"Single-player gaming is our focus."

[Tsuga C]

I've no desire for a multiplayer game and wouldn't back one, I see nothing wrong with having a purely single player experience, after all there are masses of multiplayer games on the market.

And this is precisely why we're here instead of out there amongst the masses busily preoccupied with grinding/leveling, mandatory powergaming, having virtual love affairs with female characters that are at least 90% certain to be the property of a male gamer, and calling each other various derogatory epithets during intra-party strategy sessions.

 

Bless you, Obsidian! 

[Metabot]

Are we talking co-op here or multiplayer? If co-op then fine I guess. If something like competitive multiplayer then WTF? Why are you people even considering that?

[Lephys]

Methinks people are separating them, as if they're two completely different things, rather than simple co-op being a specific form of multiplayer.

 

Maybe instead of whatever I posted initially, I should've just quoted Inigo Montoya:

 

"You keep saying that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[milczyciel]

<Edit> Argh, Lephys pointed it out first. Why do I have to polish those damn posts for so long :/

You've got me lost here - isn't a co-op just one of the many types of multiplayer? I'm asking because the only time I enjoyed multi in IE games was that one LAN co-op with a friend in Icewind Dale (the first). Probably because ID is the most hack-n-slashy of them all.

...also my friend never liked reading that much, and so all non-combat decisions were mine to make :>

 

 

But to make it clear where do I stand in this discussion - I'm with Jim Sterling. And because he's smarter than me, (and a native speaker) I'll allow myself to link an old episodes where he tackles the success of [NSFW] Skyrim* and the second one, where he explains the NEED of the single player experience in more detail.

For those not interested (or with strong aversion to Jim) short summary: I need my single player games even more than 90% of multiplayer games, as that's my time spent alone and FOR ME EXCLUSIVELY, without anyone ******* it up (even if unintentionally).

 

* funny thing is I do not like Bethesda's rpgs and yet, because of that episode of Jimquisition, I learned to respect them for what they did for a single player (not taking into account TES Online). Suck it industry

Edited January 8, 2014 by milczyciel

[Darkpriest]

IF they would ever want to create a game with a good multiplayer options, I want it to give as much freedom and be as easy to use as Bioware's first NWN. After so many years I still regard that game best MP friendly RPG game. I believe there are still PWs operating with quite a few players being active.

[BruceVC]

I really hope that PoE is a multiplayer gamer that also runs on next-gen consoles. That would be ideal and very convenient

[Karkarov]

Telling me to stop trying to be logical, however, isn't really doing anyone any good (for example).

I was making a joke Lephys .  The fact that I "liked" your initial post should make it pretty clear where I stand.  I am not even a big multiplayer fan personally, but if you implement it well and design it with the concept that more than one person will be in game from the beginning it can work extremely effectively for a story based RPG.  A combination of Borderlands 2 quest progress where you can jump in game with another person who is ahead of you in story progress, do some stuff with them, then drop back to your game and when you get to the point where their content would have started you get a "skip ahead" option.  If you say yes the game just assumes you make all the same choices the other dude did.  If no you get to replay it your way.

 

The only real issues would be how to handle loot, and the fact that you probably would lose the ability to pause.

[pseudonymous]

Multiplayer mode on this game is useless. 

My opinion. 

 

Coop can be fun, though.

[Pandamaniac]

I really hope that PoE is a multiplayer gamer that also runs on next-gen consoles. That would be ideal and very convenient

 

I would go further. I think that since controlling more than one character is confusing we should only play as the protagonist, pausing should be eliminated since it ruins the flow of the game and abilities should be replaced with real time hack-n-slash/shooting mechanics to reward player skill. That should do it! 

Edited January 8, 2014 by Pandamaniac

[BruceVC]

 

I really hope that PoE is a multiplayer gamer that also runs on next-gen consoles. That would be ideal and very convenient

 

I would go further. I think that since controlling more than one character is confusing we should only play as the protagonist, pausing should be eliminated since it ruins the flow of the game and abilities should be replaced with real time hack-n-slash/shooting mechanics to reward player skill. That should do it! 

