Co-op/MP discussion...

[Socratic]

...or lack thereof. Can someone point me to anything where co-op/multiplayer is being even remotely discussed as possible or why it's not going to happen at launch/near future/ever? Thanks!

[Guest]

Its not

[Baramos]

It's not happening period.

[Valmy]

It has been discussed a few times. Like in this thread: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/94815-multiplayer-coop-after-release/?hl=multiplayer

 

But this was a big topic of conversation for the first game as well. I think due to the limited budget of the first game they left it out for scope but I could be mis-remembering. This has been going on for about six years now.

Edited April 15, 2018 by Valmy

[Archaven]

i would prefer it strictly single player. maybe pillars of eternity 3 may have it? seeing the success of original sins 2, i think that may move obsidian in putting it in on future sequel. i speak for myself, if i play mutliplayer i go for the sorts like league of legends or dota2. my point is.. i like it single player only.

[jf8350143]

PoE has the potential to have a MP mode, but so does almost every other RPG that have different class and builds. Technically DnD is a multiplayer game, so it's not really surprising here.

 

But potential means nothing if they can't pull it off. And I don't think Obsidian can make a MP mode without serious comprising the single player experience, their budget simply can't afford it.

[Boeroer]

The only thing I would like is a "duel" mode where just two people/chars meet on a rel. empty map and fight.

 

I think the whole "real time combat with pause" makes any attempt to introduce multiplayer moot. Just imagine the mess with all the pauses. And PoE's/Deadfire's combat is too complex to play it without pause. Or you'd have to choose very slow combat speed - which is a tedium as well. 

[hilfazer]

MP didn't happen in POE1 and POE2 is less fit for that than its predecessor.

Party size was reduced to 5 which is much worse number form MP perspective than 6. With a party of 6 you can have 2, 3 or 6 players with equal number of units, while in POE2 it would be just for 5 players.

 

 

i would prefer it strictly single player. maybe pillars of eternity 3 may have it?

 

Possibly. There's a chance PoE3 will be MOBA, they already have 5 party members and short durations.

 

[Stuurminator]

I think the whole "real time combat with pause" makes any attempt to introduce multiplayer moot. Just imagine the mess with all the pauses. And PoE's/Deadfire's combat is too complex to play it without pause. Or you'd have to choose very slow combat speed - which is a tedium as well. 

This. Real-time multiplayer is fine. Turn-based multiplayer is workable. Real-time-with-pause multiplayer sounds like it would induce a stroke.

[Bionick]

 

I think the whole "real time combat with pause" makes any attempt to introduce multiplayer moot. Just imagine the mess with all the pauses. And PoE's/Deadfire's combat is too complex to play it without pause. Or you'd have to choose very slow combat speed - which is a tedium as well. 

This. Real-time multiplayer is fine. Turn-based multiplayer is workable. Real-time-with-pause multiplayer sounds like it would induce a stroke.

 

 

Baldur's Gate was multiplayer, and it wasn't that bad at all. 

[Boeroer]

Baldur's Gate combat wasn't complex...

[Wormerine]

Baldur's Gate combat wasn't complex...

*gasp*

[the_dog_days]

With the AI scripting in place in Deadfire, I could see a very competent co-op for sequels. Were I in charge of it, I would remove pausing for co-op, have companions driven by the AI script, and let the players micro their player characters (though leave the pausing in for single player). Sounds like it could be fun.

[keriana]

I am glad that the game is single-player only. At least in recent games multiplayer tends to take priority over single player when the two are combined, and the single-player experience is hurt because of it (for a number of reasons, such as combat and other systems being designed around multiplayer, rewards being exclusive to it or requiring excessive grind to get them in single player, or even quests/story content being gated behind it). For these reasons I prefer single player games to remain single player only.

[SonicMage117]

...or lack thereof. Can someone point me to anything where co-op/multiplayer is being even remotely discussed as possible or why it's not going to happen at launch/near future/ever? Thanks!

You see, it seems to be another common misconception: The purpose of games like these is to offer table-top pen and paper experience on screen...

 

Which is wrong. That was never the purpose of a role playing video game, even developers in the 90's were smart enough to know this. If it would have been so, then rpg's would have been primarily multiplayer even back then.

 

The truth is, a well crafted single player experience is only hindered by the inclusion of multiplayer modes so I, too, an happy that the game remains single player. So most times it's best to keep a game exclusive to one (master of one vs jack of all trades).

 

I respect devs who only feature one or the other, it reeks of focused and vision whereas both in one game can spell of a confusive scent.

 

By the way, WELCOME TO THE FORUM!

[Bionick]

Baldur's Gate combat wasn't complex...

I don’t see how mechanically the gameplay of Pillars is any more complex than BG/IWD. I pause during combat just as often in both games.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Bionick

[Socratic]

 

...or lack thereof. Can someone point me to anything where co-op/multiplayer is being even remotely discussed as possible or why it's not going to happen at launch/near future/ever? Thanks!

By the way, WELCOME TO THE FORUM!

 

Thanks! Now I need a fancy avatar!