Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Any RPG that has multiplayer > any RPG that doesn't.

And hey, nothing against single player, but my experience has been that multiplayer comes significantly closer to replicating a TT experience.

Also - and this is just a personal opinion - I think that multiplayer leads to a healthier gaming environment when you interact with other human beings. I am not saying that the single player nation is a bunch of weird anti-social trolls that hide from sunlight and feast on human flesh but there is an unhealthy side to gaming that lack of human contact exacerbates.
I thought that Bioware's triumph with Baldur's Gate 1 and especially 2 is creating an RPG campaign structure tailor for singleplayer experience and by creating "companions" they added table-top-with-other-players flavour in an appropriate computer setting.

Personally, I like my RPGs singleplayer. I am playing RPGs mostly for story and engaging narrative, and other human players go against it. There are multiplayer games I do enjoy, but I have far bigger appreciation for quality singleplayer games. Table-tops and boardgames for spending evening with friends, singleplayer computer games for lone evenings, competitive online games with no access to voice chat, and limited/no access to chat for multiplayer with randos.

That's cool that there is market for games like Neverwinter Nights1 or Divinity: Original Sin1&2.



Originally Posted by Terminator2020
I would understand if some players do not like PvP. With that logic all do not like PvP I said make it multiplayer cooperative like BG1, BG2 and BG3. Those who want to play single gamers still could do it. Well and saying no is trolling.
I don't mind multiplayer like in BG1&2. I do mind multiplayer like in D:OS1&2 and BG3.

Different designs are needed for a quality singleplayer and multiplayer. By the very nature engagement with content is different. A good example is Don't Starve and Don't Starve: Together. Klei likes making good game, so with strong market for multipler Don't Starve they created a seperate experience rather then adding multiplayer to Don't Starve. Playing Don't Starve by yourself wouldn't quite work, and playing Don't Starve: Together by yourself wouldn't quite work.

Baldur's Gate1&2 were Dont' Starve with added multiplayer. Divinity: Original Sin1&2 are Don't Starve together that you can play by yourself.

[BG3 is in weird mid place - It does make a far bigger effort in making a better singleplayer experience - there is far more singleplayer centric content in the game this time around - I appreciate all that. But there are compromises - companions are torn between being companions and cool playable characters, making them IMO rather uncompelling when compared to last 20 years of competition. Protagonist writing is not teribly strong, as it will have to fill roles of Tavs and Origin companions. A lot of ease of use things missing as expererience will change depending if it's singleplayer or multiplayer exprience. Handy multiplayer easy of use features like "send to xxxxxx"/turn-based bubble etc. create awkward exploits when one player is in charge of everything]