Jump to content

  

274 members have voted

  1. 1. Lan Support?

    • Yes.
      113
    • No.
      144
    • Borderlands-like server system.
      17


Recommended Posts

Ah yes, this debate:

 

The co-op in Baldurs Gate and Icewind dale was terrible, you did not have fun playing them. It was so bad, it wasn't even a true co-op mode, so what you were doing wasnt even co-op. If you insist on telling me you liked it, you only thought you were having fun with the game because you liked hanging out with your friends. If you are adamant you liked the gameplay itself and not just the company of your friends, I will accept that but only with the caveat that you have terrible taste. Also, having co-op would totally compromise the game and ruin it. Finally, there is no way to make an IE type game with acceptable co-op, because reading is not a team sport.

 

Bonus Points: all multiplayer is bad and is what is wrong with gaming.

 

Double Bonus: The things I like should take 100% precedence over everyone elses preferences. I prefer spears, so all resources spent putting swords into the game is a waste that could have been diverted to spear development. People who like swords are wrong and bad and make me so angry.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple lan system would be fine by me, but I wouldn't want anything more because I'd prefer to play this game without the need of internet connections causing problems. Plus lan keeps the unwanted away.  But this isn't happening so the point is moot.  In a perfect world it would be Baldur's gate-ish just better functioning. Nothing more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A game in development is literally that.  I can easily imagine a situation where Fergus comes into the office, assembles the team and says, "we've made a bad mistake, obviously a large segment of the punters want LAN and we're going to give it to them. Josh you have 1 hour to fall in love with this idea and to produce a timeline for LAN implementation, on my desk, by the end of the week."

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing that is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

 

John Stuart Mill

Link to post
Share on other sites

A game in development is literally that.  I can easily imagine a situation where Fergus comes into the office, assembles the team and says, "we've made a bad mistake, obviously a large segment of the punters want LAN and we're going to give it to them. Josh you have 1 hour to fall in love with this idea and to produce a timeline for LAN implementation, on my desk, by the end of the week."

 

I want LAN as much as the next jerk but lets be realistic, we're looking at an expansion, sequel or mods, not Feargus having a psychotic episode at the office one day. I just wish people would stop sniping at the very idea of co-op, obviously a lot of people want it - nearly 50% according to the poll in this very thread - so attacking the idea amounts to a circular firing squad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lan co-op could or could not work in game like PE, but I vote no as making working and playable multiplayer mode in the game is not so easy and small amount of work as some think and this game don't have publisher budget behind it, so in my opinion it is better that Obsidian focus only to do as good and as vast single player campaign as they could and do not waste part of their small budget to do inadequate multiplayer  mode that they haven't even planed in first place doing. If they want to do multiplayer game or game with multiplayer mode they should start new project for that game, but it would be ill-advised to try add multiplayer mode in this game even so early in development as it would mean that they must calculate their whole budget and time frame again and hope that it is enough to implement everything what they have promised for the backers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A game in development is literally that.  I can easily imagine a situation where Fergus comes into the office, assembles the team and says, "we've made a bad mistake, obviously a large segment of the punters want LAN and we're going to give it to them. Josh you have 1 hour to fall in love with this idea and to produce a timeline for LAN implementation, on my desk, by the end of the week."

 

I want LAN as much as the next jerk but lets be realistic, we're looking at an expansion, sequel or mods, not Feargus having a psychotic episode at the office one day. I just wish people would stop sniping at the very idea of co-op, obviously a lot of people want it - nearly 50% according to the poll in this very thread - so attacking the idea amounts to a circular firing squad.

 

I'm only attacking the idea of putting co-op in games that were explicitly stated to be designed without co-op; had PE been stated from the beginning to have co-op play I'd have not said anything as its inclusion is a neutral to me provided it doesn't compromise the single player game.

 

However since the developers have stated that including co-op play in the game would take attention and limited resources away from the single player game, since co-op was not part of the original pitch for the game, I personally find the continuing clamor for co-op play to be included puzzling.  Who supports a game that doesn't have co-op, a fact explicitly stated early in the campaign, and then agitates for it to be added (drawing resources away from things already promised) once the game is going to be made?  Its about as silly - in my opinion - as supporting a PC only game, explicitly stated to be PC only, and then demanding it be ported to a console.  It makes no sense at all - unless that development option was one under consideration from the very beginning.  Which it wasn't (and I say that as someone who has consoles and could certainly play PE on a console if it was ported to one - but that's not what the scope of the game was ever about!)

