Online Multiplayer mode

[Luridis]

It would like to comment on "You'd be surprised..." as I have good programming experience and did design (very little) multiplayer games and wrote the networking for some robots playing a game of "mensch ärgere dich nicht" on a special build game field. So I think I can somehow estimate the amount of work which will be needed to do this. Of course in a company like obisdian I have to add management costs and other factors into it, but the numbers still stay resonable.

Anyway, I have to get sleep, so I wont bother for now as the decision has been made.

 

Ah, let me translate this for everyone, "I once changed the oil in my car so I think I'm fully qualified to estimate the time an expense involved in removing the transmission and completely rebuilding it in a mechanic's garage."

 

The arrogance in that is astounding to me...

 

Multiplayer? Sure, after the game is released if they have the resources or they perhaps kickstart a MUD expansion for it. And, as long as it's done right. No central servers, LAN parties encouraged, no microtransactions etc.

 

I really detest multiplayer and especially MMO's myself. They're designed to string you along as long as possible, not advance proportional on the time you put in and hook you into coming back to play every day even when you have other things to do. Mechanics like dungeon finders are pushing people apart, encouraging them to bail the minute someone makes a mistake, and ensuring you don't have to build any sort of reputation as someone who is fun to play a game with. It's perfectly okay for you to act like a total jerk because the system will roll you into another party. God-forbid you feel left out because you've pissed off any and everyone who might have played with you cause you want to have a tantrum every 5 minutes. Heavens no, we can't have social consequences because that would mean people unsubscribe.

 

Edit: Okay hehe, I guess that last part was more a rant on how people abuse features than the features themselves.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Luridis

[Karkarov]

I hope they stay away from it period. It always baffled me that the Infinity Engine games had it in the first place. It was a single player RPG from the ground up and the multiplayer really didn't add anything to the game and never really worked well anyway. If you want the fun of playing with a buddy there are tons of games that are actually designed for that out there, every game doesn't need multiplayer. I know I am having a blast playing co-op Borderlands 2 with a friend right now, but I would never even consider inviting him to play Baldur's Gate 2 with me in co-op.

[Tiliqua]

Well Karkarov, I played all the BG and IWD collection as co-op and I can assure you it provided some of the best gaming experiences of my life. The fact that you don't get it is neither here nor there.

 

I'm happy for you to play sp as much as you like, however I find it a bit rich to have you pontificating about how multiplayer in the IE games didn't add to the game and didn't work well when for many people it was the exact opposite. I wonder how you can justify such bizarre statements.

[Ieo]

I'm happy for you to play sp as much as you like, however I find it a bit rich to have you pontificating about how multiplayer in the IE games didn't add to the game and didn't work well when for many people it was the exact opposite. I wonder how you can justify such bizarre statements.

 

MP didn't add anything to those games: They added the opportunity to socialize to those games. The thing a lot of proponents fail to realize is that adding content value is absolutely not the same as sharing an experience with a friend--yeah, you can go to the movie theatre by yourself, or you will probably enjoy it more if you went with a friend. Guess what? That has nothing to do with the movie itself.

 

But MP does affect content design in a negative way for primarily SP games. This is why co-op players should stick with games designed from the outset to be ground-up MP.

 

I added an interview reference to your post, by the way. The question started with console controls, but the discussion goes to the co-operative experience.

VGRevolution: This question is a bit strange – I know console development isn’t being considered, but what are your feelings on why games like this don’t get made for an Xbox or PS3? I understand controls are an issue but I feel like that is sort of a sad excuse, for me personally the thought of banding together with 5 friends and going on an adventure that spans several hours, is something that is long overdue.

 

Sawyer: Controls really are a big part of it, which is also why RTSs (other than Pikmin and a few other unorthodox ones) are also notably in short supply on consoles. The co-operative experience has always been a bit of a mystery to me for this sort of game. Many people request it, but it invariably winds up being underutilized or ignored by the majority of players once the game is released.

 

I play MMOs for the social-game fix, otherwise.

[Tiliqua]

It's a while since I played the IE games in co-op mode but my memories are that it was all about the party rather than about the individual players. In that sense it's it's very similar to the sp game. The content was unchanged but was shared. What was different were the dynamics of play. Playing with another person made it (for me and my friend) a much more rewarding experience, it required team work, with us sharing our trials and tribulations. This is something I never get from a sp game, for obvious reasons. I'm not doubting that it involved extra work for the devs, however it's not as though you have sp content and co-op content - you just have the one game.

