RPG Multiplayers

[Smooth Operator]

The games would just have to work like the great RPGs that we love without sacrificing anything to accommodate more players into the mix.

This is exactly why I said pedestrian ideas, because users don't take into account that every game has a tight schedule and resources, multiplayer stretching across the entire game like TES is not a cheap feature to add, i.e. the entire game content (that is already stretched thin) will suffer for it further.
And the publishers don't care about quality they will simply push peoples demands onto developers, and this is the precise reason why all games now are stuffed with multiplayer no matter how it may fit and fuck up the game.

There are plenty of multiplayer RPG's out there, don't fuck with the last remaining few that have some single player quality to them.

 

[Layz92]

Baldur's Gate 2 already has acceptable multiplayer so I am not out for much more.

 

[Stalydan]

The games would just have to work like the great RPGs that we love without sacrificing anything to accommodate more players into the mix.

This is exactly why I said pedestrian ideas, because users don't take into account that every game has a tight schedule and resources, multiplayer stretching across the entire game like TES is not a cheap feature to add, i.e. the entire game content (that is already stretched thin) will suffer for it further.
And the publishers don't care about quality they will simply push peoples demands onto developers, and this is the precise reason why all games now are stuffed with multiplayer no matter how it may fit and fuck up the game.

There are plenty of multiplayer RPG's out there, don't fuck with the last remaining few that have some single player quality to them.

Jeez, why do you keep trying to say I'd be messing with The Elder Scrolls. I mean you've obviously ignored when I said games of this style. No existing IPs but games that would play the same.

 

[Stalydan]

Baldur's Gate 2 already has acceptable multiplayer so I am not out for much more.

Never played Baldur's Gate. Well I played the Dark Alliance games but not the actual Baldur's Gate. The multiplayer in those were... okay but you felt more like you had to play the games in multiplayer on some of the bits.

 

[Layz92]

Baldur's Gate 2 already has acceptable multiplayer so I am not out for much more.

Never played Baldur's Gate. Well I played the Dark Alliance games but not the actual Baldur's Gate. The multiplayer in those were... okay but you felt more like you had to play the games in multiplayer on some of the bits.

Apart from setting and some spell names dark alliance had nothing to do with baldur's gate. The original was group based and used a fair bit of strategy.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Obligatory quote that I post in every thread discussing multiplayer RPGs:

"M'Aiq does not know this word. You wish others to help you in your quest? Coward! If you must, search for the Argonian Im-Leet, or perhaps the big Nord, Rolf the Uber. They will certainly wish to join you."

Seriously though there are two main reasons I dislike the idea of multiplayer RPGs, and I will be using Baldur's Gate as an example here.

Reason 1: RPGs are by their nature heavily story-driven. In RPGs that allow MP the game always singles out one party member to be 'the chosen one', leaving the rest of the group as unimportant ancillary characters - little more than controlled henchmen. This may be great for the main player, but sucks for everyone else.

Reason 2: You will always have those players that run around hoovering up all the good loot whilst the more narrative-minded players try and advance the plot (heaven forbid!). I know that this is a problem with the player base rather than an inherent problem of the game mode, but it is still a black mark that puts many players off the multiplayer aspect.

Oh, and in case I didn't mention it already:

"M'Aiq does not know this word. You wish others to help you in your quest? Coward! If you must, search for the Argonian Im-Leet, or perhaps the big Nord, Rolf the Uber. They will certainly wish to join you."

 

[Stalydan]

Obligatory quote that I post in every thread discussing multiplayer RPGs:

"M'Aiq does not know this word. You wish others to help you in your quest? Coward! If you must, search for the Argonian Im-Leet, or perhaps the big Nord, Rolf the Uber. They will certainly wish to join you."

Seriously though there are two main reasons I dislike the idea of multiplayer RPGs, and I will be using Baldur's Gate as an example here.

Reason 1: RPGs are by their nature heavily story-driven. In RPGs that allow MP the game always singles out one party member to be 'the chosen one', leaving the rest of the group as unimportant ancillary characters - little more than controlled henchmen. This may be great for the main player, but sucks for everyone else.

