|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2008
|
The problem is that you are only thinkning in yourself  You wouldn´t be forced to play co-op mode, buddy. But those willing to do it, like me, would love to play coop. I am just asking them to add another player to play coop... no need to make another separate story, no need for him to show on cutscenes... just throw another player in (think Diablo and Halo)  You talk like it's just switching on a button and coop appears. Like i said i don't know what how much of an effort it is to make a coop but i doubt it's as easy as you make it sound. I am not making it sound easy, for I am not developer. If you read what I said above, you will notice that I said this: "if adding another player would result in a poor framerate or poor graphics, then I will understand the devs." 
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Nov 2004
|
I am not making it sound easy, for I am not developer. If you read what I said above, you will notice that I said this: "if adding another player would result in a poor framerate or poor graphics, then I will understand the devs." I doubt it's about framerate or graphics. Anyway let's see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2008
|
I am not making it sound easy, for I am not developer. If you read what I said above, you will notice that I said this: "if adding another player would result in a poor framerate or poor graphics, then I will understand the devs." I doubt it's about framerate or graphics. Anyway let's see what happens. Maybe it is. Fable 2 will not feature 2 dogs in coop mode because of framerate issues, as Peter Molyneux himself said. Anyway, this game may be a must buy for me HUgs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Sep 2006
|
If you read what I said above, you will notice that I said this: "if adding another player would result in a poor framerate or poor graphics, then I will understand the devs." It's not only that. It also involves a huge amount of work (as Lar said) and therefore a lot of money... So unless you're all ready to pay for the game years before the release (we would need millions, and the game would obviously need to be delayed but you would all understand and wait patiently, wouldn't you?), I'd say there's very little chance it'll be included in the game at the time of the initial release. Just stick to what Lar said, it's just not doable at the moment. But who knows what future will bring. You never know what Lar has in mind (me included) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Aug 2008
|
Imo, no coop. I have always loved Larian's RPGs due to the immersion into the world they were able to give me, in single player. Especially with Divine Divinity, not quite the same with BD, but still. I don't think a co-op mode would be that great, unless it was made like Dungeon Siege's multiplayer mode. But even that wouldn't be as great as just the single-player experience the game could offer if Larian just focussed on that one. I mean, even a HUGE software house like Bethesda isn't working on multiplayer yet, and you want Larian Studios to do that. Naw... I don't think we need a co-op mode... yet. Divinity II sounds VERY interesting and innovative indeed, there's no need to add a co-op or multi-player mode. Maybe in Divinity III, who knows :P The problem is that you are only thinkning in yourself You wouldn´t be forced to play co-op mode, buddy. But those willing to do it, like me, would love to play coop. I am just asking them to add another player to play coop... no need to make another separate story, no need for him to show on cutscenes... just throw another player in (think Diablo and Halo) Yeah, but that is just a mere "desire" which isn't a really necessary addition (IMO, again). And it's not a easy thing to implement, it needs effort and money, so yeah you know...
Last edited by PrecisionTime; 27/08/08 03:00 AM.
"The attack came at the breaking of the dawn, the sky was turning from a pitch black shroud into a shimmering canopy of red and orange, the clouds were just hinting at the night’s final death knell."
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2008
|
If you read what I said above, you will notice that I said this: "if adding another player would result in a poor framerate or poor graphics, then I will understand the devs." It's not only that. It also involves a huge amount of work (as Lar said) and therefore a lot of money... So unless you're all ready to pay for the game years before the release (we would need millions, and the game would obviously need to be delayed but you would all understand and wait patiently, wouldn't you?), I'd say there's very little chance it'll be included in the game at the time of the initial release. Just stick to what Lar said, it's just not doable at the moment. But who knows what future will bring. You never know what Lar has in mind (me included) I would wait patiently! Not sure about paying before the release tho. lol After waiting for so long for TWO WORLDS and see that the game is a total crap, I leant that it is better delay a game and deliver it with all the promises, than rushing it and deliver it bugged and full of flaws.
Last edited by Rafoca; 27/08/08 07:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
I'm not interesten in Two Worldx for two points :
- The heavy emphasis on MP. A new extension of the game is MP-only.
