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

[timobkg]

Maybe as a long down the road stretch goal, but not anytime soon. Mainly because the number of people who actually end up using it is a minority.

 

Tell that to the NWN community?

That's funny because I remember back in the day there was a Bioware forum post that basically stated that only like ~20% of all players of NWN1 even started one mp game. Most bought the game to play the sp campaign and never touched mp.

I actually bought NWN to play with my friends. Solo, NWN was a soulless experience. In co-op, with different characters combining their unique skills and actually being able to use tactics, it was great.

 

No thanks to any form of MP. We need every little scrap of devtime / resources to make the sp campaign more awesome.

At some point you reach diminishing returns with what you can add to the campaign with more money - Chris Avellone won't be able to write better or faster with more money - which is why co-op multiplayer would make for a good stretch goal.

[Darth Trethon]

Absolutely not, never in a million years. Any sort of coop or multiplayer detracts greatly from the enjoyment of the single player campaign. That's why most MP/coop games only have a sham 4 or 5 hours poor excuse of a SP campaign. Last RPG to go coop was BioWare's Mass Effect 3 and in case you haven't heard about it the ending suffered so bad that it caused a major commotion in the fanbase of epic proportion essentially seeing the game's price dropped from $60 to $40 and even $30 by some retailers within the first month.

[licketysplit]

Not interested. Making a great SP game is hard enough.

[draft1983]

I hate multiplayer/coop with the ferocity of a thousand suns. It frustrates me to no end that it seems that every game these days seems to need to include some sort of multiplayer. I don't like to see resources taken from making a really amazing single player experience.

 

it's because the majority of people have friends. I like to play a game through on my own, and then have the opportunity to play with a friend too to experience the world etc with another. I have always longed for an elder scrolls game to have a co-op feature, to explore the world with another is so much more fun than on my own. And i think it's a selfish attitude for peopel to sayt hey want a game with no mulitplayer because it ruins the experience... if you don;t want to play with another then don;t, noone forces you and it doesnt harm your own experience have the option available- elder scrolls fans are the worst for this. Of course it must not damage the single player experience... and if it would then i'm all for it to stay as single player, but if it's a viable option then i would be happy.

[draft1983]

Absolutely not, never in a million years. Any sort of coop or multiplayer detracts greatly from the enjoyment of the single player campaign. That's why most MP/coop games only have a sham 4 or 5 hours poor excuse of a SP campaign. Last RPG to go coop was BioWare's Mass Effect 3 and in case you haven't heard about it the ending suffered so bad that it caused a major commotion in the fanbase of epic proportion essentially seeing the game's price dropped from $60 to $40 and even $30 by some retailers within the first month.

 

but the baldur's gate multiplayer and iwd mutilplayers were great and ofc did not make any difference to the single player experience. soemthign along the lines of them but easier to access would be perfect.

[Darth Trethon]

Absolutely not, never in a million years. Any sort of coop or multiplayer detracts greatly from the enjoyment of the single player campaign. That's why most MP/coop games only have a sham 4 or 5 hours poor excuse of a SP campaign. Last RPG to go coop was BioWare's Mass Effect 3 and in case you haven't heard about it the ending suffered so bad that it caused a major commotion in the fanbase of epic proportion essentially seeing the game's price dropped from $60 to $40 and even $30 by some retailers within the first month.

 

but the baldur's gate multiplayer and iwd mutilplayers were great and ofc did not make any difference to the single player experience. soemthign along the lines of them but easier to access would be perfect.

 

The game development budgets and the diffficulty of creating games from the days of Baldur's Gate to the days of now have shifted lightyears. The ammount of work that goes into games now has greatly increased. Implementing any sort of MP/coop is likely to cost just as much if not more than it takes to make the SP campaign and it would be an absolute waste, if they had that kind of money I'd rather have them create a lot more for the SP campaign....larger maps, more locations, factions, quests....etc. etc. etc.

[Sarathen]

Disclaimer: I don't play multiplayer mode on computer games. Don't care for it, probably never will. (The 'that's because you don't have friends' rebuttal is always annoying- I'd rather play board games with my friends in person and reserve my computer time as 'me' time.)

 

That said, I genuinely have a hard time understanding how one could implement a multiplayer mode without affecting the narrative of the singleplayer mode. Out of all the games for which PE is a 'spiritual successor', PST is the only one I've played more than once. It's like coming back to reread a fantastic, immersive, interactive novel. Which sort of leads into:

 

Reading is not a team sport.

 

I'm not going to claim I understand the time or effort behind adding multiplayer mode, but my main concern is that it not affect the depth and complexity of the story that Obsidian wants to tell. I don't want slimmed down SP content put in to allow for a properly executed MP experience. If the team is truly confident they can add MP without compromising SP and stay on budget and on time, I'm hardly going to throw a fit. I just want the SP experience and story to come before all else.