Reason 2: You will always have those players that run around hoovering up all the good loot whilst the more narrative-minded players try and advance the plot (heaven forbid!). I know that this is a problem with the player base rather than an inherent problem of the game mode, but it is still a black mark that puts many players off the multiplayer aspect.

Oh, and in case I didn't mention it already:

"M'Aiq does not know this word. You wish others to help you in your quest? Coward! If you must, search for the Argonian Im-Leet, or perhaps the big Nord, Rolf the Uber. They will certainly wish to join you."

Yes, I can see the problems that you present but I'd like to offer solutions to each of them.

Solution 1: If I was to make a multiplayer RPG then I would make sure it has a damn good story. On top of that, I would not make anybody in the group "the chosen one". Instead I would go for the style of "the chosen few" where a small group bands together with common skills or interests. Things like crystals in old Final Fantasy games where the characters were blank slates but tied together by them all having a crystal shard each or something like that. Or even groups of knights. Things as simple as that can go a long way.

Solution 2: Well I can answer the first part anyway. Though I don't know (I'd presume it is featured though) whether any other MMOs have this function but DCUO has this cool little system called Group Loot. When a player picks up an item, the group is put into a vote as to who should have it. You can select pass, need or greed. I think it's kind of cool because the function is a chance roll to see who gets the item. Plus if somebody did pick up an item in the game, I'm sure I'd be playing with friends who would be able to decide themselves which person should get the item. It stops people from robbing all the items off enemy bodies as one person is fighting off all the monsters.

Stories though. It is a player base problem. It would mainly be about finding the right group of people to play with. Which is unfortunate really :/

 

[Da Orky Man]

I completely agree that you should be able to romp through the open world games with others.

Hell add in a dueling option. Now that would kick ass.

You more-or-less perfectly described the Borderlands multiplayer there. Just add guns, guns, guns and osme more guns, and it would have been spot on.

 

[RanD00M]

Look at an old game called Darkstone. It's quite fun, but it kinda has what you're talking about. The multiplayer aspect in it works fairly well. It's been some years since I played it but I do remember the MP being hella fun.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

>snippity<

Yes, I can see the problems that you present but I'd like to offer solutions to each of them.

Solution 1: If I was to make a multiplayer RPG then I would make sure it has a damn good story. On top of that, I would not make anybody in the group "the chosen one". Instead I would go for the style of "the chosen few" where a small group bands together with common skills or interests. Things like crystals in old Final Fantasy games where the characters were blank slates but tied together by them all having a crystal shard each or something like that. Or even groups of knights. Things as simple as that can go a long way.

Solution 2: Well I can answer the first part anyway. Though I don't know (I'd presume it is featured though) whether any other MMOs have this function but DCUO has this cool little system called Group Loot. When a player picks up an item, the group is put into a vote as to who should have it. You can select pass, need or greed. I think it's kind of cool because the function is a chance roll to see who gets the item. Plus if somebody did pick up an item in the game, I'm sure I'd be playing with friends who would be able to decide themselves which person should get the item. It stops people from robbing all the items off enemy bodies as one person is fighting off all the monsters.

Stories though. It is a player base problem. It would mainly be about finding the right group of people to play with. Which is unfortunate really :/

It's been my personal experience that people who find 'the right people to play with' start a tabletop group. The advantages of this are huge; the GM can customise each and every single quest to relate to the individual players, that guy who snaffles all the loot is within arm's reach, it gets you out of the house, etc. Perhaps that's why multiplayer RPGs haven't really been given all that much attention by developers - because they could only ever do poorly what tabletop games do expertly.

 

[s0p0g]

Borderlands is a RPG? ^^

also, BG II and the like did it quite well, i think.

 

[Vrach]

I'm not sure what about my Skyrim experience would be greatly improved by watching some Argonian named Raistlin bunny hopping across my screen before killing the quest giver I was trying to talk to, but I suppose I could just not be your target audience.

No one said anything about grouping with random people, having the option to invite friends into a TES game would be just fine.

OT: I'm always in favour of co-ops and they're slowly making a comeback so I don't think it'll be too long before we see something like it, especially after Borderlands broke the ice (and was quite successful iirc, despite having some huge glaring flaws, the shitty story not being the least of them).

