"Single-player gaming is our focus."

[Valmy]

 

Kind of, but the concepts are different.

 

VO: "If X is taken out of the Y mechanic, the Y mechanic will improve!"

MP: "If MP is in the game, then X can't be!"

 

See how they are different?

 

Both are logical fallacies, though.

I think the argument was

"The time and resources that the developers have to implement X, Y, and Z are finite"

And

"X, Y, and Z all require time/resources to be realized"

And

"I like all features, except for X"

Then

"I would rather feature X was not developed"

 

Maybe I'm wrong

 

 

Right.  This is a zero sum game.  We have limited resources that need to be allocated.  I do not get the logical fallacy of having your opinions in this area be impacted by that underlining fact.

[MReed]

Based on past experiences, there is a general belief that when multiplayer is added to an otherwise single player game, the situation isn't "We have X resources, and will divert Y amount to implementing multiplayer" but "We have X resources, and will provide Y additional resources if multiplayer is implemented." -- the extra resources are only available if multiplayer is implemented.

 

Of course, this assumes the traditional publisher model, assumes that Y resources is actually sufficient to implement multiplayer, and assumes that game elements that are shared between multiplayer and single player modes wouldn't be (negatively) impacted by multiplayer.  But hey, what's a few assumptions between friends, right?

[Valmy]

Based on past experiences, there is a general belief that when multiplayer is added to an otherwise single player game, the situation isn't "We have X resources, and will divert Y amount to implementing multiplayer" but "We have X resources, and will provide Y additional resources if multiplayer is implemented." -- the extra resources are only available if multiplayer is implemented.

 

Of course, this assumes the traditional publisher model, assumes that Y resources is actually sufficient to implement multiplayer, and assumes that game elements that are shared between multiplayer and single player modes wouldn't be (negatively) impacted by multiplayer.  But hey, what's a few assumptions between friends, right?

 

Right I mean I have no idea how resources are allocated since they are not completely interchangeable.  Your team of artists and modelers are not going to be brought in to work on multiplayer issues for example.  So would adding this feature divert resources from other parts of the game?  I do not know, but statements from Sawyer and company suggests that it would.  Hence I am against it.

[Fatback]

Of coarse it's going to divert resources. Let's forget the money part. You have 5 programmers those 5 people work a realistic 55 hr work week that's 275 hrs of work a week. It takes you 2750hrs to make a single player game. That's 10 weeks to get the systems and such completed. Now let's say to finish a multiplayer component. For the game it's gonna take you 1000 hrs. That's now a total of 3750 hours equals 13.6 weeks. Time is the only resource that matters people.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Multiplayer is enjoyable when narrative and scripted plot are not pertinent nor central. It's that simple. Any time where PC's actions effect scripted plot and thereby reflect on the PC either through dialogue or other channels, multiplayer is a hindrance. It's not exactly a science.

[Bryy]

Of coarse it's going to divert resources. Let's forget the money part. You have 5 programmers those 5 people work a realistic 55 hr work week that's 275 hrs of work a week. It takes you 2750hrs to make a single player game. That's 10 weeks to get the systems and such completed. Now let's say to finish a multiplayer component. For the game it's gonna take you 1000 hrs. That's now a total of 3750 hours equals 13.6 weeks. Time is the only resource that matters people.

If they want MP in the game, it will be given due resource management.

[AGX-17]

Oh my god, I love that ValborgSvensson (who never posted again,) thought his doubleposted Important Message was going to be read by the persons he replied to a year and a half after the fact.

 

Yes, I did go back to find the precise date (05 January 2014) on which this thread was necromanced. Not quite 16 months after it was last posted in.

Edited June 30, 2014 by AGX-17

[Karkarov]

Oh my god, I love that ValborgSvensson (who never posted again,) thought his doubleposted Important Message was going to be read by the persons he replied to a year and a half after the fact.

 

Yes, I did go back to find the precise date (05 January 2014) on which this thread was necromanced. Not quite 16 months after it was last posted in.

Lul.

 

There is another forum I am pretty active on where a big discussion right now is the best music tracks from this one game series.  Funny thing the thread was originally posted about 5 years ago and got like 8-9 replies.  Last week someone bumped it and now it has like 50+ responses .

[MReed]

And honestly, the new poster did point out that he was aware of how old the thread was when he posted.  There is benefit in keeping all the discussion in one place (and we really don't need yet another multiplayer thread).

