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

[Ieo]

Well, then put up an obscene goal for multiplayer and see what happens.

 

Their decision lost my pledge and respect. Ignoring a desire that would elate 41% of your gamers and be irrelevant to the other 59% shows me that this project is going to be a rushed gimmick. Until I see that they've changed their minds, I won't pledge a dime to this project.

 

If you think a forum poll(s) covering a microscopic number of self-selecting backers is somehow representative of the 50,000 backers, you are very, very mistaken. Good bye.

[Aedelric]

Ignoring a desire that would elate 41% of your gamers and be irrelevant to the other 59% shows me that this project is going to be a rushed gimmick.

 

So my vote on the poll is irrelevant now? How nice of you.

 

I voted no, I do not want it, it takes money/resources from what could be used to make content.

[Hypevosa]

Ignoring a desire that would elate 41% of your gamers and be irrelevant to the other 59% shows me that this project is going to be a rushed gimmick.

 

So my vote on the poll is irrelevant now? How nice of you.

 

I voted no, I do not want it, it takes money/resources from what could be used to make content.

 

While it would take time and money, the question is, how much?

 

If on each player's screen they're essentially playing the game, but their NPCs are waiting for commands from someone on the other end as to what to do (and pauses are universal) I can't imagine it would take more than 1 decent programmer. I'd rather have the co-op multiplayer than 1 new dungeon, and that co op multiplayer would attract thousands more people to the game, resulting in thousands to millions more in sales, resulting in more new games from obsidian.

 

If this game needed all the care for multiplayer that an FPS does, I'd understand, but all it should need are NPCs with blank AI script that wait for commands given from over the internet, and a simple someone hits pause and everyone's screen pauses feature. How hard could that possibly be?

[Ieo]

Ignoring a desire that would elate 41% of your gamers and be irrelevant to the other 59% shows me that this project is going to be a rushed gimmick.

 

So my vote on the poll is irrelevant now? How nice of you.

 

I voted no, I do not want it, it takes money/resources from what could be used to make content.

 

While it would take time and money, the question is, how much?

 

If on each player's screen they're essentially playing the game, but their NPCs are waiting for commands from someone on the other end as to what to do (and pauses are universal) I can't imagine it would take more than 1 decent programmer. I'd rather have the co-op multiplayer than 1 new dungeon, and that co op multiplayer would attract thousands more people to the game, resulting in thousands to millions more in sales, resulting in more new games from obsidian.

 

If this game needed all the care for multiplayer that an FPS does, I'd understand, but all it should need are NPCs with blank AI script that wait for commands given from over the internet, and a simple someone hits pause and everyone's screen pauses feature. How hard could that possibly be?

 

I realize your post is probably just rhetorical, but those are technical questions answerable only by the developers with over a decade of actual game programming experience. And they've already answered. It would cost "too much."

[Hypevosa]

it isn't actually rhetorical, I've programming experience myself, and I have a feeling that if it's "too expensive" then someone's just trying to make it more complicated than it has to be. It's simple data transfer with all the processing and graphics happening client side. Until the other player has been hacking and attempts to do something the client side server doesn't recognize, it's as simple as their game telling your game that NPC "OMGKICKURBUTZLOL" travels to grid x=127, y=128, attacks the ogre and does 28 damage.

 

An FPS we worry about ping and hit boxes and mobility and whether or not someone has been hit yet or which gun fires first etc etc etc. There's thousands of variables to consider and that's why it's such a problem, but this? They're essentially marionettes whose strings run through ethernet cables and into computer screens. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

[BSoda]

Well, then put up an obscene goal for multiplayer and see what happens.

 

Their decision lost my pledge and respect. Ignoring a desire that would elate 41% of your gamers and be irrelevant to the other 59% shows me that this project is going to be a rushed gimmick. Until I see that they've changed their minds, I won't pledge a dime to this project.

Funny, cause I would withdraw my 110$ pledge if Obsidian would announce that PE would feature a mp / coop mode. I simply don't want any resources wasted on that. I'd feel betrayed if they actually would plan such a thing with my pledge.

[Ieo]

it isn't actually rhetorical, I've programming experience myself, and I have a feeling that if it's "too expensive" then someone's just trying to make it more complicated than it has to be.

 

The quotes from Bobby Null and Tim Cain are already out there, so try asking them or someone else at Obsidian directly.

 

Oh, and the expense isn't just in dollars. Null's post made that clear.

 

I'll reiterate what I said in the "single player game is our focus" thread and this (somewhere)--I'm fine if they decide to do a crappy tack-on at the end of SP development, but a Kickstarter goal isn't ideal because then people would have that expectation, and then that could very well color the development such that the requisite SP concessions take place. Which is completely unacceptable in any way, shape or form.

