| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Side Quest: Multiplayer Blues |
|
“Online” is the power word of this gaming generation. From game producer’s eyeing the massive mountain of repeatable income that World of Warcraft produces to Microsoft’s emphasis on Xbox Live with their next-gen console – it’s a checkbox that publishers are keen to tick off. Draw-dropping graphics….check. Action-oriented and appeals to casual demographics…check. Multiplayer…check. Sorry, what was that? It doesn’t make much sense to have a 32-player deathmatch mode in a story-driven RPG? Who cares? It looks good on the back of the box – and remember that other game that didn’t have multiplayer – yeah, that one - the one where that big review site listed “No Multiplayer” as the only con…we don’t want that again. Ooh – take out the “story-driven RPG” bit and that fixes the problem!
<br>
<br>In fairness to publishers, it’s a feature the gaming public wants and its success is proven. The problem: it isn’t suited to deep, traditional RPGs. You know – those things we had before the industry converted entirely to action/RPGs, which – funnily enough – are often quite well suited to multiplayer.
<br>
<br>Some of you are poised, fingers over the keyboard like poison daggers, to vehemently disagree or point out the success of Neverwinter Nights. I agree…but NWN is the exclusion that proves the rule. I’m not against multiplayer as such - I’m against multiplayer <em>just for the sake of it.</em>
<br>
<br>There are a multitude of reasons why MP is a problem for more complex, story-focused RPGs. Development time and resources need to be allocated to the basic multiplayer code, interfaces need to be designed and issues such as quest continuity (what happens if player B has the Sword of Sirius in their inventory but doesn’t play the next session?) need to be addressed. Nothing insurmountable but these resources are not being spent on other content.
<br>
<br>The bigger issue is one of focus and direction. I played NWN for over a year with a great group of players from RPGDot. I had some brilliant roleplaying experiences, in no small part due to the quality of the other players and creativity of a good DM. Even so, dialogue-heavy modules sometimes became bogged down. Ultimately, since <em>someone</em> needs to interact with the NPCs and make decisions, it becomes <em>their</em> roleplaying experience with the other players relegated to combat support roles. Sophisticated checks such as stat, race, sex or factional standing (rare enough in RPGs as it is) become less meaningful or even pointless. Decisions and branching plot-lines become less important than the shared experiences among the players. Designers can respond by shifting the focus away from the impact an individual character makes on the gameworld to something a little more generic and linear, so the content remains meaningful to a player who joins one session – or focus on combat/action. MMO players will know this is exactly what MMORPGs do – there are social interactions between players but the only meaningful interaction between groups and the gameworld is combat-oriented.
<br>
<br>Some of these issues can be partially – but not entirely - resolved with the right design, which is why NWN works fairly well. It’s why I have hope that Dragon Age, with its separate dedicated multiplayer campaign will work. And it’s why MP works in action/RPGs, where complex NPCs interactions are eschewed for the excitement of team combat dynamics. It’s certainly something that needs to be carefully and cleverly designed at the basic concept level, rather than bolting on during development or you end up with a crappy game <em>and</em> crappy, pointless multiplayer.
<br>
<br>If you want a co-op or multiplayer, there are whole genres devoted to it – so please, leave the tiny handful of non-action single-player RPGs alone.
<br>
<br>What do you think? Love it or hate it? Does the importance of multiplayer gaming to the market adversely impact the number or type of RPGs made? Or is multiplayer a potential tool that RPGs should embrace to extend their audience? We’d love to hear your comments. |
Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:09 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I think that MP does ditract from SP games. MP is all wasted code and money for me as I'll never use it. I like playing SP games as a single player, thats whacky ain't it. I liked wow so much because I could solo it. If I get a chance to play a game the last thing I want is to wait on others, or pay for their stupid mistakes. Also, when the old lady starts a-yelling, I need to go a-running.
The exception to this is two-player games. My wife likes simple games but has also played Gladius with me and we both had a good time. Same with all the fake rpg action games such as fbos, bgdark alliance, x-men legends, etc. We had a great time playing fourswords. I wish minish cap was two players as we fought for time playing that game (but I quit when it turned more into a jumping pzzle game).
I would much rather not play with my wife, but if my choices are play a silly game with her or no game at all, guess what I'll pick?
I did play both BG's in MP mode, but not with other people, I did it to be able to create all my own characters. But that is a good exaple of a semi-story driven (more action combat driven in my opinion) game that had mp. As well as arcanum, (that had mp didnt it?)
But just imagine if games didn't. What if DL didnt and all the time, money and resources went into the real game? What if lionheart didnt? Would these have been better games?