[Santiago]

I love multiplayer. RPG was created for multiplayer cooperative, and there is not many computer RPG games with this mode.

 

I enjoyed BG and ICWD series playing in coop with my friends, and still playing now with my sons. BG single player was not affected for the coop mode, so, I think that Project Eternity could add this option.

 

It's party based, so, every player could manage a character in the party, and human brain is, by far, 10000000000 times more interesting than AI scripts.

 

I backed the project, of course, and Ill add more money if they add cooperative campaign, like BG, IWD and NWN.

 

Regards.

[Lucas]

Honestly, not at release (I guess they already have much stuff to do :D): I would prefer a future expansion that features a co-op campaign (something akin to Storm of Zehir: you can choose to play it single-player by creating 1-6 characters or co-op it)

[Aldereth]

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?

 

It seems like the people who are against multiplayer never tried BG and company's multiplayer. It wasn't perfect, for sure, but you can see all the posts in here from people who played and enjoyed IE multiplayer and want some more.

 

I think the expectation for Eternity have more emphasis on plot more along the line of BG, PS:T than IWD. I tried and like IWD multiplayer but voted against have multiplayer for Eternity. There is not really a nice way to implement multiplayer that would not make it feel out of place and detract from the story.

[Ashram]

I can't see how people would vote no to this. If adding co-op as an option for a stretch goal did nothing to limit the single player game, why not?

 

I would like to see co op where you could have up to 4 player characters leaving room for 2 NPCs. Then perhaps in conversations you roll to see who gets to speak like in SW The Old Republic. Everyone gets a chance to shine and become part of the story and having 2 of the dev created players in the mix at any time would allow you as a group to pursue those plotlines.

[maggotheart]

Ugh I've seen this discussion go around for other projects and the arguments are always the same, circling around the same points over and over and over again. Some people are just against multiplayer no matter what. They will say: "It will destroy the narrative! People won't want to read text when playing together! All resources should be spent on SP! Games shouldnt have multiplayer, its ruining gaming!", all of which are nonsense arguments, but it's understandable considering the demographic this game is targeting (old school gamers) who have (rightly) been burned by lazy/tacked on/otherwise not done well multiplayer experiences in many, many games over the intervening years. I'm hoping the developers have the fortitude to fight through this attitude and deliver some nice co-op multiplayer a la Baldurs Gate so I can enjoy this with my wife and friends after playing through SP. Demonstrate how it can be done right.

[Shardbearer]

I like the idea someone had previously stated that perhaps multiplayer can be an added feature post-release. Purely for these reasons, I enjoyed playing Baldur's Gate 2 with friends, but if you don't play it the first time by yourself you are hamstringing your experience. For each co-op character in your party, that's one less NPC companion, which means less dialogues and less story tied in. In my opinion, memorable characters and character arcs make up a significant portion of the story enjoyment and if you have a party full of co-op players you'll be missing out on a significant portion of the game. It would be fun for later play-throughs, but I'm going to be playing the first few play-throughs solo.

[Enclave]

I said yes/possibly.

 

Specifically, I'd like the option to do multiplayer much like Baldur's Gate allowed for it.

[Shardbearer]

Absolutely not, never in a million years. Any sort of coop or multiplayer detracts greatly from the enjoyment of the single player campaign. That's why most MP/coop games only have a sham 4 or 5 hours poor excuse of a SP campaign. Last RPG to go coop was BioWare's Mass Effect 3 and in case you haven't heard about it the ending suffered so bad that it caused a major commotion in the fanbase of epic proportion essentially seeing the game's price dropped from $60 to $40 and even $30 by some retailers within the first month.

 

The ending controversy of Mass Effect 3 had nothing to do with inadequate resources, it had to do with a conscious decision for the direction of the ending by the people making the game. An entirely separate team made the co-op portion of the game, and the the SP was quite long in itself.

[Grimlorn]

I need "me" time, so no multiplayer.

[eselle28]

I'm mildly opposed, for purely selfish reasons. It seems that games that include coop play as anything more than a side feature end up getting a little warped by the needs of the, "I just want to burn off some steam and kill all the things with my buddies," crowd. Granted, there are plenty of groups who want to dig in and roleplay and engage in intense dialogue sequences, but there seem to be a lot of others who'd prefer a game go light on those features or make them optional, in favor of more combat. As someone whose preferences point in exactly the opposite direction, I'd rather not have any of that pressure diluting content I'd enjoy.

 

That doesn't mean there's not a place for coop play, but I don't think it belongs in every single-player title and I'd prefer it not be in this one - or at least I'd be far more motivated by other Kickstarter goals.

