I really think what your looking for is Eve. I haven't played it myself but i had a friend who was nearly obsessed with it. Or do you want something like Eve set in a fantasy world?Jasper Jeffs said:
The lack of multiplayer in RPGs
- Thread starter Jasper Jeffs
- Start date
Of course it's possible for a game to be multiplayer and also be something that could be called an RPG. The question is, however, whether the inherent limitations of multiplayer make RPGs better or worse. Games like Dark Souls (real-time ARPGs designed from the ground up as action games) work, games that stick to the RPG genre's tactical/simulation wargame roots work, but ARPGs that are built around core design elements designed to facilitate tactical/simulationist wargaming tend not to. That way lies grind.ThriKreen said:
It shocks me to see many here taking the idea at face value, without stopping to think about the possibilities. While I do not necessarily agree with the OP's 100+ sandbox idea (It has been done multiple times, with mixed results), I would LOVE a co-op RPG that I can play with friends, say, at a LAN party or online.
Many people here are citing games like shooters or MMOs, while not looking at the idea past these two examples. Another problem here is that people are looking t\at their favorite SP RPGs and imagining co-op laid over it. Of course you aren't going to like the results, as Mass Effect and Skyrim weren't built for co-op gameplay. There is only one Shepherd, and there is only one Dragonborn. But what if it were Elder Scrolls or Fallout but built for cooperation. You aren't a single-named hero, thus leaving it open for others to join you. Like Diablo or such.
Why should multiplayer as a whole be held with contempt just because a few leave a bad taste in your mouth? Don't think of something that is but what it could be. Unless you're like Yahtzee and you hate MP because you have no friends. But if you weren't forced into multiplayer, why would you go out of your way to take it from the rest of us?
Many people here are citing games like shooters or MMOs, while not looking at the idea past these two examples. Another problem here is that people are looking t\at their favorite SP RPGs and imagining co-op laid over it. Of course you aren't going to like the results, as Mass Effect and Skyrim weren't built for co-op gameplay. There is only one Shepherd, and there is only one Dragonborn. But what if it were Elder Scrolls or Fallout but built for cooperation. You aren't a single-named hero, thus leaving it open for others to join you. Like Diablo or such.
Why should multiplayer as a whole be held with contempt just because a few leave a bad taste in your mouth? Don't think of something that is but what it could be. Unless you're like Yahtzee and you hate MP because you have no friends. But if you weren't forced into multiplayer, why would you go out of your way to take it from the rest of us?
I dont get why people seem so upset, the idea of 100 people does sound bad but I would like to have the option for a 2 or 3 player mode where it was just the same as the singleplayer and the players would be free to do what they wanted (team up as a party or go seperate ways doing seperate quests to improve themselfs and try to take out the other players, or not, whatever, its their choice). It would work better if only played with friends.
This drives me insane. The active calling for the utter ruin of the RPG. The RPG is being attacked on more than one level, but this is definetly one of the worst, and sadly, most likely ways that RPG's will be destroyed.
You want to play a multiplayer RPG type game. . . THEY HAVE THOSE, THEY ARE CALLED MMO's!!!.
One in particular, WoW, is one of the most popular games in existance.
There is no reason, none, nade, nyet, to destroy awesome single player RPG's for the sake of multiplayer, when awesome multiplayer RPG's already exist.
You people won't be happy until everything is a variant of CoD will you?
You want to play a multiplayer RPG type game. . . THEY HAVE THOSE, THEY ARE CALLED MMO's!!!.
One in particular, WoW, is one of the most popular games in existance.
There is no reason, none, nade, nyet, to destroy awesome single player RPG's for the sake of multiplayer, when awesome multiplayer RPG's already exist.
You people won't be happy until everything is a variant of CoD will you?
Another prime example of someone failing to see the point. I don't even play COD either, so take your retarded generalisations and go learn to fucking read. If you wanna ***** about the intrusion of multiplayer in games, fine, but don't use me as a fucking scapegoat.Semitendon said:
No. In fact, I wish they'd stop shoving in multiplayer in a lot of other titles as well. RPGs are one of the last games I have i can play singleplayer. Keep it as far away from my RPGs as humanly possible.
I just can't think of a single RPG where my experience would have been improved by having other players in it. I can see why some people might find the idea appealing but I prefer to lose myself in the game and not be pulled out of it every 3 seconds by my friends being jackasses.
I just can't think of a single RPG where my experience would have been improved by having other players in it. I can see why some people might find the idea appealing but I prefer to lose myself in the game and not be pulled out of it every 3 seconds by my friends being jackasses.
