagged along with my mate's Fallout character as H a n c o c k! D : < Or their Me2's Shepard as Zaeed! Not to mention Anders *shudders in disgust* ) The storylines and dialogue could still continue on typically. There'd just be less random ""running in circles while the npc randomly decides it's going to face northeast for the conversation""

    Ps, Fallout 76 it's still going to have single player...
    "A fair fight is where everyone loses."
  • LaurenXIV
    444 posts Member
    edited June 2018
    Spiito wrote: »
    As someone who played Gears Of War completely co-operative, I was really spoiled into enjoying multiplayer with my mate. I've played through so many games since then, WISHING that we could share in our gaming experiences online. We're so excited to finally leave a Vault TOGETHER!!! And survive the Wastelands with one another, as it should have been. Npcs in Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and Fallout, should have been able to be filled by another real life player. (I could have tagged along with my mate's Fallout character as H a n c o c k! D : < Or their Me2's Shepard as Zaeed! Not to mention Anders *shudders in disgust* ) The storylines and dialogue could still continue on typically. There'd just be less random ""running in circles while the npc randomly decides it's going to face northeast for the conversation""

    Ps, Fallout 76 it's still going to have single player...


    I strongly disagree!

    Games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age (and to a much lesser extent, Fallout) are character driven games. The companions play a big role in the story, and as you play you can get attached and even love the characters in the game. You can pursue romance options, do quests for them... you can even get married in Dragon Age Inquisition. Having another player control them would put that at risk, and completely break many of the singleplayer aspects of the game. In Dragon Age, you can take control of your companions in combat. In Mass Effect, you can tell your companions to do certain things so you can use combos and things... it would harm the game mechanics.

    While Ill admit that cooperative multiplayer games (or just mp games) have a place in existence, I cant agree that corrupting the singleplayer genre with other players walking around is the right thing to do. When I play a singleplayer game, I want to play alone. When I play a multiplayer game, I want to play with someone. There should be no overlap with that. Fallout 76 and Anthem could have been great singleplayer games, by developers known for singleplayer games. But nooopppeee.

    Multiplayer brings its own problems. AI wont typically exploit bugs and glitches in the game system. AI doesnt tend to act like a ****. You won't get **** threats from AI, they wont troll you, they have a role and they do it.
    Other people ruin everything :P I find that multiplayer games are typically home to very very very toxic people, and Id just rather be alone haha

    Both Anthem and Fallout 76 will be able to be played alone. But that doesnt mean they are "singleplayer". Multiplayer people will be around you, you just dont need to team up with them. Presumably at an increased level of difficulty or expense of things/activities etc. :(
    "The question," she replied, "Is not whether you will love, hurt, dream, and die. It is what you will love, why you will hurt, when you will dream, and how you will die. This is your choice. You cannot pick the destination, only the path." - Oathbringer.
  • Spiito
    1846 posts Member
    edited June 2018
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    Spiito wrote: »
    As someone who played Gears Of War completely co-operative, I was really spoiled into enjoying multiplayer with my mate. I've played through so many games since then, WISHING that we could share in our gaming experiences online. We're so excited to finally leave a Vault TOGETHER!!! And survive the Wastelands with one another, as it should have been. Npcs in Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and Fallout, should have been able to be filled by another real life player. (I could have tagged along with my mate's Fallout character as H a n c o c k! D : < Or their Me2's Shepard as Zaeed! Not to mention Anders *shudders in disgust* ) The storylines and dialogue could still continue on typically. There'd just be less random ""running in circles while the npc randomly decides it's going to face northeast for the conversation""

    Ps, Fallout 76 it's still going to have single player...


    I strongly disagree!

    Games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age (and to a much lesser extent, Fallout) are character driven games. The companions play a big role in the story, and as you play you can get attached and even love the characters in the game. You can pursue romance options, do quests for them... you can even get married in Dragon Age Inquisition. Having another player control them would put that at risk, and completely break many of the singleplayer aspects of the game. In Dragon Age, you can take control of your companions in combat. In Mass Effect, you can tell your companions to do certain things so you can use combos and things... it would harm the game mechanics.

    While Ill admit that cooperative multiplayer games (or just mp games) have a place in existence, I cant agree that corrupting the singleplayer genre with other players walking around is the right thing to do. When I play a singleplayer game, I want to play alone. When I play a multiplayer game, I want to play with someone. There should be no overlap with that. Fallout 76 and Anthem could have been great singleplayer games, by developers known for singleplayer games. But nooopppeee.

    Multiplayer brings its own problems. AI wont typically exploit bugs and glitches in the game system. AI doesn't tend to act like a ****. You won't get **** threats from AI, they wont troll you, they have a role and they do it.
    Other people ruin everything :P I find that multiplayer games are typically home to very very very toxic people, and Id just rather be alone haha

    Both Anthem and Fallout 76 will be able to be played alone. But that doesnt mean they are "singleplayer". Multiplayer people will be around you, you just dont need to team up with them. Presumably at an increased level of difficulty or expense of things/activities etc. :(
    I'm not talking about being required to play with some random. I'm talking about how Gears Of War did it. It was optional, and it didn't effect the story mode at all, other than the fact that players could connect to one another and strategize the game plan of completing a chapter. I filled up Augustus Cole (when I had the option) but typically, the game put me into the role of Dom Santiago. And I very rarely chose to play with some random person. I only typically ever played with my mate. In online story mode campaign. We have two of almost everything, so that we can game together. We both play a lot of the same games, and a lot of games don't let us game together and end up driving us apart, when we're focusing on finishing a (forced) solo experience. Because I can't be there, in game, helping them vice versa. And I know all about that Dragon Age and Mass Effect stuff. I'm *not* saying; I wanted to make dialog decisions for Wrex to use during interactions with Shepard as player two. I'm saying; instead of Wrex being a hollow NPC in combat and during exploration, I would have liked the option to join into a private invite, to explore the story mode that Player one/Other Sehard is experiencing. To witness the story unfolding as someone who helped contribute to getting to the next chapter. That wouldn't have altered what Wrex does other than how he acts in combat. And I would be able to take orders a lot more complex than than "Go over there." (Omg, the number of times times Wrex decided get stuck and dance in an elevator in my games... smh. I may as well have been playing online with a random troll! ....Kidding.)
    It would be a combat thing only. Unless you've played 'Gears I'm not sure you'll understand where I'm coming from... But it wouldn't alter the story-line to have optional online campaign mode co-op. You could still have your hollow npc Alistair romance, and in a perfect world, you could also, in the same game, optionally invite your 'bestie to control Oghren's mobility and attacks. (since squads in such games were rarely composed of only one other character) . . . Am I rambling? Sorry. Anyways . . .