What I like most about co-op is the fact you can use actual strategy. You know how MMOs rest on raiding, which come down to strategy? Imagine the same thing, but in another genre. Having to work together with other people to bring a big boss down or invade a city, storm a fortress or something. There's a lot of potential in co-op, but it does take some ingenuity to design encounters and that's something we haven't been too good with so far.

 

[Stalydan]

I'm not sure what about my Skyrim experience would be greatly improved by watching some Argonian named Raistlin bunny hopping across my screen before killing the quest giver I was trying to talk to, but I suppose I could just not be your target audience.

No one said anything about grouping with random people, having the option to invite friends into a TES game would be just fine.

OT: I'm always in favour of co-ops and they're slowly making a comeback so I don't think it'll be too long before we see something like it, especially after Borderlands broke the ice (and was quite successful iirc, despite having some huge glaring flaws, the shitty story not being the least of them).

What I like most about co-op is the fact you can use actual strategy. You know how MMOs rest on raiding, which come down to strategy? Imagine the same thing, but in another genre. Having to work together with other people to bring a big boss down or invade a city, storm a fortress or something. There's a lot of potential in co-op, but it does take some ingenuity to design encounters and that's something we haven't been too good with so far.

I think you hit the nail on the head. It's not about random people joining your games like an MMO, it's more like co-op in a sense. And yeah, if a game was to focus on that style of play, it would need to change around quests to work more with a couple of people in it instead of one.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

try Guild wars?

 

[Stalydan]

try Guild wars?

I think you're missing the point. It's not about MMOs, it's about typical RPGs like The Witcher, The Elder Scrolls and Fallout. How would those types of games (not those actual game themselves) be able to use a multiplayer/co-op aspect in their games without it breaking down the base mechanics?

Also, I enjoyed Guild Wars, it's a fun little game.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

Guild Wars is a lot closer to a 'traditional RPG' than to MMOs and seems to fit exactly within the parameters defined in the OP. /shrug

 

[godofallu]

I completely agree that you should be able to romp through the open world games with others.

Hell add in a dueling option. Now that would kick ass.

You more-or-less perfectly described the Borderlands multiplayer there. Just add guns, guns, guns and osme more guns, and it would have been spot on.

I also am describing Dark Souls. Hey an open ish world RPG where you can do COOP or duel but it doesn't ruin the game.

But of course Dark Souls's multiplayer while quite fun, is generally garbage due to the difficulty in getting your 2 friends into your game so you can clear an area. Plus if they die once, you have to backtrack and take forever getting them back in.

Oh and one of the Fable games sold real well due to the promise of COOP. My roommate and I bought it together at the midnight release waiting to play through the game together. Too bad the coop wasn't done by release time, and then it never was actually put in properly. The camera was broken.

Borderlands was decent, but hey while playing splitscreen the inventory/quest screen gets cut off and makes the game almost unplayable. Again good concept ruined by an easy to fix issue.

Why does every company that adds multiplyer into a RPG have to fuck it up with game breaking bullshit? Maybe ME3 won't...

 

[Stalydan]

I completely agree that you should be able to romp through the open world games with others.

Hell add in a dueling option. Now that would kick ass.

You more-or-less perfectly described the Borderlands multiplayer there. Just add guns, guns, guns and osme more guns, and it would have been spot on.

I also am describing Dark Souls. Hey an open ish world RPG where you can do COOP or duel but it doesn't ruin the game.

But of course Dark Souls's multiplayer while quite fun, is generally garbage due to the difficulty in getting your 2 friends into your game so you can clear an area. Plus if they die once, you have to backtrack and take forever getting them back in.

Oh and one of the Fable games sold real well due to the promise of COOP. My roommate and I bought it together at the midnight release waiting to play through the game together. Too bad the coop wasn't done by release time, and then it never was actually put in properly. The camera was broken.

Borderlands was decent, but hey while playing splitscreen the inventory/quest screen gets cut off and makes the game almost unplayable. Again good concept ruined by an easy to fix issue.

Why does every company that adds multiplyer into a RPG have to fuck it up with game breaking bullshit? Maybe ME3 won't...

I like where the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer is sounding. Not deathmatch (which would honestly not work well in this game myselft) but co-op missions which can then help you in the single player. Nice intergration but hopefully is doesn't break the single player itself.