Savegames online co-op

[chrisssj2]

So how does it work? Saving games in co-op online...

 

1. a. Does it autosave if you leave a game? And does it save location or only hero stats, xp , gold?

b. Can only the host save at savepoints, and if so does it save both heroes which are participating in co-op?

 

 

Why can't you use your own charachter in games?

I join other games for example they are level 7 and I have to choose a charachter which ends up level 7 too.

Why can't I use my level 5 charachter from my savegame or higher level for example.

Defeats the entire point of co-op.. U can't have your own charachter progreess, when you join instead u "get" one at that level?

 

I am very confused as to how it works...

 

I get that I can play singplayer and save manually... but once a other player joins or when I join another player I don't know what is being saved.

[Icewindy]

I'm so disappointed about this also. This game is totally different from D1 & D2, you cannot export any characters you created in Single/Coop games.

You will get nothing in the coop games, the difference is the host will have a human minded player instead of A.I. player in his/her game. Only you gained in coop game is the satisfaction you helped the host to finish quests and complete the game.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Icewindy

[Oner]

The satisfaction you get is that you played a game with (a) friend(s).

[chrisssj2]

You have got to be kidding me.. I didn't even expect that one... so no individual charachter progress, and a fable 2 a like co-op... hahahaha just wow.

[MonkeyLungs]

I think for Obsidian they know damn well this wasn't the best way to set this up but they had to choose the cheapest easiest method for getting the game running. There are like 4 people who post here plus the moderators who ardently defend this decision but they all say the same thing and basically want us to believe that the focus on story is enough of a reason to gimp MP like this.

 

They probably just couldn't figure out how to code the MP properly so we got this neutered version.

 

You people do realise that being able to have a PERSISTENT SAVE OF A YOUR VERSION OF A CHARACTER wouldn't break the story in co-op? They would have to account for level difference somehow but the host could choose what levels to allow in their game and problems solved for everyone. But then we start getting into ADDING gameplay optuions and EXPANDING multiplayer and these days its all about shortchanging gamers and STREAMLINING.

[ShadowScythe]

The aim wasn't to make a diablo-alike, they wanted to differentiate it from Diablo because otherwise there'd be no reason to get it when you could get diablo 3. This is a story focused arpg with co-op designed to just chill around and have fun with friends ala portal 2- that's something that I've always wanted and loved- i don't care much for looting and exp grinding.

 

If that isn't your thing, then fine, go play diablo 3. It wasn't about copping out and being cheap and whatever, they were trying something different and aren't catering for a crowd that'd much rather play diablo 3.

[blueboykc]

The aim wasn't to make a diablo-alike, they wanted to differentiate it from Diablo because otherwise there'd be no reason to get it when you could get diablo 3. This is a story focused arpg with co-op designed to just chill around and have fun with friends ala portal 2- that's something that I've always wanted and loved- i don't care much for looting and exp grinding.

 

If that isn't your thing, then fine, go play diablo 3. It wasn't about copping out and being cheap and whatever, they were trying something different and aren't catering for a crowd that'd much rather play diablo 3.

if they werent going to do it right it shouldnt have been added at all..any developer with half a brain knows in this type of game thats what drives the co-op..its pretty much pointless now..theres a huge amount of potential customers now that are going to pass on this game for that simple reason..i know for a fact my friends are not buying it..i hope when its all said and done obsidian has to explain it was this decision that cost so many sales of the game to square..

[blueboykc]

I think for Obsidian they know damn well this wasn't the best way to set this up but they had to choose the cheapest easiest method for getting the game running. There are like 4 people who post here plus the moderators who ardently defend this decision but they all say the same thing and basically want us to believe that the focus on story is enough of a reason to gimp MP like this.

 

They probably just couldn't figure out how to code the MP properly so we got this neutered version.

 

You people do realise that being able to have a PERSISTENT SAVE OF A YOUR VERSION OF A CHARACTER wouldn't break the story in co-op? They would have to account for level difference somehow but the host could choose what levels to allow in their game and problems solved for everyone. But then we start getting into ADDING gameplay optuions and EXPANDING multiplayer and these days its all about shortchanging gamers and STREAMLINING.

best post ive read on this subject yet..

[ShadowScythe]

The aim wasn't to make a diablo-alike, they wanted to differentiate it from Diablo because otherwise there'd be no reason to get it when you could get diablo 3. This is a story focused arpg with co-op designed to just chill around and have fun with friends ala portal 2- that's something that I've always wanted and loved- i don't care much for looting and exp grinding.

 

If that isn't your thing, then fine, go play diablo 3. It wasn't about copping out and being cheap and whatever, they were trying something different and aren't catering for a crowd that'd much rather play diablo 3.

if they werent going to do it right it shouldnt have been added at all..any developer with half a brain knows in this type of game thats what drives the co-op..its pretty much pointless now..theres a huge amount of potential customers now that are going to pass on this game for that simple reason..i know for a fact my friends are not buying it..i hope when its all said and done obsidian has to explain it was this decision that cost so many sales of the game to square..

 

 

You sir have serious entitlement issues. It's not your thing, ok, it's not about doing it "right" or not, it's simply not the genre for it. It's like complaining that Portal doesn't have guns that actually shoot bullets, it's not the same genre and for good reason. Diablo 3 was already going to do it, and would do it better thanks to higher budget and staff that are more experienced in these kinds of things. And it's incredibly arrogant to talk about loss of sales, for every sale they lose off people who want multiplayer lootem grindfests they can just as easily gain a sale for people who want a fun qstorybased arpg to play with some friends.