    I think co-op in Final Fantasy 6, or co-op in Tales Of Symphonia are good examples of what I'm trying to get at... (If you've ever played either of those...) That kind of co-op in games like DO:A, DO2, DA:I, ME, Me2, Me3, MeA, Fallout etc would have been great.
    Other people ruin everything
    
    You and I probably both know the full extent of this very well. But what's different in our perspectives, here and now, is that I welcome something where as sometimes like minded people with your line of thinking reject, & ruin my chances at getting what I want; To play with my lover, and watch a story unfold, and be a part of it, instead of being on the side lines as an observer only, forced to play the same game in my own time, secluded from the only person I give a hoot about, without their assistance, without them having my back in simulated combat during campaign.
    Post edited by Spiito on
    "A fair fight is where everyone loses."
  • Assassino37
    1104 posts Member
    edited June 2018
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    I felt so disappointed by both BioWare and Bethesda with their upcoming games :(

    My two favorite game studios have broken my heart with the games they are making :( Both are developing multiplayer games instead of singleplayer RPGs... I cant believe it :(

    See I felt the exact opposite about them. I like when game devs who normally make 1 thing and are known for making that one thing and then do something different.

    Like FromSoft used to make mech games with Armored Core before Dark souls. Or Volition with going from Red Faction to Saints row.

    This. I mean, a mass effectish/dragon agish multiplayer shooter!? Heck yes! My wife and I loved Fallout 4 so now we get to play together!? Yes please! :smiley:

    But I totally understand where everyone else is coming from. I jumped into Dragon Age late and only finished Inquisition last year so it's still fresh for me. My wait isn't as long as others when it comes to the next one.
    Valid Token Confirmed.

    fyq20437essy.png
  • Spiito wrote: »
    I'm not talking about being required to play with some random. I'm talking about how Gears Of War did it. It was optional, and it didn't effect the story mode at all, other than the fact that players could connect to one another and strategize the game plan of completing a chapter. I filled up Augustus Cole (when I had the option) but typically, the game put me into the role of Dom Santiago. And I very rarely chose to play with some random person. I only typically ever played with my mate. In online story mode campaign. We have two of almost everything, so that we can game together. We both play a lot of the same games, and a lot of games don't let us game together and end up driving us apart, when we're focusing on finishing a (forced) solo experience. Because I can't be there, in game, helping them vice versa. And I know all about that Dragon Age and Mass Effect stuff. I'm *not* saying; I wanted to make dialog decisions for Wrex to use during interactions with Shepard as player two. I'm saying; instead of Wrex being a hollow NPC in combat and during exploration, I would have liked the option to join into a private invite, to explore the story mode that Player one/Other Sehard is experiencing. To witness the story unfolding as someone who helped contribute to getting to the next chapter. That wouldn't have altered what Wrex does other than how he acts in combat. And I would be able to take orders a lot more complex than than "Go over there." (Omg, the number of times times Wrex decided get stuck and dance in an elevator in my games... smh. I may as well have been playing online with a random troll! ....Kidding.)
    It would be a combat thing only. Unless you've played 'Gears I'm not sure you'll understand where I'm coming from... But it wouldn't alter the story-line to have optional online campaign mode co-op. You could still have your hollow npc Alistair romance, and in a perfect world, you could also, in the same game, optionally invite your 'bestie to control Oghren's mobility and attacks. (since squads in such games were rarely composed of only one other character) . . . Am I rambling? Sorry. Anyways . . .

    Ive never played Gears of War :)

    Things like DA and ME games arent 'forced' singleplayer experiences games, they just ARE singleplayer games. They arent like Fallout 76 where Bethesda have taken a singleplayer series and made it into a multiplayer game, they have been a singleplayer series from the first game and have continued with that theme.

    While I understand what you mean, I feel as if games implementing an optional coop thing would drain resources from other things. Like with Dragon Age and Mass Effect with their open worlds - the games noticeably suffered from having them. I also feel that it would, even though its a cliché, 'break my immersion'.

    I think co-op in Final Fantasy 6, or co-op in Tales Of Symphonia are good examples of what I'm trying to get at... (If you've ever played either of those...) That kind of co-op in games like DO:A, DO2, DA:I, ME, Me2, Me3, MeA, Fallout etc would have been great.

    Ive never played either of those :)

    Other people ruin everything
    
    You and I probably both know the full extent of this very well. But what's different in our perspectives, here and now, is that I welcome something where as sometimes like minded people with your line of thinking reject, & ruin my chances at getting what I want; To play with my lover, and watch a story unfold, and be a part of it, instead of being on the side lines as an observer only, forced to play the same game in my own time, secluded from the only person I give a hoot about, without their assistance, without them having my back in simulated combat during campaign.

    I dont want to ruin anyones chances of getting what they want :/

    But at the same time, there are many many maannnyyyy games where you can team up with other people, whether splitscreen or online. There are also many games that feature co-op campaigns. There are certainly options.

    For me, I feel to have very few options. This is what I look for in a video game:

    A good character creator (or at least a female character to play as)
    Dialogue options
    Choices that can influence the outcome of a story
    Romance options (more specifically, f/f romance options)
    Third person gameplay (I cant stand the top-down RPGs)

    So how many options do I have? The only games that come to mind are Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Skyrim, Fallout, maybe Kingdoms of Amalur (not sure, havent played much yet). The Witcher would also be a popular singleplayer RPG, but honestly... Geralt is the single most boring character I have ever played as in a video game. He is TERRIBLE. His personality makes me die inside. So nope, no Witcher. There are a few other RPGs that I enjoy and play, but there are very few which are right for me.