 

Your quote with Josh mentions consoles which are not part of this debate and then goes on to say how he thinks multiplayer is underutilised and essentially a mystery to him as to why people want it. I'm not sure whether this is a personal opinion or one backed up by monitoring and evaluation (M&E). If it's backed up by M&E data then I have to defer to his conclusions and accept that I am part of a minority that isn't worthwhile catering to. However if there is no science behind that statement I think co-op should be considered as an addition to the game, as a lot of people claim to love it.

 

I find this debate a little weird. The co-op haters seemed determined to prove that co-op is a lesser experience for a game such as PE. Personally I'm happy for people to play sp until their fingers bleed, I'm just wishing there was a co-op option.

 

I can accept that there are not the resources to create this option, I cannot accept that games such as PE must only be played as a SP game.

 

Edit for spelling and grammar

Edited October 20, 2012 by Tiliqua

[nikolokolus]

You know what sounds a lot better in theory than in it is in practice? A spork. "hey look, it's a spoon and a fork rolled into one!" You know what? You get an inferior fork and crappy spoon that way. I just want Obsidian to build the best fork they can and leave the spork to somebody else.

Edited October 20, 2012 by nikolokolus

[ValborgSvensson]

You know what sounds a lot better in theory than in it is in practice? A spork. "hey look, it's a spoon and a fork rolled into one!" You know what? You get an inferior fork and crappy spoon that way. I just want Obsidian to build the best fork they can and leave the spork to somebody else.

 

An interesting argument, but I've used some awesome sporks, and moreover they cater to a group of people who find them immensely useful, such as (as I will refer to them) outdoorsmen.

 

But if we can ground this back in the realm of video games, and specifically the IE games which supported multiplayer, I contend that the theory and practice are both wonderful. Several people have already mentioned the fond memories they have of playing these games with a group of friends, so I won't beat that end of the dead horse, but I'd like to hear some specific reasons that people seem to think adding multiplayer would ruin a game like this, preferably with examples.

 

The argument that I recall as I'm typing this is about how dialogue would be a problem in a multiplayer mode for this game, which I find to be nonsense; do you have the same problem with dialogue when running a Dungeons and Dragons campaign, or during a night of Rune or Pathfinder? There is really little difference between the two, except that the video game has to, by necessity, be slightly more restrictive in choice and speaking order. But if you can successfully play a pen and paper RPG with your friends, then there is nothing that I see stopping you from enjoying a multiplayer mode of this game; in fact, it's hard to play D&D when your friends are on the other side of the world, but having the ability to use TCP/IP connections means that I can play BGII with my brother while he's deployed in Afghanistan. And if the multiplayer development hurt some aspect of the game that I was completely ignorant of because I was too engrossed in the art, the voice acting, the game mechanics, the story, and the wonderful memories of conquering bosses with my brother through what must be now at least 50 playthroughs of varying difficulties and arbitrary rules (like the Bhaalspawn must be a dwarven kensai specializing in spears - go on and try it, it's pretty fun!), then I'm pretty sure I'm glad they took a hit on some ancillary part of the single player experience to bring me everything else.

 

Note : I tried to not beat the dead horse and failed, twice, so I'm leaving in my little rant. Please excuse it on the grounds that we're all just passionate about this game, and want it to bring back a golden age of computer RPGs. 

[Birnensalat]

I have played all of the old Infinity-Engine games in multiplayer and it was great. I used to be with two of my friends in one room with chips and beer playing for the whole weekend. In my opinion it was the best possible way to expierience the game. Although only one Person could engange in conversations with NPC's we would all read it and discuss our answer. The MP in Baldurs Gate and other Infinity-Games really wasn't complex or difficult. It was like playing Singleplayer only that your friends could take over the other characters. That's it. There was no real optimization for it as all of the characters were saved with the savegame of the host and tied to that game unless exported (Does that even work? Never tried it). Since the Singleplayer Game was already Party-based the Devs didn't need to change the game a bit. You could even have one character to start with and let your friends control the other ones you would find on the way.

 

Such a feature is all what i would ask for. No need for complex, structured and optimized MP on my end where all of the content has to be coop friendly and limited.

 

Hearing that PoE won't have Multiplayer is quite a downer for me actually. When PoE only scratches the awesomeness of Fallout 2 or Planescape Torment it would make up for anything and even more though.

[TiQ79]

Unfortunately you guys make me wanna cry. It seems to me I'm punish for you don't get any friends to play with you.

