Tiliqua

I can accept that P/E is not going to have LAN support, (doesn't mean I'm happy), but really the quality of the posts from the LAN haters is getting ridiculous. It is impossible for me to believe that 2 players who claim to be capable, would experience your difficulties. On the other hand it is very easy for me to believe that 2 players without a clue could get wiped in an early Goblin encounter. The only part of your post that made any sense is your confession of being a mediocre mmo player - that I have no problem in believing.

Well Ebi, what a fascinating post. You didn't use multiplayer in BG and yet you know it wasn't good - how do you know that, some sort of psychic pulse? I actually did play multiplayer in BG, IWD and all of their various sequels - I suppose the fact that I played it and loved it is meaningless. Just one more bizarre post from a mp hater

A game in development is literally that. I can easily imagine a situation where Fergus comes into the office, assembles the team and says, "we've made a bad mistake, obviously a large segment of the punters want LAN and we're going to give it to them. Josh you have 1 hour to fall in love with this idea and to produce a timeline for LAN implementation, on my desk, by the end of the week."

You know the debate about co-op has drifted into the Twilight Zone, when someone arguing against the idea admits to liking it because he got to hang out with friends while playing the game. Just in case you haven't yet worked it out Sherlock, this is precisely why people are hoping for it to eventually be in PE.

The games you played when you were small were obviously not IE games such as Baldours Gate etc as they all supported co-op play. It's perfectly reasonable for fans of the IE games who are looking forward to PE to ask for a multiplayer option.

I'm hoping that the modding community can give us LAN support. I've happily supported PE through kickstarter but seeing as I no longer play sp games, this is probably my only opportunity to experience PE

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

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.

Would it be possible for a modder to create a multiplayer option? Let me rephrase that, as I'm sure it's theoretically possible, is it doable within a realistic time frame?

Multiplayer obviously polarizes this community. More people on these forums dislike it rather than want it. I loved playing BG, IWD etc on multiplayer, for many years every Friday evening was spent with a friend playing all the IE games and their expansions and sequels. I have very fond memories of those times. I was saddened when Josh stated it was not going to happen for PE and that has not stopped my from looking forward to a successful completion of this project. However I'm hoping that the devs have noticed there is real interest from a sizeable number of players for multiplayer and that we get it eventually.

I like lockpicking, and I hate being able to bypass the whole lockpicking thing by just using brute force. As long as the necessary skills allow you to open a lock then I'm all for it. Ideally only items not essential for progressing through the game are found this way.

A modding toolkit is a great way to interact with the community. It doesn't even have to be particularly user friendly, there are people with the necessary skills as long as they can access the software

I'm in the right forum, talking about the right game. I played all of the BG and IWD games on multiplayer and know how much it enhanced my gaming experience by sharing it with other people. I'll still play Eternity even if it is only single player, (especially as I've already made a $25 pledge), however this must be the time and place to argue for content. I had no idea there was only one way to think, thanks for the protip.

Good points Alweth, it seems that the debate is being hijacked by people who don't play multiplayer, probably don't like mmos either. For me the greatest aspect of gaming is the social capital that is created by playing with other people. Single player games are so last century.

I love multiplayer, if it's possible please include this option. I played all the IE games on multiplayer, hopefully it's not too difficult a thing to implement.

I'm a big fan of real time with pause and I'm glad this is the system they're going with. The IE games validated this approach, why change something that works and works well.

In Eve for example, several frigates can overwhelm a battleship and pilot skill will often determine the outcome of a battle, which is what makes Eve PvP so good. The bigger ship does not always win! Nevertheless I accept that it is not twitch fighting and some of my friends do not like Eve combat, well no combat system is going to please everyone.

Eve has brilliant PvP, PvE as well as a fantastic player economy and political scene. I also really like the way you skill up which is time based and occurs whether you're playing or not, rather than relying on grinding. Personally I would incorporate all of that and expand the Eve concept by allowing planet, moon and asteroid based activity. In many ways Eve is a huge database with pretty graphics, toons would add an extra dimension.

Oblivion for all its good points is still a sp game - therefore I recommend you avoid it like the plague. Against my better judgement I bought the game and I agree it is beautiful, complex and huge, however I really missed playing with fellow gamers. Plus for a small % of machines it is unstable and essentially unplayable, unfortunatley I am one of the unluckly ones.

I don't think I can stomach sp games any more, way too much last century. I would suggest Eve: http://www.eve-online.com/ I'm sure that will keep you going for quite a while.

I couldn't be happier. Mmos are the future of gaming and Bioware is one of my favourite companies, I'm really interested in what they produce.

I loved IWD2 and found it better than IWD (which I also really liked). It was complex, huge and a real challenge to finish. One of the reasons I prefered it to IWD was just the fact that the Infinity Engine had been improved since IWD and was more user friendly. IWD was more linear, IWD2 had many more puzzles and twists. If the IE engine had been 3D I would have been a pig in mud. I can remember trying to get behind things (because I'd being playing lots of 3D stuff) and not being able to which was dull, but it certainly was graphically beautiful especially when compared to the Aurora engine. I played IWD and IWD2 on a LAN over many months, every Friday night and I think that they were much better games than they were given credit for. Being asked to say which one was better is cruel because they were both so good and any new game that comes close to them will be a real achievement.

Opera that brilliant browser is now free and without adds. If you go to http://www.opera.com/ you can download the browser that makes Explorer look primitive. I liked it so much that I paid $40 for it, but now you can all experience the joys of this great program without forking out a cent.

Seeing as Sid is behind Civ4, I'm looking forward to it. Civ2 is one of my favourite games, Civ3 for me was a huge dissapointment.

I pledge that nationalism sucks. One world, one people, in a secular, democratic government.