    Literally my (physical) game list on the PS4:

    Mass Effect Andromeda
    Dragon Age Inquisition
    Star Wars Battlefront II
    Skyrim Special Edition
    Fallout 4
    Elder Scrolls Online (which I dont like)
    Horizon Zero Dawn

    I... think that might be all??? Ill check :)

    With Bethesda and BioWare making multiplayer games, if those games are successful (more so than their singleplayer games), everything that I love about gaming could be put at risk. If two of the biggest and best developers of singleplayer RPGs think "Hm... with singleplayer games we earn profits from purchases and when we release DLCs... with multiplayer games we earn profits from purchases AND have a continuous profit totalling millions of dollars a month from microtransactions for many years... why do we even make singleplayer games?" then it could destroy the existence of games that I dont just like, but love. And while I understand that you want to experience things with people and play together in a co-op campaign or just co-op... its just one aspect of a game you enjoy and would like. Whereas if BioWare and Bethesda would start making multiplayer games over singleplayer ones... everything that I like about the games I play could be removed. Its something that I dont think WILL happen, but its something that could start affecting future games. For example, from what I know of Anthem, it seems that there will be a story (of a kind) that is singleplayer, but the game will feature co-op multiplayer combat and gameplay. If Anthems style is a success, when BioWare make Dragon Age 4 they could think, "Ok, Anthem was a success and people loved it and made millions in profit. Lets do that again"... then Dragon Age 4 could be something similar with a singleplayer story, and multiplayer gameplay - because its easy to microtransaction - and the singleplayer aspect of the game would be at risk. And then there would be other things, too, that would limit choices, player importance in the world, story direction etc to allow the multiplayer gameplay to happen in a profitable way.

    I just think, personally, that singleplayer and multiplayer games shouldn't mix. I dont mind singleplayer games having multiplayer modes, but I think they should be optional and separate. Singleplayer games are very much being put at risk by a number of different things, and there are developers who want to push for multiplayer rather than singleplayer. it isn't just one aspect of a game that is being threatened, but it could be everything. Like... think about it. A game like Dragon Age 2 could take you somewhere around 30 hours to complete for a single playthrough. You could buy all the DLCs, and BioWare/EA will be making money from your purchases. But then you turn to multiplayer games, some of which can be played indefinitely and take up hundreds and hundreds of player time, and include a constant revenue stream from microtransactions. Yes, you can replay Dragon Age 2 as much as you like and experience everything you can in the game, but the developers aren't making money from you playing it. They would be, though, in multiplayer games. Its more a financially viable option. So which will they choose?
    "The question," she replied, "Is not whether you will love, hurt, dream, and die. It is what you will love, why you will hurt, when you will dream, and how you will die. This is your choice. You cannot pick the destination, only the path." - Oathbringer.
  • Spiito
    1846 posts Member
    @LaurenXIV
    . . .
    Prepare yourself, for years of Rodian squealing.
    Click the spoiler at your own risk. -Continue?-
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    Ive never played Gears of War :)

    Things like DA and ME games arent 'forced' singleplayer experiences games, they just ARE singleplayer games. They arent like Fallout 76 where Bethesda have taken a singleplayer series and made it into a multiplayer game, they have been a singleplayer series from the first game and have continued with that theme.

    While I understand what you mean, I feel as if games implementing an optional coop thing would drain resources from other things. Like with Dragon Age and Mass Effect with their open worlds - the games noticeably suffered from having them. I also feel that it would, even though its a cliché, 'break my immersion'.
    Adding co-op to a game seems like a simple feature.... But from what I've read of a modder's experience making a mod for Skyrim to have co-op multiplayer, some factors can certainly become a drain. (But that's for a modder... I dunno how much of a problem it would be for larger companies to include co-op campaigns.)

    The immersion, in co-op campaign, diverges.
    For character specific games, you are the main character. (Like, if you are playing Bully as the main character Jimmy Hopkins, you can only immerse yourself into the game to a point, especially if you don't relate to Jimmy at all.)
    When it comes to character specif games with a co-op campaign you don't just find yourself getting behind one story or character. In my case, I was always player two in Gears of War. This lead me to experience the story mode leaning more towards the perspective of Dom's character; only on a personal level. Where as my mate, was always player one; aka the lead role character Marcus Fenix. I eventually got to a point... Where Dom's hardships, were emotionally my hardships. (His character arc gets very dramatic.) Just thinking back on this, my eyes are tearing up a bit... But the addition of co-op didn't diminish the story nor the immersion. Because the story was so strong. Due to the way Gears of War was written, an active character in the story arc always had back-up. So to have someone filling that back-up didn't effect immersion too much, if anything, it improved it, because you could discuss things that were in game that you didn't understand, and could come to a conclusion together, instead of being faced with an unresponsive blank npc---just staring at you while trying to get your bearings. My mate was enamored with the Gears of War game, and the characters, they bought the books, the games... They fully enjoyed it. (I regret asking them if they felt any sense of strong immersion when playing Fenix, they apparently have a lot of passion to vocalize on the matter... and not only towards Fenix.) My favorite character was Augusts Cole, and I wish the game had offered for me to play him more often--which they did end up doing through out the later games in the series.
    Ps; 'Gears was a third person perspective sci-fi/military shooter.
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    Ive never played either of those :)
    Final Fantasy 6 was a turned based rpg. The parties consisted of 4 characters, if I recall correctly. If you ask my mate final fantasy 6's story mode was the best of the Final Fantasy games, and in general FF6's greatness is comparable to Lost Oddesy's writing. (Their words, not mine. I always preferred Final Fantasy: Tactics, and it was only later on a re-release for the psp which allowed for us to play FF:T ""missions"" together. )
    Tales of Symphonia was a liner motion battle system rpg, with some interesting in game actions (such as cooking food for the party.) Character story arcs were in depth, and the main story didn't seem effected by the addition of co-op. 'Tales games tend to be story rich, and now days, co-op has been implemented into the majority of their re-releases.
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    I dont want to ruin anyones chances of getting what they want :/

    But at the same time, there are many many maannnyyyy games where you can team up with other people, whether splitscreen or online. There are also many games that feature co-op campaigns. There are certainly options.

    For me, I feel to have very few options. This is what I look for in a video game:

    A good character creator (or at least a female character to play as)
    Dialogue options
    Choices that can influence the outcome of a story
    Romance options (more specifically, f/f romance options)
    Third person gameplay (I cant stand the top-down RPGs)
    Sure, there are a fair number of games I've been able to enjoy with co-op campaign mode, Resident Evil 5, Dead Rising Case West/DR2, Halo games, Dark Souls-to some extent. But whether storymode co-op's in a game originally of it's introduced later upon re-releases, similarly to you, I have preferences too. I don't want to play any old game just because ""I can play it with my mate~"" Mass Effect (the original release) is a bit older now, and if it were re-re-released, I think it could come with co-op campaign mode, easily, and this would not reduce anything from the game... Other than a sense of immersion--- but that's subjective in the end. *Anything* could potentially ruin that for a person, depending on a few things. (Although, I'd prefer to join into my mate's game as player 2 and fill up whichever npc part they're rolling with. Because we're so different, they tend to explore arcs, actions, or options in a different way, that fascinates me.)
    *Randomly on topic* My mate's contrast in taste to mine is highly noticeably, in Fallout games... They tend to be supportive of the Brotherhood of Steel, and I'm over on the opposite side of things as a ghoul supporter. <_<' (So in Fo76, it'll be nice to have common ground, since there probably wont be a brotherhood, nor playable ghouls, due to the timeline being so early on in the game's universe.)
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    So how many options do I have? The only games that come to mind are Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Skyrim, Fallout, maybe Kingdoms of Amalur (not sure, havent played much yet). The Witcher would also be a popular singleplayer RPG, but honestly... Geralt is the single most boring character I have ever played as in a video game. He is TERRIBLE. His personality makes me die inside. So nope, no Witcher. There are a few other RPGs that I enjoy and play, but there are very few which are right for me.