Edited by Amentep
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I want LAN as much as the next jerk but lets be realistic, we're looking at an expansion, sequel or mods, not Feargus having a psychotic episode at the office one day. I just wish people would stop sniping at the very idea of co-op, obviously a lot of people want it - nearly 50% according to the poll in this very thread - so attacking the idea amounts to a circular firing squad.

 

I'm only attacking the idea of putting co-op in games that were explicitly stated to be designed without co-op; had PE been stated from the beginning to have co-op play I'd have not said anything as its inclusion is a neutral to me provided it doesn't compromise the single player game.

 

However since the developers have stated that including co-op play in the game would take attention and limited resources away from the single player game, since co-op was not part of the original pitch for the game, I personally find the continuing clamor for co-op play to be included puzzling.  Who supports a game that doesn't have co-op, a fact explicitly stated early in the campaign, and then agitates for it to be added (drawing resources away from things already promised) once the game is going to be made?  Its about as silly - in my opinion - as supporting a PC only game, explicitly stated to be PC only, and then demanding it be ported to a console.  It makes no sense at all - unless that development option was one under consideration from the very beginning.  Which it wasn't (and I say that as someone who has consoles and could certainly play PE on a console if it was ported to one - but that's not what the scope of the game was ever about!)

You're talking about people who are generally completely irrational and not very good in the common sense department. It's exactly like the people who demand right now that the game NOT be isometric and should be 3D with rotating camera just like Skyrim. Really? 

 

 

Also, the very notion that this pathetic little backwater forum poll (there are many other threads too, and all of them have those wanting MP/coop as the minority :p) is somehow representative of the over 70,000 backers is ridiculous and very stupid. Come on.

 

If your primary priority for a game is co-op/MP, then I hope you didn't back Project Eternity (if you did, it's your own fault for assuming or not reading things). If you didn't back PE, then just go away and play Mass Effect 3. I heard ME3 is perfect and awesome because it added MP into that franchise. 

 

Interviews in my sig. Co-op/MP is not happening for PE. Get over it and move on, kids.

The KS Collector's Edition does not include the Collector's Book.

Which game hook brought you to Project Eternity and interests you the most?

PE will not have co-op/multiplayer, console, or tablet support (sources): [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Write your own romance mods because there won't be any in PE.

"But what is an evil? Is it like water or like a hedgehog or night or lumpy?" -(Digger)

"Most o' you wanderers are but a quarter moon away from lunacy at the best o' times." -Alvanhendar (Baldur's Gate 1)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A game in development is literally that.  I can easily imagine a situation where Fergus comes into the office, assembles the team and says, "we've made a bad mistake, obviously a large segment of the punters want LAN and we're going to give it to them. Josh you have 1 hour to fall in love with this idea and to produce a timeline for LAN implementation, on my desk, by the end of the week."

 

I want LAN as much as the next jerk but lets be realistic, we're looking at an expansion, sequel or mods, not Feargus having a psychotic episode at the office one day. I just wish people would stop sniping at the very idea of co-op, obviously a lot of people want it - nearly 50% according to the poll in this very thread - so attacking the idea amounts to a circular firing squad.

 

I'm only attacking the idea of putting co-op in games that were explicitly stated to be designed without co-op; had PE been stated from the beginning to have co-op play I'd have not said anything as its inclusion is a neutral to me provided it doesn't compromise the single player game.

 

However since the developers have stated that including co-op play in the game would take attention and limited resources away from the single player game, since co-op was not part of the original pitch for the game, I personally find the continuing clamor for co-op play to be included puzzling.  Who supports a game that doesn't have co-op, a fact explicitly stated early in the campaign, and then agitates for it to be added (drawing resources away from things already promised) once the game is going to be made?  Its about as silly - in my opinion - as supporting a PC only game, explicitly stated to be PC only, and then demanding it be ported to a console.  It makes no sense at all - unless that development option was one under consideration from the very beginning.  Which it wasn't (and I say that as someone who has consoles and could certainly play PE on a console if it was ported to one - but that's not what the scope of the game was ever about!)

