The lack of multiplayer in RPGs

[DoPo]

why is it that everyone here seems to assume that the only type of multiplayer is online

Maybe because OP mentioned 100+ people. I don't see a hundred people flocking on LAN very often.

Take Skyrim for instance, there's no multiplayer whatsoever and yet the game lends itself so well to the implementation of it.

No, it absolutely doesn't. It's explained above but all the TES games so far are really centred around the PC, introducing more of them breaks the flow. I see where you're getting at - a multiplayer TES game could work and it might be nice, but it's not going to be any of the existing ones.

I've never seen any developers attempt at implementing small online worlds like that, some games really lend themselves to it. Would you prefer it if Skyrim was playable online like this?

Well, there is Second Life - that's close to what you're describing, I think. And there is EVE Online which is a player-driven world. The World of Darkness Online promises it would feature this as well, as does the Pathfinder MMO. I'm not entirely sure but MUDs are sandbox-y as far as I'm aware (or I may be horribly wrong, excuse me in that case) and I assume there are some Neverwinter Nights servers that focus on something similar to what you want.

 

[demotion1]

It depends on the game. I would really like co-op multiplayer for 2 people in Skyrim for instance. It doesn't fit in story based RPG's like Dragon Age on the other hand.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

No, please stop suggesting this. They already turned Mass Effect into a multiplayer shooter because of you guys suggesting this crap and execs sitting round board room tables going "It has to have multiplayer, OMG!!!11!!!".

Leave our single-player epic RPGs alone! There are enough games designed for precisely what you guys are asking (Borderlands, Neverwinter Nights 1/2, Splinter Cell Conviction, etc). I want incredible games like Skyrim and Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and you want to take even that away from us :-(

 

[ThriKreen]

Leave our single-player epic RPGs alone! There are enough games designed for precisely what you guys are asking (Borderlands, Neverwinter Nights 1/2, Splinter Cell Conviction, etc). I want incredible games like Skyrim and Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and you want to take even that away from us :-(

No one's taking SP RPGs away from you, they just want to be able to also play RPGs in a MP but not MMO environment, not convert all SP into MP only games.

That said, NWN has a number of persistent worlds that people have set up with their own worlds and quests and such, and some even have DMs that would take into account the player actions and alter the world accordingly to that.

A NWN-based engine that allowed dynamic world changing on the fly on the other hand, would be amazing.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think that many of the things RPGs need to work in multiplayer (real-time gameplay with no pause option and easily scalable challenges in particular) are not things that fit together very well with good RPG design.

 

[malestrithe]

I can see multiplayer working only when the character creation lends itself to multiplayer.

If you have a title, like Courier, Lone Wanderer, or something like that, then it would not wok for multiplayer.

Something like Dragonblood, Dragon born, or something like that can lend itself to a multiplayer setting.

Hell, even something like Shepard could work in multiplayer. In all outside the game justifications I've seen to explain away the unfinished character creation process, Shepard is nothing more than a code name given to all members of this secret organization, so it might be possible that hundreds, if not thousands of Shepards exist all over the galaxy. Of course, that would mean each mission might have a one Shepard rule and the other characters will need different code names for that mission.

 

[ThriKreen]

I think that many of the things RPGs need to work in multiplayer (real-time gameplay with no pause option and easily scalable challenges in particular) are not things that fit together very well with good RPG design.

Depends on if you're going for more stats or story oriented RPG gameplay, but then again, either is possible as is a mix of the two that can be fun and engaging in a coop MP setting.

I mean, you can view Dungeon Defenders as such, characters have stats, no pause, scaling challenges. Or NWN.

People resistant to the idea really need to expand how they view RPG gameplay mechanics and be more open to all the forms that it offers.

A story-based RPG in a coop set up has been done if you want to consider NWN with a DM as such (so the DM can alter the story as it goes along). One without a DM, afaik, hasn't been done properly yet, but it's certainly doable, just the risk is a bit high for traditional AAA-studios to engage in.

I don't consider SW:TOR's coop MP aspect to fit in that mold, as there's no actual MP, it's dice rolls of conversation options depending on who wins, no actual coop part.

 

[Heinrich843]

I absolutely would not mind an OPTION for the next Elder Scrolls game to be played co-operationally. The sheer awesomeness of exploring a Bethesda game world with your friend would be well worth it.

Basically, RPGs can have the OPTION for multi-player as long as it literally means "multi-player". Not massive multiplayer, just a few players.

That way you and close friends, significant others, family, or whomever- can play the damned game together.

 

[Dr Jones]

Vault said it best:

eh....I would rather not

it seems they all want to be MMO's...

better to put the focus where it matters

Also, awesome new profile pic, definitely far better than your previous Garrus one <.<

 

[hermes]

Skyrim doesn't translate well to an MMO, but it could work well on a controlled multiplayer game. I am thinking something closer to Borderlands than World of Warcraft. 2 or 3 people top...