    Literally my (physical) game list on the PS4:

    Mass Effect Andromeda
    Dragon Age Inquisition
    Star Wars Battlefront II
    Skyrim Special Edition
    Fallout 4
    Elder Scrolls Online (which I dont like)
    Horizon Zero Dawn

    I... think that might be all??? Ill check :)
    If you are all about character customization, I suggest you look up Dragon's Dogma, if you haven't already. Although I felt that the game's story mode was short and not nearly filling enough, the character and Pawn customization were the most progressive I've seen in any fully released game yet, probably. (Height, gender, skin tone, limbs, hair, voice, omg...)

    Also, I couldn't get far in the Witcher. Soo boring. The main character has the personality of a fence post!

    Ooh! Is Horizon Zero Dawn any fun? (My mate and I both want to play that.) Readin' up about it, that game was supposed to have multiplayer, but it was cut, because co-op would have come at the expensive of other things... But I wonder if deadlines were the real issue. Expanding upon a game at a later date is always a thing. If they re-release or update Horizon Zero Dawn with their original multiplayer plans, after it's release, I'd be more inclined to get it.
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    With Bethesda and BioWare making multiplayer games, if those games are successful (more so than their singleplayer games), everything that I love about gaming could be put at risk. If two of the biggest and best developers of singleplayer RPGs think "Hm... with singleplayer games we earn profits from purchases and when we release DLCs... with multiplayer games we earn profits from purchases AND have a continuous profit totalling millions of dollars a month from microtransactions for many years... why do we even make singleplayer games?" then it could destroy the existence of games that I dont just like, but love. And while I understand that you want to experience things with people and play together in a co-op campaign or just co-op... its just one aspect of a game you enjoy and would like. Whereas if BioWare and Bethesda would start making multiplayer games over singleplayer ones... everything that I like about the games I play could be removed. Its something that I dont think WILL happen, but its something that could start affecting future games. For example, from what I know of Anthem, it seems that there will be a story (of a kind) that is singleplayer, but the game will feature co-op multiplayer combat and gameplay. If Anthems style is a success, when BioWare make Dragon Age 4 they could think, "Ok, Anthem was a success and people loved it and made millions in profit. Lets do that again"... then Dragon Age 4 could be something similar with a singleplayer story, and multiplayer gameplay - because its easy to microtransaction - and the singleplayer aspect of the game would be at risk. And then there would be other things, too, that would limit choices, player importance in the world, story direction etc to allow the multiplayer gameplay to happen in a profitable way.

    I just think, personally, that singleplayer and multiplayer games shouldn't mix. I dont mind singleplayer games having multiplayer modes, but I think they should be optional and separate. Singleplayer games are very much being put at risk by a number of different things, and there are developers who want to push for multiplayer rather than singleplayer. it isn't just one aspect of a game that is being threatened, but it could be everything. Like... think about it. A game like Dragon Age 2 could take you somewhere around 30 hours to complete for a single playthrough. You could buy all the DLCs, and BioWare/EA will be making money from your purchases. But then you turn to multiplayer games, some of which can be played indefinitely and take up hundreds and hundreds of player time, and include a constant revenue stream from microtransactions. Yes, you can replay Dragon Age 2 as much as you like and experience everything you can in the game, but the developers aren't making money from you playing it. They would be, though, in multiplayer games. Its more a financially viable option. So which will they choose?
    Co-op in campaign modes should only be optional; where applicable. I don't want to lose good meaty ""single player"" stories as much as the next player. I just want to be able to join in on an otherwise private playthrough, to witness and contribute to a battle which I might not typically explore in my personal save files.
    (I watched my mate go for Jack as a romance option. I advocated for Miranda; "Jack is wearing less clothing than Miranda, and Jack was way out of line to remark about Miri's ensemble!" In their playthrough, Miranda didn't make it, and they were devastated and felt all the more guilty. You can be sure I nagged the crap 'outta them after that. XD But all in all, I would have liked to be a bit more involved in their game beyond just watching and talking. )

    Dragon Age 2 was a limited lack luster piece of **** and I beat it in probably two hours, I'm truly sorry. (Mind you I missed Isabela, characters should not be miss-able...!) I hated that I had to play as a pre-set character, after having previously had the option to pick my race, gender, and age etc in DA:O. (I picked to play as little lady dwarf and a feminine male Dalish elf.)

    TLDR(?) Ultimately, there are different types of multiplayer. The type that I want isn't the kind that most people tend to think of when they hear "Online." As I've tried to demonstrate with a few listings of games. (Unfortunately for me, you have no clue about any of these games.) I have no doubt that the type of multiplayer experience you are thinking of during this conversation is indeed the type that is more main stream and probably generates more money... But they're not the same type of multiplayer.
    0Sz4000.gif
    "A fair fight is where everyone loses."
  • That was definitely a long post! Ive chosen the parts I think I need (or want) to reply to. But Ive read everything, just FYI :)


    Spiito wrote: »
    Adding co-op to a game seems like a simple feature.... But from what I've read of a modder's experience making a mod for Skyrim to have co-op multiplayer, some factors can certainly become a drain. (But that's for a modder... I dunno how much of a problem it would be for larger companies to include co-op campaigns.)