 

 

Brilliant suggestions, I hope Obsidian heeds your erudite words

[rustypup]

That should do it! 

 

You forgot "achievements". It's all meaningless without "achievements". 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You forgot "achievements". It's all meaningless without "achievements". 

 

 

Apparently there will be Steam achievements.

[Pshaw]

90% of the games I play are single player only or single player focused so I'm not sure this is as big of a problem as it's made out to be. Yes some games have a multiplayer/online component added in that don't really need it. Still so long as they single player experience is still enjoyable I don't really mind the developers trying to get more longevity or mass appeal out of their game. If I get tomb raider or a naughty dog game I know that I'm primarily getting a single player game and the addition of multiplayer doesn't really detract from what happened in single player. Heck I even have a friend who seems to log in to play ME3 multiplayer at least once a week for the last 6 months, not my cup of tea but clearly some people enjoy it.

In truth while there are few games that I can think of off the top of my head that the addition of multiplayer somehow lessened the single player experience. Where as there are plenty of high quality single player only games releasing every year. The only genre I feel that would have a legitimate complaint in this department is the FPS genre as their single player campaigns are largely a complete joke. However those genres are all about the multiplayer experience in the first place much like rpgs are (not counting mmos) generally about the single player one. So a stunted single player campaign in an FPS doesn't bother me much like a stunted multiplayer element in an rpg doesn't bother me.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Pshaw

[Bos_hybrid]

Single player gaming is their focus. I don't see what is up for debate, it's essentially been decided for this game. Perhaps in an expansion or sequel you'll see co-op(I personally hope not), but I would imagine it's too far in development now to start adding MP.

 

And no it's not simple and cheap to add. Despite what some people seem to think.

[Ieo]

Single player gaming is their focus. I don't see what is up for debate, it's essentially been decided for this game. Perhaps in an expansion or sequel you'll see co-op(I personally hope not), but I would imagine it's too far in development now to start adding MP.

 

And no it's not simple and cheap to add. Despite what some people seem to think.

 

My god, why is this thing still a point of discussion. It's 2014, and the new people who whine for adding MP or consoles or whateverthe**** didn't even read and back the KS. 

 

Any underlying technical change of this nature that would actually affect both mechanics and content should be a separate entity entirely, more like a spinoff. Give both MP and consoles a PE spinoff Kickstarter and let those people fund it. PE proper, THIS game, is SP and should stay SP+PC-only through its particular series. 

 

Didn't Dragon Age go down the clustertubes due to their adding console support and then MP through the franchise? Pure SP allows for the highest standards of consistent quality in story-based gameplay, since the devs can ignore the technical mess that comes with the other crap, and that consistency shouldn't be sacrificed in a desperate bid for "market share" like Bioware's ****--we're talking about a crowdfunded game, for pete's sake. It was never Obsidian's intention to go for the AAA title competition that way. And PE was crowdfunded for a reason: For anyone who so desperately wants MP or consoles, you already have your AAA choices, so shut up and go away.

[pseudonymous]

 

That should do it! 

 

You forgot "achievements". It's all meaningless without "achievements". 

 

 

Without achievements you're just sitting in front of your computer pushing buttons.  Where's the fun in that?

 

My god, why is this thing still a point of discussion. It's 2014, and the new people who whine for adding MP or consoles or whateverthe**** didn't even read and back the KS. 

 

It's called trolling.

[Dark Elf]

 A combination of Borderlands 2 quest progress where you can jump in game with another person who is ahead of you in story progress, do some stuff with them, then drop back to your game and when you get to the point where their content would have started you get a "skip ahead" option.  If you say yes the game just assumes you make all the same choices the other dude did.  If no you get to replay it your way.

 

The only real issues would be how to handle loot, and the fact that you probably would lose the ability to pause.

 

 

This, I believe, is the handle. What defines the kind of RPG Obsidian is promising us here is the concept of choices and consequences. During the course of the game, the player makes decisions that will affect the storyline, often in a major way. The original Witcher made a strong point out of this, with some choices having an impact on things you do several hours later into the game. 

