Nothing but Co-Op

[Lord Elvewyn]

It's still very raer to actually have 64 players playing the same instance outside of MMOs. We're only just getting over the 8 limit in FPS.

[\quote]

 

Maybe I'm mistaken - I don't play much in the way of FPS which seem to lead the way.

 

Eh... Don't forget that DS2 only had 4 player multiplayer too

 

Kind of curious what was so fun about DS1/2 multiplayer for the fans that you want to see again? Was there anything special about it?

 

DS only had a 4 player limit? I confess I only tried DS1 multiplayer. Mostly I played multiplayer offline - dialup didn't work very well Had a quick check. Actually 8 player's possible though 4 player plus 4 AI players is the limit officially supported.

 

What did I enjoy about DS? Character crafting, not simply selection of race(DS2)\features\whatever but building the character I wanted. Nature mage plus combat hybrid or ... There was a lot of freedom. Needed to be balanced against what worked of course. Boundaried world exploration. I enjoy exploring an inventive world, and DS crossed a lot of environments, snow, desert, swamp etc. Okay I didn't like the swamp BUT it was a massive contrast to the Droog desert, and the ice regions which I did enjoy. Free exploration e.g. Elder Scrolls leaves me wondering aimlessly\pointlessly. They may have great worlds too but I lose track of where I'm (supposed to be) going. A massive array of magic. I think there was something like 100 spells each for nature and combat magics. An awesome array. Post victory there's multiplayer, either the solo world of Ehb, or the multiplayer map. Maybe not infinite replayability\exploration but a lot of gameplay, especially if you're interested in making SiegeMaster, which I never did but would like to aim for one time. It probably helped that DS was probably my introduction to the world of RPG's and I think it had really sweet graphics, at least when I encountered it it did. They're a little dated these days Any game which allows a mage character to blow a path through enemies has an automatic advantage in my book. NWN, IWD etc all have mages as support characters because they can't go toe to toe with anyone. Oh it was fairly easy to play as well. You didn't have to do any paper, scissors rock thinking, or extreme tactics. It was more attack, move, run, with a bit of shopping etc. It required commitment perhaps, it was a longish game and making SiegeMaster incredibly long but ...

 

DS2 offered races, which was a plus, and allowed class specialisation, again a plus, but did reduce your ability to multiclass, at least without mods (which I never looked for). Magic was A LOT less, but there was still variety. Six basic attack spells for each of the three combat specialisations plus summoning, cursing, enhancing etc. It added crafting which was interesting too. Storyline was probably better written though not as positive - the hero wasn't toally victorious and 'had to' play the expansion to 'win' the game.

 

That's all off the top of my head. Given I really should be doing something else I'd better leave off here and relook at it all later.

 

How does this compare to DS3? A character has a set class actually precrafted character (melee male, melee\combat magic female, ranged\combat magic female, unknown presumably male nature mage) and may only train up those skills. No race benefits. I imagine a boundaried world so that's equal and I imagine the graphics\world will be interesting to explore. As I understand it there's no magic spells just magic\special abilities. More akin to TQ except no scrolls for "special single cast spells" either. Equipment is character not class specific. Not sure about crafting options, has that been mentioned? Seems to me single play per character is the limit of replayability. Co-Op is the sole reason for playing more, and that's more of a casual thing, and assumes DS playing friends - Mine don't.

[hopfrog16]

It's still very raer to actually have 64 players playing the same instance outside of MMOs. We're only just getting over the 8 limit in FPS.

 

Eh... Don't forget that DS2 only had 4 player multiplayer too

 

Kind of curious what was so fun about DS1/2 multiplayer for the fans that you want to see again? Was there anything special about it?

 

I think there was, but that would depend on who you asked. What made it interesting for me were several factors...

