@Galileo:
But the question remains: How do you want to implement the multiplayer part into a game like DivDiv and/or RRR? Don't you realize that DivDiv for example was an obvious single player game and its story made sense only with one protagonist? What makes you think that RRR might be different from that? I agree with Kej in this point (as I have done since the beginning of DivDiv's development <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />)
first of all, we don't know enough about RRR to say where it would fit in.
but...
why does multiplayer have to have the same story? perhaps small seperate campaigns. now, i havent finished DivDiv (i've rang the gong. i try to read spoliers, but it seems like im near the end) but why couldnt a multiplayer aspect have people playing different incarnations of the marked ones on a seperate quest that takes place somewhere in the second act of the game? I think one could use their imaginations to make it work....
now, I loved DivDiv (am loving). But I will not replay it. I don't replay almost any single character game because I don't like repeating the same story. It will now gather dust. However, if there were a diversion, even if it were in a smaller, contained episiode - well, I think that would be fun. people are still playing Diablo II (I know, I know - I don't like that game either) but that was undoubtedly a single player game w/o the multiplayer add-on. and no one would be still playing it w/o multiplayer. Wouldn't it be nice if a game with a lot more strategy like DivDiv could reach out to a bigger audience AND provide more playing hours to those of us who have no interest in replaying the main quest?
