Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

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

co-op multiplayer stretch goals

  • Please log in to reply
283 replies to this topic

Poll: Co-Op / Multiplayer as a potential stretch goal? (659 member(s) have cast votes)

Would co-op be a stretch-goal that you might be interested in past the 2.4 million mark?

  1. Yes/Possibly (267 votes [40.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.52%

  2. No (392 votes [59.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 59.48%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21
casa

casa

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 83 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
I'd love some NWN(2)-style multiplayer with an Editor, it should be a stretch goal really.
  • Alweth likes this

#22
LadyCrimson

LadyCrimson

    Obsidian VIP

  • Members
  • 9114 posts
  • Location:Candyland
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
I'm definitely a single-player when it comes to rpg's, so I don't care/want it myself. But as always, I certainly don't have an objection to it being there as an option, either as a high-level stretch goal for this round, or if that's not feasible in Project E, used as a sequel incentive or something.

#23
Vatdim

Vatdim

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • Location:Sofia, Bulgaria, EU
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Yes! Obsidian, please consider adding a multiplayer option akin to what we had in the BG and IWD series. :yes:

I've played those games with friends and it was a lot more fun than playing solo. It didn't ruin the immersion either, it just felt like we were playing an epic pen and paper RPG. :biggrin:
  • Alweth likes this

#24
Maddas

Maddas

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 23 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
I never got to play the BG series or NWN in multiplayer; how did that exactly work? I'm assuming other players are either extra party members, or they share control of them?

#25
Vatdim

Vatdim

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • Location:Sofia, Bulgaria, EU
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
In the BG and IWD series other players are part of your 6-men party. Basically, you have to decide which of the NPC companions to leave out of the party in order to take your friends. You can also give them control over other NPC companions, e.g. you can control Jaheira and Minsc and let your friend control Aerie and Imoen.

In NWN and NWN 2, other players are extra party members. So, for example, if the maximum party size is 4, when your friend comes on, you'll have a 5-men party. It's again possible to let other players control NPC party members.
  • Alweth likes this

#26
Sickly

Sickly

    (0) Nub

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
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?
  • Alweth likes this

#27
C2B

C2B

    Lazy Assistant of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 4143 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Well, not against it per se. Just that the resources should be spent on game content first. And a good mp system takes time.

#28
Starwars

Starwars

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3205 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
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.
  • Abtacha likes this

#29
razum

razum

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
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.
  • Vatdim and Alweth like this

#30
Ancoron

Ancoron

    Spellslinger of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 22 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • PSN Portable ID:Ancoron
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
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

#31
RogueBurger

RogueBurger

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 47 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
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.
  • Alweth likes this

#32
Continuity

Continuity

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 58 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
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 by Continuity, 16 September 2012 - 01:21 PM.

  • Abtacha likes this

#33
Goran

Goran

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 40 posts
No co-op. Focus on singleplayer campaign.

#34
Sickly

Sickly

    (0) Nub

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
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.

#35
NoxNoctum

NoxNoctum

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 148 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
I'd rather see them focus entirely on SP.

#36
Kira

Kira

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 13 posts
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.

#37
Continuity

Continuity

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 58 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
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.

#38
Delterius

Delterius

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 308 posts
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'.

#39
Ieo

Ieo

    White Gazebo of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1410 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
(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 :p) 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 by Ieo, 16 September 2012 - 01:30 PM.

  • Abtacha likes this

#40
Althernai

Althernai

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 512 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

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.
  • nikolokolus likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: co-op, multiplayer, stretch goals

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users