[BmoEp]

Sorry Aedrelic, I don't mean to disrespect your vote, I meant that the inclusion of multiplayer co-op should not interfere with your single player experience, much like Baldur's Gate, so it's addition would be "irrelevant" to your experience. If it DOES interfere, by all means it should NOT be included. But I have a hard time believing the addition of a relatively simple style of co-op would interfere or be that hard and expensive to implement, as Hypevosa said. There must be something else that's holding Obsidian back- maybe security issues?

[Hypevosa]

it isn't actually rhetorical, I've programming experience myself, and I have a feeling that if it's "too expensive" then someone's just trying to make it more complicated than it has to be.

 

The quotes from Bobby Null and Tim Cain are already out there, so try asking them or someone else at Obsidian directly.

 

Oh, and the expense isn't just in dollars. Null's post made that clear.

 

I'll reiterate what I said in the "single player game is our focus" thread and this (somewhere)--I'm fine if they decide to do a crappy tack-on at the end of SP development, but a Kickstarter goal isn't ideal because then people would have that expectation, and then that could very well color the development such that the requisite SP concessions take place. Which is completely unacceptable in any way, shape or form.

 

Understandable, you have a large community who hears multiplayer and assumes half the game needs to be lost in the process which is just... silly in this case.

 

You also have those who will hear multiplayer and pull pledges because of such irrational fears.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Hypevosa

[BSoda]

 

Understandable, you have a large community who hears multiplayer and assumes half the game needs to be lost in the process which is just... silly in this case.

 

You also have those who will hear multiplayer and pull pledges because of such irrational fears.

...as well as those who'd do the same simply because Obsidian doesn't plan a multiplayer feature for PE.

[Hypevosa]

Understandable, you have a large community who hears multiplayer and assumes half the game needs to be lost in the process which is just... silly in this case.

 

You also have those who will hear multiplayer and pull pledges because of such irrational fears.

...as well as those who'd do the same simply because Obsidian doesn't plan a multiplayer feature for PE.

 

ah but see, those aren't pledges pulled - those are pledges unmade. You'd simply need to wait for kickstarter to be over and announce multiplayer and then you'd get that flood of people donating right to the paypal page (and avoiding the kickstarter fee).

 

Underhanded as it may be, people are silly sometimes and must be dealt with in silly ways.

 

If you heard after the kickstarter that devs were adding one guy to staff to see if he could implement the multiplayer but keeping the rest of what they promised in, would you really be that irate?

Edited October 2, 2012 by Hypevosa

[BSoda]

Understandable, you have a large community who hears multiplayer and assumes half the game needs to be lost in the process which is just... silly in this case.

 

You also have those who will hear multiplayer and pull pledges because of such irrational fears.

...as well as those who'd do the same simply because Obsidian doesn't plan a multiplayer feature for PE.

 

ah but see, those aren't pledges pulled - those are pledges unmade. You'd simply need to wait for kickstarter to be over and announce multiplayer and then you'd get that flood of people donating right to the paypal page (and avoiding the kickstarter fee).

 

Underhanded as it may be, people are silly sometimes and must be dealt with in silly ways.

Luckily, I do not think Obsidian would betray their supporters in such an underhanded way.

[Hypevosa]

Understandable, you have a large community who hears multiplayer and assumes half the game needs to be lost in the process which is just... silly in this case.

 

You also have those who will hear multiplayer and pull pledges because of such irrational fears.

...as well as those who'd do the same simply because Obsidian doesn't plan a multiplayer feature for PE.

 

ah but see, those aren't pledges pulled - those are pledges unmade. You'd simply need to wait for kickstarter to be over and announce multiplayer and then you'd get that flood of people donating right to the paypal page (and avoiding the kickstarter fee).

 

Underhanded as it may be, people are silly sometimes and must be dealt with in silly ways.

Luckily, I do not think Obsidian would betray their supporters in such an underhanded way.

 

Sometimes people need to be protected from their own irrationality.

[BmoEp]

Doing a kickstarter for this project seems underhanded anyways. Basically WE are the loan, risk free, for this project. We are funding a corporation which is feeding on our desparation for a great game.

[Amentep]

Sorry Aedrelic, I don't mean to disrespect your vote, I meant that the inclusion of multiplayer co-op should not interfere with your single player experience, much like Baldur's Gate, so it's addition would be "irrelevant" to your experience. If it DOES interfere, by all means it should NOT be included. But I have a hard time believing the addition of a relatively simple style of co-op would interfere or be that hard and expensive to implement, as Hypevosa said. There must be something else that's holding Obsidian back- maybe security issues?

 

MAC: Obsidian has been hit hard in the past by having games released before they seemed as polished as they needed to be technically. How does having crowd-funding over publisher-funding change the way you'll plan to tackle QA down the line?