    I don't think it would be simple :P

    Take DAI as an example. You said it would be great, but here is how I feel it would happen:

    So during DAIs development, they would decide to implement a co-op campaign so people could play together during the story. With DAI, it would work fairly well - it has an open world layout after all. They would need to spend some of their budget on developing the system, servers etc and something else would have to have a decline in quality because of that.
    AND
    While there would be some people (like you) who would be happy to play as "player two", Dragon Age is a game series where player customization and options are important and a big part of the themes of the sieres, and many people wouldn't be happy with, for example, having to play as Solas rather than their own character. To that end, BioWare would most likely have changed the games story so you would play as an "Inquisition agent" rather than the Inquisitor, to give a reason why other players would be in the game - the importance of the player in the story would be reduced.
    Then would come balance issues. Obviously DAI is a singleplayer game, and having two players fighting together would imbalance it. Because of the cost issues, I doubt they would want to create two separate instances for all of their worlds and quests, one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer. Instead, I think they would just up the difficulty so that it would be balanced for co-op gameplay - and singleplayer would suffer.
    But there would be more issues. Playing with people you know would be one thing, but there wouldn't be a reason for them to spend so much money implementing a co-op campaign when it would be something like invite-only. They would need to create a system where random people could join your game to make it worth the money developing. And that would bring more issues. First, there would be friendly fire - which is an option in DAI. They would need to turn that off to prevent trolling. Then they would need to add a kick system so the hosting player could kick people who joined if they were being annoying. On PC, you would have cheaters and that could cause some real issues, so they might use an anti-cheat system on Origin... which could affect modders.

    It wouldn't just be a simple thing to add to a game. It would need to be a part of the game's development from the beginning, and it would very much change how the final product played. Its definitely a question of financial viability for many games, and whether its worth the money to add something like that. Its also a question of what fans want. There needs to be an audience for co-op campaigns and multiplayer games, and after talking with maannnyyy Dragon Age fans I can say that most wouldn't use it or be happy about its existence. More social games would be an immediately better fit for co-op campaigns.

    If you are all about character customization, I suggest you look up Dragon's Dogma, if you haven't already. Although I felt that the game's story mode was short and not nearly filling enough, the character and Pawn customization were the most progressive I've seen in any fully released game yet, probably. (Height, gender, skin tone, limbs, hair, voice, omg...)

    I considered buying it when the Steam sale was happening, but my PC couldn't run it :P

    Also, I couldn't get far in the Witcher. Soo boring. The main character has the personality of a fence post!

    Totally agree!


    Ooh! Is Horizon Zero Dawn any fun? (My mate and I both want to play that.) Readin' up about it, that game was supposed to have multiplayer, but it was cut, because co-op would have come at the expensive of other things... But I wonder if deadlines were the real issue. Expanding upon a game at a later date is always a thing. If they re-release or update Horizon Zero Dawn with their original multiplayer plans, after it's release, I'd be more inclined to get it.

    So it would come at the expense of other things :P

    Horizon Zero Dawn... is interesting. Ive played it for quite a few hours. I cant think of anything bad to say about it, the world is nice, the gameplay is fun, Im not very far into the story so I cant REALLY comment... but idk... as much as I cant think of anything wrong about the game, I cant think of anything that makes me enjoy it either. Oh, other than the voice actress for Aloy is the same as Chloe Price from Life is Strange! :D

    Other than that, the game has kinda failed to grab my emotions in a big way. It isn't current installed on my PS4, but I know ill play it again!

    (I watched my mate go for Jack as a romance option. I advocated for Miranda; "Jack is wearing less clothing than Miranda, and Jack was way out of line to remark about Miri's ensemble!" In their playthrough, Miranda didn't make it, and they were devastated and felt all the more guilty. You can be sure I nagged the **** 'outta them after that. XD But all in all, I would have liked to be a bit more involved in their game beyond just watching and talking. )

    As I recall, I had no romance options at all in Mass Effect 2... I would have probably chosen Tali if she was bi. Those hips :P

    Dragon Age 2 was a limited lack luster piece of **** and I beat it in probably two hours, I'm truly sorry. (Mind you I missed Isabela, characters should not be miss-able...!) I hated that I had to play as a pre-set character, after having previously had the option to pick my race, gender, and age etc in DA:O. (I picked to play as little lady dwarf and a feminine male Dalish elf.)

    Dragon Age 2 is my favorite game... like ever :P I love how the story is told, I love the characters, I love the combat... I love everything. Yes, it doesnt have the same origins as Origins, and the characters are slightly less memorable than DAO... but even the romance options were great. I had the choice of a sexy pirate or a cute elf. THATS LIKE THE BEST CHOICE <3
    Though, neither Isabela or Merrill are like Morrigan. *sigh* Morrigan, how I want to romance you, but cant...
    "The question," she replied, "Is not whether you will love, hurt, dream, and die. It is what you will love, why you will hurt, when you will dream, and how you will die. This is your choice. You cannot pick the destination, only the path." - Oathbringer.
  • Raylol
    1109 posts Member
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    That was definitely a long post! Ive chosen the parts I think I need (or want) to reply to. But Ive read everything, just FYI :)


    Spiito wrote: »
    Adding co-op to a game seems like a simple feature.... But from what I've read of a modder's experience making a mod for Skyrim to have co-op multiplayer, some factors can certainly become a drain. (But that's for a modder... I dunno how much of a problem it would be for larger companies to include co-op campaigns.)

    I don't think it would be simple :P

    Take DAI as an example. You said it would be great, but here is how I feel it would happen:

    So during DAIs development, they would decide to implement a co-op campaign so people could play together during the story. With DAI, it would work fairly well - it has an open world layout after all. They would need to spend some of their budget on developing the system, servers etc and something else would have to have a decline in quality because of that.
    AND
    While there would be some people (like you) who would be happy to play as "player two", Dragon Age is a game series where player customization and options are important and a big part of the themes of the sieres, and many people wouldn't be happy with, for example, having to play as Solas rather than their own character. To that end, BioWare would most likely have changed the games story so you would play as an "Inquisition agent" rather than the Inquisitor, to give a reason why other players would be in the game - the importance of the player in the story would be reduced.
    Then would come balance issues. Obviously DAI is a singleplayer game, and having two players fighting together would imbalance it. Because of the cost issues, I doubt they would want to create two separate instances for all of their worlds and quests, one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer. Instead, I think they would just up the difficulty so that it would be balanced for co-op gameplay - and singleplayer would suffer.
    But there would be more issues. Playing with people you know would be one thing, but there wouldn't be a reason for them to spend so much money implementing a co-op campaign when it would be something like invite-only. They would need to create a system where random people could join your game to make it worth the money developing. And that would bring more issues. First, there would be friendly fire - which is an option in DAI. They would need to turn that off to prevent trolling. Then they would need to add a kick system so the hosting player could kick people who joined if they were being annoying. On PC, you would have cheaters and that could cause some real issues, so they might use an anti-cheat system on Origin... which could affect modders.