- The bugs that were fixed imho too late. The English-language market got the fixed version, of course, and didn't have to download over 1 GB as a patch.
To me, this is inappropriate. I don't want to have a game for which I must download over 1 GB as a patch plus having it centered on MP.
When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
--Dilbert cartoon
"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
|
I just read a thread somewhere were people were wondering what we meant by: "Dropped MP to save the story in SP". The answer is quite simple - choices in  have consequences which change the schedules of the npcs and affect the world, so the gameplay coming from making those choices would only be available to the first player who encounters it. Since it's quite a lot of work to put those choices in, it would be very hard and very expensive to provide a world with so much choice that you could cater 4 people. We actually tried for quite some time, but the effort required is just too large and had we insisted on it, we'd have had to water down other things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2003
|
... so the gameplay coming from making those choices would only be available to the first player who encounters it.... Sacred 2 solves it similar to this. Their single player version is just one of the MP modes the game supports. At any given time you can invite others who can play with you, but the story is still controlled by you and not the others. I'm not sure how rewarding that is for other team players though, but it does allow you to kill big bad monsters easily by inviting others (Although the monsters are leveled differently depending on the size of the team.) Still this type of MP support wouldn't suffice. At the very least an additional MP mode is needed where you can roam the world with a team and play side quests only as the story is irrelevant then. Access to quests would have to be restricted to only those quests that don't give too much consequences, or create MP only quests. Some item hunting wouldn't harm either That said I think the SP version is the one that should be perfect, even if it means loosing MP support.
Last edited by Myrthos; 08/09/08 10:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2008
|
I just read a thread somewhere were people were wondering what we meant by: "Dropped MP to save the story in SP". The answer is quite simple - choices in have consequences which change the schedules of the npcs and affect the world, so the gameplay coming from making those choices would only be available to the first player who encounters it. Since it's quite a lot of work to put those choices in, it would be very hard and very expensive to provide a world with so much choice that you could cater 4 people. We actually tried for quite some time, but the effort required is just too large and had we insisted on it, we'd have had to water down other things. BUt most of the people wouldn´t care about only the main player being able to make the changes in the world. That´s what I am talking since the begining :p Let the main player make the choices and simply put another players in the game, just to have some co-op, as long as they share xp items and this ind of stuff. Sacred 2 is doing this way and I bet no one will complain. If that´s the only problem, you guys should reconsider. But if there are other problems, then I am ok. I am just saying my opinion as a long time player and lover of co-op. And a lot of my frineds, who also enjoy co-op, wouldn´t care about only the main player being shown in the cutscenes and being able to change the world. It´s all about playing togeteher. Anyway, in co-op we could always decide together (by voice chat) on what decisions the main player could to make in the game to see the outcome
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2007
|
Haven't seen a game yet with a co-op mode where I didn't have this nagging suspicion "I wonder what they short changed on single player to institute co-op?" And I can actually think of an open RPG I liked (Two Worlds) where they put out two addons available for multiplayer only with 90 quests. 90! And the enemies were toughened accordingly that you really couldn't manage them solo. It sucked, almost no one used multiplayer and it was a great waste of developer time and energy. A number of folks lamented the fact the single player game got shorted so badly. Keep single player RPGs single.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2008
|
Haven't seen a game yet with a co-op mode where I didn't have this nagging suspicion "I wonder what they short changed on single player to institute co-op?" And I can actually think of an open RPG I liked (Two Worlds) where they put out two addons available for multiplayer only with 90 quests. 90! And the enemies were toughened accordingly that you really couldn't manage them solo. It sucked, almost no one used multiplayer and it was a great waste of developer time and energy. A number of folks lamented the fact the single player game got shorted so badly. Keep single player RPGs single. But you are missing one point there... Two Worlds was released first on PC as a MMO. Did you want them to port this game to 360 without multiplayer? It wouldn´t make any sense. The problem is that those devs had not the experience, money or time to make a decent port to 360 (not to mention that even on PC the game was not soo good, but it was way better than the 360 version).
|
|
|
|
|
