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

[Vatdim]

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.

 

In the world of MMO's? - Yes, that's mostly true.

In the world of real multiplayer with 2-4 friends playing together the master campaign of a game like Baldur's Gate? - Not really.

[Brishingr]

Okay...let me throw in my two gold coins.

 

MP can be or not so much fun *depending on who you are with*, its onr thing to be with freinds its another to be with someone who ones to ninja loot, troll, ect ect.

 

The ones who crave it (in my eyes) have an established group of freinds, whom can get on at the same time, and play togehter for a while. THose that dont care so much about it cant afford the time/or the firends to do so. (EXAMPLE: my best pc gaming buddy is 2 hours behind me, and has a limited window of play time). Which would put me into the later camp, its not like the days of BG 1 and 2 when I had no job, little of life bugging me, family, ect ect. That puts co-oping less on my *need to have* list.

[Brishingr]

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.

 

In the world of MMO's? - Yes, that's mostly true.

In the world of real multiplayer with 2-4 friends playing together the master campaign of a game like Baldur's Gate? - Not really.

 

Or rahter try playing Halo of legedary with 4 ppl.

But rather lets ask the question do I have 3 other players that can fiit in, for "x" amount of time. That was one of my biggest issues with Titan Quest.

[Shardbearer]

Okay...let me throw in my two gold coins.

 

MP can be or not so much fun *depending on who you are with*, its onr thing to be with freinds its another to be with someone who ones to ninja loot, troll, ect ect.

 

The ones who crave it (in my eyes) have an established group of freinds, whom can get on at the same time, and play togehter for a while. THose that dont care so much about it cant afford the time/or the firends to do so. (EXAMPLE: my best pc gaming buddy is 2 hours behind me, and has a limited window of play time). Which would put me into the later camp, its not like the days of BG 1 and 2 when I had no job, little of life bugging me, family, ect ect. That puts co-oping less on my *need to have* list.

 

Very well put, I'm most likely in exactly the same position as you. However it endlessly bugs me others who have no interest in MP make blanket statements that it shall ruin the game and never should be included just because they have no interest in it.

[Brishingr]

I understand, beleive coming form D3, Borderlands.

 

But as my pshic 101 instructer bluntly put it. "The old Humans get the less likey they are to accept new things."

[Vatdim]

Okay...let me throw in my two gold coins.

 

MP can be or not so much fun *depending on who you are with*, its onr thing to be with freinds its another to be with someone who ones to ninja loot, troll, ect ect.

 

The ones who crave it (in my eyes) have an established group of freinds, whom can get on at the same time, and play togehter for a while. THose that dont care so much about it cant afford the time/or the firends to do so. (EXAMPLE: my best pc gaming buddy is 2 hours behind me, and has a limited window of play time). Which would put me into the later camp, its not like the days of BG 1 and 2 when I had no job, little of life bugging me, family, ect ect. That puts co-oping less on my *need to have* list.

 

You've a good observation and I see your point. However, while you don't desperately need multiplayer, you're not necessarily against it, right?

 

I keep seeing a lot of people who are against the idea as a whole and that really startles me. The poll here clearly asks if we'd like multiplayer to be an advanced stretch goal, not if the game should be exclusively played in multiplayer, after all. Whether one uses it or not, depends on their own personal preferences and possibilities.

[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.

 

In the world of MMO's? - Yes, that's mostly true.

In the world of real multiplayer with 2-4 friends playing together the master campaign of a game like Baldur's Gate? - Not really.

Well, frankly, I can't call my multiplayer experience vast. It's practically nonexistant.

 

But I don't get it. I want a game where my character has a backstory. Like, he's the son of a king. Or a one-of-a-kind immortal amnesiac. Or Dragonborn. Or just a random guy in some very unusual circumstances which would make him special. How is it possible to have a bunch of immortal Dragonborn princes? It doesn't really make sense and hurts the story. The moment a character controlled by a real person (not by AI) joins your party, you become a generic adventurer, which is boring.

[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.

 

LOL. Well said!

 

You are being sarcastic, right?

Er... not really, no.

[Brishingr]

To answer you question..No im not. First thing I learned whan I was in college, was to open my mind up to diffenert things, However I cant say for everyone, but wouldnt surprise me if a few posters have had a bad expence or too. ( I tend to look at mp as option DLC, while other look at say ME 3 MP vrs SP dlc.)

 

Come to think of it I recall this topic being asked on Watseland 2, which oddly had the excat same responce. Most old school players want to be left by themselves, one could say it would break their immersion or however you spell it..

[Alweth]

Most old school players want to be left by themselves, one could say it would break their immersion or however you spell it..

 

On the contrary, a lot of the people who are against coop seem to be judging multiplayer based on more recent games, indicating that they are not "old school players." I certainly would consider myself more of an "old school" player than the large majority of gamers. (And I am pro-coop.)

[sparklecat]

My first experience with multiplayer was with Baldur's Gate. It was also my first RPG, and much too difficult for me at the time. But I controlled the main character, my buddy controlled Imoen (+4 more eventually, until I felt confident enough to take more of them myself), and I persevered! Can't say having someone else playing with me hurt immersion or my enjoyment of the single-player storyline/companions/whatever.