[Lephys]

Except you'd have a singleplayer game with a difficulty scaled to compensate; or something wacky and broken like Saints Row 4.

No you wouldn't. There is no requirement to scale or compensate for anything just because you allow a second human entity to input commands into the same game instance as the first. Besides, it's not like a 2nd player can do anything with that other party member that the first couldn't already do with pausing.

 

Also I technically wasn't intending to argue, more get my own point across; that multiplayer is inherently a wasted function for people like me. I don't see it as a waste of resources, because it is unrelated to game content although I really hate when singleplayer is influenced by multiplayer ... darn you Mass Effect 3! As if I didn't have enough reason to hate the game because of EA and the ending.

Yes, Mass Effect 3 is a great example of something no one ever has to do simply to put multiplayer into agame. Thus, you don't want multiplayer support to influence the singleplayer game. I join you in disliking that, on principle. However, it doesn't have to do so, so unless you disagree with that, there's no reason to further point out how bad it is when it does do so. I don't know how to interpret such "yeah but" responses as anything but an argument, since they seem to serve no other purpose if you've already pointed out your dislike, and I haven't disagreed with it or contradicted it in any way.

[Greydragon]

 

Except you'd have a singleplayer game with a difficulty scaled to compensate; or something wacky and broken like Saints Row 4.

No you wouldn't. There is no requirement to scale or compensate for anything just because you allow a second human entity to input commands into the same game instance as the first. Besides, it's not like a 2nd player can do anything with that other party member that the first couldn't already do with pausing.

 

Also I technically wasn't intending to argue, more get my own point across; that multiplayer is inherently a wasted function for people like me. I don't see it as a waste of resources, because it is unrelated to game content although I really hate when singleplayer is influenced by multiplayer ... darn you Mass Effect 3! As if I didn't have enough reason to hate the game because of EA and the ending.

Yes, Mass Effect 3 is a great example of something no one ever has to do simply to put multiplayer into agame. Thus, you don't want multiplayer support to influence the singleplayer game. I join you in disliking that, on principle. However, it doesn't have to do so, so unless you disagree with that, there's no reason to further point out how bad it is when it does do so. I don't know how to interpret such "yeah but" responses as anything but an argument, since they seem to serve no other purpose if you've already pointed out your dislike, and I haven't disagreed with it or contradicted it in any way.

 

Sorry about that; I was writing without nearly enough sleep. I ended up sounding all over the place. I just loathe multiplayer.

[Lephys]

No worries. And, I understand the way in which you hate it, and why. Very much so. But, personally, I hate how it's so often used in such a sucky way, because it doesn't have to be.

 

And I know they aren't going to put it into PoE, but I do thoroughly enjoy properly done (non-invasive/game-changing) cooperative play, and feel that there are a tone of games in which it fits just fine, even if there are other (production-resource-related, especially) reasons not to do it.

 

I miss sitting at an SNES and playing Secret of Mana with my friend, and I hate that developers, nowadays, apparently feel like absolutely no one in the world would ever want to do such a thing, and that certainly we'd rather fire up a deathmatch with our friend.

 

Also, it just kinda sucks that, as humans, we tend to associate negative statistical occurrences with things themselves that aren't really at fault. Like "multiplayer," as per this thread, or "DLC," as all over the internet.

 

It's kinda like... instead of saying "We've had a crappy mayor for 20 years now. We should really get someone in charge who is good!," just saying "DOWN WITH PEOPLE WHO HELP RUN CITIES!" Heh. People really hate that the mayor sucked, and that politics is a game. Not the very idea of someone actually being in charge of organization.

[Bryy]

So, Divinity Original Sin kind of just won this thread. Been playing with people for days.

[Kjaamor]

I miss sitting at an SNES and playing Secret of Mana with my friend, and I hate that developers, nowadays, apparently feel like absolutely no one in the world would ever want to do such a thing, and that certainly we'd rather fire up a deathmatch with our friend.

 

SoM is actually a pretty poignant example for this discussion because - as someone who played through more than half of the game solo, it stands out as a terrible single-player JRPG, and its success and praise was pretty much purely a result of being one of the only true multiplayer RPGs on consoles at the time.

 

Now that's fine, and plenty of people loved SoM as a result, but it is an illustrative example of how focusing on multiplayer content - even when done well - directly affects the solo experience. Many of the boss fights, an encounter with some lyncathope-esque creature particularly swims at the back of my memory - were likely fun and interesting experiences for a group, but in solo play were absurd graze-spams that were only slightly more fun then seeing how quickly you could reach 500 presses of the A button and no more tactical.

