Could we win XP in multiplayer matches?

[lasthearth]

But you can't play on if he's the host and all the progress is saved on his console.

 

I can have a group of 4 dedicated players, and the host either loses interest in the game or maybe or HD crashes, or his internet is out.

 

Now none of us can continue the game.

 

This is seriously retarded, and the sad thing is they could have gotten around this problem if they just gave it a little more effort. But it seems Obsidian is more about stubbornly making their game rather than a game for players to enjoy.

 

This game has gone from day one purchase to maybe I'll pick up from the bargain bin, which I have no doubt it will end up in fairly quickly.

 

How often does your friends lose HDs, also easily avoided by doing back-up save (on PC atleast) in case you are really that worried... Do they live in a rural area where Internet is down all the time? The game can be finished in 15 to 25 hours according to reviews, doesn't take a huge commitment if you ask me. Unless you play with some really casual players. But then again why would you choose someone like that as the host if you know how the multiplayer works.

 

Maybe Nathan or someone could tell if it's possible for the host to send the save file to someone else in case the host decides to quit playing.

 

You're missing the point, which is that for whatever reason the hosts stops playing, I only mentioned some possibilities but there could be many more, maybe he just went on vacation for a few weeks, maybe he has a busy project at work and won't be able to play for a few weeks, whatever the reason, everyone who was the part of that game who may have put 15-20 hours into the game are held hostage and have to start over.

 

This is a terrible system. There is no justifiable defense for it, and with a little bit of effort and creativity they could have avoided such a flawed system, they were either too stubborn or too lazy to do it, and neither speaks well of them.

Edited May 28, 2011 by lasthearth

[C2B]

But you can't play on if he's the host and all the progress is saved on his console.

 

I can have a group of 4 dedicated players, and the host either loses interest in the game or maybe or HD crashes, or his internet is out.

 

Now none of us can continue the game.

 

This is seriously retarded, and the sad thing is they could have gotten around this problem if they just gave it a little more effort. But it seems Obsidian is more about stubbornly making their game rather than a game for players to enjoy.

 

This game has gone from day one purchase to maybe I'll pick up from the bargain bin, which I have no doubt it will end up in fairly quickly.

 

How often does your friends lose HDs, also easily avoided by doing back-up save (on PC atleast) in case you are really that worried... Do they live in a rural area where Internet is down all the time? The game can be finished in 15 to 25 hours according to reviews, doesn't take a huge commitment if you ask me. Unless you play with some really casual players. But then again why would you choose someone like that as the host if you know how the multiplayer works.

 

Maybe Nathan or someone could tell if it's possible for the host to send the save file to someone else in case the host decides to quit playing.

 

You're missing the point, which is that for whatever reason the hosts stops playing, I only mentioned some possibilities but there could be many more, maybe he just went on vacation for a few weeks, maybe he has a busy project at work and won't be able to play for a few weeks, whatever the reason, everyone who was the part of that game who may have put 15-20 hours into the game are held hostage and have to start over.

 

This is a terrible system. There is no justifiable defense for it, and with a little bit of effort and creativity they could have avoided such a flawed system, they were either too stubborn or too lazy to do it, and neither speaks well of them.

 

Nobody stops them for hosting their own games nor playing single player. Also that situation is easily avoidable too by communication.

 

And this has nothing to do with layziness or creativity.

[Eriksharp]

I see this mode of host-save good for coop local o coop online for 2 players, because you know what you play ever with he.

But if the match is for more than 2 players, this is complicated, because you want to continue play, but, the host is lost, and u can't play with the other players :S.

 

The situation now is:

 

+ Good for Coop (2p)

- Bad for Multiplayer (3 or more).

[Oner]

Guys, we live in the age of file attachment to e-mails.

[Eriksharp]

Guys, we live in the age of file attachment to e-mails.

 

But im going to play on Xbox360, this is the problem, the saves couldn't send to friends :S

[Oner]

Guys, we live in the age of file attachment to e-mails.