They have those too, Borderlands and Dead Island jump to mind. The point is, there is no reason to force development teams to change perfectly good single player games into multiplayer games. The development teams don't have to deal with making everything fit into a multiplayer friendly system, and everyone involved can focus on story and dynamics of a single type instead of split, looking at ways to make multiplayer work.Anthraxus said:
No. I get your point all too well. You are advocating changing an excellent single player game into another multiplayer game. That's your point. End of fucking story.Jasper Jeffs said:
My point still stands. There is no reason to destroy an excellent single player game, when excellent multiplayer games already exist. You want aspects of Skyrims story, and as I read it, basically opposing teams, jobs, and a small functioning world to exist in multiplayer style. Which is fine, if you were advocating a new game, or altering and expanding an existing multiplayer game.
But, you aren't. You want Skyrim, and by extension Bethesda, to bend to your will. Strip their development teams of the ability to focus on making a huge dynamic world, and force them to cater to the idea of multiplayer compatibility.
You want to know what my big problem is? Companies listen to the fans. They did it with Mass Effect, and we all know how that went. I don't want the next Elder Scrolls to suffer because people don't think about the consquences of what they ask for.
I hope you get your dream game, I really do. But, let's not destroy something that was already awesome to get it.
I read this, closed the thread tab, thought about it for a few seconds, and came up with something... so I opened up the tab again.Phoenixmgs said:
What you'd have to do with a co-op oriented Mass Effect, I think, is to not let any of the players be the leader character. Shepard would be an NPC, and all the players would work as advisers when it comes to decision-making for the group. Influence over Shepard's decisions would be determined by virtual dice rolls involving alignment, charisma, etc..
Once in battle, it would also be up to the players to keep Shepard alive, while the players themselves can be "revived" (by each other or Shepard) if they fall in battle. (That said, Shepard wouldn't necessarily have to be present all of the time.)
This is just an idea, though. Not something I'd actually ask to see in future RPGs.
Having had a go at Saint's Row 3 co-op with a friend yesterday, I must admit it is enjoyable and in some circumstances can work. It's not a perfect system by any stretch...co-op is basically the host's single player campaign with a friend in there. The guest can progress themselves in some ways, but not in others.
The most enjoyable part of the evening for me I had nothing to do with. I went AFK briefly to get a drink and while I was gone, my friend stole and brilliantly re-arranged several cars out of my field of view. On returning, I saw the results and was in hysterics at what he'd done. This works in SR3 because it's a playground for having fun in. Skyrim and TES titles are not. There are consequences to actions and a world that is shaped by our individual decisions.
On the flip side, someone else mentioned Dragon Age and having thought about it, I think maybe it would work there. Why? The more structured, linear approach means players can proceed apace and further, it is a party based game whose gameplay directly works around balanced, complementary team members. Conversations and decisions would be interesting to handle...maybe something like SWTOR, or the host decides...
For those after multiplayer RPG experiences, I've looked around and there are quite a few already out there:
Borderlands, Diablo 2/3, Baldur's Gate II, Neverwinter Nights 1/2, Dungeon Siege III, Dead Island, Sacred 1/2, LotR: War of the North, D&D: Daggerdale, Too Human, Port Royale 3 (also has Pirates!!), Titan Quest, Two Worlds II, Fable III, Hellgate: London and forthcoming titles such as Neverwinter and Torchlight II. Not to mention the entire catalogue of F2P MMOs. Also, cross-genre titles like RE5, SC: Conviction, Hunted: Demon's Forge.
The most enjoyable part of the evening for me I had nothing to do with. I went AFK briefly to get a drink and while I was gone, my friend stole and brilliantly re-arranged several cars out of my field of view. On returning, I saw the results and was in hysterics at what he'd done. This works in SR3 because it's a playground for having fun in. Skyrim and TES titles are not. There are consequences to actions and a world that is shaped by our individual decisions.
On the flip side, someone else mentioned Dragon Age and having thought about it, I think maybe it would work there. Why? The more structured, linear approach means players can proceed apace and further, it is a party based game whose gameplay directly works around balanced, complementary team members. Conversations and decisions would be interesting to handle...maybe something like SWTOR, or the host decides...
For those after multiplayer RPG experiences, I've looked around and there are quite a few already out there:
Borderlands, Diablo 2/3, Baldur's Gate II, Neverwinter Nights 1/2, Dungeon Siege III, Dead Island, Sacred 1/2, LotR: War of the North, D&D: Daggerdale, Too Human, Port Royale 3 (also has Pirates!!), Titan Quest, Two Worlds II, Fable III, Hellgate: London and forthcoming titles such as Neverwinter and Torchlight II. Not to mention the entire catalogue of F2P MMOs. Also, cross-genre titles like RE5, SC: Conviction, Hunted: Demon's Forge.