Now the question of, Squad base typical RPG recruit type, or squad base Icewind Dale type.

 

Kind of suspecting the latter, with recruitable NPCs along the way similar to Wizardry 8.

Edited March 24, 200817 yr by Zoma

I'm not against character deaths; I am against scripted auto-deaths for all party members if the game supports parties (I personally doubt it will, as I think a single player RPG with a single character and not a party makes the most sense for an Aliens setting).

 

Nope, it will be:

 

- 3rd Person, GAME ENGINE, R&D / New Technology, RPG, Sci-Fi, Squad Based

 

source

 

Aaaah, cool. Well then I think - to me at least - the squad should be mostly able to survive to the end.

Setting expectation to "low" - - - done.

I've been thinking about this. i think co-op would indeed be more scary because you will care more about the other players than just yourself.

 

You obviously haven't gamed with Llyranor yet, have you?

Yah. Scary because you wouldn't want to end up like Drake or Frost, righto.

I've been thinking about this. i think co-op would indeed be more scary because you will care more about the other players than just yourself.

 

You obviously haven't gamed with Llyranor yet, have you?

 

I'm still wooing him.

Hey, I wouldn't bother murdering you guys if I didn't care.

Honestly, the OP is right.

 

Co-op play automatically makes a game twice as good. You can have one of the crappiest games in the history of mankind. Make it co-op, and people are going to find some enjoyment with it. It might be for only 20 minutes after two people have downed 10 beers a piece, but it provides entertainment nonetheless.

 

I have no idea why more developers don't implement some kind of co-op in their games. Could you imagine a two player Assassin's Creed? Would be awesome.

 

2 Player Mode doesn't have to make sense from a story perspective. You don't typically play videogames with your buddies to experience a strong story and sense of immersion. You do it to have fun and kick some ass together. Some games are rather crappy even with co-op (Army of Two - bleh, friend and I ended up playing Hot Shots Golf instead after 5 minutes), but could you imagine how bad they'd be without it?

Honestly, the OP is right.

 

Co-op play automatically makes a game twice as good. You can have one of the crappiest games in the history of mankind. Make it co-op, and people are going to find some enjoyment with it.

I can attest for this personally. I've played Brute Force for more than 40 hours thanks to the function. It's completely awful whne played alone, but with co-op...very much bearable and even fun.

Co-op makes games twice as good. Sure, in the same way Febreeze makes dog **** smell twice as good, or anaesthetic makes surgery twice as pleasurable. ****ty games are fun with other people because you stop paying attention to the stupididity and design of the game and start paying attention to your friends. Anybody who's ever gone bowling alone realizes that it's pretty dull without other people.

 

Thankfully, Obsidian doesn't make bowling games, or ****ty FPS games, or any sort game that requires the participance of multiple hooting retards in order for it to be tolerable. They make story-driven RPGs. Arguing for RPGs to be more like Army of Two is arguing for novels to be more like soccer games.

I thought your expectations were already "low" - what do you care?

Co-op play for Aliens would be cool, but I can't see it happening. I wonder if the 2nd player, scarcely at best, would get dialogue choices? Has there ever been a split screen RPG before and if so, what does the 2nd player do other than fight together with the PC? I like the sound of co-op Aliens but I'm wondering how they'd do it.

I for one aren't thrilled for co-op but damnit Pop, stop being constantly pissed off because of everything. I am somewhat like that but that's taking it way too far. Geez

Co-op makes games twice as good. Sure, in the same way Febreeze makes dog **** smell twice as good, or anaesthetic makes surgery twice as pleasurable. ****ty games are fun with other people because you stop paying attention to the stupididity and design of the game and start paying attention to your friends. Anybody who's ever gone bowling alone realizes that it's pretty dull without other people.

 

Thankfully, Obsidian doesn't make bowling games, or ****ty FPS games, or any sort game that requires the participance of multiple hooting retards in order for it to be tolerable. They make story-driven RPGs. Arguing for RPGs to be more like Army of Two is arguing for novels to be more like soccer games.

 

Nobody argued for RPGs to be more like Army of Two. All I really said about Army of Two was that I didn't enjoy it. I said that a cooperative gaming mode makes a game better. It doesn't matter if the game is great or terrible, the ability to play with your friends is a huge bonus, regardless of the genre.

 

You can have both an immersive singleplayer mode that is story driven with great character development and numerous choices, as well as a co-op mode to play with your friends. There's no rule set in stone that says it has to be either one or the other. Don't be so narrow minded, and try to read and comprehend what is written before you post. You appear to be the exact crowd that games like "Army of Two" aim for when you make posts like that. =P

Multiplayer, whether co-op or head-to-head, requires a lot of time and effort from both programming and design. Even when implementing a split-screen solution, it can have a very large impact on the schedule of the team.

