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

[MReed]

so even if you do not plan to use a co-op it would lead to a better game in the long run by drawing in more players and more money in the long run. I know alot of people who will not buy single player games any more.

 

I absolutely agree with this statement -- and that's why I don't want multiplayer in PI!

 

There are two major factors in my opposition to multiplayer in any shape or form:

 

1) If the game includes multiplayer, and it is successful, then publishers / other development houses will relearn the lesson "It is impossible to make a single player game that can stand on its own -- you must include multiplayer for a game to be successful." I'd prefer them not to relearn this lesson.

2) Assuming that there is a large audience of players who would purchase the game if it included multiplayer, but not otherwise, what do you think they will ask for in DLC / sequels? I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that this group might, just might want to add additional features for multi-player, starting with minimizing the important of companions and reducing the amount of reading / story in the game. After all, these features are clearly not multplayer friendly (you don't have any companions if you have a party full of other players, waiting for someone else to finish reading is boring). Assuming that this "multiplayer-only" group is large enough to make a difference in the financial success of the game, their voices (when combined with the current multiplayer crowd) might well dominate future feature discussion.

 

You doubt that #2 will happen? I can dig up a thread on the BG:EE forums (which, I'll remind you, already has multiplayer) asking for changes to allow to parties to battle "head-to-head", a separate arena for combat, and other features along these lines.

 

So, yes, there really is a risk of a slippery slope if multiplayer is included, and it is not unreasonable to oppose multiplayer on these grounds. Just for the record, the folks arguing against the inclusion of romance are making this exact same argument (substitute "romance" in place of "multiplayer"), and it is perfectly valid there as well. I'm pro-romance, but at this point I think the way to go is to exclude both romance and multiplayer from the game and see what happens.

[kirottu]

I have no friends... so no.

[Aldereth]

I see MP not as a stretched goal but rather expansion or a separate game entirely post release. The Kickstarter pitch is to build an RPG along the line of PS:T, BG 1 and 2, FO series...etc. Writing a MP plot is different from a SP experience.

 

I think there is not any question that all of us, backers and fans alike, would like to see the best single player game possible. I believe some of us would also like an excellent multiplayer experience (if not the best MP experience) using the same game mechanics and in the rich game world of Project Eternity. But wouldn't the best MP experience would be something design from grounds up as an MP and not an half baked add on that could potentially detract from the SP game.

 

A lot of people love IWD MP, myself included. That was a fun game using Infinity Engine. And it is designed with MP in mind. It took place in the Forgotten Realm and even happen around the same time as BGII but it was not a MP add on of BG.

[AzureWatcher]

Why do people here think that multiplayer would be "tacked on" if it was included as a stretch goal? If Obsidian has enough time to include native Linux support in with the game, they have time to polish out a competent co-operative experience to go along with the single-player mode.

 

I do not understand how the inclusion of co-op could suddenly diminish the quality of the singleplayer campaign aside from the time and money it takes to implement it.

 

The game is still in extraordinarily early stages of development and they could add a well done co-op without having to backtrack or sacrifice too much time.

Edited September 24, 2012 by AzureWatcher

[OldRPG'sAreGood]

Well, I wouldn't be against BG styled co-op, as I would most likely use it. But still, I feel that singleplayer is much, much more important, and IMO, multiplayer should only be implemented if the singleplayer portion is at a point where there is nothing worthwhile to add to it.

[Santiago]

Since BG2 and Icewind Dale 2, I only remember 2 games with multiplayer cooperative; Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2. So, why some of you say that publishers want multiplayer for RPG?. And please, don't mention action RPG. I'm saying RPG's, not Gauntlet clones. We have some great RPG games, but only 2 of them with cooperative. More than 10 years with only two RPG's with cooperative.

 

To the people saying that SP is more important... Who is here against single player?. We are asking for multiplayer coop like Baldur's Gate series and Icewind Dale. That is, THE SAME SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN played in cooperative. A great campaign, of course. True RPG's are for playing with friends. If PE is party based, every character could be played by an human player, like BG did. I don't know how it will cost, but if there is enough money, I think Obsidian should go for it. Single player would be great anyway.

 

Reading some people here, it seems that BG has a bad single player experience because of cooperative multiplayer.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Santiago

[SqueakyCat]

Why do people here think that multiplayer would be "tacked on" if it was included as a stretch goal? If Obsidian has enough time to include native Linux support in with the game, they have time to polish out a competent co-operative experience to go along with the single-player mode.

 

I do not understand how the inclusion of co-op could suddenly diminish the quality of the singleplayer campaign aside from the time and money it takes to implement it.