Should SP game fans pay by having a simplified MP game? I say yes if that is where the sales are. If having no MP feature hurts the sales enough of a game that not having MP is not a viable option I say put it in. That would be the minority screwing the majority. I want the minority of gamers who enjoy actual rpgs and who are not superficial to be angry and disatisfied enough to spurn the main stream market and by smaller games exlusivly. That will add enough money into the indie market to have more real rpgs made. I have given up on the big devs. Screw em, they wont get my money any more. I will buy from nival and the small devs/indie devs only.
Its wierd how more good games come out for the gba than the pc. I think fire emblem might be a tb game.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:25 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Just to clarify since i jumped from single player games to wow, and gba to a gamecube game. I know I skipped some connectors to points, but who cares?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:00 pm |
|
|
GothicGothicness
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 04 Oct 2003
Posts: 110
|
I'm suprised that MMORPGS are so popular, especially in the case of WOW, if you look at it, it lacks everything a good RPG should have, such as roleplaying ( no not even any good RP on the RP servers! ) memorable characters, good gameplay ( Now it's my turn to strike YAY, okay I pushed a button, for a skill ! cool ). Character development... whooops one of my points was spent wrongly... I better go to webiste and look at the ultimate configuration and spend a few gold coins to set change it all to the way it should be.
There is one thing ( THE ONE THING ) that makes them so popular though, and that's the no end game, I've always felt it such a waste to spend numerous days to level up my characters to complete a single player roleplaying game... just for it to be over. I think the notion of keeping the character and all the work you did, is what makes MMORPG's so popular and addicting to many. |
|
Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:01 pm |
|
|
ShadowMoses
Head Merchant
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 69
Location: UK |
I almost never play multiplayer... in any genre. The last MP that i enjoyed was co-op Ghost Recon (co-op lends itself well to tactical shooters).
I would much prefer games to focus on good SP.. especially with RPG's.
I'd love to play a co-op Gothic/Morrowind style game in an open world with a few friends... even just over LAN. The problem it, to make it work you need alot of organisation... either that or take a month of work! 
Anyway, i doubt such a game will ever be made without huge compromises.
As for MMO, it seems to me like paying to exist in a repeating nightmare!
_________________
Dak’kon: "Your reasons for your incessant clicking are not *known* to me."
-=:ASHES:=- || -=:Xenus-hq:=- |
|
Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:39 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
I agree with everything Dhruin said. I still play and DM regular sessions of NWN on our RPGDOT NWN server with people from here and it's fantastic fun because of all the mods which have been produced to extend the life of the game. I'm currently beta testing Minions of Mirth which is both an SP and MP game. Josh Ritter has, as Dhruin suggested, designed this gem to be both SP and MP from the ground up. Yes, it is an action RPG and there is little in the way of developmental dialogue, but it does have NPC's, quests which are more than FedEX a base storlyline and huge battles. It combines many benefits from SP games (eg you can play solo or create your own party) with MP specialties like Alliances and can be played on your own PC, or any any number of dedicated servers. Sure it won't please everyone (It's not a TB game), but at least someone is TRYING to cater to both groups properly.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:31 am |
|
|
Dyne
Village Dweller
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Posts: 17
Location: London, UK |
My opinion of MMORPGS can be summed up simply with: I grind 9-5 Monday to Friday in the real world. I don't want to do it when I get home too, and pay for the privilege. After paying £30 for a box, a disk and a manual.
I want my gaming and time to be rewarded with engaging, compelling story and character interaction; a true sense of accomplishment and power when I level, get that magical sword or save a character's life. Not someone running around shouting "wll sell +1 botos of sped!!1!1" or whatever.
A friend of mine put it best I think. On the subject of the latest MMORPG at the time: "Meh, until the box has a minimum spec. for the userbase I won't bother with any of them".
A proper sense of progression would be nice too. Rather than the simple, somewhat hollow "Oh, I can hunt more/bigger creatures and make more gold/items now". Which seems to be all that MMOs are capable of.
I just don't see the fun in them. Perhaps that's just my problem though, not having a go at the die-hard MMORPG players out there.
As for multiplayer in "normal" RPGs? Take it or leave it, personally I leave it. It's a handy option, and no doubt integral to NWN and the like, but I'd prefer the resources to be spent on more single player content.
While I wait for companies to pick up on this I guess it's back to Baldur's Gate II again...
_________________
Chonky big tim-tam Australian so-so. |
|
Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:55 am |
|
|
Jaz
Late Night Spook
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 9708
Location: RPGDot |
I want MP- only games for my MP experience and SP- only games for my SP- experience. I don't have any use for some additional MP-stuff in a game that's basically single-player... I'd rather have none at all.