 

But im going to play on Xbox360, this is the problem, the saves couldn't send to friends :S

At the risk of sounding uninformed: consoles can't do that? Hah.

Superior to PC my arse.

[C2B]

Guys, we live in the age of file attachment to e-mails.

 

But im going to play on Xbox360, this is the problem, the saves couldn't send to friends :S

At the risk of sounding uninformed: consoles can't do that? Hah.

Superior to PC my arse.

 

You can. Just needs a little work and a usb stick.

Edited May 28, 2011 by C2B

[Eriksharp]

Guys, we live in the age of file attachment to e-mails.

 

But im going to play on Xbox360, this is the problem, the saves couldn't send to friends :S

At the risk of sounding uninformed: consoles can't do that? Hah.

Superior to PC my arse.

 

You can. Just needs a little work and a usb stick.

 

But the saves save in gamertag, you need to use your gamertag.

 

PD: Oner, who says xbox is better than PC? please, don't flamme.

[Oner]

PD: Oner, who says xbox is better than PC? please, don't flamme.

I was mocking the whole PC vs console debate in general.

[rc deaths agent]

You control a character in the host's game, and that XP/progress is saved with the host's. So you do gain XP, but you don't take it back into your local game.

 

If you continue to play with the host, however, you will always have your progress/loot/etc.

IMO this is the absolute worst decision you could EVER make in a online arpg. Everyone knows people don't want to be forced to play a character they cannot build and play with ALL friends ANYTIME they want.

 

Making us play with ONE player the entire campaign is complete garbage. Why not just make it like D2, sacred2 and probably countless others where you jump in a multiplayer game, do a couple qustst and take your character. Then you can simply join, or start another game anytime you want as long as the game is isnt farther than you are in the campaign you can get credit and continue. WHY CAN'T YOU DO THIS?

 

It wouldn't be a problem if you had a free play mode or something as well but forcing players to play like this is just bad.

 

I'm gonna rent it, and if i like it i will probably buy it but it still doesn't make sense to do this. It leads me to believe the devs COULDN'T pull it off. Anyone who says this is a design decision is a fool imo. They know what players want in their multiplayer rpgs, and the MAIN thing is persistant characters they can build and play with friends.

[C2B]

You control a character in the host's game, and that XP/progress is saved with the host's. So you do gain XP, but you don't take it back into your local game.

 

If you continue to play with the host, however, you will always have your progress/loot/etc.

IMO this is the absolute worst decision you could EVER make in a online arpg.

 

Well then its a good point that it isn't an online focused ARPG, isn't it? It has co-op with friends and thats it. Your whole argument is based on a assumption that just isn't fact.

 

And yes, thats why its also a design decision. And thats also why not WE are the fools but YOU are.

Edited May 28, 2011 by C2B

[rc deaths agent]

You control a character in the host's game, and that XP/progress is saved with the host's. So you do gain XP, but you don't take it back into your local game.

 

If you continue to play with the host, however, you will always have your progress/loot/etc.

IMO this is the absolute worst decision you could EVER make in a online arpg.

 

Well then its a good point that it isn't an online focused ARPG, isn't it? It has co-op with friends and thats it. Your whole argument is based on a assumption that just isn't fact.

 

And yes, thats why its also a design decision. And thats also why not WE are the fools but YOU are.

Don't you mean co-op with FRIEND? The host? OK i'll play along. So if it's co-op focused who thought i'd be a good idea to FORCE players to play with one host the ENTIRE campaign and have him keep OUR characters and not allow us to play CO-OP with ANY friend at ANYTIME with custom built characters?

 

I'd love to have heard that board meeting. (hey guys today we want to talk about core gameplay features and what we want in our co-op experience. Any ideas? Yes, we want to play the entire campaign with friends....ok ofcourse. (guy in the back)..we want to build awesome characters we can play cooperatively with all our friends. And jump in their games and help when they need it, and keep items and xp when we leave yeah!! (answer).....ummmm noooooo...i don't think we want that in our game, we want drop in drop out co-op but we think it's best if the host keeps all saves and characters......lmao REALLY!! You actually think they thought this? And all agreed it was a good idea? No way.