 

Some have brought up Secret of Mana, and I know it was great experience to play in co-op. Finished that game together with my brother, and I'd be lying if I didn't say that it was one of the high points of my personal gaming history. But SoM is a JRPG which, just like Borderlands, lacks meaningful choices. Note that I don't think this makes these games bad per se. Not at all in fact, but this is an apples and oranges kind of scenario. 

[Lephys]

I was making a joke Lephys .  The fact that I "liked" your initial post should make it pretty clear where I stand.  I am not even a big multiplayer fan personally, but if you implement it well and design it with the concept that more than one person will be in game from the beginning it can work extremely effectively for a story based RPG.  A combination of Borderlands 2 quest progress where you can jump in game with another person who is ahead of you in story progress, do some stuff with them, then drop back to your game and when you get to the point where their content would have started you get a "skip ahead" option.  If you say yes the game just assumes you make all the same choices the other dude did.  If no you get to replay it your way.

 

The only real issues would be how to handle loot, and the fact that you probably would lose the ability to pause.

My apologies, :\. I mistook your tone. That was my bad.

 

See, I'd opt for just a join-in, without loading a separate character for each player.

 

I mean, later on, it would be great to have multiplayer functionality to allow people to make their individual characters and join in custom game sessions, when people have the tools (whether official tools or just modded stuff) to build their own campaigns and whatnot. But, that's not really useful until there's more content to be had (because 5 people joining in on the official campaign with their own characters kind of screws stuff up) that's designed specifically for a character-for-every-player type scenarios (custom campaigns and such.)

 

So, yeah, hypothetically, if it weren't deemed too much trouble by the dev team to implement basic multiplayer support, I'd honestly just go with the "two people get to co-operatively enjoy the one campaign" type setup, rather than "Okay, let's actually design a campaign that rebalances everything for every additional Player Character that joins the session", etc. I agree that the campaign wouldn't really benefit from that at all (just look at NWN2). And I don't think it's anywhere close to a necessity to put in multiplayer support. But, it wouldn't exactly be ludicrous, or game-ruining, just to implement the basics.

 

I may be weird, but IF it were in, I'd probably co-op a playthrough with my friend, and he'd probably be up for it (1 party, 2 inputs). Again, we'd be cool with doing so, so we wouldn't run into any "OMG, WHO GETS TO MAKE THE DECISIONS?!" issues or anything. Probably "player 1" would get to do that, and he'd just ask me what I think "we" should say, and I'd get to control an extra party member during combat.

 

I understand they're not planning on this (any multiplayer at all), and I'm fine with that. I don't think the game's particularly lacking without it. It would simply be nice, if it existed, for a small group of people. Obviously, weighing that benefit against the cost, it's most certainly not cost effective. So, only if it somehow happened to be really easy to do would I ever suggest doing it.

[Osvir]

I don't even understand how Borderlands kind of Multiplayer for a cRPG is even compared with one another. 

Baldur's Gate was also a D&D experience, especially with friends, if you so choose to do so. Psudeo-DMing the game. Making decisions together, letting both read and if not just narrate important bits~ Great fun, much better type of Multiplayer than Borderlands or an aRPG like Diablo 3. Those are loot fests, even with your friends.

Portal 2 is an excellent example of the concept. You work together to achieve the goals in the game. And it wouldn't matter whether they did a story to it or not, it was still the same basic underlying Singleplayer system, but divided to each Player (Blue & Orange Portals). Your friend has the tool for half the solution of the problem, and you have the other half of the solution, together you are one.

But most importantly you still have to think.

None of these, or at least many, of these Multiplayer games ain't got that. It's either lootfest or shootfest, mostly. Which is what I think is unique with the IE Multiplayer experience, it is a little bit slower paced. Not at all like EVE Online or like Everquest, but a slower co-operative experience.

Again, I don't care if Pillars of Eternity has MP or not, I am just arguing and promoting what I think is good MP, and what I think would fit into PE and thus promoting my ideas; if not now maybe in the future.

And why is a console discussion even part of this? This is a top-down tactical cRPG RTwP. I'm not denying that a proper console port could work that retains the mechanics & can manage some sort of good controller handling... but only post-PC-release and completion (priorities). But that's another discussion.