Hmm, that sounds like the proverbial kiss of death for the co-op idea.

Maybe next game, huh?

Co-op makes games twice as good. Sure, in the same way Febreeze makes dog **** smell twice as good, or anaesthetic makes surgery twice as pleasurable. ****ty games are fun with other people because you stop paying attention to the stupididity and design of the game and start paying attention to your friends. Anybody who's ever gone bowling alone realizes that it's pretty dull without other people.

 

Thankfully, Obsidian doesn't make bowling games, or ****ty FPS games, or any sort game that requires the participance of multiple hooting retards in order for it to be tolerable. They make story-driven RPGs. Arguing for RPGs to be more like Army of Two is arguing for novels to be more like soccer games.

 

Nobody argued for RPGs to be more like Army of Two. All I really said about Army of Two was that I didn't enjoy it. I said that a cooperative gaming mode makes a game better. It doesn't matter if the game is great or terrible, the ability to play with your friends is a huge bonus, regardless of the genre.

 

You can have both an immersive singleplayer mode that is story driven with great character development and numerous choices, as well as a co-op mode to play with your friends. There's no rule set in stone that says it has to be either one or the other. Don't be so narrow minded, and try to read and comprehend what is written before you post. You appear to be the exact crowd that games like "Army of Two" aim for when you make posts like that. =P

Look, back when I was a kid, I thought chocolate syrup made everything taste better. It seemed prima facae that this was the case. Ice cream, toffee, peppers, milk. Enough things that I could say yeah, chocolate enhances the flavor of food. Then I mixed chocolate syrup and orange juice. Co-op is chocolate syrup. CRPGs are orange juice. As great as chocolate syrup is with ice cream, it is disgusting with orange juice. You'd probably need to make a number of fundamental modifications to orange juice in order for it to be satisfying.

Next game, next patch or even next expansion!

Hmm, that sounds like the proverbial kiss of death for the co-op idea.

I just wanted to make clear that adding multiplayer can be quite an undertaking. Not that anyone here was assuming otherwise, but it's something that really has to be a big focus of the development team. Otherwise, it winds up being an enormous complication. When I was working on Gauntlet at Midway, we had four-player same-system and four-player peer-to-peer online co-op. It was done pretty well, all things considered, but it took a great deal of time.

Thankfully, Obsidian doesn't make bowling games,

 

Hmmm, maybe Obsidian can add a bowling alley to the Aliens game...?

 

Multiplayer, whether co-op or head-to-head, requires a lot of time and effort from both programming and design. Even when implementing a split-screen solution, it can have a very large impact on the schedule of the team.

 

*cries*

Haha, owned by J.E

I can't imagine them doing it without having the same problem the IE games had with multiplayer - you have one important PC and one faceless tagalong PC. The only way to rectify this would be an Army of Two-style game in which your character is never alone and your companion never dies, which is a surefire way to defuse the sort of tension that an Aliens title should have. This is the problem that Gearbox is having. Why even bother making the game co-op if the second player has to cycle through expendable characters?

That's the way it's done even in MMOs. One is the party "leader", and the others just help get the job done. Having a co-op system in which 1P is as relevant story-wise as nP would be impossibly complex. That has never been a problem for co-op RPGs in the past.

 

 

It's Aliens. If you're going through the game expecting to win everything and save everyone, you're doing it wrong.

Says you. But I think it's no different than knowing that your character isn't going to bite it no matter what. Following your reasoning, knowing that your character can win any situation detracts from the feeling of uncertainty that is so essential to any Aliens product - according to you.

 

 

Effectively, though, if the players know he/she is saveable, they will mostly just reload until they do it.

Mostly being the key word. That's the player's choice. It sucks when <charname> gets hit by Chaos and chops off Jaheira's head with his Vorpal sword, but it makes the game feel more real than "oh jeez, I just got hit with Disintegrate. I think I'll take a nap until the end of the encounter", only to have that same character die inexplicably a few minutes later after you *won* some other battle.

 

 

Multiplayer, whether co-op or head-to-head, requires a lot of time and effort from both programming and design. Even when implementing a split-screen solution, it can have a very large impact on the schedule of the team.

So I guess this puts co-op right under the bowling minigame in the priorities list.

Haha, owned by J.E

Though frankly, the chances of getting co-op in to this game were anything but high. It was just fun playing around with the possibilities.

 

I'm pretty happy with playing Colonial Marines where the devs have built the feature into the game from the ground up and enjoying the hell out of Aliens crpg's story and characters alone and without anyone constantly poking me and asking for medipacks.