monsen

Exactly. I don't want the campaign changed in any way, nor do anything need to be rebalanced. Nor do I want some silly tached-on seperate multiplayer part just so they can claim multiplayer support (like Mass Effect 3 did). Just the single player experience, but granting a friend the option to create his own character and play it as one of the party members of the main hero. Many people claim there are too many games with multiplayer support these days, but there have been forever since I saw a proper RPG game with proper Co-op support. This isn't about tacking on multiplayer to everything, but to bring back that good old fun co-op multiplayer for a game type that really fits with that kind of play. If you are going to control an entire party, why not let friends play some of the characters. Even if not everyone can play "a main hero", the game is still fun. As for character interactions, these can still take place. Either by limiting the number of players so there will always be some independen't NPC's, or by still let the interactions happen even if another player controls the character. This is the way BG/BG2 did it. When you picked up a new character you met in the game world, you could delegate control of that character to any of the players, but any scripted interactions that character had with the main hero (or other characters in the party) still happened, independently of who actually controlled the character. In my book, this is perfectly fine. It ensures that nothiong is taken away ffrom the single-player experience, while simultaneously allows multiple people to play the came co-operatively.

To me, Multiplayer is the single most important feature beyond the actual game itself. I've had countless hours of fun playing the campaigns from Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, etc co-op multiplayer with my friends. What is important to me is that the multi-player is co-op, playing the exaxct same campaign as in single-player, no seperate multiplayer part or other changes. And I don't care if the story still resolves around a single hero, I am more than willing to play one of the hero's companions (like in BG multiplayer), no reason to change the story to accomodate multiple protagonists. Obsidian have already stated this game will be party-based, so having different people take control of various party members (Like it worked in BG) instead of everyone controlled by one player should make minimal impact on the game story/balance-wise, while still allowing people to enjoy the game with their friends. I love playing Baldur's Gate single player, but I love it even more playing it together with my friends. As for multiple language support, I voted no. This is because I am NOT a native english-speaker, but I absolutelay hate when gaming companies spend resources translating the game into my language.

Having multiplayer is one of the most interesting features they could add imho. Note that with multiplayer, i mean co-op, play through the main story multiplayer, not some tacked on unrelated multiplayer (like deathmatch arenas, seperate multiplayer maps and such). I have had a really good time playing through the campaigns of Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights co-op with my friends. Not really. Baldur's Gate, for example, is a single hero campaign (with a supporting party), but still, co-op multiplayer works perfectly. Not all players have to have equally important roles in the game for multiplayer to be exiting. Obsidian have already said you will have a complete party in this game as well, so I feel that letting a friend control some of these party members (as in BG) would be perfect.