 

Tim Cain: The biggest change is that we will decide on each and every feature in the game' date=' and we can avoid the ones that add little to the game's content but a lot to its complexity. For example, we are not supporting consoles or multiplayer, both of which make the game far more complex and hard to debug. Instead, we are focusing on making the best single-player PC RPG we can make, and that focus is simplifying a lot of our choices.[/quote']

 

http://www.rpgamer.c...ternityint.html

Edited October 2, 2012 by Amentep

[BSoda]

Sometimes people need to be protected from their own irrationality.

Yeah... Whatev' .MP is out (or to be more precise was never "in") so this thread is moot.

[Ieo]

Understandable, you have a large community who hears multiplayer and assumes half the game needs to be lost in the process which is just... silly in this case.

 

You also have those who will hear multiplayer and pull pledges because of such irrational fears.

...as well as those who'd do the same simply because Obsidian doesn't plan a multiplayer feature for PE.

 

ah but see, those aren't pledges pulled - those are pledges unmade. You'd simply need to wait for kickstarter to be over and announce multiplayer and then you'd get that flood of people donating right to the paypal page (and avoiding the kickstarter fee).

 

Underhanded as it may be, people are silly sometimes and must be dealt with in silly ways.

 

If you heard after the kickstarter that devs were adding one guy to staff to see if he could implement the multiplayer but keeping the rest of what they promised in, would you really be that irate?

 

Since this is a rhetorical discussion, you don't seem to be taking Bobby Null's assessment seriously--or you're actually implying that he's silly--or even Tim Cain's very clear assertion that MP introduces overly complex debugging. That you dismiss Obsidian's own comments, who've been doing game development infinitely longer than you, is irrational and silly.

 

If 'decent' MP cannot be developed alongside SP without SP concessions, then any MP development including the hiring of an extra person for that purpose shouldn't be done until after the SP game is already developed in full.

 

Issue is closed anyway... On to other more interesting rhetorical discussions. Interview posted above for newcomers.

[BmoEp]

Sorry Aedrelic, I don't mean to disrespect your vote, I meant that the inclusion of multiplayer co-op should not interfere with your single player experience, much like Baldur's Gate, so it's addition would be "irrelevant" to your experience. If it DOES interfere, by all means it should NOT be included. But I have a hard time believing the addition of a relatively simple style of co-op would interfere or be that hard and expensive to implement, as Hypevosa said. There must be something else that's holding Obsidian back- maybe security issues?

 

MAC: Obsidian has been hit hard in the past by having games released before they seemed as polished as they needed to be technically. How does having crowd-funding over publisher-funding change the way you'll plan to tackle QA down the line?

 

Tim Cain: The biggest change is that we will decide on each and every feature in the game' date=' and we can avoid the ones that add little to the game's content but a lot to its complexity. For example, we are not supporting consoles or multiplayer, both of which make the game far more complex and hard to debug. Instead, we are focusing on making the best single-player PC RPG we can make, and that focus is simplifying a lot of our choices.[/quote']

 

http://www.rpgamer.c...ternityint.html

 

I know, I've read that many times. I'm just not convinced he's talking about the same multiplayer that's the issue here.

[BmoEp]

But right, issue is closed

[SqueakyCat]

@BmoEp

 

Are you implying that he is unaware of the coop feature in BG?

[BmoEp]

no, I'm implying that he's talking about mmo-style multiplayer. So maybe it's a way around the question and they'll add co-op as a post-ship addition

Edited October 2, 2012 by BmoEp

[Amentep]

Sorry Aedrelic, I don't mean to disrespect your vote, I meant that the inclusion of multiplayer co-op should not interfere with your single player experience, much like Baldur's Gate, so it's addition would be "irrelevant" to your experience. If it DOES interfere, by all means it should NOT be included. But I have a hard time believing the addition of a relatively simple style of co-op would interfere or be that hard and expensive to implement, as Hypevosa said. There must be something else that's holding Obsidian back- maybe security issues?

 

MAC: Obsidian has been hit hard in the past by having games released before they seemed as polished as they needed to be technically. How does having crowd-funding over publisher-funding change the way you'll plan to tackle QA down the line?

 

Tim Cain: The biggest change is that we will decide on each and every feature in the game' date=' and we can avoid the ones that add little to the game's content but a lot to its complexity. For example, we are not supporting consoles or multiplayer, both of which make the game far more complex and hard to debug. Instead, we are focusing on making the best single-player PC RPG we can make, and that focus is simplifying a lot of our choices.[/quote']

 

http://www.rpgamer.c...ternityint.html

 

I know, I've read that many times. I'm just not convinced he's talking about the same multiplayer that's the issue here.

