Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Multiplayer in expansion?

multiplayer expansion addon

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#41
Bryy

Bryy

    Arch-Mage

  • Members.
  • 2748 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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. 



#42
Yellow Rabbit

Yellow Rabbit

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 206 posts

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.

#43
Bryy

Bryy

    Arch-Mage

  • Members.
  • 2748 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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 by Bryy, 23 March 2015 - 10:47 PM.


#44
Einherjer

Einherjer

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
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.
  • splintex likes this

#45
Heijoushin

Heijoushin

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1304 posts
  • Location:Japan
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

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 by Heijoushin, 23 March 2015 - 11:20 PM.

  • splintex likes this

#46
splintex

splintex

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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 by splintex, 23 March 2015 - 11:40 PM.


#47
Cantousent

Cantousent

    Forum Moderator

  • Validating
  • 5895 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
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:
  • Kiya and Sif like this

#48
splintex

splintex

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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 by splintex, 23 March 2015 - 11:46 PM.


#49
Elerond

Elerond

    One of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2649 posts
  • Location:Finland
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

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. 


  • splintex likes this

#50
Rostere

Rostere

    Illuminatus of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1084 posts
  • Location:Stockholm
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

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 by Rostere, 24 March 2015 - 12:10 AM.

  • splintex likes this

#51
splintex

splintex

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

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. 

 

I feel like you are addressing the current multiplayer paradigm of aditional multiplayer specific content, or custom maps, characters, dedicated servers (perhaps) rather than thinking of it as plain old ordinary co-op,  my background is in a different programming field than game development, but I don't see the packing sharing and syncing of game data peer to peer for co-op using all of the assets and engine extant in the existing single player game, to be of the same order of magnitude as the creation of the game itself (again, not my field, but my gut feeling, totally non-scientific, I know....) and different from other implementations of what the gaming community has come to view as multiplayer.

 

As to a co-op (I can't say the m word as that isn't what I mean) fix of a cRPG there is only one and that was D:OS same style of thing as the IE engine originals, just with a nice shared decision making, I didn't like the ability for people to wander off, but then there is a certain desire to appease people who was to venture forth without gathering their party.

 

I don't see co-op as a half assed multiplayer implementation,  i see it as co-op implementation, I couldn't give two hoots about a multiplayer expansion, I want a co-op mode.

 

*edited for spelinks


Edited by splintex, 24 March 2015 - 12:16 AM.


#52
Sky_walker

Sky_walker

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 95 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

IMHO Multiplayer is nothing more than a waste of time. It's a real time with pause game - these work very badly in multiplayer. Even if it's just coop (and they're flat out frustrating in competitive gameplay).



#53
axan22

axan22

    Oakheart Arch Druid of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 89 posts
  • Location:Co Durham UK
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
Already confirmed no multiplayer in expansion.

#54
Sky_walker

Sky_walker

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 95 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Already confirmed no multiplayer in expansion.

Question wasn't about the upcoming expansion packs but rather if multiplayer can be implemented in additional expansion / DLC. Read the first post, not just a title.



#55
Night Stalker

Night Stalker

    Cynic of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

 

 

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.

 

 

Proper multiplayer requires quite a bit more money mainly because we would need to bring on network programmers and have a dedicated online QA staff. Also, the total programming dev time would probably increase by around 33% which is quite a bit.

 

Source



#56
Quetzalcoatl

Quetzalcoatl

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 276 posts

 

 

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.

Why are you even here...? By all accounts, it sounds like you hate the game.


Edited by Quetzalcoatl, 24 March 2015 - 03:20 AM.

  • Aramed likes this

#57
Yaz

Yaz

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I don't think anyone has any trouble imagining ways that multiplayer can be tacked on to a game like this; that's not exactly a new concept and has been done.  This is not some revolutionary idea that needs brainstorming.  Just because people aren't receptive to the idea doesn't mean they can't imagine it; heck they don't need to they can probably just think of another game with a story that multiplayer ended up taking away from the enjoyment.

 

Multiplayer is not some holy grail that should be added to everything possible.  Pillars was marketed, designed and created as a single player game.  This is highly interactive book telling and elaborate story.  Myself and I'm sure many others would greatly prefer they focus on telling intricate stories for the single player experience and not put a bunch of resources and time on something that will likely ultimately take away from that.  There is no way at all to implement something like multiplayer into a game like this without having to make compromises for it to fit.


  • Kiya likes this

#58
Planeforger

Planeforger

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 35 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

I don't understand the negativity surrounding multiplayer here.

 

With the exception of Planescape Torment, all of the Infinity Engine RPGs had co-op multiplayer features, and they were all fun to LAN (sometimes even fun playing online on Gamespy, if you could find a good group).

 

Pillars is a party-based RPG, so allowing other players to control certain party members wouldn't necessarily hurt the game in any way - outside of budgetary constraints.

 

Personally, I don't mind that Pillars is singleplayer only, but multiplayer can be a lot of fun in games like this.


  • Coaxmetal and splintex like this

#59
Coaxmetal

Coaxmetal

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 24 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

If there was a multiplayer I would like to see something similar to NWN online campaigns and custom adventures. Not a death match orientated core. Although a map pack were that could easily be arranged?



#60
Eurhetemec

Eurhetemec

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 193 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 There is no way at all to implement something like multiplayer into a game like this without having to make compromises for it to fit.

 

There's no way to do anything in this world without having to make compromises. There is absolutely nothing about Eternity or any other game in existence, that is not, on some level, a compromise.

 

So this "Well, it's a compromise and thus bad!" approach to this makes literally no sense. It gets rolled out like clockwork, but it never has made sense as a free-standing, context-less criticism.

 

The real question is, how do you lose, how much do you gain, when you implement MP? If we look at the Infinity Engine games, they had multiplayer and lost approximately nothing. I mean, does anyone think BG1/2 were "compromised" in a negative sense by their multiplayer? If so, please explain how, in detail. With a game like this, multiplayer is not a gigantic technical obstacle, and we also need to remain sane and remember that the team who development multiplayer, would not be the content team.

 

I've bolded that so no-one gets confused and starts making wild claims about how implementing multiplayer would prevent X areas or Y bosses being implemented in an expansion, or starts claiming that MP would "impinge upon" content in general. It would not. The team developing multiplayer would largely be programmers, not content developers or artists.

 

Now, the nature of Eternity means that MP would have to be kind of limited - you'd need one player to be the "main", and the other player wouldn't be able to interact the same way as them with the NPCs and so on. They'd largely be controlling, say, half the party in combat and dungeon-type situations. Anything more than that would have needed development from the ground up, like D:OS.

 

So I think we have a situation where we have a relatively low cost to acquiring MP, but also a relatively low (at least at first glance) benefit from acquiring MP. So one could go either way on it.


  • splintex and Adelmar like this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: multiplayer, expansion, addon

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users