 

1: The environments. Sure, nowadays the graphics it has are a bit dated (and were even a bit dated then), but for it's time Dungeon Siege bolstered a very huge, colorful, and open world. That was just the multiplayer world that came with the game, too (of which, there was the single player, and a small mod that came with the game too... All could be played multiplayer). There were also many official and non-official mods that had different ways of playing, and different stories to them... If you ever played the multiplayer for Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, you might know how each server could have different rules than the original game. It's suprising how complex some of the mods got, too, for how basic Dungeon Siege was before they started. Dungeon Siege 2, not so much. It was fun for me... But the environments seemed bland to me, and there wasn't much for a modding community.

 

2: Learning Curve. You could grab a buddy or more and get to the killing right off the bat. After they got hooked in, you could introduce different mods. =) That's what I did, at least. It was easy and boring if you played solo, but with friends to argue over loot and the mass exploration to be done... Was quite a bit of fun.

 

3: Magic. Sure, you could auto attack everything to death if you liked... Almost everyone did. That being said, however, if you learned about the magic you could have quite a bit of fun with spells and spell combos. I had a 50/50% combat/nature mage that had the curse Set that would reduce the mana costs for curses to 25% of what they were before(forget it's name now). I could combine curses from both the nature and combat magic lines to have everything kill itself while I just managed the controlled chaos from a distance... That may not sound like everyone's cup of tea, but for me it was a hell of a lot of fun (especially if some mobs were giving the rest of the group a hard time).

 

4: Lots and lots of loot. Diablo 2 has a lot of loot, true. That being said, however, they didn't have so much loot that you needed 1 or more pack mule to carry it all, heh. Kind of kept you interested in playing too, since a piece of gear you needed might just drop with the next mob you killed.

 

5: Atmosphere. Yah... I suppose this should go under the environment section. The atmosphere in that game though always seemed to inspire exploration for me... Especially with friends at your side. You could tell extra care was put into the sounds of DS, too. In most RPGs I play now, you might hear wind howling a little... Maybe some talking in a city... In DS you could hear the trees creaking, you could hear the water on a babbling brook as you walked by, and it just seemed altogether more immersive to me.

 

All this being said, I'm glad that Obsidian is taking a whole new approach to the game play, since the game is drastically outdated (Just look at Fallout as an example. If they used the same old formula, people wouldn't have known what to make of it). Hopefuly, though, they won't turn off people by making things TOO casual. I would think of more reasons I liked the game, but to be honest I'm battling a fever and can't think straight (apologies for anything I might say that's confusing... Just ask me to clarify).

[GhostofAnakin]

Pardon my ignorance, but does co-op mean having two (or more) players playing on the same PC/console, or does it also mean being able to play online with a friend on their own system?

[Lord Elvewyn]

Pardon my ignorance, but does co-op mean having two (or more) players playing on the same PC/console, or does it also mean being able to play online with a friend on their own system?

 

Co-op means playing co-operatively. It could be two players on the same console(or PC if possible) or being online playing co-operatively with up to 3 other human players. That help? It's PvE only, no PvP.

[hopfrog16]

It's still very raer to actually have 64 players playing the same instance outside of MMOs. We're only just getting over the 8 limit in FPS.

[\quote]

 

Maybe I'm mistaken - I don't play much in the way of FPS which seem to lead the way.

 

Eh... Don't forget that DS2 only had 4 player multiplayer too

 

Kind of curious what was so fun about DS1/2 multiplayer for the fans that you want to see again? Was there anything special about it?

 

DS only had a 4 player limit? I confess I only tried DS1 multiplayer. Mostly I played multiplayer offline - dialup didn't work very well Had a quick check. Actually 8 player's possible though 4 player plus 4 AI players is the limit officially supported.

 

DS1 had 8 player support, but no AI companions. DS2 had a strange combination player support, and AI support. You could either have 4 players, 3 players with 3 AI companions (1 companion for each character), or 2 players with 2 AI companions (2 companions for each character). That being said, there was a mod you could download that allowed you to up the limit of players to 8, but I don't believe you could bring any AI companions with you... I may be wrong on that, though.

