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

[Vatdim]

Now that they have confirmed the companions in the game will be optional to take on your journey, I think it could be even more seamless to implement a BG style co-op multiplayer. Also, a 6-men party is much easier to manage with more people playing.

 

It is expensive and requires testing, of course, so I will understand them if they don't want to add it yet. However, if they release it as a potential stretch goal higher up, I'm sure a lot of people will be drawn to pledge or to raise their pledges.

 

As for a toolset and DM client, I love those kinds of things, I believe they add enormously to the game's life. However, I think modders in a full 3D game such as NWN 1 & 2 can do a much better job than in an isometric mixed 2D/3D game like PE, so I don't see much reason to include this as of now.

 

On a side note, I really don't understand why so many people object to adding multiplayer. Perhaps they haven't played the IE games with friends and don't know the fun of it? Give it a try, people, take a friend who's not a total D&D noob and talk tactics and dialogue choices over skype or mumble or teamspeak. After you've done that, you won't even feel like playing another RPG in single player.

[Grimlorn]

So this means they are really looking in to it. Promising.

 

Edit:

NWN is RTwP and has a very successful Multiplayer. Read the posts before telling us that we are asking for dumb things.

 

Obsidian has experience with this kind of Multiplayer.

How would they be able to afford it? Fallout cost 3 million to make 15 years ago. How do you think they can afford to put resources into multiplayer instead of the base game?

[cacota]

NWN style would be awesome. I liked it very much, create your own real with editor, play up to 64 people in the server, those things.

[Katrar]

Since a not insignificant percentage of OE's Kickstarter funds aren't going to be available for development (Various fees, funding the prize patrol, etc), it's probably smart to NOT divert time, energy, and money to major side projects like coop/mp. I'd much prefer that time, energy, and money be (wisely) invested in core gameplay instead. If the final product is rock solid and OE has a new hit franchise on their hands then maybe PE2 or whatnot can have coop. But please, not this one. Too risky.

[Desmond]

Okay financing is good question and only Obsidian can tell us at which stretch goal Multiplayer would become affordable.

 

3 Million is a realistic goal for kick starter. But we have to take inflation and such things in to account. So Maybe this sum will go up by 15%,20%,30%?

On the other hand we have better tools and much more experience than 15+ years ago.

 

I always had the impression that a real money sucker is the development of graphics and physics and such things. 'All things that we wont need for PE.

Is developing a good network code really that hard? This was already done for a lot of games, there should be enough Know-how.

 

This are things only Obsidian can tell us and i really hope they will give us some insights in this matter.

[SirPetrakus]

Back in the day, I and a couple of friends played IWD, BG and NWN2 as co-op games, basically. Was trying to get them to do the same for DS3, but eh ... they didn't bite and didn't want to pay full price, so I've put that on hold. For now. However, I would love to be given the opportunity to do the same with project eternity, even if I don't really get to do it on day 1. Maybe not a must, but definitely a plus.

Edited September 18, 2012 by SirPetrakus

[Desmond]

Tim Chains interview with eurogamer.net (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-09-18-project-eternity-interview-new-information-tentative-spring-2014-release-date) sounds good regarding multiplayer. So there is still hope. Damm I could even live with a separated Kick starter which is only for multiplayer, toolset and DM client.

 

Multiplayer isn't ruled out. "Interest?" Tim Cain mulled. "Yes, but not if it risks reducing the scope or quality of the single-player game in any way. Single-player gaming is our focus."

[Vatdim]

Multiplayer isn't ruled out. "Interest?" Tim Cain mulled. "Yes, but not if it risks reducing the scope or quality of the single-player game in any way. Single-player gaming is our focus."

 

Well, that sounds a little bit more reassuring.

[Sensuki]

I've played all the IE games multiplayer too.

 

But I've never finished one of them multiplayer

 

It's hard to find people with the same dedication and schedule (I never used the Gamespy network for BG though, only AoE2).

[SummerDay]

No, please, no! Please stick with a single-player game. Practically every game out there is co-op and/or multiplayer. Maybe for some people it is an interest killer.

[Alweth]

Yes, there would be a different team involved, but the new team would have to be hired with the funds in the first place.

 

See point 1.

 

No, I haven't seen exact BG numbers myself, but there are other numbers floating around in comparison. (Second link detailing what Brian Fargo would do with $2.5m is pretty interesting. The industry does not habitually publish figures.)