 

No one who has read the interviews or followed the updates thinks there will be LAN support in PE. People who think that just arent paying attention and I agree to that extent with what you are saying. However, that doesn't mean we can't talk about how cool it would be, and express support for it to be included in an expansion, mods or a sequel, which is perfectly reasonable. If enough fans ask for it, maybe they will get it someday? That's all it's really about for me, and the point I was trying to make is that everyone who comes in here and lashes out at those who are asking for MP are only attacking and driving away fellow fans of the genre, which shrinks an already tiny playerbase further. That doesn't help us.

 

Ieos comment here is a good example of what I'm talking about: TO argue that a substantial number of backers might want co-op in an expansion, mods or sequel is "pathetic", "ridiculous" and "very stupid", that I want PE to be like Skyrim, that all I want or care about is multiplayer, and that I should go away and play ME3, oh and also implying that I'm a kid and presumably foolish and immature so my opinions can be easily dismissed.

 

What's the endgame with this attitude? To 'win' and get everyone who likes multiplayer to go away and stop backing these projects? Even if they only represent 20% of the players, that's still a huge loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one who has read the interviews or followed the updates thinks there will be LAN support in PE. People who think that just arent paying attention and I agree to that extent with what you are saying. However, that doesn't mean we can't talk about how cool it would be, and express support for it to be included in an expansion, mods or a sequel, which is perfectly reasonable. If enough fans ask for it, maybe they will get it someday? That's all it's really about for me, and the point I was trying to make is that everyone who comes in here and lashes out at those who are asking for MP are only attacking and driving away fellow fans of the genre, which shrinks an already tiny playerbase further. That doesn't help us.

 

This could be a case of reading things that aren't intended, but many of the posts in this thread - including the first one - indicated to me the desire to have co-op in PE now, not in some future undefined game.

 

if PE does really well and they decide to do PE2 and think that in having created a lot of infrastructure for PE1 they can add co-op without compromising the game at all, no problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This could be a case of reading things that aren't intended, but many of the posts in this thread - including the first one - indicated to me the desire to have co-op in PE now, not in some future undefined game.

 

No I think you're right, many of them probably are - but at this point anyone making that argument is just uninformed and would probably benefit from someone giving them a friendly update to let them know it won't be in vanilla PE - without belittling them and the very concept of MP, as many posters have done and continue to do.

 

 

 

 

 

if PE does really well and they decide to do PE2 and think that in having created a lot of infrastructure for PE1 they can add co-op without compromising the game at all, no problem.

 

I think most people would agree with this and aren't as far apart on MP as they might seem to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Definitely NO!

I didn't use that in BG and I imagine it as not really good.

Additionally it needs changes in the design, which we don't want.

 

I'm not a opponent of multiplayer-modes, on a contrary I like it, but in Wi-Sims (like patrician 4, anno 1404, airline tycoon evolution, online poker, settlers 2) and not in a singleplayer RPG.

I'm a great fan of LAN-mode, specially in times of "always-on" and "you have only the client at your desktop, maingame is in cloud", but there are things in live best be relished alone, like a good book, like a game, which is supposed to be like a god book.

 

Maybe the next obsidian project is another kind of game, then we can talk about multiplayer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Ebi, what a fascinating post.  You didn't use multiplayer in BG and yet you know it wasn't good - how do you know that, some sort of psychic pulse?

 

 I actually did play multiplayer in BG, IWD and all of their various sequels - I suppose the fact that I played it and loved it is meaningless.  

 

Just one more bizarre post from a mp hater  :( 

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing that is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

 

John Stuart Mill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should read his post again. He never said he KNOWS that multiplayer in BG wasn't good.

 

And he is right. I actually did play mp in BG and IWD. I didn't like it in BG because it was clearly done single player in mind and one main character (and if he/she died, it was game over) felt too restrictive to me and my friends among other things. Did like multiplayer in IWD 1 & 2 though. My friends and I had a blast with those.