Other games have MP, sure, but so few RPG's plays at a slower pace like Baldur's Gate. Me and my friend couldn't run amok in the first area and gain 5 levels (Diablo 2 reference), we had to carefully position ourselves and communicate through all situations and narrate in-between.

This roleplay experience... doesn't fit into an MMO. But with a couple of friends around a table and some dice? Sure. That's the charm of it.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Osvir

[Karkarov]

So in actuality after thinking about it you could do this pretty easily.

 

1: Every game is based on the player who is hosting. 

2: Decisions.  When a "sidebar" or non critical decision is made/talking point comes up the game simply does a random "check" the dialog then falls to the randomly selected player.  Meaning players other than the main one sometimes get to pipe in with their own dialog etc.  When a "critical" decision is made the decision always goes to the host player. 

3: Game world.  Everyone has their own world.  If you are playing with someone else and they are the host you are in their game and the game is based on their choices.  When you go back to your game you are back where you were last time you played.  Progress from the other persons world where they were hosting has no effect on yours.

4: Loot.  "Unique" loot goes to the host.  The tag along players get rewarded via random similar loot generated for them.  So if you find the equivalent of a +5 holy avenger of ass handing that goes to the host but the tag along's all get a weaker but legit piece of loot that is random.  Such as a +4 suit of chainmail or something and someone else gets a +3 long sword that does +1d6 fire damage or something.  Money is simple.  Host gets 100% of whatever is found multiplayer people get 50% of the hosts found loot plus 100% of whatever they personally sell.

5: Exp.  Who cares if you get lots of levels.  Sure your game world becomes slightly easier because you are stronger but your party isn't leveling with you and you are still level capped.  That said other players earn exp at the same rate as host.

6: Pausing.... obviously wouldn't be an option anymore and as such you "might" have to tweak combat a little.

7: Death.  KO'd players simply go unconscious until the end of the fight per the games current rules.  If the party wipes the game just sets you back to the last save.

8: Saving.  As a result of "7" saving now only happens on rest.  This sort of sucks but it is a caveat you have to eat to make the MP work much like the pausing.

 

And.... that is basically it.  This is how I would do it if it were going to be done anyway.  All of this is semantics regardless but who knows what will happen with PoE2.

[MReed]

So in actuality after thinking about it you could do this pretty easily.

 

1: Every game is based on the player who is hosting. 

2: Decisions.  When a "sidebar" or non critical decision is made/talking point comes up the game simply does a random "check" the dialog then falls to the randomly selected player.  Meaning players other than the main one sometimes get to pipe in with their own dialog etc.  When a "critical" decision is made the decision always goes to the host player. 

3: Game world.  Everyone has their own world.  If you are playing with someone else and they are the host you are in their game and the game is based on their choices.  When you go back to your game you are back where you were last time you played.  Progress from the other persons world where they were hosting has no effect on yours.

4: Loot.  "Unique" loot goes to the host.  The tag along players get rewarded via random similar loot generated for them.  So if you find the equivalent of a +5 holy avenger of ass handing that goes to the host but the tag along's all get a weaker but legit piece of loot that is random.  Such as a +4 suit of chainmail or something and someone else gets a +3 long sword that does +1d6 fire damage or something.  Money is simple.  Host gets 100% of whatever is found multiplayer people get 50% of the hosts found loot plus 100% of whatever they personally sell.

5: Exp.  Who cares if you get lots of levels.  Sure your game world becomes slightly easier because you are stronger but your party isn't leveling with you and you are still level capped.  That said other players earn exp at the same rate as host.

6: Pausing.... obviously wouldn't be an option anymore and as such you "might" have to tweak combat a little.

7: Death.  KO'd players simply go unconscious until the end of the fight per the games current rules.  If the party wipes the game just sets you back to the last save.

8: Saving.  As a result of "7" saving now only happens on rest.  This sort of sucks but it is a caveat you have to eat to make the MP work much like the pausing.

 

And.... that is basically it.  This is how I would do it if it were going to be done anyway.  All of this is semantics regardless but who knows what will happen with PoE2.