[C2B]

You control a character in the host's game, and that XP/progress is saved with the host's. So you do gain XP, but you don't take it back into your local game.

 

If you continue to play with the host, however, you will always have your progress/loot/etc.

IMO this is the absolute worst decision you could EVER make in a online arpg.

 

Well then its a good point that it isn't an online focused ARPG, isn't it? It has co-op with friends and thats it. Your whole argument is based on a assumption that just isn't fact.

 

And yes, thats why its also a design decision. And thats also why not WE are the fools but YOU are.

Don't you mean co-op with FRIEND? The host? OK i'll play along. So if it's co-op focused who thought i'd be a good idea to FORCE players to play with one host the ENTIRE campaign and have him keep OUR characters and not allow us to play CO-OP with ANY friend at ANYTIME with custom built characters?

 

I'd love to have heard that board meeting. (hey guys today we want to talk about core gameplay features and what we want in our co-op experience. Any ideas? Yes, we want to play the entire campaign with friends....ok ofcourse. (guy in the back)..we want to build awesome characters we can play cooperatively with all our friends. And jump in their games and help when they need it, and keep items and xp when we leave yeah!! (answer).....ummmm noooooo...i don't think we want that in our game, we want drop in drop out co-op but we think it's best if the host keeps all saves and characters......lmao REALLY!! You actually think they thought this? And all agreed it was a good idea? No way.

 

 

Again its just not focused this way. This is not a pure diablo clone or anything else you imagine. Its just not designed or focused this way. For example theres reason and a focus behind the predefined charachters. Thats why it doesn't bother people like Tigranes or me all that much. Deal with it.

Edited May 28, 2011 by C2B

[Tigranes]

It actually boils down to a very simple design decision. Do you build an online multiplayer experience where the main point is to create, keep and build your character? Or do you build a co-operative system where the main point is to experience an instance of the game together with other people? Diablo 2 is an example of the former, and then all the other design decisions follow from that - i.e. you have 'New Game+' modes to grind your character up to level 99, you have a threadbare story and a modular campaign design so it never matters that you might jump all over the plotline or kill the same boss 500 times. On the other hand, you don't expect this from BG: Dark Alliance, some of the LOTR games, heck, even a Halo co-op campaign (which, from my experience, is kept separate from its online multiplayer). In a pure co-operative experience you see design decisions that are about helping make it easy for people to play together and keep up together and experience the story and gameplay together.

 

As C2B says it's not an online focused ARPG, and it seems that it never has been. I'd suggest Obsidian were quite foolish to not have made this crystal clear earlier on - they should have learned from AP that when people expect your game to be something different they get pissed off. But the design decision itself is perfectly fine - DS3 simply belongs to a different type/genre than, say, Diablo 2.

 

Personally I wouldn't have minded either way, online MP or co-op. But if DS3 were to go the online MP route, a million things about the game would need to be changed. The level cap is 30 right now - what's the point of keeping a single player running around if he will max that early? The game is story-heavy and with lots of dialogue - that will get really really boring if you want to grind a boss 500 times Mephisto-style. So on and so forth. If we keep DS3 as the game it is now, then just change it so you can carry across your characters, what changes, really? That won't make this game WOW or Diablo 2, like some people want.

 

It's a case of two different philosophies with accompanying design features and player experiences.

[lasthearth]

Then they should have made this a single player game and forget the whole "co-op" thing. Because it seems that's the game they really wanted to make.

 

Bottom line, there is no game in this generation that works this way. None. Even games that were designed to be co-op do not work this way. Resident Evil 5 was designed to be a story centric co-op game, but each player gets to and keep their own levels and weapons. Demon's Forge is about to come out and that is a co-op game, and I'll bet it won't work this way, it will allow both players to save their own progress.