 

Okay if you've read that then you read the earlier quote from Tim Cain where he indicated that they were considering multiplayer if it didn't distract from the development of the SP game, yes?

 

So what you're saying is that - despite developer quotes that indicate that indeed multiplayer was going to detract from the single player game and so they decided not to do it, that you don't believe him and still insist that multiplayer like you want is easy to implement and should be done? Or am I missing something?

[SqueakyCat]

@BmoEp

 

Oh, yeah, of course, that makes perfect sense. He's working on an IP to pay homage to I.E. games, yet he's not framing his answer based on those said games, but instead on an MMO. Sounds legit . .

 

Move along - this is (and has been) a completely dead issue: Not Now, Not After Release, It's Not Going To Happen . . .

Edited October 2, 2012 by SqueakyCat

[BmoEp]

@BmoEp

 

Oh, yeah, of course, that makes perfect sense. He's working on an IP to pay homage to I.E. games, yet he's not framing his answer based on those said games, but instead on an MMO. Sounds legit . .

 

Move along - this is (and has been) a completely dead issue: Not Now, Not After Release, It's Not Going To Happen . . .

 

Well, consoles are also mentioned in the same context.

[star23_16]

I only recently notice this project and I got to say it brought back a lot of good memories I had playing in both Baldur’s gate game and Planescape:torment, a good story and fun gameplay and interesting NPC and companions. I think a lot of people here can relate to what I try to say so I really hope this game could end bringing that forth again.

 

Now I will speak a little more freely so take what I say lightly. I love a good RPG story and world as many other here but I am growing tired of singleplayer side only. These games are awesome at first, then become more and more boring as you play them and after a few times through with different approaches and classes they eventually become so boring that you end up putting the game on the shelf and there it may sit gathering dust for months, even years before you touch it again. I got both Dragon age games and I played them twice before I got tired of them, Okay if I have to say I dislike some of the games mechanic side and felt magic was streamlined to be MMO like even the combining spell idea was neat and voice acting NPC was a neat thing but even with that it lost it's glimmer and charm fast. I had seen all classes and all magic, I knew the story and more forced myself through the second try and at that time I did not find any good modules made by a toolset. I don’t know if there are any good modules now since the games are still collecting dust on my shelf. The lack of Multiplayer also was annoying for me, I could not play with a friend and have fun sharing the laughs and failures with them.

 

I also have Neverwinter night 1 and 2 and I am maybe in the minority of people who have enjoyed hours upon endless hours with the persisted worlds that exist with players numbers ranging from 2 to 50 and few times more. I also enjoyed quite a few fan made modules and stories for single players. Yeah sure there exist a lot of boring and bad made modules but there also exist some really nice gems among them which really inspire and showed what the engine and scripts was able to do and people creativity on stories

 

To those that say multiplayer ruin the singleplayer experience I want to say you might be right but I rather want a RPG that remind of NWN with a toolset and Multiplayer support and as big bonus those persisted worlds. Because these thing make a game enjoyable for so much longer then a single story that the game is about.

 

Neverwinter night 1 is about to be ten years old. Ten years and still persisted worlds exist but of course dying to the age of the game and varies other reason but it still played, it still enjoyed.

 

This is only my opinion on it. I for one love RPG games, but my weight lies on how much I can enjoy the game as purely singleplayer game and if there is no toolset it would most likely mean a very short lived enjoyable player experience. I much rather hope for a new real sequel to the Neverwinter Nights games, or a new game made the spirit Neverwinter Nights games because as a player I want to enjoy a game for a long time. I also believe both Neverwinter Nights games brought something that is slowly dying out now, if no new game comes that can take over for the Neverwinter Nights games it will be gone when they fade into history. A true platform of a real game that make people able to create and share stories, and play it together in a fantacy world that give them hours upon hours of fun instead of what a singleplayer game would give them, just a few hours of fun that they can't share with their friends. And that is really a shame. It was done ten years ago and in our day and age the internet and interaction over it is ever increasing but this side is overlook when it come to RPG games.

 

Now I said this I do understand how much a undertaking this would be for the economy of a company and how much extra work to get it working, but I will gladly pay a little extra for the game and have something that I can play with my friends for months or even years to come, I myself have played the Neverwinter Nights games online for 9 years and it will be sad if what they have kept alive in players around the world fades and disappears for good.

 

I also understand that this game seemly decided to go down the singleplayer side and I have to respect that and hope it bring out stories worthy of Baldur’s gate and Planescape:torment, although a side of me really hope either a new game like Neverwinter Nights come along or another kickstarter project with the idea to work on toolset and multiplayer expansion with time.

 

As my closing words I want to say this, come on go and make us all a awesome inspiring and touching stories like the old games.