 

Again, that's fine if you play want a multiplayer game, but with a seemingly endless line of MMORPGs out there, you should be able to find your multiplayer kicks in games designed for multiple players. That Obsidian have deliberately avoided multiplayer aspects due to resources suggests that even a surface implementation of multiplayer (possible, but combat is not designed for it) is non-trivial.

[Lephys]

Now that's fine, and plenty of people loved SoM as a result, but it is an illustrative example of how focusing on multiplayer content - even when done well - directly affects the solo experience. Many of the boss fights, an encounter with some lyncathope-esque creature particularly swims at the back of my memory - were likely fun and interesting experiences for a group, but in solo play were absurd graze-spams that were only slightly more fun then seeing how quickly you could reach 500 presses of the A button and no more tactical.

I won't say it definitely wasn't (because I don't know), but this evidence alone does not prove that the whole focus of the game was on multiplayer, specifically, at the cost of focusing on singleplayer. You got to use multiple people regardless, right? The only difference was whether or not your extra peep was controlled by your friend, or an AI. Correct? AND, if I recall, it essentially was RTwP, since you could pause to issue item/ability commands. So, human control is more efficient without longer time/pausing than AI control? I don't think that necessarily means the game was specifically focused on multiplayer. It's pretty tough to make a game that plays the same with both AI and human control. Multiplayer wasn't any different -- it's not like you didn't just press A a bunch of times to take down bosses. You just did it a bit more efficiently, again, because of human-ness instead of SNES AI. Show me an action RPG on the SNES that didn't essentially amount to a bunch of dodging and attack spams, and that wouldn't have become more interesting if a friend of yours could pick up the other controller and join you (if you so chose).

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Have to admit, I did enjoy playing Legend of Zelda on SNES with a friend. But I also enjoyed the single player game as well.

[Karkarov]

So, Divinity Original Sin kind of just won this thread. Been playing with people for days.

*cough* It isn't real time with pause.

 

I am still messing with it myself.  I am finding the combat to be way out of whack.  Everything always outlevels me 1-2 levels, and half the time I am massively out numbered to boot.  The game starts with two characters then promptly puts you in a "I hope you have 4 characters" scenario.  Doesn't make a ton of sense.

[Bryy]

 

So, Divinity Original Sin kind of just won this thread. Been playing with people for days.

*cough* It isn't real time with pause.

 

I am still messing with it myself.  I am finding the combat to be way out of whack.  Everything always outlevels me 1-2 levels, and half the time I am massively out numbered to boot.  The game starts with two characters then promptly puts you in a "I hope you have 4 characters" scenario.  Doesn't make a ton of sense.

 

It's very easy to get the two companions plus access to the random party member function.

 

The problem is that the game doesn't really tell you what to do.

[Kjaamor]

I won't say it definitely wasn't (because I don't know), but this evidence alone does not prove that the whole focus of the game was on multiplayer, specifically, at the cost of focusing on singleplayer. You got to use multiple people regardless, right? The only difference was whether or not your extra peep was controlled by your friend, or an AI. Correct? AND, if I recall, it essentially was RTwP, since you could pause to issue item/ability commands. So, human control is more efficient without longer time/pausing than AI control? I don't think that necessarily means the game was specifically focused on multiplayer. It's pretty tough to make a game that plays the same with both AI and human control. Multiplayer wasn't any different -- it's not like you didn't just press A a bunch of times to take down bosses. You just did it a bit more efficiently, again, because of human-ness instead of SNES AI. Show me an action RPG on the SNES that didn't essentially amount to a bunch of dodging and attack spams, and that wouldn't have become more interesting if a friend of yours could pick up the other controller and join you (if you so chose).

 

 

Sadly, Lephys, and this is why I particularly criticise SoM, the AI does not control your extra person, you can just switch back and forth (unless my copy was broken). So those fights where one player defends while the other hits from range? Forget it. You're all on your own. And those RTwP elements had a split second stall on either side which, while probably inconsequential for multiplayer, is critical when you're the only one who is spam-grazing the boss. And dodging is, at times, less effective than graze-stun spamming bosses. Brilliantly, the bosses sometimes play the same trick back! Gameplay!

 

Again though, SoM is not the definitive evidence that you can't ever tag multiplayer into a single player experience, but it is a terrible example of what happens when you try, and certainly shouldn't be put on a pedestal in a thread of this nature.