 

What did I enjoy about DS? Character crafting, not simply selection of race(DS2)\features\whatever but building the character I wanted. Nature mage plus combat hybrid or ... There was a lot of freedom. Needed to be balanced against what worked of course.

 

Totally Agreed. I'm a bit of a nerd on character creation, and have made quite a few character variations. In the first game, I loved all the modding that allowed you to change your characters appearance... The second game was more about different crazy builds that I could imagine up, heh.

 

Boundaried world exploration. I enjoy exploring an inventive world, and DS crossed a lot of environments, snow, desert, swamp etc. Okay I didn't like the swamp BUT it was a massive contrast to the Droog desert, and the ice regions which I did enjoy. Free exploration e.g. Elder Scrolls leaves me wondering aimlessly\pointlessly. They may have great worlds too but I lose track of where I'm (supposed to be) going.

 

Heh, you didn't like the swamp? I loved it. =P Especially the swamp in the expansion. Me and my buds would always make the treck through the swamp, up the mount of the dead, and deep into the lord of the dead's lair for obscene amounts of loot. =O That's what I loved about the adventures in that game, however. There was a lot to do, and even venturing from one town to another (or from one teleport pad to another) felt like an epic undertaking. Of course there were boss fights that were just fun to play with friends, as well.

 

A massive array of magic. I think there was something like 100 spells each for nature and combat magics. An awesome array. Post victory there's multiplayer, either the solo world of Ehb, or the multiplayer map. Maybe not infinite replayability\exploration but a lot of gameplay, especially if you're interested in making SiegeMaster, which I never did but would like to aim for one time.

 

With the mod content there was a LOT more to play than that... I probably played that game for longer than any other RPG I've played since with all the various mods I could geek on. By the way, you aren't missing much with siege masters... Cross classing 2 classes might be worth it, but 4? Unless you max out 1-2 classes first, they will be weak. =P

 

It probably helped that DS was probably my introduction to the world of RPG's and I think it had really sweet graphics, at least when I encountered it it did. They're a little dated these days Any game which allows a mage character to blow a path through enemies has an automatic advantage in my book. NWN, IWD etc all have mages as support characters because they can't go toe to toe with anyone.

 

Really? Sure, the single players mages (in NWN) were a little gimped, but a lot of the multiplayer servers (which still exist, mind you) have balanced mages out... If not made them a little too overpowered.

 

Oh it was fairly easy to play as well. You didn't have to do any paper, scissors rock thinking, or extreme tactics. It was more attack, move, run, with a bit of shopping etc. It required commitment perhaps, it was a longish game and making SiegeMaster incredibly long but ...

 

DS2 offered races, which was a plus, and allowed class specialisation, again a plus, but did reduce your ability to multiclass, at least without mods (which I never looked for).

 

I see people saying this quite a bit, and it confuses me a little. I was able to make plenty of viable and fun multi class characters in DS2. Sure, it was a pain if you wanted to do some things (like 50/50% melee magic), but was deffinitly doable if you had a plan before you started your character. Here's a list of some of the odd builds I made...

 

50/50% combat nature summoner. Excelling at pets (access to nature and combat magic pets... The combat magic pets are a lot more useful later on), and curses.

 

50/50% melee nature healer. Access to dual weapons with healer mods, and fist of stone healing abilities made this one of the best healers in the game.

 

70/30% melee nature fist of stone. This doesn't sound very special at first, but if you maxed out int, his melee quake ability, and gave him hella proc mods on his weapons... Well... I haven't found anything quite as damaging in the game as him yet. If you wanted more int, you could convert your 50/50% melee nature healer into this character. Only problem was that they were a little soft, since they were more like a mage than a melee type character. Hit and run tactics work just fine if you have a good tank in your group. =)

 

I had a few more odd builds, but I don't want to spend that much time writing stuff out, heh.

 

Magic was A LOT less, but there was still variety. Six basic attack spells for each of the three combat specialisations plus summoning, cursing, enhancing etc. It added crafting which was interesting too. Storyline was probably better written though not as positive - the hero wasn't toally victorious and 'had to' play the expansion to 'win' the game.

