Enough money to "make the game" - Multiplayer, modding, language support "open-ended"

[Dayard]

" Would you like multiple language support as a stretch goal, since it's been confirmed there are enough funds to "make the game"? "

 

Yes! Please, yes! I am French and my English is bad enough ...

Project Eternity is very tempting but the fact that he just expected me in English prevents investing.

 

(Sorry for my bad English.)

[Calax]

My point about eternity is that it will change business and the industry should it succeed. Because it'd give the developers a lot more power in their negotiations. I mean people like Tim Schafer and Ken Levine had to leverage their names to get things done (and even then, had to point to something similar to get publisher support), while now, Obsidian is doing it without a publishers support.

 

If a game development company wants to make a project after Eternity succeeds commercially, Publishers might be willing to take a larger chance because otherwise they could entirely loose out on the property.

 

Similarly, if Eternity ends up as Single Player only, and succeeds... it'd mean that EA's scheme of "EVERYTHING HAS MULTIPLAYER!" is flawed at it's core, because people will still buy, and play, single player only games.

[hamsterdance]

Tossing in a vote for multiplayer (especially co-op). It's one of the few things in crpgs that actually does harken back to the feel of sitting around a table top playing an rpg with your friends.

 

Also hoping one of the stretch goals will add foreign language support at least for the 5 most widely spoken languages around the world. At the very least make it also in Spanish if you can only have one other language. According to the UN it's the 2nd most widely spoken language around the globe by non-mother tongue language speakers (english is the first).

 

I'd like Obsidian to become a known developer on every continent that has a gaming community out there on the PC. That way...if they have a Project Eternity 2 their next Kickstarter could get funding from all over the globe. Not just primarily N.A and U.K. but everywhere their game garners fans. The wider the global fandom the more likely PE2 will happen as well.

 

Most of all I hope this project shows that games with mid-level budgets even on old platforms (non-iPhone, non-Android, etc) can still be made, make a profit and show there is still a market for such.

Edited September 30, 2012 by hamsterdance

[Ieo]

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.

[imatechguy]

I would love to see a MP component to this game. The original NWN is a prime example of how important that feature can be to a games life expectancy. Make a good game and allowing people to play with friends on a LAN or friends and complete strangers from half way around the world in a simple multiplayer or even Persistent World type setting should help sales as players suggest that their friends also buy the game so they can all play together. Which is as close to a good old fashioned PnP game as some of use can fit into our busy lives today.

[Data4]

6 pages of discussion means my points have already been made, but screw it.

 

Multiplayer: No. Hell no. Single player game. Mass market games a la COD, Battlefield series, and MMOs have turned a generation of gamers into expecting multiplayer as some kind of norm. Not for a RPG in the style PE is supposed to be. Yes, other IE games had it, but to be honest, I never read about how people yearn for the days of co-op like they had in Baldur's Gate. To add multiplayer just for the sake of adding multiplayer would, imho, embrace some of what a good chunk of us who are turning to games like this and Wasteland 2 are trying to get away from. Homogenized **** for everyone. Blah.

 

Moddability: I voted don't care, as it's not something I feel is necessary for making the game complete. I wouldn't be opposed to it, however.

 

Localization: I voted no, but only because it's already planned and likely budgeted (or at least projected in a post-release budget for follow-up development if revenue is generated).

[Hugo Rune]

I absolutely want modding tools, am indifferent towards multiplayer (I definitely don't want them to spend significant resources on mp) and even though I'll never going to touch a German version of the game, I think that localizations are a must. Look at the "where is everybody from" thread. Over 60% are from Europe. Ok, a good chunk of those are Brits and all of those who voted will probably play the game in English but that's the thing. Even on a site where you'll only see people who are comfortable with English, where the (still) majority of people who won't be able to play a game in English doesn't show up, Europe is the largest potential market for this thing. To ignore all those potential buyers, or even backers if we just really get the word out, would be a disastrous business decision, I think.

[Shaz]

Question 1: No multiplayer. I'd rather this game be singleplayer only, for the selfish reason that I'm only interested in it singleplayer, and I'm really tired of what appears to be a current trend towards adding multiplayer onto games.

Question 2: Yes to mods, because they can really add longevity to a game. I was very glad to hear in the AMA that they intend to make it moddable if at all possible.

Question 3: I don't care, but that's because I only speak English. I'm definitely not against localization, and making PE available to a wider audience, but I can't help but want as much resources as possible spent on making PE an absolutely awesome singleplayer experience. Selfish of me, I know, I already acknowledged that!

[Poussin]

I repeat what I say on another same post :

 

"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..."

[sesobebo]

6 pages of discussion means my points have already been made, but screw it.