 

The game is still in extraordinarily early stages of development and they could add a well done co-op without having to backtrack or sacrifice too much time.

 

Ironically, you've answered your own question. This is the biggest objection with such a small budget.

[Santiago]

Why do people here think that multiplayer would be "tacked on" if it was included as a stretch goal? If Obsidian has enough time to include native Linux support in with the game, they have time to polish out a competent co-operative experience to go along with the single-player mode.

 

I do not understand how the inclusion of co-op could suddenly diminish the quality of the singleplayer campaign aside from the time and money it takes to implement it.

 

The game is still in extraordinarily early stages of development and they could add a well done co-op without having to backtrack or sacrifice too much time.

 

Ironically, you've answered your own question. This is the biggest objection with such a small budget.

 

I think that we are asking for coop if Obsidian gets the resources for it. I mean, adding coop as a "stretch goal". 2.4 million, 3 million, I don't know.

[BSoda]

Why do people here think that multiplayer would be "tacked on" if it was included as a stretch goal? If Obsidian has enough time to include native Linux support in with the game, they have time to polish out a competent co-operative experience to go along with the single-player mode.

 

I do not understand how the inclusion of co-op could suddenly diminish the quality of the singleplayer campaign aside from the time and money it takes to implement it.

 

The game is still in extraordinarily early stages of development and they could add a well done co-op without having to backtrack or sacrifice too much time.

 

Ironically, you've answered your own question. This is the biggest objection with such a small budget.

 

I think that we are asking for coop if Obsidian gets the resources for it. I mean, adding coop as a "stretch goal". 2.4 million, 3 million, I don't know.

Obisidian can't raise enough funds to realistically reach a point where coop wouldn't take away resources from the sp campaign in some form. So a very big no to mp/coop from my side.

[max8472]

I do NOT play multiplayer games/modes (hate them) but the co-op multiplayer is perfectly suitable for party based RPGs so, it's not a problem at all providing that this don't leave nothing to the single player exprerience!

Edited September 26, 2012 by max8472

[Ausir]

I wouldn't mind Baldur's Gate style co-op myself.

[flarglebargle]

a co-op setting could be fun but it should have the lowest priority and should only be put in if they've run out of stuff to add to the game

[Gecimen]

coop multi can be fun but I don't think it's too much of a stretch goal.

[Ieo]

Since BG2 and Icewind Dale 2, I only remember 2 games with multiplayer cooperative; Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2. So, why some of you say that publishers want multiplayer for RPG?. And please, don't mention action RPG. I'm saying RPG's, not Gauntlet clones. We have some great RPG games, but only 2 of them with cooperative. More than 10 years with only two RPG's with cooperative.

 

To the people saying that SP is more important... Who is here against single player?. We are asking for multiplayer coop like Baldur's Gate series and Icewind Dale. That is, THE SAME SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN played in cooperative. A great campaign, of course. True RPG's are for playing with friends. If PE is party based, every character could be played by an human player, like BG did. I don't know how it will cost, but if there is enough money, I think Obsidian should go for it. Single player would be great anyway.

 

Reading some people here, it seems that BG has a bad single player experience because of cooperative multiplayer.

 

The problem with your (and others who want MP badly) perspective is that you're seeing this issue only as the end-user who saw nothing of the balancing act done during design and development. So this always bears repeating:

 

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.

 

 

I really can't imagine the likes of PS:T to have co-op. BG was much lighter in narrative content than that, and IWD even lighter still. I suspect the majority here are not after a mere dungeon romp but something with depth, even moreso than BG (because Avellone is involved), where the truth of "reading is not a team sport" would be much more obvious in practice.

[maggotheart]

I really can't imagine the likes of PS:T to have co-op. BG was much lighter in narrative content than that, and IWD even lighter still. I suspect the majority here are not after a mere dungeon romp but something with depth, even moreso than BG (because Avellone is involved), where the truth of "reading is not a team sport" would be much more obvious in practice.

 

Who decided that was a 'truth'?

[Santiago]

Since BG2 and Icewind Dale 2, I only remember 2 games with multiplayer cooperative; Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2. So, why some of you say that publishers want multiplayer for RPG?. And please, don't mention action RPG. I'm saying RPG's, not Gauntlet clones. We have some great RPG games, but only 2 of them with cooperative. More than 10 years with only two RPG's with cooperative.