 

[long list of links to articles]

 

I don't see how these articles support your point. There aren't a lot of comparable figures in there. Brian Fargo says that Fallout 1's budget of $3 - $5 million was high for the time. BG 1 came out one year later, so a conservative estimate on my part would be that it also had a $3 - $5 million budget. That's well within the shooting range of this Kickstarter, even taking inflation into consideration, since they will be working with an existing engine and already have the experience of developing the previous games under their belt. From a technical standpoint, PE won't be doing anything new and everything will be easier now than it was 15 years ago.

 

 

Also, what? BG started it with a tacked on implementation and then NWN (whatever number) was developed from ground up to include it, and that franchise was hailed to be a much better multiplayer experience.

 

It was, because they put a lot more time money and effort into it. That doesn't mean that BG's multiplayer wasn't worth it, wasn't good, wasn't immensely fun. And's it's not the kind of "tacked on" multiplayer that's popular these days.

[Mutasir]

Definitely, it would be a huge plus for me.

[1varangian]

Multiplayer has the potential to make the game experience exponentially better, so yes.

[Elfwyn]

I just changed my opinion to "no", since I want the single player experience to have as much focus as possible.

The Interview Obsidian gave suggested that even 3-4 Million is not a big budget for what we would like to see.

[SqueakyCat]

No, please, no! Please stick with a single-player game. Practically every game out there is co-op and/or multiplayer. Maybe for some people it is an interest killer.

 

My feelings precisely...

[Demoss]

The Baldur's Gate way of multi-player is good, i certainly would like it and the majority of my IE based game play throughs was due to multi, nice having someone else control half the party. The host is still the main character in this scenario so it doesn't really change anything, maybe loosing a place to the 2nd players created character but thats about it.

[Undecaf]

I don't tend to play multiplayer games - especially not RPG's - so "No" is what I voted.

[Luckmann]

It depends very much on how the game is shaped and how it works. Honestly, I have little interest in multiplayer as it was in BG/IWD.

[empiresco]

Voted no, since I prefer story-driven RPG's as a single player experience.

[razum]

How is it that everyone who seems to be agaisnt multiplayer knows that adding multiplayer to a game like this will require too much investment and/or development time? Maybe it will, but Isn't adding MAC and Linux clients of this game doing the same thing, taking away investment dollars and dev time? Personally I would rather see multiplayer added in LONG before MAC or Linux clients are made. But for Obsidian, those decisions are truly from a marketing standpoint which is reaching a bigger audience.

[Luckz]

Myself and five other friends all play through Baldurs Gate/Neverwinter Nights/Icewind Dale/etc games together, and the second co-op is confirmed we're dropping cash on this game.

 

Until then we're in limbo.

I did it the other way around. I backed the projected as soon as it went up, immediately sent a question via KS if there will be BG2 style coop (did not get a reply), and if no coop announcement is done in the next weeks I'm pulling out of it again.

[LokiHades]

I find myself wanting MP. I loved playing BG2 both in SP and MP, as well as NWN/2's custom campaigns. I don't expect anything, but think it's something that would be awesome. The SP experience comes first though.

[Thunder Pussy]

Please for the love of god put co-op in the game, I still play baulders gate multiplayer (was playing a lan game last night with a couple of freinds!)

 

Its the most fun you can have in a game, your trying to talk to an npc and you turn around to find your team mates have started a fight with the town guards and summoned a pit fiend and now you have to run. Its amazing.

 

Please add it as a stretch goal, I couldn't give you my money fast enough!

[Ieo]

(stuff)

 

I'll raise your post with---

 

 

To make a good multi-player RPG, design concessions must be made on the single player side of the game. This is especially true for titles with a lot of interactive dialogue and/or narrative delivered via text. George Ziets and I have had this conversation many times over the last few years, and it always boils down to one simple truth. Reading is not a team sport.

 

If you don't make those concessions, you end up with sub-par multiplayer. As much as I love the Baldur's Gate series, the multi-player aspect took a lot of patience (putting it mildly), as the design focus of those titles was the single player experience.

 

I do believe you can create an awesome multi-player experience with dialogue and choice and consequence, in my mind it would require a very large budget. I'll let you guys decide what that may or may not mean.

 

EOD

 

As for the last bit.... If Obsidian thinks they could put together an awesome MP experience and SP can still expect PST-BG levels of content, that "very large budget" (whatever the heck it is) is not about to be met by Kickstarter for a niche game like this. Also consider the Eurogamer interview. SP cannot be sacrificed in the least since that's the point of PE; MP is fluff.

 

If this handily beats Pebble, I'd change my mind.

[dlux]

If Obsidian thinks that they can do - then why not? Many people enjoy playing a game with their buddies.