Multiplayer in expansion?

[Zazzaro]

Is this something modders can work on instead? I was excited that Divinity OS had multiplayer and was trying to get a friend to get the game so we could co-op but after starting the game and playing through it I am so glad that didn't happen. Syncing up our schedules to play a 70+ hour RPG would have been a nightmare and pissed me off something fierce when I would of had a few hours to play only to be shut down because my partner couldn't. More options and ways to play a game are never bad though, so again is this something that modders can maybe figure out and implement?

Edited March 24, 2015 by Zazzaro

[Voss]

 

But still bad. I'd hate to see real resources burnt on jamming in multiplayer

I love how people always assume devs are ****ing idiots when something they don't want is brought up, but treat them like unfailable Gods when they something they want is brought up.

 

Unfair.  I think they're idiots all the time.  I'm terribly disturbed if I've ever conveyed the idea that Sawyer and Company are unfallible gods.  Especially since I've outright stated my disappointment in most Obsidian games, and feel big chunks of this game are terrible design fails that even a starting game designer wouldn't have botched with a little research into the basics of game design, especially when cribbing from established franchises.

 

But I don't see the relevance...  I'm talking about resources, not dev idiocy (except their idiocy in setting resources on fire, I guess).  I know D:OS would have been a much better game if they hadn't burned a ****ton of cash putting MP in. 

Edited March 24, 2015 by Voss

[Rostere]

IMO Obsidian should add MP in an expansion.

 

I have never enjoyed the IE games in multiplayer, but since they had MP it would be fair to consider it for PoE as well. I think MP can be added fairly easily "on top" without breaking the experience for others in any way.

[Bryy]

How do you "know"?

 

That was the game they set out to make.

[Voss]

How do you "know"?

 

That was the game they set out to make.

Yes?  Yes it was.  Having a goal does not mean the goal is worthwhile.  More time and effort into the skill system and a greater variety of effects could hardly have been worse than the bizarre masturbatory aid that their system turned into.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Voss

[splintex]

I know there are a bunch of threads on here about multiplayer, and it's not the type of game that they were writing etc, etc.

 

Can I start (or continue in this case)  to say that I'm glad they've made this game they way they have, I'm glad I could help make this game by crowd funding support on kickstarter, and I'm really pleased with what I've played on the beta.

 

Going on from the wonderful single player experience I've had so far, some of my fondest memories of the old IE games were playing through them with the same character party with a friend. 3 Characters each, made the micromanagement of battles so much better, and we gre attached to these characters, all the way through BG1 BG2 and their expansions.  I can say without a shadow of a doubt that playing through those games as a team with the same characters was the most fun I've had in a co-operative gaming scenario across any genre.

 

If we can't see a way forward with co-op from Obsidian, so be it, I'm not here to berate anyone, it was never what I funded (even if I secretly hoped) but if there is anyway this can be implemented via mods then so be it.  

 

That's my 10c worth, I'm sure there are people who would love to see this come out as an expansion, and who knows, maybe outside of the kick-starter this is going to be the success I hope it is, and re-ignites peoples love of the genre and introduces new and younger people to this style of game.

 

Also, well done Obsidian, thanks for this game, thank you to tthe people who work there who have been involved so heavily in some of my fondest memories from gaming history, and if someone has a little bit of time somewhere, try and crowd fund a multiplayer expansion. I'm sure you'd get enough money for 1 persons salary for a year or so

[Bryy]

Not liking it doesn't give you some magical insight into what they "should have done" or what would have made the game better.

[Havelok]

I'm perfectly fine with them never implementing multiplayer. I personally can't become immersed in an RPG while playing with a friend. They always ruin the narrative or get impatient.

 

This is coming from a long time GM of tabletop rp games.  I understand the value of group play, but it just doesn't work in videogames if you want to be invested in the story. 

[.Leif.]

I love what Obsidian has made in the past, I loved playing the backer-beta, I trust their judgement. I think perhaps down the line if they get some money from Paradox or if they have another record-breaking kickstarter MP might get added in but until the Eternity series is establshed as a real bread-winner for the stuido putting in MP could be a real gamble. I think if there was a hypothetical PoE 2 or 3 we could perhaps start expecting MP but until then I think we should just keep wishing we could play this with friends.

[Heijoushin]

Please no, please no multiplayer *sobs*. I know some people like it and I have no problem with that, but these days there are loads of games going in that direction (with lots of great series going MMORPG) so how about we keep PoE pure and single-player?

[splintex]

Please no, please no multiplayer *sobs*. I know some people like it and I have no problem with that, but these days there are loads of games going in that direction (with lots of great series going MMORPG) so how about we keep PoE pure and single-player?

 

Just curious, do you feel that it would change the game somehow?  All I would like to see is the ability for someone else to take control of party members, have the choice of which is the lead character to initiate dialogue, and that is it, I don't want some awful PvP/MMORPG homunculous, I feel that is what people immediately think when someone mentions multiplayer.