 

Multiplayer: No. Hell no. Single player game. Mass market games a la COD, Battlefield series, and MMOs have turned a generation of gamers into expecting multiplayer as some kind of norm. Not for a RPG in the style PE is supposed to be. Yes, other IE games had it, but to be honest, I never read about how people yearn for the days of co-op like they had in Baldur's Gate. To add multiplayer just for the sake of adding multiplayer would, imho, embrace some of what a good chunk of us who are turning to games like this and Wasteland 2 are trying to get away from. Homogenized **** for everyone. Blah.

 

Moddability: I voted don't care, as it's not something I feel is necessary for making the game complete. I wouldn't be opposed to it, however.

 

Localization: I voted no, but only because it's already planned and likely budgeted (or at least projected in a post-release budget for follow-up development if revenue is generated).

 

so, if i understand You correctly, You think that people wish for co-op because they've fallen for a grand marketing hoax, and not because it's actually fun to play?

Edited September 30, 2012 by sesobebo

[Haerski]

Multiplayer: No, it doesn't add anything into game and probably will be completely abandoned in few months. It also limits their design choices as everything in single-player has to be made work in co-op too. Waste of time and waste of money.

 

Modding tools: I actually voted yes, because I really would like to see those, but didn't Tim Cain say on last update that they will make those if they are able to. So it's kind of pointless to ask for them. They'll make those as long as their engine and tools allow it.

 

Languages: Don't care. I'm from Finland and here almost everyone understands English well enough to play game like this. And if they don't then it's about a time to learn, isn't it? I started gaming well before I had decent skills in English. I just grabbed my dictionary and tried to understand as much as I could. Actually I have learned more English from games than from school. So if you don't have good enough skills to enjoy this game then you could consider it as a change to educate yourself while playing great RPG! Dictionaries are not that expensive.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Haerski

[Data4]

6 pages of discussion means my points have already been made, but screw it.

 

Multiplayer: No. Hell no. Single player game. Mass market games a la COD, Battlefield series, and MMOs have turned a generation of gamers into expecting multiplayer as some kind of norm. Not for a RPG in the style PE is supposed to be. Yes, other IE games had it, but to be honest, I never read about how people yearn for the days of co-op like they had in Baldur's Gate. To add multiplayer just for the sake of adding multiplayer would, imho, embrace some of what a good chunk of us who are turning to games like this and Wasteland 2 are trying to get away from. Homogenized **** for everyone. Blah.

 

Moddability: I voted don't care, as it's not something I feel is necessary for making the game complete. I wouldn't be opposed to it, however.

 

Localization: I voted no, but only because it's already planned and likely budgeted (or at least projected in a post-release budget for follow-up development if revenue is generated).

 

so, if i understand You correctly, You think that people wish for co-op because of a grand marketing hoax, and not because it's actually fun to play?

 

No, I think people think "Hey, I like shooting crap up with my friends in COD and duelling in WoW. Wouldn't it be awesome to do it in _______!?!!?"

 

"Fun to play" is as subjective as my opinion that it's useless in a RPG.

 

And to the person up there calling those of us who don't want multiplayer selfish-- Yep. About damn time, too. All-inclusiveness breeds mediocrity.

[Rosveen]

1. Generally speaking, I'm against multiplayer. Co-op might be acceptable, but it depends on the game - as for Project Eternity, I don't want any form of multiplayer at all.

 

2. Modding tools - hell yeah! They're my bread an butter.

 

3. Languages - voted "I don't care" because I'm going to play in English, but I'd love to see them one day. Maybe add them later and let the community help with translations the way it was done with BG:EE?

[diablo169]

Multiplayer isnt needed in a CRPG and it detracts from development and bug testing. so hell no. Anything else however is fair game.

[SqueakyCat]

@Poussin

 

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the logic of your post. First, you acknowledge in your own words that only a "small part of players" and "tiny fraction of players" are interested in coop (for this particular project), and yet you refer to the majority as being "selfish" for not wanting resources to be used to develop a coop mode. Well, okay, then call me selfish. It has been explained to you that implementing such a feature is costly and time consuming.

 

From the development team:

 

TIm Cain:

 

"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."

 

Josh Sawyer:

 

"When it comes to games like this that are crowdsourced for an audience that is very passionate... we can cater to niche audiences like that," Sawyer says. "We can design for the people that already like this stuff, and that is okay. Not everything needs to be made to reach a mainstream audience."

 

It really isn't a matter of being selfish, rather of spending the limited available funding in other areas that would enhance the overall single player experience.

 

If not having coop is that significant of a factor for you, then this just may not be the game for you, although I think you would be passing up a real opportunity to have an incredible gaming experience created by an immensely talented group of developers. I hope you'll reconsider and try it anyway.

Edited September 30, 2012 by SqueakyCat

[moridin84]

I think localization could probably be left after the release.

 

Modding would be really nice... and that's something that does need to be built in right off.

 

As for multiplayer... I think multiplayer would take lot of effort.They'd have to change the design of the game to fit. Unless they did a Mass Effect 3 type multiplayer... hah.

Edited September 30, 2012 by moridin84