[MonkeyLungs]

The aim wasn't to make a diablo-alike, they wanted to differentiate it from Diablo because otherwise there'd be no reason to get it when you could get diablo 3. This is a story focused arpg with co-op designed to just chill around and have fun with friends ala portal 2- that's something that I've always wanted and loved- i don't care much for looting and exp grinding.

 

If that isn't your thing, then fine, go play diablo 3. It wasn't about copping out and being cheap and whatever, they were trying something different and aren't catering for a crowd that'd much rather play diablo 3.

if they werent going to do it right it shouldnt have been added at all..any developer with half a brain knows in this type of game thats what drives the co-op..its pretty much pointless now..theres a huge amount of potential customers now that are going to pass on this game for that simple reason..i know for a fact my friends are not buying it..i hope when its all said and done obsidian has to explain it was this decision that cost so many sales of the game to square..

 

 

You sir have serious entitlement issues. It's not your thing, ok, it's not about doing it "right" or not, it's simply not the genre for it. It's like complaining that Portal doesn't have guns that actually shoot bullets, it's not the same genre and for good reason. Diablo 3 was already going to do it, and would do it better thanks to higher budget and staff that are more experienced in these kinds of things. And it's incredibly arrogant to talk about loss of sales, for every sale they lose off people who want multiplayer lootem grindfests they can just as easily gain a sale for people who want a fun qstorybased arpg to play with some friends.

 

ShadowScythe,

 

You really have no idea what you are talking about. The TRUTH WILL OUT when this game releases.

 

You can have great story based co-op AND free roam co-op AND PVP AND Item trading all in the same package. Technical difficulties, time, budget, and a lack of desire to make a legendary title are what held back the multiplayer. You can believe all the PR speak you want but I know game developers are not allowed to speak honestly with the public. The story and a solid single player experience can make this game be fun but NOTHING will change the fact that the multiplayer is gimped.

[ShadowScythe]

*sigh* To each his own then. All I'm saying is that claiming a game sucks cause it lacks multiplayer when said features were never intended is missing the point, I can just as easily claim that games like Skyrim will be terrible because it has no multiplayer and the devs are just cheap, lazy and greedy for not programming it in. It's missing the point. Maybe this isn't the same as the original dungeon sieges or whatever but you still have those kinds of features in the upcoming diablo game which will no doubt completely blow DS1 and 2 out of the park. So quit whining and ruining it for the rest of us who just want to enjoy some BG:DA style arpg with some co-op thrown in as well. It's just a game right? We should all really just relax.

[blueboykc]

*sigh* To each his own then. All I'm saying is that claiming a game sucks cause it lacks multiplayer when said features were never intended is missing the point, I can just as easily claim that games like Skyrim will be terrible because it has no multiplayer and the devs are just cheap, lazy and greedy for not programming it in. It's missing the point. Maybe this isn't the same as the original dungeon sieges or whatever but you still have those kinds of features in the upcoming diablo game which will no doubt completely blow DS1 and 2 out of the park. So quit whining and ruining it for the rest of us who just want to enjoy some BG:DA style arpg with some co-op thrown in as well. It's just a game right? We should all really just relax.

talk about missing the point....its like some of you have blinders on..i really dont get it..

Edited June 13, 2011 by blueboykc

[chrisssj2]

Lol indeed, +3 for the blinders!

 

Why do you even care? Why do you even play a game... go back to tetris if you don't care.

[Oner]

Lol indeed, +3 for the blinders!

 

Why do you even care? Why do you even play a game... go back to tetris if you don't care.

You didn't even read what the discussion is about, have you.

 

You don't seem to care for DS3, yet you're still here instead of playing tetris.

[rafoca]

Wow! I am amazed to see that people are still defending the ISSUES. Really... this co-op thing is an ISSUE, a PROBLEM... is not about "this game is focused on story" or "this is not the genre"... of course this is the genre, also this was supposed to be DUNGEON SIEGE.

 

Sure, we can have fun playing this game alone or in co-op, but the fact is that multiplayer is not the way it should be. It is a step back. You know what game played like this?? CHAMPIONS OF NORRATH. Yes! this game, which launched in the last generation, had a co-op just like this one.

 

I am curious to see what the reviews will say.

[Oner]

It's about as much of an issue and problem as "drop your stuff upon death" thing is in Lineage 2 and other older MMOs.

 

Sure, we can have fun playing this game alone or in co-op, but the fact is that multiplayer is not the way it should be

It should be a co-op with friends or people-you-trust-not-to-screw-you-over, which it is. You don't like it? Fine. But what you want still doesn't equal what it should be.

[hopfrog16]

Wow! I am amazed to see that people are still defending the ISSUES. Really... this co-op thing is an ISSUE, a PROBLEM... is not about "this game is focused on story" or "this is not the genre"... of course this is the genre, also this was supposed to be DUNGEON SIEGE.

 

Sure, we can have fun playing this game alone or in co-op, but the fact is that multiplayer is not the way it should be. It is a step back. You know what game played like this?? CHAMPIONS OF NORRATH. Yes! this game, which launched in the last generation, had a co-op just like this one.

 

I am curious to see what the reviews will say.

 

Not really... Champions of Norrath had persistent multiplayer characters, both locally and online. I can't remember if it had PvP, but I know for sure that it's sequel did, "Return to Arms". Both CoN and it's sequel were great games, I think.

[MonkeyLungs]

Norrath games also had story based co-op with predetermined characters and seemed to be able to handle this while also allowing for persistent saves. These games were on the PS2 and were more in depth. Heck Phantasy Star Portable 2 is so much more feature rich than DS3 it is mind boggling. This is a PSP game that I'm talking about folks. And I'm not getting into subjectives I'm talking about straight up comparisons of gameplay options and features.