    It wouldn't just be a simple thing to add to a game. It would need to be a part of the game's development from the beginning, and it would very much change how the final product played. Its definitely a question of financial viability for many games, and whether its worth the money to add something like that. Its also a question of what fans want. There needs to be an audience for co-op campaigns and multiplayer games, and after talking with maannnyyy Dragon Age fans I can say that most wouldn't use it or be happy about its existence. More social games would be an immediately better fit for co-op campaigns.

    If you are all about character customization, I suggest you look up Dragon's Dogma, if you haven't already. Although I felt that the game's story mode was short and not nearly filling enough, the character and Pawn customization were the most progressive I've seen in any fully released game yet, probably. (Height, gender, skin tone, limbs, hair, voice, omg...)

    I considered buying it when the Steam sale was happening, but my PC couldn't run it :P

    Also, I couldn't get far in the Witcher. Soo boring. The main character has the personality of a fence post!

    Totally agree!


    Ooh! Is Horizon Zero Dawn any fun? (My mate and I both want to play that.) Readin' up about it, that game was supposed to have multiplayer, but it was cut, because co-op would have come at the expensive of other things... But I wonder if deadlines were the real issue. Expanding upon a game at a later date is always a thing. If they re-release or update Horizon Zero Dawn with their original multiplayer plans, after it's release, I'd be more inclined to get it.

    So it would come at the expense of other things :P

    Horizon Zero Dawn... is interesting. Ive played it for quite a few hours. I cant think of anything bad to say about it, the world is nice, the gameplay is fun, Im not very far into the story so I cant REALLY comment... but idk... as much as I cant think of anything wrong about the game, I cant think of anything that makes me enjoy it either. Oh, other than the voice actress for Aloy is the same as Chloe Price from Life is Strange! :D

    Other than that, the game has kinda failed to grab my emotions in a big way. It isn't current installed on my PS4, but I know ill play it again!

    (I watched my mate go for Jack as a romance option. I advocated for Miranda; "Jack is wearing less clothing than Miranda, and Jack was way out of line to remark about Miri's ensemble!" In their playthrough, Miranda didn't make it, and they were devastated and felt all the more guilty. You can be sure I nagged the **** 'outta them after that. XD But all in all, I would have liked to be a bit more involved in their game beyond just watching and talking. )

    As I recall, I had no romance options at all in Mass Effect 2... I would have probably chosen Tali if she was bi. Those hips :P

    Dragon Age 2 was a limited lack luster piece of **** and I beat it in probably two hours, I'm truly sorry. (Mind you I missed Isabela, characters should not be miss-able...!) I hated that I had to play as a pre-set character, after having previously had the option to pick my race, gender, and age etc in DA:O. (I picked to play as little lady dwarf and a feminine male Dalish elf.)

    Dragon Age 2 is my favorite game... like ever :P I love how the story is told, I love the characters, I love the combat... I love everything. Yes, it doesnt have the same origins as Origins, and the characters are slightly less memorable than DAO... but even the romance options were great. I had the choice of a sexy pirate or a cute elf. THATS LIKE THE BEST CHOICE <3
    Though, neither Isabela or Merrill are like Morrigan. *sigh* Morrigan, how I want to romance you, but cant...

    Huge dragon age fan here too
  • Raylol wrote: »
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    That was definitely a long post! Ive chosen the parts I think I need (or want) to reply to. But Ive read everything, just FYI :)


    Spiito wrote: »
    Adding co-op to a game seems like a simple feature.... But from what I've read of a modder's experience making a mod for Skyrim to have co-op multiplayer, some factors can certainly become a drain. (But that's for a modder... I dunno how much of a problem it would be for larger companies to include co-op campaigns.)

    I don't think it would be simple :P

    Take DAI as an example. You said it would be great, but here is how I feel it would happen:

    So during DAIs development, they would decide to implement a co-op campaign so people could play together during the story. With DAI, it would work fairly well - it has an open world layout after all. They would need to spend some of their budget on developing the system, servers etc and something else would have to have a decline in quality because of that.
    AND
    While there would be some people (like you) who would be happy to play as "player two", Dragon Age is a game series where player customization and options are important and a big part of the themes of the sieres, and many people wouldn't be happy with, for example, having to play as Solas rather than their own character. To that end, BioWare would most likely have changed the games story so you would play as an "Inquisition agent" rather than the Inquisitor, to give a reason why other players would be in the game - the importance of the player in the story would be reduced.
    Then would come balance issues. Obviously DAI is a singleplayer game, and having two players fighting together would imbalance it. Because of the cost issues, I doubt they would want to create two separate instances for all of their worlds and quests, one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer. Instead, I think they would just up the difficulty so that it would be balanced for co-op gameplay - and singleplayer would suffer.
    But there would be more issues. Playing with people you know would be one thing, but there wouldn't be a reason for them to spend so much money implementing a co-op campaign when it would be something like invite-only. They would need to create a system where random people could join your game to make it worth the money developing. And that would bring more issues. First, there would be friendly fire - which is an option in DAI. They would need to turn that off to prevent trolling. Then they would need to add a kick system so the hosting player could kick people who joined if they were being annoying. On PC, you would have cheaters and that could cause some real issues, so they might use an anti-cheat system on Origin... which could affect modders.

    It wouldn't just be a simple thing to add to a game. It would need to be a part of the game's development from the beginning, and it would very much change how the final product played. Its definitely a question of financial viability for many games, and whether its worth the money to add something like that. Its also a question of what fans want. There needs to be an audience for co-op campaigns and multiplayer games, and after talking with maannnyyy Dragon Age fans I can say that most wouldn't use it or be happy about its existence. More social games would be an immediately better fit for co-op campaigns.

    If you are all about character customization, I suggest you look up Dragon's Dogma, if you haven't already. Although I felt that the game's story mode was short and not nearly filling enough, the character and Pawn customization were the most progressive I've seen in any fully released game yet, probably. (Height, gender, skin tone, limbs, hair, voice, omg...)

    I considered buying it when the Steam sale was happening, but my PC couldn't run it :P

    Also, I couldn't get far in the Witcher. Soo boring. The main character has the personality of a fence post!

    Totally agree!


    Ooh! Is Horizon Zero Dawn any fun? (My mate and I both want to play that.) Readin' up about it, that game was supposed to have multiplayer, but it was cut, because co-op would have come at the expensive of other things... But I wonder if deadlines were the real issue. Expanding upon a game at a later date is always a thing. If they re-release or update Horizon Zero Dawn with their original multiplayer plans, after it's release, I'd be more inclined to get it.