[Enclave]

I'm mildly opposed, for purely selfish reasons. It seems that games that include coop play as anything more than a side feature end up getting a little warped by the needs of the, "I just want to burn off some steam and kill all the things with my buddies," crowd. Granted, there are plenty of groups who want to dig in and roleplay and engage in intense dialogue sequences, but there seem to be a lot of others who'd prefer a game go light on those features or make them optional, in favor of more combat. As someone whose preferences point in exactly the opposite direction, I'd rather not have any of that pressure diluting content I'd enjoy.

 

That doesn't mean there's not a place for coop play, but I don't think it belongs in every single-player title and I'd prefer it not be in this one - or at least I'd be far more motivated by other Kickstarter goals.

 

Did you ever play multiplayer in Baldur's Gate? If not then you clearly don't know what people are asking for.

 

This goes to everybody who's so vehemently opposed to multiplayer. NOBODY is asking for the crap we see in the likes of Mass Effect 3.

[eselle28]

I'm mildly opposed, for purely selfish reasons. It seems that games that include coop play as anything more than a side feature end up getting a little warped by the needs of the, "I just want to burn off some steam and kill all the things with my buddies," crowd. Granted, there are plenty of groups who want to dig in and roleplay and engage in intense dialogue sequences, but there seem to be a lot of others who'd prefer a game go light on those features or make them optional, in favor of more combat. As someone whose preferences point in exactly the opposite direction, I'd rather not have any of that pressure diluting content I'd enjoy.

 

That doesn't mean there's not a place for coop play, but I don't think it belongs in every single-player title and I'd prefer it not be in this one - or at least I'd be far more motivated by other Kickstarter goals.

 

Did you ever play multiplayer in Baldur's Gate? If not then you clearly don't know what people are asking for.

 

This goes to everybody who's so vehemently opposed to multiplayer. NOBODY is asking for the crap we see in the likes of Mass Effect 3.

 

I did, though only briefly because I strongly prefer Baldur's Gate when it's single player. While I adored that series, I suspect I would have preferred whatever else those development dollars could have purchased. These days, gaming audiences are also more vocal, and I do think that including a coop mode of that style will still end up influencing game design, even if it's subtle and unintentional.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to a similar old school coop title, but I'd really like it best if this title kept its focus purely on single-player. Of course, it's ultimately not up to me and I'll be playing and enjoying either way.

[Shardbearer]

 

I did, though only briefly because I strongly prefer Baldur's Gate when it's single player. While I adored that series, I suspect I would have preferred whatever else those development dollars could have purchased. These days, gaming audiences are also more vocal, and I do think that including a coop mode of that style will still end up influencing game design, even if it's subtle and unintentional.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to a similar old school coop title, but I'd really like it best if this title kept its focus purely on single-player. Of course, it's ultimately not up to me and I'll be playing and enjoying either way.

 

That's a very good point and I'm more and more liking the idea of just making a single player game now and possibly adding in co-op support post launch, so that way nothing in the original game is there for the sake of MP.

[Vatdim]

Yep, it looks like the biggest opponents to multiplayer remain the people who have not had the chance to play in multiplayer or just the people who have a predisposition that they won't be playing this game in multiplayer anyway. Why bother making such a mode, right?

 

To someone who hasn't had the chance to engage in meaningful multiplayer in legendary games like BG 1&2, IWD 1&2 and NWN 1&2, I really don't know what to say. I tried my best in a few posts back, but I can't describe this feeling, you've to try it yourself in order to see what it's like. But whether you want to give it a try or not, you shouldn't respond to the idea as a whole in such a negative way just because you've no plan to make use of the feature. It's an optional thing and I think it's selfish to say you want no multiplayer as a stretch goal higher up, even if the money for PE is already enough to develop the game as a wonderful single player journey.

[Alweth]

Public Service Announcement

If you are thinking, or are going to post, anything like the following:

 

"Coop will undermine the singleplayer experience."

"Coop is too complicated to add."

"I can't imagine how coop would work."

"I hate coop/multiplayer."

Etc.

 

STOP! Take a deep breath. Now, go get one or more friends, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, and play through both games in coop. Then come back and post the following:

 

"Yes! Please include coop in Project Eternity. Please. Please. Please. Please. For the love of all that is good in the world, PLEASE!!!"

 

Thank you.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Alweth

[Shardbearer]

For those who keep comparing multiplayer co-op to shooters and recent actions rpg's, this is a poor comparison. Co-op in BG 1-2 was not a separate game. It was the single player campaign, with both of your characters in the same party.

[alphyna]

No-no-no. I want a good story-driven game and I want to feel special. There's no special in the world of multiplayer.

[Alweth]

No-no-no. I want a good story-driven game and I want to feel special. There's no special in the world of multiplayer.

 

LOL. Well said!

 

You are being sarcastic, right?