 

Yah, I wasn't a fan of the story line in the second game or it's expansion. Those damn Dryads... =P

 

That's all off the top of my head. Given I really should be doing something else I'd better leave off here and relook at it all later.

 

How does this compare to DS3? A character has a set class actually precrafted character (melee male, melee\combat magic female, ranged\combat magic female, unknown presumably male nature mage) and may only train up those skills. No race benefits. I imagine a boundaried world so that's equal and I imagine the graphics\world will be interesting to explore. As I understand it there's no magic spells just magic\special abilities. More akin to TQ except no scrolls for "special single cast spells" either. Equipment is character not class specific. Not sure about crafting options, has that been mentioned? Seems to me single play per character is the limit of replayability. Co-Op is the sole reason for playing more, and that's more of a casual thing, and assumes DS playing friends - Mine don't.

 

Pretty much. Although, maybe a change in game mechanics wouldn't be a bad thing. I remember at first I wasn't thrilled with the changes made to DS2, but they grew on me. =) I suspect DS3 will be the same way.

 

Thanks for your post! Covers things I didn't have the energy to post earlier. Damn fever...

[GhostofAnakin]

Co-op means playing co-operatively. It could be two players on the same console(or PC if possible) or being online playing co-operatively with up to 3 other human players. That help? It's PvE only, no PvP.

 

Hmmm ... finally a roleplaying game that I can play with a buddy.

[Mephster]

Don't people find it odd that there is oficially less than 2 months until release and still we have no clear cut picture of multiplayer. All we have had so far is single player and local coop. It just makes me think that something within the multiplayer experience players are not going to be happy about.

[Flouride]

Don't people find it odd that there is oficially less than 2 months until release and still we have no clear cut picture of multiplayer. All we have had so far is single player and local coop. It just makes me think that something within the multiplayer experience players are not going to be happy about.

 

Or maybe they are planning on using that part of the game to promote it via another bunch of previews just before the game comes out maximizing the amount of press they can get. That's what I would personally do.

You never want to give away everything at once to the press, or else they won't have anything to write about your game when it's close to shipping out. And with the amount of titles coming out each month it's pretty crucial to keep a steady stream of publicity to reach the masses.

[Lord Elvewyn]

Don't people find it odd that there is oficially less than 2 months until release and still we have no clear cut picture of multiplayer. All we have had so far is single player and local coop. It just makes me think that something within the multiplayer experience players are not going to be happy about.

 

It'd be good to clear it up true but it looks like no multiplayer outside Co-Op, at least that's how I read things. Basically DS3 is 4 solo play characters with a Co-Op option to boost (re)playability. Equipment is character based not class based so how could multiplayer work? They'd need to have a totally different multiplayer system.

[hopfrog16]

Don't people find it odd that there is oficially less than 2 months until release and still we have no clear cut picture of multiplayer. All we have had so far is single player and local coop. It just makes me think that something within the multiplayer experience players are not going to be happy about.

 

It'd be good to clear it up true but it looks like no multiplayer outside Co-Op, at least that's how I read things. Basically DS3 is 4 solo play characters with a Co-Op option to boost (re)playability. Equipment is character based not class based so how could multiplayer work? They'd need to have a totally different multiplayer system.

 

Assuming there was an online multiplayer mode where people could play their own characters, it wouldn't be that difficult. Just look at any other game with an active online trading community. If a warrior finds wizard robes that are extremely nice, he hangs onto them to trade to a wizard for really nice warrior armor (or someone with a wizard alt). =) The fact that class/character restrictions exist on armor doesn't bother me that much, really. Let's hope, though, that they won't allow people that can't use the armor type to pick it up if the character that can use it is playing with them... I could see the potential for some real douche-baggery from people if that was the case (for online play, at least).

[Jorian Drake]

It was always fairly apparent that all multiplayer modes would be cooperative, so there isn't any big surprise here.

