Santiago

He says that MP should have concesions, but I have said before I don't know how much money is needed, I only asked for a strech goal offering cooperative. So, I still not understand why he says that MP need concesions if he also says: "I do believe you can create an awesome multi-player experience with dialogue and choice and consequence, in my mind it would require a very large budget. I'll let you guys decide what that may or may not mean.". I agree, resources are needed, but if you get the resources, cooperative could be great. Some posts before, something asked in the kickstarter and they answered: "We are not currently supporting multiplayer, however. Multiplayer adds a lot of complexity and testing requirements, so we want to be sure about being able to support it before adding it into the project." So, they are not saying that is out of budget or something like that. I think it's a reasonable answer. And Tim Cain said: "Multiplayer isn't ruled out. "Interest?" Tim Cain mulled. "Yes, but not if it risks reducing the scope or quality of the single-player game in any way. Single-player gaming is our focus.". They have interest and may be adding a stretch goal, could increase the backers. That's all. If they can't add it, it's ok, but I think that cooperative would be great for a game like this. Some guy said that only 20% NWN players used MP. I don't know if that's true, but NWN was in the TOP TEN multiplayer games in Gamespy for years. And the RPG experience in some servers was great, pretty near to P&P RPG. However, 20% is not bad. If they increase sales for 20% adding coop...

The problem with your (and others who want MP badly) perspective is that you're seeing this issue only as the end-user who saw nothing of the balancing act done during design and development. So this always bears repeating: I really can't imagine the likes of PS:T to have co-op. BG was much lighter in narrative content than that, and IWD even lighter still. I suspect the majority here are not after a mere dungeon romp but something with depth, even moreso than BG (because Avellone is involved), where the truth of "reading is not a team sport" would be much more obvious in practice. The game is not designed, but, Why do you say that design concesions has to be made if they finally go for cooperative?. That's not true, a game can be deep with great narrative and coop. Why not?. Could you give me a reason?. Because reading is not for cooperative?. But this is not a book, this is a videogame, a different media. May be you lack imagination enough to imagine a game like PS torment with cooperative... if PS were party based.

Ironically, you've answered your own question. This is the biggest objection with such a small budget. I think that we are asking for coop if Obsidian gets the resources for it. I mean, adding coop as a "stretch goal". 2.4 million, 3 million, I don't know.

Since BG2 and Icewind Dale 2, I only remember 2 games with multiplayer cooperative; Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2. So, why some of you say that publishers want multiplayer for RPG?. And please, don't mention action RPG. I'm saying RPG's, not Gauntlet clones. We have some great RPG games, but only 2 of them with cooperative. More than 10 years with only two RPG's with cooperative. To the people saying that SP is more important... Who is here against single player?. We are asking for multiplayer coop like Baldur's Gate series and Icewind Dale. That is, THE SAME SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN played in cooperative. A great campaign, of course. True RPG's are for playing with friends. If PE is party based, every character could be played by an human player, like BG did. I don't know how it will cost, but if there is enough money, I think Obsidian should go for it. Single player would be great anyway. Reading some people here, it seems that BG has a bad single player experience because of cooperative multiplayer.

I think people here are talking about a single player campaign played in cooperative, in the same way than BG or ICWD. MMO system and such of things are out of the question.

Could you tell me some RPG's with cooperative since Neverwinter Nights 2?. And I'm talking about RPG, not action RPG. Seriously, I'm really interested.

Have you played p&p RPG?. And if played... Did you like it?. In p&p RPG you can read a lot of text and interact with the other players, and there's not any problem with that. RPG was invented for playing with your friends. I don't understand what is the problem with cooperative. If the players want to read all the text, they can do it in MP, why not?. Coop multiplayer is an option, if people want to play SP, they can do it, what's the problem?. We are not voting for single player or multiplayer, we are voting for SP or SP + COOP. If Obsidian gets enough money for cooperative, go for it, single player campaign will be good anyway.

I love multiplayer. RPG was created for multiplayer cooperative, and there is not many computer RPG games with this mode. I enjoyed BG and ICWD series playing in coop with my friends, and still playing now with my sons. BG single player was not affected for the coop mode, so, I think that Project Eternity could add this option. It's party based, so, every player could manage a character in the party, and human brain is, by far, 10000000000 times more interesting than AI scripts. I backed the project, of course, and Ill add more money if they add cooperative campaign, like BG, IWD and NWN. Regards.

Hi Grupo 97 interviews Joshua about gaming, old days and such of things. http://grupo97.halconesrojos.com/index.php...sawyerinterview I hope you find it interesting Regards