 

That being said, no. I don't want multiplayer in PE. Maybe in the possible PE2 but stick with the single player in PE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I'll tell you what needs to happen.  Someone needs to make a game/program that a modder can use to create a feature length awesome game from scratch in a matter of weeks.  When that day comes, we won't have to have arguments about whether features should be included in this game or not.

 

Then again the entire industry would probably be out of work...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why so many people don't want coop in Project Eternity because of bugs and problems in Baldurs Gate? Even with the bugs, BG1 and BG2 multiplayer was some of the most fun I had with the games. Why restrict the possibilities for this new series because of the mistakes made years ago? Don't want to play coop with friends? Then play singleplayer. As for it taking time away from development of the game, I think most people would be fine with having something like this post release, or in an expansion of some sort even.

Edited by looter222
Link to post
Share on other sites

Then play singleplayer. As for it taking time away from development of the game, I think most people would be fine with having something like this post release, or in an expansion of some sort even.

 

I don't think you can easily bolt something like this onto the game post release. It is not just a question of networking code, since there are quite a few fundamental gameplay mechanics that have to be changed to accommodate a second player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Implementing Multiplayer into this game would take development time away from the expansion and the sequel(s).

 

It's not really needed. While I admit that LAN capability in the original IE games wasn't a bad thing by any means, the BG games in particular didn't work well as an MP game due to the plot being focused on the main PC.

 

I've played BG1 & 2 and IWD 1 & 2 multiplayer with friends in the past, and I cannot say that any of those sessions went for more than a few hours or were ever revisited. If you're not the main character it's kinda boring sitting there while other people read the dialogue if you've already read it etc

 

These are the kinda games I'd rather play by myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then play singleplayer. As for it taking time away from development of the game, I think most people would be fine with having something like this post release, or in an expansion of some sort even.

 

I don't think you can easily bolt something like this onto the game post release. It is not just a question of networking code, since there are quite a few fundamental gameplay mechanics that have to be changed to accommodate a second player.

 

Not really "have to", Baldur's Gate MP & SP are the same in terms of gameplay.

 

For simplicity: Player 1 controls Bhaalspawn, Player 2 controls "Imoen" instead of the AI doing it. It doesn't have to be more complex than that. It does most certainly not have to be a game changer just because it has MP support.

 

MP

Player 1 = Leader/Main Character

Player 2 = Side-Kick

 

^That's how the IE games MP works. Take away the Player 2, and Player 1 controls the Side-Kick instead.

 

SP

Player 1 = Leader/Main Character

Player 1 = Side-Kick

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

With a party-based RPG, I don't really think theres all that much that needs to be changed to accomodate a second player. Your simply a member of the party, while the PC is still the PC in terms of NPC and quest interaction, your like the other NPCs in that your there for the ride and to help out (albeit alot more quiet). In terms of implementing the RakNet code in Unity3D for multiplayer, that would indeed take some dedicated development time, which is why im leaning more towards this being something experimented with in one of the expansions.

 

But atleast it would be worth the extra effort in my opinion, and once that functionality is in place, it should be relatively easy to implement in other expansions and the base game due to the nature of how coding in multiplayer support in RakNet/Unity works and would be well worth some extra cash to play with friends again in a great isometric party RPG.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to cram lan support into P:E is again trying to turn it into something it isn't which flies straight in the face of the entire intent of making this game in the first place. There's other games out there designed for this kind of gameplay, check those out instead of trying to get every good feature into one game, because down that path lies madness.

Edited by marelooke
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's other games out there designed for this kind of gameplay, check those out instead of trying to get every good feature into one game, because down that path lies madness.

 

 

Madness? That's a little bit over the top. A MP in style of the Infinity Engine games would probably not change the gameplay in a big way.

Of course there enough examples of games that suffered from a misguided focus an Multiplayer.

But the Infinity games never had the problem.

 

But it definitely would take away some of the very limited recourses.

They can make a Coop Mode as long they don't use the KS money and the SP doesn't suffer because of it.

 

On the other hand. Divinity Original Sins Kickstater finished.

If anyone wants a classical Coop CRPG then that game seems to be the perfect fit.