[Ark Evensong]

Mmmm? The way I remember Secret of Mana, as a single player you control the movement and weapon attacks of one character, and the other two were operated by the AI. You could even set their tactics in a menu somewhere. Didn't help that the AI was pretty bad/useless on just about any setting, but they were computer controlled. You, as player, kept control over item and spell usage regardless, through a ring menu that pauses the game. Didn't try multiplayer a lot, but I think you could only control your own spells and that of the AI character, not the other player's. Bringing up the ring menu still paused the game.

[Infiltrator_SF]

And that is a very good thing... you know what, just look at what EA does with their products (I don't call them games anymore, because they are just that - products) do EXACTLY the opposite and you'll be fine in my book. Case in point - they force multiplayer on just about anything.

[Karkarov]

It's very easy to get the two companions plus access to the random party member function.

 

The problem is that the game doesn't really tell you what to do.

Yeah.   I still have yet to figure out how to craft but I am sure it is possible.  They just need to turn the tutorial thing into an actual tutorial.  Where instead of seeing meaningless pop ups you already saw you can see ... you know... actual tutorials on how to do things and explanation of the leveling system.  They also need to be more transparent about skills.  One of my characters has pickpocket 2 and literally can't pickpocket anyone... not a single person.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Karkarov

[Lephys]

Sadly, Lephys, and this is why I particularly criticise SoM, the AI does not control your extra person, you can just switch back and forth (unless my copy was broken). So those fights where one player defends while the other hits from range? Forget it. You're all on your own. And those RTwP elements had a split second stall on either side which, while probably inconsequential for multiplayer, is critical when you're the only one who is spam-grazing the boss. And dodging is, at times, less effective than graze-stun spamming bosses. Brilliantly, the bosses sometimes play the same trick back! Gameplay!

 

Again though, SoM is not the definitive evidence that you can't ever tag multiplayer into a single player experience, but it is a terrible example of what happens when you try, and certainly shouldn't be put on a pedestal in a thread of this nature.

Ahh, I couldn't recall. It's been a while. And yes, those are excellent criticisms of the game and its design. I'm afraid I still disagree with that last bit, though. It isn't an example of what "happens when you try." It's an example of a game with bad singleplayer AI that gets completely outshone (and out-functioned) by having the input of an additional player.

 

I'm also not trying to put it on a pedestal. Apologies if that seemed to be the case. It was merely an example I thought up of a game that was essentially (design-wise) the exact same game in both singleplayer and multiplayer, with the only difference being that a second person controls one of the characters present, as opposed to either an AI (however primitive) or the first player (via pausing/orders-issuing, again, however primitive). Secret of Mana could be the single worst game ever made, and it would still be a perfectly adequate example of my point.

 

It seems to me that the majority of multiplayer resentment today is, much like the majority of resentment when hearing the words "DLC," directed more at the potency of bad instances in their minds, rather than the actual function of the thing itself.

 

Nothing says DLC has to be overpriced (or priced, at all, for that matter) and joke-worthy, and nothing says that multiplayer has to in any way encroach upon the quality of a game's singleplayer experience.

 

One of my characters has pickpocket 2 and literally can't pickpocket anyone... not a single person.

Maybe it's literal? You can only pickpocket people standing in pairs? *shrug*

Edited July 4, 2014 by Lephys

[robbiebp]

I came looking for information about multiplayer and was sad to find out there was not going to be a multiplayer function.

 

I still enjoyed all of the old RPGs, but I normally ran 2 playthroughs at once. One I would play solo in my own time, and one where me and my friends would hook up and play LAN or something. The LAN games were always the most fun, it's the most fun I've probably had gaming.

 

I'm still excited for the game, but the lack of multiplayer support has put me off slightly. I had this confused with something else I think. 

 

I'll probably wait for it to go on sale. I'm looking forward to playing it but my experience of these games is they tend to be quite the saga and I'll be in no rush to complete it. I kind of like to take these games in and really absorb the world. If I can't do that with other people then I can wait for a cheaper price point.

 

Still excited for it, just not as giddy.

[Karkarov]

One of my characters has pickpocket 2 and literally can't pickpocket anyone... not a single person.

Maybe it's literal? You can only pickpocket people standing in pairs? *shrug*

Too bad I don't have a pickpocketing 3, then I would have enough skill to pickpocket your terrible sense in puns.  I could have been the hero of the forums if only the leveling and skill system were clearly explained!