    So it would come at the expense of other things :P

    Horizon Zero Dawn... is interesting. Ive played it for quite a few hours. I cant think of anything bad to say about it, the world is nice, the gameplay is fun, Im not very far into the story so I cant REALLY comment... but idk... as much as I cant think of anything wrong about the game, I cant think of anything that makes me enjoy it either. Oh, other than the voice actress for Aloy is the same as Chloe Price from Life is Strange! :D

    Other than that, the game has kinda failed to grab my emotions in a big way. It isn't current installed on my PS4, but I know ill play it again!

    (I watched my mate go for Jack as a romance option. I advocated for Miranda; "Jack is wearing less clothing than Miranda, and Jack was way out of line to remark about Miri's ensemble!" In their playthrough, Miranda didn't make it, and they were devastated and felt all the more guilty. You can be sure I nagged the **** 'outta them after that. XD But all in all, I would have liked to be a bit more involved in their game beyond just watching and talking. )

    As I recall, I had no romance options at all in Mass Effect 2... I would have probably chosen Tali if she was bi. Those hips :P

    Dragon Age 2 was a limited lack luster piece of **** and I beat it in probably two hours, I'm truly sorry. (Mind you I missed Isabela, characters should not be miss-able...!) I hated that I had to play as a pre-set character, after having previously had the option to pick my race, gender, and age etc in DA:O. (I picked to play as little lady dwarf and a feminine male Dalish elf.)

    Dragon Age 2 is my favorite game... like ever :P I love how the story is told, I love the characters, I love the combat... I love everything. Yes, it doesnt have the same origins as Origins, and the characters are slightly less memorable than DAO... but even the romance options were great. I had the choice of a sexy pirate or a cute elf. THATS LIKE THE BEST CHOICE <3
    Though, neither Isabela or Merrill are like Morrigan. *sigh* Morrigan, how I want to romance you, but cant...

    Huge dragon age fan here too

    Im 98% sure the only non-Dragon Age fans are those that have never played it!

    We should start a thread :)
    "The question," she replied, "Is not whether you will love, hurt, dream, and die. It is what you will love, why you will hurt, when you will dream, and how you will die. This is your choice. You cannot pick the destination, only the path." - Oathbringer.
  • Spiito
    1846 posts Member
    edited June 2018
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    That was definitely a long post! Ive chosen the parts I think I need (or want) to reply to. But Ive read everything, just FYI :)

    I don't think it would be simple :P

    Take DAI as an example. You said it would be great, but here is how I feel it would happen:

    So during DAIs development, they would decide to implement a co-op campaign so people could play together during the story. With DAI, it would work fairly well - it has an open world layout after all. They would need to spend some of their budget on developing the system, servers etc and something else would have to have a decline in quality because of that.
    AND
    While there would be some people (like you) who would be happy to play as "player two", Dragon Age is a game series where player customization and options are important and a big part of the themes of the sieres, and many people wouldn't be happy with, for example, having to play as Solas rather than their own character. To that end, BioWare would most likely have changed the games story so you would play as an "Inquisition agent" rather than the Inquisitor, to give a reason why other players would be in the game - the importance of the player in the story would be reduced.
    Then would come balance issues. Obviously DAI is a singleplayer game, and having two players fighting together would imbalance it. Because of the cost issues, I doubt they would want to create two separate instances for all of their worlds and quests, one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer. Instead, I think they would just up the difficulty so that it would be balanced for co-op gameplay - and singleplayer would suffer.
    But there would be more issues. Playing with people you know would be one thing, but there wouldn't be a reason for them to spend so much money implementing a co-op campaign when it would be something like invite-only. They would need to create a system where random people could join your game to make it worth the money developing. And that would bring more issues. First, there would be friendly fire - which is an option in DAI. They would need to turn that off to prevent trolling. Then they would need to add a kick system so the hosting player could kick people who joined if they were being annoying. On PC, you would have cheaters and that could cause some real issues, so they might use an anti-cheat system on Origin... which could affect modders.
    Genuinely, that's reassuring~ Thank you.
    Are you suggesting there's something wrong with humoring the notion of playing as Solas...? ;p Everyone has a favorite character, do they not? Self importance is subjective so I can't argue the personal nature of adding a secondary character with customization options. Mind you, I never had a problem with that, in Saints Row 4.
    Separate instances for worlds part is kind of confusing- I'm not sure what you're talking about or getting at with that point.
    Private sessions are not a new thing. It was in Swbf15 and Me3mp. It's not like they'd be reinventing the wheel to add these features.
    On the matter of money... My mate and I were both wanting to preorder the Power Armor Edition of Fallout 76. Since it was sold out, we each had to settle for preordaining a copy of the Tricentennial Edition. (I wish I could have gotten a digital preorder option. Oh well.) Thing is, by targeting the co-op oriented audience/s you're potentially hooking the players that will be bringing a plus one. (If not a group of friends) An additional player who may not otherwise want to play a game might end up doing so because they can play with friends. (Though not in every case, as individuality & preferences exist, but you probably get the point.) ->Could mean more copies sold.
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    It wouldn't just be a simple thing to add to a game. It would need to be a part of the game's development from the beginning, and it would very much change how the final product played. Its definitely a question of financial viability for many games, and whether its worth the money to add something like that. Its also a question of what fans want. There needs to be an audience for co-op campaigns and multiplayer games, and after talking with maannnyyy Dragon Age fans I can say that most wouldn't use it or be happy about its existence. More social games would be an immediately better fit for co-op campaigns.
    It wouldn't have to be a part of the game's development from the beginning.
    As other games have been made into re-releases which include co-op years after the original release.
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    So it would come at the expense of other things :P

    Horizon Zero Dawn... is interesting. Ive played it for quite a few hours. I cant think of anything bad to say about it, the world is nice, the gameplay is fun, Im not very far into the story so I cant REALLY comment... but idk... as much as I cant think of anything wrong about the game, I cant think of anything that makes me enjoy it either. Oh, other than the voice actress for Aloy is the same as Chloe Price from Life is Strange! :D

    Other than that, the game has kinda failed to grab my emotions in a big way. It isn't current installed on my PS4, but I know ill play it again!
    giphy.gif

    Horizon Zero Dawn looks reminiscent of Far Cry Primal but with futuristic aspects and robots. :heart:


    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    As I recall, I had no romance options at all in Mass Effect 2... I would have probably chosen Tali if she was bi. Those hips :P
    In ME2; Kelly, Samara or Samara's daughter were FxF options. But I can understand why you feel as though you had no options.
    Honestly, I would have preferred more Alien/Synthetic romance options. Edi & Jeff later showed that they were willing to explore the concept (in ME:3 anyways.) And the two made a cute couple. It would have been nice to see Shepard cuddle up with Legion and share some meta romance dialog over 'Galaxy of Fantasy' & 'Fleet and Flotilla: Interactive Cross-Species Relationship Simulator' :blush:
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    Dragon Age 2 is my favorite game... like ever :P I love how the story is told, I love the characters, I love the combat... I love everything. Yes, it doesnt have the same origins as Origins, and the characters are slightly less memorable than DAO... but even the romance options were great. I had the choice of a sexy pirate or a cute elf. THATS LIKE THE BEST CHOICE <3
    Though, neither Isabela or Merrill are like Morrigan. *sigh* Morrigan, how I want to romance you, but cant...
    Hawke is such a set character, beyond aesthetics and sex(/gender.) Because of that, it's kind of odd how DA:2 is your favorite. But to each their own, of course.
    Post edited by Spiito on
    "A fair fight is where everyone loses."
  • Assassino37
    1104 posts Member
    edited June 2018
    I also thoroughly enjoyed Dragon Age 2, while I do know it seems a lot of people not only just didn't care for it, but were quite angry with it (which really does surprise me). I appreciated how it was different from the first game and I really enjoyed how it took place within a single location after the first taking place in a large chunk of the world. I adored Merrill and of course that Morrigan... just put's a spell on me too ;-p.

    While I did see how they incorporated a side multiplayer mode in Inquisition (didn't play that mode), the DA series IS one I rather them keep it that way. I don't think it will work as well as a co-op game and do think it would take away from it's true nature. Maybe an MMO down the line may work but while I was so excited for Elder Scrolls Online I ended up not caring for it at all myself. I'm very excited they built a NEW game like Anthem around the 'co-op within their type of game' notion though.

    I haven't played the Mass Effect series but one day I'm sure I will. I can't comment on that.
    Valid Token Confirmed.

    fyq20437essy.png
  • Baaahhhhh I forgot about this thread, sorry! :(

    Spiito wrote: »
    Genuinely, that's reassuring~ Thank you.
    Are you suggesting there's something wrong with humoring the notion of playing as Solas...? ;p Everyone has a favorite character, do they not? Self importance is subjective so I can't argue the personal nature of adding a secondary character with customization options. Mind you, I never had a problem with that, in Saints Row 4.
    Separate instances for worlds part is kind of confusing- I'm not sure what you're talking about or getting at with that point.
    Private sessions are not a new thing. It was in Swbf15 and Me3mp. It's not like they'd be reinventing the wheel to add these features.
    On the matter of money... My mate and I were both wanting to preorder the Power Armor Edition of Fallout 76. Since it was sold out, we each had to settle for preordaining a copy of the Tricentennial Edition. (I wish I could have gotten a digital preorder option. Oh well.) Thing is, by targeting the co-op oriented audience/s you're potentially hooking the players that will be bringing a plus one. (If not a group of friends) An additional player who may not otherwise want to play a game might end up doing so because they can play with friends. (Though not in every case, as individuality & preferences exist, but you probably get the point.) ->Could mean more copies sold.

    Ha, well... yes, given the ending of DAI :P Playing as Solas would be bad! :D

    What I mean by the separate instances thing, is that... well, DAI is a singleplayer game, balanced for singleplayer. Especially if the co-op was added later in development, the game would no longer be balanced - it would be faarrrrr too easy to play with two players. Im definitely not the best gamer in the world (nowhere near), and Ive completed DAI on Nightmare difficulty and never really felt as if I needed another player there.
    So to balance it, they would need two instances for every difficulty. There would be the normal singleplayer option, and a co-op option with extra enemy placements and more enemy health etc for balance reasons.
    There would need to be:
    Casual - Singleplayer, Co-op
    Normal - Singleplayer, Co-op
    Hard - Singleplayer, Co-op
    Nightmare - Singleplayer, Co-op
    Resulting in a lot more work, especially in an open world game with many different enemy types :P

    Ehhhhhhh but you'll also be losing the singleplayer crowd in the process, who are often the main fanbase for BioWare and Bethesda games. I talk to BioWare fans on a regular basis elsewhere on the internet and their current feelings are negativity towards Anthem (for being multiplayer, having no romance options, limited dialogue choices)... but they are insanely excited for Assassin's Creed Odyssey that seems to be filling a gap in the market that BioWare and Bethesda have left :P
    In ME2; Kelly, Samara or Samara's daughter were FxF options. But I can understand why you feel as though you had no options.
    Honestly, I would have preferred more Alien/Synthetic romance options. Edi & Jeff later showed that they were willing to explore the concept (in ME:3 anyways.) And the two made a cute couple. It would have been nice to see Shepard cuddle up with Legion and share some meta romance dialog over 'Galaxy of Fantasy' & 'Fleet and Flotilla: Interactive Cross-Species Relationship Simulator' :blush:

    Kelly... is a little too... bland for my liking I guess??? Samara iirc didn't have a true romance, and Morinth's romance... you don't survive it :P It isn't really an option!

    Ha, I would be happy with some synthetic romance options too :)

    Hawke is such a set character, beyond aesthetics and sex(/gender.) Because of that, it's kind of odd how DA:2 is your favorite. But to each their own, of course.

    While I prefer the number of dialogue choices that Origins had, I like that Dragon Age 2 is more of a personal story for Hawke. I also love how the story is told (by Varric being interrogated by Cassandra etc), the combat is a lot more fun too :) Its also a good example of how to have a voiced protagonist in an RPG, but do it RIGHT. Mass Effect 1-3 is good, but you're limited to paragon and renegade. DAI and MEA are ok, but the different tone options are lacking in difference and personality, making the Inquisitor and Ryder feel very bland. Dragon Age 2 has a voiced protagonist, but the personality options are very different and it makes the game very replayable, imo :)

    "The question," she replied, "Is not whether you will love, hurt, dream, and die. It is what you will love, why you will hurt, when you will dream, and how you will die. This is your choice. You cannot pick the destination, only the path." - Oathbringer.
  • Batman20
    1755 posts Member
    I cried when I saw Spider-Man and the last of us part 2 gameplay
  • Spiito
    1846 posts Member
    LaurenXIV wrote: »
    Baaahhhhh I forgot about this thread, sorry! :(
    *I read all of your post.
    No worries, sometimes conversations just get dropped, it happens.
    "A fair fight is where everyone loses."
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!