Other RPGs might lend even less to multiplayer. Games with a heavy story focus or little customization (I am thinking mostly on JRPGs here). Its hard to be "the chosen one" who escaped his village when the evil empire burn it when there are several dozens chosen ones running around. DQ10 will be interesting to see how it works...

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

I'm not entirely sure but MUDs are sandbox-y as far as I'm aware (or I may be horribly wrong, excuse me in that case)

Having written code for and run one for several years way back in the day, I feel qualified to address this. They can be pretty much anything (it's a whole lot quicker and easier to try out all sorts of weird things when you don't have to worry about representing anything visually), but that is indeed generally how the most popular ones were/are. The standard, stereotypical MUD is basically your generic MMO (which developed almost directly out of MUDs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DikuMUD#Legacy]; not surprisingly, that's the same codebase we used), except text-only. They're so similar, in fact, that I found EQ and (vanilla) WoW boring because they did pretty much zero things I hadn't already seen or thought of or even implemented myself before...they just did it much prettier and more polished and on a much larger scale. The main difference aside from that is probably that MUDs could/can run on almost anything and take far fewer people to support, so there's the potential for a lot more variety and niche appeal, along with smaller, more close-knit communities.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Many of the people here are missing the point about why MP won't work well in the games that we currently enjoy single player. Kahunaburger got the idea so to expand from his well made point, it goes as follows: if the game has to cater for the possibility of being played by two (or more) players, together, then compromises HAVE to be made to account for this. Further, development time, money and resources have to go into this feature as well.

The first point I make includes scalability but is not just limited to that. The game has to be designed to allow for multiple players, including world/level design, story and in the case of RPGs, skills, spells, talents, abilities, etc. A compromise would need to made on every single thing in that list. It may even entail, as with Splinter Cell: Conviction, an entirely different story/campaign. Which leads onto the other point...

The second point is the (now) age-old question that is raised every time we hear about Day 1 DLC, ODLC (On-Disc Locked Content), etc. If the developers are spending time on something, anything, other than the single-player experience, it will inevitably be worse than if they did not. That time could be better used, f.ex, making the "world" bigger, the game more stable, the textures better looking or myriad other things.

I have no objection to multiplayer games, I love some of them. Borderlands, SC: Conviction and after tonight, possibly Saint's Row 3, designed for that purpose are great. But I want to blaze my own path through Skyrim (with my choice of mods), Deus Ex, The Witcher 1/2, at my pace and get wrapped up as the protagonist in a sweeping tale at my own pace. On a 2nd playthrough I may want to cheat and have more fun with the game that way.

I understand the feeling that "it would be nice to share this particular experience with a friend who'd appreciate it as much as me" (As I suggested, the "Civil War" chain in Skyrim would lend itself well to opposing players). But it passes and I continue enjoying the game just fine without it. There are many free-to-play MMOs now like DCUO, City of Villains, LotRO which can be played with friends. Please, please leave our SP games alone, I beseech you.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

eh....I would rather not

it seems they all want to be MMO's...

better to put the focus where it matters

Yeah, I'm going to go with that. If you wanna play your MMOs that's fine with me, but the ones I've played seemed empty and shallow to me.

 

[Dalek Caan]

The only game that I would want as an RPG online game would be the upcoming game Dragons Dogma. That really does seem like a game where you and a friend could quest together with your pawns and climb upon a dragon wanting it to fly off with you and your friend on its back. Skyrim I really couldn't see as online. How would questing work? If one person starts the quest does the other person on the other side Skyrim then get it? What would happen if one person becomes the Arch-Mage and the other wants to?

 

[Something Amyss]

it seems they all want to be MMO's...

While I agree, I really would like something in between single player and MMO.

Hopefully something that does not mandate multiplayer, either. I'd like Drop-in play.

 

[Rawne1980]

I don't like multiplayer as it is but I like RPG's.

If they start slapping multiplayer in RPG's i'm just giving up and changing my pass time.

 

[Rumpsteak]

Tack on multi-player if you want but if you ask for any more resources be taken from the single-player to balance it then I ask that all multi-player centric games put as much thought and resources into a single-player option.

 

[Jasper Jeffs]

The only game that I would want as an RPG online game would be the upcoming game Dragons Dogma. That really does seem like a game where you and a friend could quest together with your pawns and climb upon a dragon wanting it to fly off with you and your friend on its back. Skyrim I really couldn't see as online. How would questing work? If one person starts the quest does the other person on the other side Skyrim then get it? What would happen if one person becomes the Arch-Mage and the other wants to?

It seems a lotta people don't understand what I mean in this thread. There would be no NPCs in the world (in the case of Skyrim there probably would be in dungeons), no quests and no single player storyline. The world would literally be a sandbox, it's hard to describe if you haven't played something like GMod RP or SA:MP RP. They aren't MMOs, they're much fucking smaller than that both in player base and world size.

As for people using me as a scapegoat for poor implementation of multiplayer, lol. I know to some people I'm playing devil's advocate, but take your ME3 woes up with EA.

 

[Jynthor]

I'd rather not have developers waste time on Multiplayer which would be dead in a month while they could be improving the Single Player aspects.