 

Also, as far as I know Obsidian had already stated there were only four playable characters in DS3.

hmm, I thought those were the companions and you can still create your own character...

[Pidesco]

You pick one of those four characters when starting out and then develop your chosen PC's stats and abilities as you see fit.

[Mephster]

Don't people find it odd that there is oficially less than 2 months until release and still we have no clear cut picture of multiplayer. All we have had so far is single player and local coop. It just makes me think that something within the multiplayer experience players are not going to be happy about.

 

It'd be good to clear it up true but it looks like no multiplayer outside Co-Op, at least that's how I read things. Basically DS3 is 4 solo play characters with a Co-Op option to boost (re)playability. Equipment is character based not class based so how could multiplayer work? They'd need to have a totally different multiplayer system.

 

I would have to agree with you on that. If it turns out there is no online multiplayer then so be it, just hoping Obsidian makes a good game for everyone to enjoy.

[Lord Elvewyn]

Don't people find it odd that there is oficially less than 2 months until release and still we have no clear cut picture of multiplayer. All we have had so far is single player and local coop. It just makes me think that something within the multiplayer experience players are not going to be happy about.

 

It'd be good to clear it up true but it looks like no multiplayer outside Co-Op, at least that's how I read things. Basically DS3 is 4 solo play characters with a Co-Op option to boost (re)playability. Equipment is character based not class based so how could multiplayer work? They'd need to have a totally different multiplayer system.

 

Assuming there was an online multiplayer mode where people could play their own characters, it wouldn't be that difficult. Just look at any other game with an active online trading community. If a warrior finds wizard robes that are extremely nice, he hangs onto them to trade to a wizard for really nice warrior armor (or someone with a wizard alt). =) The fact that class/character restrictions exist on armor doesn't bother me that much, really. Let's hope, though, that they won't allow people that can't use the armor type to pick it up if the character that can use it is playing with them... I could see the potential for some real douche-baggery from people if that was the case (for online play, at least).

 

My impression is that there are no looting restrictions only on equipping, so douche-baggery is quite possible. But why would you play Co-Op with douche-bags?

 

Class restrictions wouldn't be so much of a problem, DS\DS2 had ability\skill limits so Mage characters so it was hard to use 'cross-class' equipment. The issue is if equipment is character based and you're playing a class you wouldn't be the character that could wear it. Obsidian'd need an either or option i.e. character restrictions for solo\Co-Op play class restrictions for multiplayer.

 

The difficulty in multiplayer would be if 4 friends all want to play wizards or play as their 'favourite jocks' (assuming I have the term correct) - all playing grunting male melee characters Equipment shortage? Of course it's not possible in the current Co-Op mode, heck it's not even possible for everyone to play as a guy!

Edited April 5, 2011 by Lord Elvewyn

[Tigranes]

My guess is that like most modern dungeon crawlers, loot is reserved - you no longer have people grabbing in a free for all who clicks fastest, drops are already reserved for certain players. I'm personally not a fan of it but it seems to be the trend, which would fit into the general design.

[WorstUsernameEver]

My guess is that like most modern dungeon crawlers, loot is reserved

 

It's not a guess. Equipment is reserved for the characters, while amulets and rings are free-for-all.

[hopfrog16]

My guess is that like most modern dungeon crawlers, loot is reserved - you no longer have people grabbing in a free for all who clicks fastest, drops are already reserved for certain players. I'm personally not a fan of it but it seems to be the trend, which would fit into the general design.

 

Eh... I would almost think that kind of thing is a necessity for gamers nowadays. Seems like ever since WoW came out, a whole wave of people starting playing RPGs online that didn't know how to share. Ninja looting FTW I suppose. =P

[yoomazir]

http://www.co-optimus.com/interview/707/pa...interviews.html

 

 

"CO: So any loot that you find is actually going to go to the host player?