Halo allowed both players to save their own progress, and if they made a Dark Alliance game today it would allow individuals to save their progress.

 

There is no way to get around how poor a decision this is.

[C2B]

Then they should have made this a single player game and forget the whole "co-op" thing. Because it seems that's the game they really wanted to make.

 

Bottom line, there is no game in this generation that works this way. None. Even games that were designed to be co-op do not work this way. Resident Evil 5 was designed to be a story centric co-op game, but each player gets to and keep their own levels and weapons. Demon's Forge is about to come out and that is a co-op game, and I'll bet it won't work this way, it will allow both players to save their own progress.

Halo allowed both players to save their own progress, and if they made a Dark Alliance game today it would allow individuals to save their progress.

 

There is no way to get around how poor a decision this is.

 

1. Doesn't apply. Its stil has strong and unusal buddy co-op elements in and was designed for the co-op it provides. Its just not the one your used to.

 

2. Just because there is no game that works that way doesn't mean that there can't be a game that works that way nor that this automatically makes it a poor design choice. In fact the main reason I like Obsidian is BECAUSE they do unusual things and experiment. If it works out in the end or not.

 

Emphasis on "buddy" here. You won't get a strong or lasting online-community out of this game.

Edited May 29, 2011 by C2B

[lasthearth]

Being different does not make it bad per se, but in this case it does because there is a good sound reason why nobody else decided to go this way. Because it was a bad idea. All the reasons people have for wanting to play a loot centric action RPG has been taken away, because you don't get to keep your loot, or your levels.

 

This game is going to bomb and it will deserve it.

[Tigranes]

*shrug* I agree that there are some puzzling / problematic aspects here, such as only the host keeping savefiles. The main issue is that people like you are just saying the direction as a whole is 'dumb', and you are doing that because you can only understand what makes you enjoy ARPGs and how you play them. Although DS3's exact solution may be unique, there are a lot of games out there that cater more to buddy co-op than online MP and do just fine. It seems to be for people that want to play together without having to powergame or worry about PVP and all the other trappings of a MMO / online MP world, or for people that want to be able to jump in and out very freely (i.e. get family to play together), or for people that want to play multiplayer but still care about and go through the story and world together, instead of doing 50 Diablo runs. Personally, I loved D2, but there's no point saying "this is stupid" and infer that how you enjoy ARPGs = the truth. (If 'keeping your loot and levels' across multiple playthroughs is the raison d'etre of ARPGs, all singleplayer ARPGs would be pointless.)

 

BTW, given that there are 4 set character types, a relatively low number of character skills, randomised loot tables, a 20-30 hour long campaign and a level 30 cap, what would really be the point of 'keeping your character'? Your maxxed out level 30 character has nowhere to go unless to farm the one last dungeon a million times for no reason, esp. since there is no PvP.

[lasthearth]

It's stupid because their system can be duplicated by a group that wishes to play that way and enjoy their games that way.

 

If you and 3 of your friends decided that you will play the campaign together, and that each of you will only use the same characters in that game whom you will not use in any other game but only when you play together, then all of you can duplicate the experience of the single player keeps the save game for everyone game without Obsidian making their save system that way.

 

In other words, having a save system limited in this way only limits the number of ways this game can be enjoyed, which reduces the number of people interested, reduces the potential sales of this game, and hurts Obsidian and Square-Enix's bottomline.

 

My issue isn't that I can only enjoy the game one way, my issue is that they could have made the game enjoyable for your style and my style, but instead chose to only make it enjoyable for you. Which means I will not be buying it (except when it's really cheap), and that's a dumb business decision.