All the pre alpha coop footage showed a very interesting coop focused crpg concept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There's other games out there designed for this kind of gameplay, check those out instead of trying to get every good feature into one game, because down that path lies madness.

 

Madness? That's a little bit over the top. A MP in style of the Infinity Engine games would probably not change the gameplay in a big way.

Of course there enough examples of games that suffered from a misguided focus an Multiplayer.

But the Infinity games never had the problem.

 

Personally I thought multiplayer in the IE games was pretty terrible.

 

On the other hand. Divinity Original Sins Kickstater finished.

If anyone wants a classical Coop CRPG then that game seems to be the perfect fit.

All the pre alpha coop footage showed a very interesting coop focused crpg concept.

I didn't want to play the Larian shill too much, but that was what I was thinking about when I mentioned games designed for co-op. Imho turn based combat works a lot better for this than a bunch of people fighting to pause the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand. Divinity Original Sins Kickstater finished.

If anyone wants a classical Coop CRPG then that game seems to be the perfect fit.

All the pre alpha coop footage showed a very interesting coop focused crpg concept.

I didn't want to play the Larian shill too much, but that was what I was thinking about when I mentioned games designed for co-op. Imho turn based combat works a lot better for this than a bunch of people fighting to pause the game.

 

The multiplayer in BG was awesome, in my opinion. Technically it had a lot of issues, sure. It didn't entirely feel like a finished feature. Like, I told my friend "Go and talk to some people and I'll go and shop some gear" but that didn't work out too well into practice (Whilst I was in the shop screen, if he went and talked to someone it'd close the shop screen and take me to the dialogue screen. Force paused~).

 

Me and my friend had a lot of fun playing Baldur's Gate together regardless. True, we fought over the pausing a bit as we started, and he also struggled a lot with gameplay mechanics (that he didn't understand, as he hadn't researched or played the games much before). After a while we managed to find a rhythm that accommodated to our playstyle and we paused in different sequences. It took some hard work, some patience and some good ol' communication but eventually we got it right as how we wanted it. Now, we were only playing 2 people, not 6 people. I can imagine it getting chaotic if you are playing 6 people 1 character each.

 

Footnote; I am not advocating for Obsidian to spend resources on LAN, Multiplayer or Co-op, I am simply arguing that I thought that the IE games was more fun playing with a friend (and overcoming the adversaries together) than playing it alone, in my opinion. I had more trouble getting "into" the games by myself, and it was easier to immerse myself together with someone. Well, all except PS:T which didn't have any multiplayer support (though, if a friend could've joined into the game and taken control of Morte and be apart of the journey I wouldn't have minded it). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

So... This one time, in a BG2 Lan session we gathered together 6 adventurers stuffed in a tiny room surrounded by desktops and laptops. We each made a character and eventually managed to get ourselves to De'arnise Keep were our druid found a potion of firebreathing. After urging the party not to drink said potion he stowed it away safely and we continued on. Our rouge enjoyed using his pickpocket skill, and we all would occasionally "loose" parts of our equipment. Of course we all knew who was stealing them, not only from the satisfied remarks echoing from his characters voice set via his computer speakers, but he was also our only rouge. He'd return most things, laughing, and in all honesty its in his personality to cause chaos and it fit his character as well. But, he did not heed our druids warning and he managed to nic that potion of firebreathing. He cooed in awe, at his computer station, and without reading the description downed the thing. We then watched his portrait slowly fill with red, a pillar of fire spurting from his sprites head, and our curious sticky fingered friend died. After a good laugh we dragged him back to temple to resurrect him.

 

This was one of the best experiences I had on BG2 and it was MP. Yup, there were technical issues. But it was worth RPing with friends, enjoying and exploring the world with company. I don't think I'll be changing any hearts or minds here, but I come from a strong PnP background as do a lot of people on the forums. Although you can accomplish a lot more when your not distracted, alone in single player. The NPCs in BG2 are some of the most vibrant and fantastic characters ever created in my option. But I defiantly prefer to play with a party of my friends than with NPCs by myself. I guess it really depends on weather there are enough recourses to develop Lan capabilities without effecting the single player experience. But my fingers are crossed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...