[Merged] Co-Op Multiplayer as some potential future stretchgoal?

[Sickly]

I've been reading through many threads and it seem that the community is split in half on multiplayer. There is nothing I want more than to be able to explore this wonderful new world with 5 of my friends. Did co op not work well with the old IE games? Why are so many of you so against it?

[C2B]

Well, not against it per se. Just that the resources should be spent on game content first. And a good mp system takes time.

[Starwars]

I'm not really against co-op in games at all, it can be a lot of fun. But this is a project with a limited budget, and I would like all the resources to be put into the single-player portion of the game simply put. Introducing co-op takes away manpower from other things I would like to see more basically. It will also need to be tested properly and so on and so forth.

[razum]

I would most definately love to see multiplayer/coop in Project Eternity. Some of my best memories of playing the BG/ID/NWN series were with my buddies. I agree that multiplayer should not detract from the single player experience, meaning core gameplay mechanics should not be sacrificed. If the original BG that came out almost 15 years ago had multiplayer, why cant Project Eternity with a reasonable stretch goal?

 

Also consider the fact that having multiplayer in any game can increase replayability (play through the game solo, then again with your friends) and sales. Yes I played BG/BG2 back when they came out, and yes I got my friends to buy the game due to the fact that we could play together.

 

For now I am pledged for a digital copy and a boxed copy, one for me and one for my wife. If Project Eternity does not end up supporting multiplayer like I hope, then I see no reason pledging the amount I have for 2 copies.

[Ancoron]

Yeah not really against co-op but every game recently came out whit multiplayer and it made the singleplayer worse for it.

So the should focus on the singleplayer on this one first and then maybe on co-op/multiplayer

[RogueBurger]

I loved co-op in the Infinity Engine games and I think NWN followed with a great multiplayer system that tied beautifully into it's moddability. I really hope at least the structure makes its way into the game, even if there is no special multiplayer content.

[Continuity]

MP is a time- and money sink that the project can't handle. It should first and foremost set out to prove that the single player, infinity engine-type game isn't dead.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Continuity

[Goran]

No co-op. Focus on singleplayer campaign.

[Sickly]

How do we know that's something that they couldn't handle? If they can't afford to have it in at launch then I would love to see it later.

[NoxNoctum]

I'd rather see them focus entirely on SP.

[Kira]

It's hard to picture a coop in a PS:T game, although it worked alright with BG, but there's going to be a lot of frustration for people that want to enjoy the dialog while others want to get on with the combat or whatever. Also, like others have already stated, resources are limited.

[Continuity]

18 months is barely time to make a good single player RPG (probably a bit too short even). I would also love to see it later on if it's possible though.

[Delterius]

I'm against it because I'd rather they spend all their resources onto a single-player RPG. Especially if they want to make use of the 'central protagonist from Baldur's Gate'.

[Ieo]

(In reply to Sickly, before the merge)

 

It sounds like you haven't done co-op in the old school IE games. Did you play the main hooks? (IWD, BG, PST)

 

Let's look at the three major hooks: IWD for mechanics, BG for breadth, PST for depth

 

Only IWD and I suppose BG made any sense for co-op due to the type of content--IWD had very little in the way of story (i.e. it was completely unmemorable to me, sorry ) and did not rely on party interactions at all for any content. BG, on the other hand, had some good party NPC interactions, but with its replayability, it didn't hurt to create your own party or play with friends for some power-gaming. Please note that I haven't heard good things about IE co-op support and haven't done it myself, so I dunno.

 

But then PST--that's an entirely different beast. The party NPC interactions are so critical to gameplay that the game itself either doesn't make sense without them or lacks a significant portion of content if you choose to not to use them, so why bother playing the game at all... This is a single-player game in the truest, purest sense.

 

Now, if the content depth is between BG and PST with very fleshed party NPCs--and judging by the VERY FEW party NPCs planned on the Kickstarter, I suspect this will be true--adding co-op would essentially cheat the player out of significant content Obsidian worked so hard to create. It would be pointless.

 

Granted, I know some people subscribe to MMOs just to roleplay and not actually work the mechanics for achievements, which ultimately means that comes down to "well, it's the player's money," so the argument simply goes back to the fact that the old school single-player games with substantial content should concentrate on being top-notch single-player games before branching out to something like that. The balancing is different--imagine PS:T with the various dialogue options (sometimes over a dozen depending on your stats) and the friends trying to figure out which one to pick. How does that work? It doesn't.