 

I just want to be able to share the story with someone. No bells, no whistles, just offload some of the character management to an extra pair of hands.

[Rostere]

Yeah. If you ever played MP in the IE games, you'd know it was just "tacked on" - it didn't change they game in any way, except that other players could control some characters. Doesn't sound hard to implement to me.

[Yellow Rabbit]

IMO Obsidian should add MP in an expansion.

No way. Expansion is, you know, an expansion. Additional content for the game. Writing network code and hooking it to the engine* doesn't really fit under expansion thing and going to cost a lot of programming and debugging time among other things. Maybe in a sequel. Maybe. Wouldn't hold breath, though.

 

*I'm assuming devs threw all Unity's default networking out as PoE was intended to be strictly SP.

[Rostere]

 

IMO Obsidian should add MP in an expansion.

No way. Expansion is, you know, an expansion. Additional content for the game. Writing network code and hooking it to the engine* doesn't really fit under expansion thing and going to cost a lot of programming and debugging time among other things. Maybe in a sequel. Maybe. Wouldn't hold breath, though.

 

*I'm assuming devs threw all Unity's default networking out as PoE was intended to be strictly SP.

 

I don't want MP myself, I just want Obsidian to do whatever they need to cash in to make other stuff that I like. Since MP does not force a compromise with the stuff I like, I am for MP.

[Emerwyn]

I understand that PoE is single player, and I'm quite fine with it because at least the first playthrough I'd have done it as single player to play my way and take my time with everything I feel like, but I don't get what's so hard to grasp for some people in this thread about the possibility of PoE being multiplayer just to have fun with some buddies.

 

It doesn't require too much brainstorming to figure out how multiplayer could be successfully implemented and the appeal it could have.

 

Example 1: Each of my friends plays one character, and the combat doesn't need to be paused, it all plays in real time. That makes aiming spells dangerous and exciting, yes. I could see myself having quite a few laughs over it with my buddies after one of them blows another up.

Example 2: The game implements a menu where each player can assume control of certain number of characters simply by sliding them under their player name (for example, if 2 people are playing, each can control 3 characters) and that's the characters they can control in any combat situation, or give orders to while the game is paused.

 

For conversations and everything else they can talk it over ts or mumble or whatever, and take decisions together, decide what's best for the party, or do rock paper scissors with every decision in the game, I don't know. The point is, we're in 2015. I don't know any single gamer that doesn't use some kind of voice communication on daily basis to play with their friends. You don't need to be so obtuse and narrow about some concepts that have been around for over 10 years.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Emerwyn

[Bryy]

Yeah. If you ever played MP in the IE games, you'd know it was just "tacked on" - it didn't change they game in any way, except that other players could control some characters. Doesn't sound hard to implement to me.

Wait.

 

What?

 

I'm all for MP, but it's a very large technical process. 

[Yellow Rabbit]

I don't want MP myself, I just want Obsidian to do whatever they need to cash in to make other stuff that I like. Since MP does not force a compromise with the stuff I like, I am for MP.

I've got nothing against it either, just wanted to point out that MP is not something devs would consider in a scope of an expansion, at least in PoE's particular case.

[Bryy]

Yeah, expecting MP in the expansion is most likely a lost cause because expansions are made on the cheap using reused assets. If there were going to do MP, it would be in a sequel.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Bryy

[Einherjer]

I'd love mp in this game. Frankly I don't understand the negativity. Me and my brother would play bg2 every Christmas like this. We'd take control of three or less players each and one of us would be the main character that did the talking. D:OS did a very good job and showed how this can be done.

[Heijoushin]

 

Please no, please no multiplayer *sobs*. I know some people like it and I have no problem with that, but these days there are loads of games going in that direction (with lots of great series going MMORPG) so how about we keep PoE pure and single-player?

 

Just curious, do you feel that it would change the game somehow?  All I would like to see is the ability for someone else to take control of party members, have the choice of which is the lead character to initiate dialogue, and that is it, I don't want some awful PvP/MMORPG homunculous, I feel that is what people immediately think when someone mentions multiplayer.

 

I just want to be able to share the story with someone. No bells, no whistles, just offload some of the character management to an extra pair of hands.

 

Well, in the old days, multiplayer was really just "tacked on" as Mr. Rostere said. And that was okay.