 

And this is why people oppose multi-player.  I wouldn't have backed a game that included any one of these elements -- I would be very, very, dubious about buying a completed game that included most / all of these elements. 

 

Yes, there are people who would be 100% satisfied with BG2-style multi-player, and this wouldn't bother me in the slightest, but there are also people like Karkarov, who would like to see core gameplay elements modified to improve the support of multiplayer.  If any sort of multiplayer is introduced, then folks like Karkaprov will quickly dominate the discussion of what features need to be included in future titles, and we will end up with a DA:O -> DA2 -> DAI type of situation.  I don't want to see this happen, and therefore I feel obliged to oppose multiplayer in any form, even in the BG2 form, to minimize the chance that this occurs.

[PrimeJunta]

This roleplay experience... doesn't fit into an MMO. But with a couple of friends around a table and some dice? Sure. That's the charm of it.

 

So why spoil that by injecting a computer where it isn't needed?

[Osvir]

It's a metaphorical question. Playing Baldur's Gate with my friend is one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had. Nothing was spoiled or became "bad" because I could experience that type of Multiplayer. Very much the opposite. Though, I will admit that if Baldur's Gate would've had some psuedo-Diablo or MMO-styled Multiplayer I would've stayed away from it. But that's not what I am asking from it, is it? Nor does Baldur's Gate have that type of Multiplayer.

The point I am making is that the IE games didn't have some fast loot fast shoot type of Multiplayer, but you had to really work together and experience it all together. You didn't play separate games or worlds or had your own agenda in it, you shared agenda and shared the struggles of the Bhaalspawn and experienced the Singleplayer experience, but together. Sure, you could be an ass and teamkill your friend, or ignore their reading speed and just read ahead of them or skip the dialogue or whatever. But that's not how I played, don't know if you had an experience with that.

The IE games had a great MP which requires patience, it requires more communication with your friend and you need to really work together. In games like Borderlands or in Diablo or WoW or even in Guild Wars 2 you're having an individual experience, even if you are on the same team.

But the IE games didn't have that, it was a shared experience and you had to share it otherwise it fell flat and became boring. Kind of like the Portal 2 example/concept I provided in my earlier post, you can't do **** if you only have the Blue Portal. You have to work together.

EDIT: I also agree with MReed somewhat. Karkarov, your ideas for a Multiplayer for PE sounds like it's inspired by these MP-concepts that people are not interested in. With an emphasis on "individual experience". A Multiplayer that focuses on the individual Player. Something we see in AAA such as Borderlands and Diablo and MMO's. A game like PE needs a Multiplayer that focuses on the importance of "sharing" the experience.

And the IE games does that the best in my opinion. Sure it could be slightly innovated upon, or improved upon, tweaked a little bit. But it shouldn't be a game-changer. Some of your ideas, Karkarov, made me think about games like Borderlands and Dead Island. Fitting for a faster-paced gameplay that you can experience on your own, even if you play with others. Not fitting for a slower-paced game like PE.

I'm not worried about people asking for an MMO type of Multiplayer, not even in the future, because I'm confident that Obsidian doesn't feel that way about PE. I suspect it'd be more tabletop-inspired than catering to each individual Player, a shared experience (like the IE games), not a shared individual experience (like Diablo, most MMO's or FPS MP games). None of the latter systems fit with a cRPG, maybe with an aRPG, but that's not what PE is and hope it never becomes that either.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Osvir

[IndiraLightfoot]

Osvir: I see what you're getting at. It seems just like a few fantastic experiences I had over some persistent NWN1 worlds. It took patience and a much more rewarding roleplaying. It was truly roleplaying, almost like PnP. That kind of multiplayer is never a bad thing, and add to that the co-op system that Larian Studios is developing for D:OS, and you get lots of roleplaying goodness without it ever becoming that rushed hogging going on in MMOs.

[PrimeJunta]

@Osvir, that makes sense. Thank your for clarifying what you meant.

 

I believe there was a subculture based around co-op play in that vein that emerged around IE games and NWN. I can see the appeal, even if I wouldn't want to participate myself. I can also see how it would make sense in a game with lots of variety both in story and in gameplay.