_________________
Jaz |
|
Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:57 am |
|
|
Jadar
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 29 Dec 2003
Posts: 27
|
I don't even like multiplayer in a MMOG. |
|
Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:34 am |
|
|
Guest
|
| Side Quest: Multiplayer Blues |
|
The problem with trying to make an RPG game both SP and MP is that requirements are rather different for the two game types. I want to play the small band of unlikely, weak heroes who overcome impossible odds (as opposed to the current trend of e.g. NWN of having the PC being the über character who, in order to make it challenging, has to wade through armies of cannon fodder to meet a whole group of bosses). In SP you achieve this by creating a party (either player generated or recruited), while the MP way would be to get the players to cooperate to form this party.
SP allows the usage of a rich dialogue, turned based action (in its various forms), thorough exploration (I wouldn't want to be the MP Fighter who would have to stand around for minutes at a time while the Thief searched through the cleared out set of rooms for trapped/locked containers and hidden doors), and frequently a complex set of fighting actions (aimed shot, extra power attack, spell selection, etc).
MP requires a constant flow for all players involved, which requires different (and possibly more difficult) techniques. This is currently "solved" by making the game an "ACTION rpg", distorting the SP game in the process.
As I see it, NWN and KOTOR (and KOTOR II) are good examples of what happens to SP when MP mars SP. You get henchmen with more or less moronic AI who follow a preselected script you cannot adapt to the actual situation (you cannot hold your fighter back to cast the fireball spell and THEN send him in, so friendly fire options are fratricidal; The stupid fighter tries to rush the enemy, but as there is a chasm in between he just runs back and forth, never switching to the bow). Your single character has to be a jack of all trades, as the henchmen are unexplicably incapable of using their supposed expertise in dialoges and a number of other interactions, thus reducing the set of viable (main) player character options (unless you're willing to miss large parts of the nonessential game).
If someone can figure out a way to introduce MP without affecting the SP it's OK with me as I don't have to use the MP. However, I have yet to see it done, and it's probably inevitable that MP reduces the resources available to the SP development. |
|
Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:16 am |
|
|
Shimbatha
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Feb 2002
Posts: 78
Location: Jersey Shore |
Two things.
First of all, MP to me isn't worth the same as SP. I look at it this way...An hour spent in SP is worth about 10 hours spent in MP. Ohhh, I've played DAoC, EQ1 & 2, The Realm, Both BG games online, and even both Diablo titles...but the multiplayer suffered from two very horrible flaws (Which I believe someone in this thread already mentioned)
The fact that I had to depend on others to make my game exciting, and that I wasted time often waiting for spawns or trying to find my group while they were out exploring.
The constant down-time where you are doing nothing, and the horrible people you find online who drag your game down...these aren't things I can afford to do. I work 50+ hours a week. I have a family. I have very little time to game (Maybe an hour a day, at most) so when I do, I want to have fun. I want to do something menaingful in that hour...like rescue one of my NPCs from an evil wizard, or save a town's mine from some super-lich...not stand around a cave entrance waiting for a monster to spawn or waiting for my "buddies" to catch up to me and join me in my spawn-camping.
Secondly, I think the reason MP is so popular is because a high level, powerfully equipped character is seen as a status symbol. To us "Geeks", it is. I firmly believe almost all people who prefer online gaming to single player are just subconsciously playing to get an ego boost. They love to swagger about town, run their characters up to people and show them off while acting as if they are totally oblivious to everyone's incessant drooling over their rank. That's what the ultimate reward is...envy, jealousy, and adoration. That's why they play. |
|
Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:30 pm |
|
|
GothicGothicness
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 04 Oct 2003
Posts: 110
|
I have to add something very intressing to this discussion.
A reason to play multiplayer games that few of you might think of. To make money, heck I even know people who makes a living out of playing MMORPGS. Spending 100 hours a weak to level up and collect items for your character can earn you enough to make a decent living. You might also earn quite a few friends.
http://www.ige.com/
Spending the same amount of time in single player, earns you nothing in terms of money or friends, which makes it more suitable for simple enjoyment and relaxation. So I think it depends a lot on what a person is looking in for with his gaming in which he chooses. |
|
Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:02 pm |
|
|
abbaon
Guest
|
| Re: Side Quest: Multiplayer Blues |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
Sorry, what was that? It doesn’t make much sense to have a 32-player deathmatch mode in a story-driven RPG? Who cares? It looks good on the back of the box – and remember that other game that didn’t have multiplayer – yeah, that one - the one where that big review site listed “No Multiplayer” as the only con…we don’t want that again. Ooh – take out the “story-driven RPG” bit and that fixes the problem!
Then they probably had a power lunch, LOL! Dial back the sarcasm. One Codex is puh-lenty. |
|
Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:51 am |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