 

 

I can tell you how a multiplayer mode should be played, it's called coop.

Of course there will allways only be one "first" hero, but why shouldn't it be possible to have a buddy following you just like one of the NPCs. If cutscenes and conversations where made a bit better than in Neverwinter Nights 1/2, there is really no disadvantage.

 

If "the game system was inspired by classic and contemporary tabletop fantasy role-playing games". then they should, no they must give some heavy thoughts in multiplayer. We never rolled our dices alone. And now the time where PC players sit alone in their chamber is gone as well.

[DangerAce]

I just want it to be known that I would eagerly back a Kickstart project from Obsidian that aimed to produce a multiplayer RPG simulator.

[Luckz]

This thread is why I removed my contribution to this game's Kickstarter efforts before it ended.

Every time I look at it, a good bit of my soul dies.

[Texoru]

It maybe nice to add MP in but as the interview it seems like it will be only a SP game for this kind of genre. 

[Alegrado]

How is it possible that people of obsidian have not considered creating persistent worlds? Why was not considered? Since NWN being waiting for something to replace it, I thought this would be the game, we wandered through a lot ..

[sesobebo]

How is it possible that people of obsidian have not considered creating persistent worlds? Why was not considered? Since NWN being waiting for something to replace it, I thought this would be the game, we wandered through a lot ..

because it's not NWN that they're trying to re-create with PE...

[Alegrado]

I know, I do not want a NWN, I only meant persistent worlds. So I asked: Why was not considered?. 

Either way, I do not doubt the final product quality. Just hoping to include that option.

[Night Stalker]

 

I know, I do not want a NWN, I only meant persistent worlds. So I asked: Why was not considered?. 

Either way, I do not doubt the final product quality. Just hoping to include that option.

 

 

Pillars of Eternity is supposed to be a modern throwback to the Infinity Engine games. While most of the IE games had a form of Co-op multiplayer, but Obsidian decided that they would only focus on the single-player part games in this outing.

 

I wasn't a fly on the wall of Obsidian's offices, so I cannot say if the idea of persistent worlds ever came up, but as far as I recall, it has never once brought up in any of their official releases or interviews. Perhaps it was brought up, but was nixed before they launched the Kickstarter, since it was not a feature in any of the IE games.

 

Also, the modding support for the game seems that it will be limited to what tools we build ourselves, making it unlikely that we will ever have tools good enough to create the amount of content I imagine is required for a persistent world. Maps are going to be especially hard to create, unless you feel you are able to get by with is already in the game when it ships.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Night Stalker

[Hassat Hunter]

The "persistant world" question makes me wonder...

Did they consider adding a first person mode to it? Did it came up during discussions? What about RTS basebuilding? Nuclear weapons? Platform gameplay?

 

I mean all of that is obviously going to be thought out making a real old-school RPG, right?

[Roby Atadero]

Proper multiplayer requires quite a bit more money mainly because we would need to bring on network programmers and have a dedicated online QA staff. Also, the total programming dev time would probably increase by around 33% which is quite a bit.

[Levok]

Hello,

 

I think the idea is cool similar to that of Baldurs Gate, however it was fun but could have been better. In later expansions I think it would be cool if there was a designed campaign or story to involve those players as a whole rather than spawn of bhaal being just 1 dude. But hey, either way i wont complain (too much ). I will be patient and wait for further info.

 

Respectfully,

-Levok 

[Kendak]

Well ****!

Wow no multiplayer? How to say this sounding as good as possible while not sounding like an ass. I do love a challenge.

I was excited! Now I'm not... the whole thing about BG, IWD, Neverwinter whatever!!
Was that there was an OPTION for it! Would you say that the single player experience was less because of it? Most presumably NO!

One of the more prominant things about those games was that they offered the option to bring a close friend and share an adventure togeather. And if... as said previously in this thread that there are plenty of games for multiplayer. Yes in terms of multiplayer games there are plenty. But in the terms of games such as GB IWD and Neverwinter there is NOT!

I for one cant understand why this isent adressed more, why cant ppl understand that this was one of the reasons these games became such a gem?
Take this away and its another generic single player RPGs. If we instead turn it around... there are plenty of single player games to go around... have fun with those?

I'm deeply dissapointed and any game that tries to come close to those games without multiplayer should stop right there! Dont say your aspiring as much or mention them at all! Not now... not ever! Without actually bringing the option to have a friend tag along.