 

RT: The inventory is actually shared. The (inventory) screen that the host is using is only going to show the inventory that he can equip. Most of the pieces are unique to the characters. The two types that are shared are rings and amulets; those can go on any character. Those are actually rare items that you come across in the game, but you can hash that out with who you are playing with…The gold is also pooled between the characters.

 

CO: So none of the items, the gold or anything, would go back to the guest"s game?

 

RT: That’s correct. When I jump in on his game as his companion, I’m playing with him on his game. The quest states, the gold, the items, and experience all stay."

 

 

uh? is that both offline and online? if that proves true...way to go to shoot yourself in the foot Obsidian, I guess I will stick playing Sacred 2 or even Too Human on my 360, at least I can co-op properly there...

Good luck with that XBLA Diablo-clone game you're making Obsidian, you'll need it....

Edited April 5, 2011 by yoomazir

[C2B]

http://www.co-optimus.com/interview/707/pa...interviews.html

 

 

"CO: So any loot that you find is actually going to go to the host player?

 

RT: The inventory is actually shared. The (inventory) screen that the host is using is only going to show the inventory that he can equip. Most of the pieces are unique to the characters. The two types that are shared are rings and amulets; those can go on any character. Those are actually rare items that you come across in the game, but you can hash that out with who you are playing with…The gold is also pooled between the characters.

 

CO: So none of the items, the gold or anything, would go back to the guest"s game?

 

RT: That’s correct. When I jump in on his game as his companion, I’m playing with him on his game. The quest states, the gold, the items, and experience all stay."

 

 

uh? is that both offline and online? if that proves true...way to go to shoot yourself in the foot Obsidian, I guess I will stick playing Sacred 2 or even Too Human on my 360, at least I can co-op properly there...

Good luck with that XBLA Diablo-clone game you're making Obsidian, you'll need it....

 

1. This is an old interview. Already posted.

2. Shared Inventory is known for a long time. Considering most loot is unique to a charachter anyway this isn't a real problem.

3. This is only local. (Which is also mentioned RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ARTICLE) Dude......

 

Naturally its still not great. But its nothing we did not know.

Edited April 5, 2011 by C2B

[yoomazir]

Sorry about that, it's just I was hyped for the game but only recently found about those articles, kinda pissed me.

Still gonna get the game when it comes out though...

[Maa-Jussi]

...as far as I know Obsidian had already stated there were only four playable characters in DS3.

OMG, a Dungeon Siege where you can't have your own character?

 

Jussi

[Pidesco]

...as far as I know Obsidian had already stated there were only four playable characters in DS3.

OMG, a Dungeon Siege where you can't have your own character?

 

Jussi

 

 

It's still your own character in the sense that you develop his skills and abilities, and choose what he says.

[Maa-Jussi]

It's still your own character in the sense that you develop his skills and abilities, and choose what he says.

...but it's not a role playing game where you lead a certain role, it's a role playing game where you play a certain role. It's easier to get more attached to your character when the character is you.

 

Well, it might be a good game anyway. I sure enjoyed playing games like Soldier of Fortune and Project IGI, eventhough I could not play as myself. To me it all comes down to whether or not I feel at home with the controls.

 

Jussi

[C2B]

From the other thread

They should've just called it The Kingdom of Ehb or something like that. Calling it Dungeon Siege and leaving out the core elements of the original gameplay is absurd.

 

Not... really. Its still an action based rpg/hack n'slash. And there is even some hommages to the older systems in the gameplay itself. (The attacks that get stronger if you use them a lot) Furthermore the Creator of Dungeon Siege (Who should know best what Dungeon Siege is and what it isn't) wanted to focus on no party/one charachter even before Obsidian worked on DSIII.

 

Also, already DSIIs gameplay was pretty different from DSI.

[Maa-Jussi]

I guess the original Dungeon Siege will remain one of a kind jewel in the sand of RPG's.

 

I'd sure love to buy a digital copy of it to play on my netbook, unfortunately it's only sold bundled with DSII and III.

 

Jussi