[Tigranes]

I know what you're saying there, and it would be nice - but that comes down to the point that there is more to co-op/MP than just making it available, it's also a part of how you design character customisation/progression, level design, additional features, etc, etc. My best guess is that Obsidian said to themselves, our main goal is going to be to create a game that, from start to finish, is built for buddy co-op and does it really well, and we're going to design everything to make that really good, because lots of games are designed for online MP or singleplayer then throw in co-op and the market would benefit from a dedicated co-op game. This is backed upb y the way the devs've have been describing DS3 throughout.

 

In other words, even if they, say, took a couple more months and threw in an online MP mode a la Diablo 2, I doubt it would be very good compared to, well, Diablo 3, Torchlight 2, etc. They've decided that instead of trying to do everything OK they would concentrate on making a very fun buddy co-op experience - and my point is if they succeed in that (we shall see on release), then DS3's decisions are very defensible.

 

Quite separate from all this is whether savefiles should be kept on all players, and on that I agree it's strange that only the host can keep them, and suspect there's a technical limitation here. Hoping there will be simple workarounds.

[rc deaths agent]

All said and done i'm still looking forward to DS3 and i hope it will be great. I'm a big fan of Dungeon Siege. I have DS LOA and DS2 for the pc and love the series.

 

It's funny cause i keep thinking, i really don't need online co-op to enjoy a GREAT arpg and i think how awesome BGDA 1&2 was/is. I still play those games to this day and they don't have online co-op so it's not completely necessary i say.

 

But then i remember how EVERYTIME i play it i can't help but think...MAN this would be so awesome with some friends online.....everytime i play it can't help think how awesome it COULD/WOULD BE and i fear i will still be thinking that when DS3 launches but for a new game in 2011....how awesome it COULD/WOULD be.

 

I will rent it day 1, and if it's awesome i'll buy it but i definately need to test drive it first now. I really hope it blows me away. I like the gameplay i've seen so far and i can't wait to play it on my 47" 1080p.

 

Oh yeah and i almost forgot the demo comming out this comming week. I wonder if it will have the online co-op available?

[C2B]

I know what you're saying there, and it would be nice - but that comes down to the point that there is more to co-op/MP than just making it available, it's also a part of how you design character customisation/progression, level design, additional features, etc, etc. My best guess is that Obsidian said to themselves, our main goal is going to be to create a game that, from start to finish, is built for buddy co-op and does it really well, and we're going to design everything to make that really good, because lots of games are designed for online MP or singleplayer then throw in co-op and the market would benefit from a dedicated co-op game. This is backed upb y the way the devs've have been describing DS3 throughout.

 

In other words, even if they, say, took a couple more months and threw in an online MP mode a la Diablo 2, I doubt it would be very good compared to, well, Diablo 3, Torchlight 2, etc. They've decided that instead of trying to do everything OK they would concentrate on making a very fun buddy co-op experience - and my point is if they succeed in that (we shall see on release), then DS3's decisions are very defensible.

 

Quite separate from all this is whether savefiles should be kept on all players, and on that I agree it's strange that only the host can keep them, and suspect there's a technical limitation here. Hoping there will be simple workarounds.

 

Pretty much this.

 

From how Skills work/Charachter System/Leveling etc. its geared towards the type of co-op it provides. Abilites and the charachter system itself is focused towards balance and story rather than variety. Online would be boring as hell with time and not stand a chance against Torchlight 2/Diablo 3. Distancing themselves in this case is good.

Edited May 29, 2011 by C2B

[lasthearth]

So they set out to make an loot centric ARPG that is targeted at people who didn't like Diablo?

 

Okay, then they are terrible at this thing called running a business.

[C2B]

So they set out to make an loot centric ARPG that is targeted at people who didn't like Diablo?

 

Okay, then they are terrible at this thing called running a business.

 

Yes, naturally. Making 9000 clones of the same game is helping the gerne and market evolve. Deriviating from that is "running the business".

Edited May 29, 2011 by C2B

[Oner]

So they set out to make an loot centric ARPG that is targeted at people who didn't like Diablo?

This doesn't even make the slightest sense.