 

And to be frank... the Kickstarter could be considered a big success compared to alot of kickstarters so adding a goal for multiplayer wouldent have been a big issue if it now was an issue? Because the question about multiplayer has been on the table I assume. To me this sounds more like a lazy option and an easy way out.. omg multiplaya is so hard... (even tho we probably made it with a smaller crew and a smaller budget 10 years ago)

[Labadal]

I have played the IE games over and over again but never touched the MP part other than to create a custom party.

[Bryy]

Proper multiplayer requires quite a bit more money mainly because we would need to bring on network programmers and have a dedicated online QA staff. Also, the total programming dev time would probably increase by around 33% which is quite a bit.

I wish there were more straightforward answers like this. All too often you see Kickstarter comments or otherwise where the dev just plays off the ignorance of the player by playing along that its "just bad". 

 

I am also boggled why you never see this explanation in a KS campaign: "The extra money is going towards multiplayer because that's where the extra money is going to. We won't spend existing funds on multiplayer. This is why it is a stretch goal".

 

But apparently, the mere existence of a multiplayer option makes the product bad or "corrupt" (as if corruption is something akin to demonic possession). I know people that look at Dragon Age 3, in all its berth and scope, and still go "they could have done more without multiplayer".

[Luridis]

Well ****!

Wow no multiplayer? How to say this sounding as good as possible while not sounding like an ass. I do love a challenge.

 

Nope, you definitely came across that way. Perhaps it's the borderline temper-tantrum feel it has.

 

I was excited! Now I'm not... the whole thing about BG, IWD, Neverwinter whatever!!

 

Yea, there's the tantrum I mentioned.

 

 

Was that there was an OPTION for it! Would you say that the single player experience was less because of it? Most presumably NO!

 

As the developer who posted above you noted, a multiplayer component would require network programmers and additional QA personnel. Those would take money away from mechanics, story, world, companions, etc. The option was weighed early on and I think even popped on the forum for the backers to offer input. The response was an overwhelming no.

 

 

One of the more prominant things about those games was that they offered the option to bring a close friend and share an adventure togeather. And if... as said previously in this thread that there are plenty of games for multiplayer. Yes in terms of multiplayer games there are plenty. But in the terms of games such as GB IWD and Neverwinter there is NOT!

 

Divinity: Original Sin has what you're looking for and it's a great game.

 

 

I for one cant understand why this isent adressed more, why cant ppl understand that this was one of the reasons these games became such a gem? Take this away and its another generic single player RPGs. If we instead turn it around... there are plenty of single player games to go around... have fun with those?

 

I'm in beta, I do not feel it is generic. It feels very much like a modernized successor to IE games.

 

 

I'm deeply dissapointed and any game that tries to come close to those games without multiplayer should stop right there! Dont say your aspiring as much or mention them at all! Not now... not ever! Without actually bringing the option to have a friend tag along.

 

It's unfortunate that you're disappointed, but tough cookies. Me an 73,985 people disagree with you. We put our money where our mouth is and provided the funding for the game, a game that doesn't include multiplayer.

 

 

And to be frank... the Kickstarter could be considered a big success compared to alot of kickstarters so adding a goal for multiplayer wouldent have been a big issue if it now was an issue? Because the question about multiplayer has been on the table I assume. To me this sounds more like a lazy option and an easy way out..

 

As I mentioned above, I believe we were asked for input and the result was a resounding no. If we were not asked, I think me and a lot of others have made it pretty clear by now that Obsidian made the correct decision.

 

Calling the developers Lazy is pretty insulting by the way. Studios have to make decisions on which features to add based on the funds available for development and content. Saying they didn't add multiplayer because they're "lazy" is like saying the game isn't twice as long for the same reason.

 

 

omg multiplaya is so hard... (even tho we probably made it with a smaller crew and a smaller budget 10 years ago)

 

You're right... It's absolutely trivial, otherwise they might write whole textbooks on the subject... oh wait.

 

http://amzn.com/0470018577

[Bester]

By the way, multiplayer can be modded in. It's just that not a lot of people played IE games in multiplayer, it's a single player game, so I'm not sure somebody would be willing to go through all the trouble.

[lordkim]

By the way, multiplayer can be modded in. It's just that not a lot of people played IE games in multiplayer, it's a single player game, so I'm not sure somebody would be willing to go through all the trouble.

What im seeing in BG EE , BG EE 2, and IWD EE; theres a lot of multiplaying going on.. Think that some people after finishing the game in single mode, have lot of fun playing with others in multiplayer, it makes the game a lot different to play... just my opinion.