[LokiHades]

It's disheartening to see. After playing DnD tabletop and online with friends, as well as playing BG1 and 2 (as well as NWN1 and 2) to this day in Co-Op, I have to say it's an experience I wouldn't want to do without.

 

The honest truth is, even if it was just like BG1 or 2's, I'd still love it for being there. When you RP with friends, you draft character backgrounds together, integrate each other's ideas, and everyone feels special and part of a good team.

 

That's the one feeling I can never get when I play alone, though I mostly play alone in many games (even MMOs).

 

Basically, I think the option should always be there, but only if Obsidian are confident they can put it in there without TOO much trouble.

[Brishingr]

I cant say i didnt enjoy MP, however hwen you have a comp go dwon to it, is a headache to fix, and Im refering to LAN paries.

 

Now form a cost point of veiw, I cant say a word.

 

Basically, I think the option should always be there, but only if Obsidian are confident they can put it in there without TOO much trouble.

 

Now I didnt PnP, only thing i did make in those days was figger out why I could get dos-based Decent 2 to work on the comp lab network when the network would reconize it. Now its a nightmare with firewall ports, ect ect.

 

Most old school players want to be left by themselves, one could say it would break their immersion or however you spell it..

 

On the contrary, a lot of the people who are against coop seem to be judging multiplayer based on more recent games, indicating that they are not "old school players." I certainly would consider myself more of an "old school" player than the large majority of gamers. (And I am pro-coop.)

 

I wasnt clear when I say old school ( agian this is my diffition), that is when I had to exit out of windows and use DoS to play games, now I miss Tie Fighter :sad face:

Some might say otherwise, doesnt really make that big of a denfence, esp if one wants to debate on it, it comes down to the choice, and well personaly I wont use it, for someone else sure. But right now it comes down to the funds. even at 3-4 million the tech part of me just doesnt see it, But I could be wrong.

[Ieo]

Basically, I think the option should always be there, but only if Obsidian are confident they can put it in there without TOO much trouble.

 

It isn't just a matter of "trouble." A dev already officially confirmed that adding decent MP requires concessions on the single-player side. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE for the primary audience of single-player games; MP is still the minority for the target audience in this case. The exact quote is further up and in the "single-player is our focus" thread.

 

On the other hand, if it's tacked on as an afterthought and doesn't impede the design of single-player content in any way, that's fine with me.

[Enclave]

Basically, I think the option should always be there, but only if Obsidian are confident they can put it in there without TOO much trouble.

 

It isn't just a matter of "trouble." A dev already officially confirmed that adding decent MP requires concessions on the single-player side. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE for the primary audience of single-player games; MP is still the minority for the target audience in this case. The exact quote is further up and in the "single-player is our focus" thread.

 

On the other hand, if it's tacked on as an afterthought and doesn't impede the design of single-player content in any way, that's fine with me.

 

He said it might require concessions.

[Delterius]

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:

 

"Coop will undermine the singleplayer experience."

 

That's exactly it.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Delterius

[zlarm]

I'd also like MP if its at all possible... It doesn't ahve to be pretty I know the MP in BG and Bg2 were termed poorly implemented but that kind of thing would be fine for me

[Shardbearer]

Editing other people's quotes isn't cool

[Ieo]

Basically, I think the option should always be there, but only if Obsidian are confident they can put it in there without TOO much trouble.

 

It isn't just a matter of "trouble." A dev already officially confirmed that adding decent MP requires concessions on the single-player side. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE for the primary audience of single-player games; MP is still the minority for the target audience in this case. The exact quote is further up and in the "single-player is our focus" thread.

 

On the other hand, if it's tacked on as an afterthought and doesn't impede the design of single-player content in any way, that's fine with me.

 

He said it might require concessions.

 

Try reading.

 

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.

[alphyna]

Concessions? Aaaannnd my "No-no-no" turns into a big NO NO FREAKING NO.

[Sistergoldring]

Nope, I'll pass on multiplayer. Even if they raise a few million it's still not a big budget for them to play around with. I'd rather they spent the time and money making an amazingly rich and detailed story driven single player old-school RPG.

[Luckz]

Since the game is going to use Unity and I have a policy of not spending money on anything that does, I'm out of here anyway, and so is my desire to coop this game.

You can all have your SP-only glorious hatefest. Enjoy.

[Shevek]

The only thing I used MP for in BG2 was for making my entire party. Useless feature.

[Chunkyman]

Money spent on multiplayer is money wasted. If I want to play games with friends, I have Black Ops.

[Foxfirerage]

Multiplayer would greatly increase the games replay value, I always have my friends buggying me to play online with them. If this is only single player then it will lose out to games where you can interact with your friends.

 

It wont sell as well if it is not multiplayer and we would be less likly to see cool updates and expansions due to the lack of sales.

 

so yes it will take time/resources/money to make it co-op but it will also help generate money in the long run by increasing sales. and more money = better expansions and a better game