 

I think it could be a much later addition only if there's enough funding for a good implementation, but not now. Definitely not now. Maybe even a separate Kickstarter.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Ieo

[Althernai]

Did co op not work well with the old IE games? Why are so many of you so against it?

There was no co-op at all in Planescape: Torment and it was OK (though far from brilliant) in Baldur's Gate II. The reason it's not very popular here is that it would require a significant amount of resources that are probably better spent elsewhere. Co-op is not like the other features people generally ask for (e.g. more races or classes or whatever). The game engine either has to be written from the ground up to support it or modified in a massive way. Then, after you've got the "bare-bones" multiplayer working, you have to go through the entire game and make sure that it doesn't break anything. This is exponentially more difficult than with a purely single player game because various players can do things in different order and you can no longer rely on a whole bunch of assumptions.

 

It would be nice to have it, but there is a reason even blockbuster type RPGs tend to avoid it (e.g. Dragon Age: Origins for which BioWare initially intended to do it, but decided it was too difficult). If money is tight -- and I can't see how money won't be tight with $1M to $3M -- there are a lot of other features which would make the game better and are much easier to implement.

[Badmojo]

I am against coop/multiplayer because that is valuable time/resources/money that could be going to improving the singleplayer game. There are soooo many games that added multipleyr/coop to a singleplayer game that did not need it and the singleplayer suffered because of it. I strongly advise against adding coop even as an option for a stretch goal.

[SqueakyCat]

That would probably be the single (and only) reason I would cancel my support. Just stick to a good single player format. I'm so sick of tacking on MP to just about every game being published.

[Darvon]

It's not a feature I'd use, so it would just be resources diverted from the parts I enjoy.

[razum]

People are scared it will take away from their single player experience. Sure multiplayer will require extra funds and development time, but with a reasonable stretch goal I believe it can be done. I am assuming they haven't started writing the source code yet, so it may not be too late to add multiplayer support as they go on.

 

I think what a lot of people dont realize is that the multiplayer experience is what partially made some of the original IE games so great, or last so long. Even years later buddies of mine will get together to play these games coop. Also multiplayer has and can work well in these type of games if implemented correctly. If it can be done 14 years ago, why not today? Most modern games have to worry about porting the code over to other devices such as consoles, but in this case it will be PC only.

 

In the end it all depends on what Obsidian's vision is for the game. Will adding multiplayer mess with the flow, or can they fit it in to their story and have it flow well?

[Vatdim]

I think what a lot of people dont realize is that the multiplayer experience is what partially made some of the original IE games so great, or last so long. Even years later buddies of mine will get together to play these games coop.

 

This.

 

People say PS:T did well without multiplayer. While that is true, it doesn't mean it couldn't have done even better with multiplayer. Let's take the case of NWN2: MotB. In every sense (besides the engine and graphics), this game was a true successor to what PS:T stood for. It had a deep personally engaging storyline and it had well written companions which were significant to your journey. I played MotB together with a friend - the feeling was one of the best I've ever had in a PC game. Nothing ruined my immersion. It was actually better than playing the game on my own (which I've also done) because I had a *real* person there with whom I shared the responsibility for the hard choices we had to make. It felt like a real old-school pen and paper RPG session.

 

I don't see why PE shouldn't have a multiplayer *option*, unless that turns out too expensive or time-consuming to handle.

[Tale]

It's rare to find a feature people are against. But I guess multiplayer being mandatory has left a bad taste in people's mouths.

 

Anyway, I thought it was cool in Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale/Neverwinter Nights. I never actually used it in those first two games. So that should tell you how committed I am to supporting it. The idea of having Obsidian.net game nights to party up is a cool idea, but there are definitely better things to have if it's too much effort to implement.

[Kaldurenik]

In my opinion i would be fine with something like BG2 (but abit improved) even more so if they make tools to make your own maps and stuff. That way they can make multiplayer work in a very basic way... But open it up to allow people to mod it / create their own worlds / scenarios and stuff.

 

But hey i can dream right

[JayDGee]

I have fond memories of Icewind Dale co-op, quite possibly the first game I ever played online.

[Badmojo]

Trust me, coop WILL take time/resources/money from the singleplaer game. The developers have got to waste time making sure their code work with the online components, then they have to rewrite the story so it will not contridict anything. Hey, one of the player characters is supposed to be captured or killed for this scene, but now with multiplayer, they have to scrape that. Also, what about dialog? Who gets to speak? will they have to do a divinity 2 route where everyone can talk or just the main character? Trust me, it is NOT worth it.

[Gyges]

Yes. But when i say that i mean Neverwinter Nights style, which presupposes a toolset.