 

But nowdays, multiplayer is starting to get a lot more priority. Best case scenario: some single player development time is lost to multiplayer. Worse case scenario: they start making decisions based on what would be good for multiplayer (like scraping a cool unit or design cause it wouldn't work well in MP) Worst scenario: "Let's just make it into an MMORPG! We can get more money that way!" or "Let's make it always online!" (I'm looking at you Diablo 3)

Edited March 24, 2015 by Heijoushin

[splintex]

But nowdays, multiplayer is starting to get a lot more priority. Best case scenario: some single player development time is lost to multiplayer. Worse case scenario: they start making decisions based on what would be good for multiplayer (like scraping a cool unit or design cause it wouldn't work well in MP) Worst scenario: "Let's just make it into an MMORPG! We can get more money that way!" or "Let's make it always online!" (I'm looking at you Diablo 3)

 

Which is exactly not the type of multiplayer fans of these game types want.  I believe (and I'm happy to be pointed out if I'm wrong) that, as you say, when people bring up multiplayer, fans of the genre immediately jump  to your worst case/worst scenario, and that isn't what cRPG players want out of multiplayer, they want to share the single player experience, nothing more, nothing less.  No Arena mode, no persistent world (I know it's been mentioned, but that was a dirty dirty NWN hack job) no running off all over the place.

 

People want to 'gather their party before venturing forth' and walk through an engaging tale with a good friend who shares their interests.

 

I'll stop going on now, I just have issues as IE multiplayer was such a fun part of my gaming life.

 

*edit because ankhegs, those buggers pop up everywhere.

Edited March 24, 2015 by splintex

[Cantousent]

Yeah, I have to admit that I hear 'multiplayer' and I'm itching to man the barricades. I generally don't, but the inclination is there. Probably not fair. If they found a way to include simple coop, I suppose I wouldn't mind. ...But I'll always prefer money be spent on the single player aspect. It's just natural for folks to be greedy about time and resources for the games they follow in development. :Cant's wry grin icon:

[splintex]

Yeah, I have to admit that I hear 'multiplayer' and I'm itching to man the barricades. I generally don't, but the inclination is there. Probably not fair. If they found a way to include simple coop, I suppose I wouldn't mind. ...But I'll always prefer money be spent on the single player aspect. It's just natural for folks to be greedy about time and resources for the games they follow in development. :Cant's wry grin icon:

 

Totally fair due to the implications implicit in the whole multiplayer paradigm as it exists now, perhaps a marketing makeover, I shall now refer to it as co-op mode. More friends to help me cooperatively farm ankhegs for that sweet sweet armour.

 

Also, feature addition should never be a feature replacement, cRPG's are content driven, first and foremost, that's why this got off the ground, you had a team of great content creators with a background in these games who were stifled by publishing houses who make money of dime store novellas, not grand epics.

 

*edited for additional context

Edited March 24, 2015 by splintex

[Elerond]

I would say that if you do multiplayer mode in your game do it well, which means that it most likely cost at least same amount as single player mode even though they usually can reuse art asset, because technical implementation and server implementation of good multiplayer is expensive. You can do cheap multiplayer modes if you do similar half-assed job like what Bioware did with DA:I's multiplayer. 

 

From which we come to point why I hope that Obsidian don't do multiplayer mode in PoE's sequels, even though I like multiplayer modes sometimes and I play them quite much and even though I played multiplayer in all the IE games that included one and I DM multiple sessions in NWN, and that previously mentioned point is that good multiplayer needs resources, monetary and manpower, and those resources aren't infinite especially in case of Obsidian making PoE franchise, and even with all the respect and admiration that I have towards Obsidian and its employees, I like their single player implementations on large margin more than I like their multiplayer implementations, I play their games because of their single player implementations, I buy their games because of their single player implementations, which is why I hope that they will put all their resources to produce more those single player implementations that I like and where they excel in ways that no other company in world do, especially when I can get my multiplayer needs fulfilled by other companies that excel on that sector, meaning that I don't have any need for Obsidian to produce multiplayer mode especially half-assed one. 

[Rostere]

 

Yeah. If you ever played MP in the IE games, you'd know it was just "tacked on" - it didn't change they game in any way, except that other players could control some characters. Doesn't sound hard to implement to me.

Wait.

 

What?

 

I'm all for MP, but it's a very large technical process. 

 

They have already got the Unity engine, in either case they have already made games before (DS3) which you can play online over Steam. To implement the functionality in PoE from there onwards should not be particularly hard.

 

Well of course all labels such as "hard" are subjective. What I'm saying is that it's IMO not hard to write a program in Java or C# which communicates over an internet connection. It is not very hard to communicate positions on the map of players, creatures, et.c. (especially not if you have already written code that does exactly this, then you don't need to do any deeper thinking about how you want these things to work out in theory). Then you already have pre-alpha multiplayer right there. I have no idea if it's hard or easy to make it efficient, though.

 

Personally, I have never made a multiplayer game so I don't know exactly what would be necessary (although I have many friends who are working on that kind of stuff). I have done some rudimentary stuff using sockets in Java (which is on a comparable level with C#), for example a chat program (pretty much a homebrew MSN Messenger with uglier graphics ). I have also done a lot of other programming of course, but mostly I do sciency stuff, I guess the closest I get to programming multiplayer games is cluster programming with MPICH in C, at least that is about message passing over connections.

 

EDIT: If anyone should believe otherwise, to clarify I am talking about multiplayer as it worked in the IE games. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Rostere