 

To the people saying that SP is more important... Who is here against single player?. We are asking for multiplayer coop like Baldur's Gate series and Icewind Dale. That is, THE SAME SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN played in cooperative. A great campaign, of course. True RPG's are for playing with friends. If PE is party based, every character could be played by an human player, like BG did. I don't know how it will cost, but if there is enough money, I think Obsidian should go for it. Single player would be great anyway.

 

Reading some people here, it seems that BG has a bad single player experience because of cooperative multiplayer.

 

The problem with your (and others who want MP badly) perspective is that you're seeing this issue only as the end-user who saw nothing of the balancing act done during design and development. So this always bears repeating:

 

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.

 

 

I really can't imagine the likes of PS:T to have co-op. BG was much lighter in narrative content than that, and IWD even lighter still. I suspect the majority here are not after a mere dungeon romp but something with depth, even moreso than BG (because Avellone is involved), where the truth of "reading is not a team sport" would be much more obvious in practice.

 

The game is not designed, but, Why do you say that design concesions has to be made if they finally go for cooperative?. That's not true, a game can be deep with great narrative and coop. Why not?. Could you give me a reason?. Because reading is not for cooperative?. But this is not a book, this is a videogame, a different media.

 

May be you lack imagination enough to imagine a game like PS torment with cooperative... if PS were party based.

[SqueakyCat]

@ Santiago

 

Bobby Null answered your question in the post you are quoting.

[Santiago]

He says that MP should have concesions, but I have said before I don't know how much money is needed, I only asked for a strech goal offering cooperative. So, I still not understand why he says that MP need concesions if he also says: "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.". I agree, resources are needed, but if you get the resources, cooperative could be great.

 

Some posts before, something asked in the kickstarter and they answered:

"We are not currently supporting multiplayer, however. Multiplayer adds a lot of complexity and testing requirements, so we want to be sure about being able to support it before adding it into the project."

 

So, they are not saying that is out of budget or something like that. I think it's a reasonable answer. And Tim Cain said: "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.".

 

They have interest and may be adding a stretch goal, could increase the backers. That's all. If they can't add it, it's ok, but I think that cooperative would be great for a game like this.

 

Some guy said that only 20% NWN players used MP. I don't know if that's true, but NWN was in the TOP TEN multiplayer games in Gamespy for years. And the RPG experience in some servers was great, pretty near to P&P RPG. However, 20% is not bad. If they increase sales for 20% adding coop...

[MReed]

I thought this thread was dead -- apparently not. Just an FYI (from: http://www.rpgamer.com/games/eternity/eternityint.html)

 

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?

TC: The biggest change is that we will decide on each and every feature in the game, 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.

 

This is as clear of a statement as we are likely to see that multiplayer simply is not on the table (regardless of the amount of funding raised). Compare this comment with the comment on romances, which I'd put in the "not likely to happen, but still remotely under consideration".

[Poussin]

Hello everybody,

 

I don't understand why so many people don't want co-op multiplayer in this game, if the money make it possible...

 

I find that is selfish to ignore even a small part of players who might be likely to use this option because YOU don't use it...

 

For example, I play games like BG2, IWD etc, with my wife. And if we can't play together at this game we will not play. Although this is a tiny fraction of players, I don't understand why put them (us) on the side like that.

 

So if this doesn't alter the rest of the game, please, Obsidian, add a co-op multiplayer game mode...

 

Ps : Sorry for my poor, poor english, I hope I was readable...

[Vampero]

I would love to play with friends if I want to. They can come to my house and "chillax" or we can hunt together !

[TrashMan]

CO-OP?

 

Like with BG1 & 2? That could be fun.

 

That's actually the only kind of multiplayer that makes sense for a CRPG and it wouldn't be that hard to implement.

[hamsterdance]

Adding my vote for multiplayer co-op. Co-op is the only way I play crpgs these days (with my BF). At the very least add co-op if you can't go for all-out multiplayer (though that would be even better).

 

I am a bit surprised at how much deep dislike is leveled in this thread by the Anti-Multi people. If the option can be added as a future stretch goal why deny that chance? It would give the whole IP additional longevity to boot (along with a Mod community toolkit which I also hope OE is considering). Not a bad thing if you're a Dev hoping to make your own IP be more than the game industry's equivalent of a "One Hit Wonder".

[Ieo]

Meh, the issue is closed.

 

Obsidian already said they're not doing MP/co-op (interview).

 

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?

 

TC: The biggest change is that we will decide on each and every feature in the game, 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.

 

You can also read Bobby Null's explanation that, except with a "very large amount of money," you can't have good MP and good SP together, and trying for good MP requires concessions on SP.

[BmoEp]

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.