Since he is quoted as saying multi-player "was one of the very first things on the list"
This is worrisome…
It was for Divvinity 1 as well, he wrote ! Remember ?
Since he is quoted as saying multi-player "was one of the very first things on the list"
This is worrisome…
Why? Does being near the top of the list mean it is more important than anything else on the list?
What if a strong single player experience was also one of the first things on the list?
No, that is not what he said. You guys are missing the subtly in his wording (probably influenced by your optimism).
No, that is not what he said. You guys are missing the subtly in his wording (probably influenced by your optimism). Assuming his beliefs are in precise coordination with his wording. He said MP "was one of the very first things on the list". That means it could have been THE first thing on the list, higher priority than anything else. THAT is worrisome. In addition, he hasn't said whether anything else is "one of the first things on the list". That ups the concern level for me.You can choose to ignore the evidence, but this certainly brings some uncertainty re SP priority vs MP.!
Who is drawing conclusions? Worrying is not concluding. Not worrying is being oblivious.
Semantics.. but I guess I was expecting that by now. I think everyone just needs to just chill out and wait until we have more confirmed information.
That's what will actually be possible, if I read the preview correctly.For example, choice and consequence from dialogues can never be as elaborate as in a pure SP game because you don't want to enable player A to force player B into certain consequences or vice versa.
Macbeth said:I can only corroborate what Swen said before: the single player experience is just as important to us as the multiplayer one.
In the RPGWatch topic Moriendor says:
There probably are games to which this logic may apply, Moriendor, but we will most certainly do our very best to prove you wrong as far as Original Sin is concerned. And no, I'm not lying!Moriendor said:Seriously, they all lie about this stuff. Of course they will tell us that SP and MP are equally viable but if the game was made with a strong focus on multiplayer then you will notice it to some extent. It doesn't necessarily have to ruin the SP but the SP will likely never be as good as it could have been if the game was made with purely SP in mind from the beginning.
Lar said:Yeah, I've seen that which means we didn't communicate very well, but I think the debate is going to move away as we show more and more stuff. The cooperative mechanics translate very well to party mechanics in single player, and the system is much more complex than might be surmised from the little details we've shown so far. Rather than type essays about it, I think we'll address this in a future video under the motto show, don't tell
If anyone can name a single developer that's ever said "Yeah we're putting an emphasis on multiplayer. If you like single player better, well, tough, you're screwed… and now get out of my face, kthx" I will give you a cookie .
because you don't want to enable player A to force player B into certain consequences or vice versa.
Div:OS doesn't seem like a MP game to me, but rather like a classic party-based RPG. A party-based RPG with a smaller than usual party, two protagonists instead of only one (or none), with the incredible option of having a human player take over one of the protagonists for co-op action.
For people wondering what Raze is posting exactly. Your little squabble about multiplayer vs single player reached the official D:OS forum.
Sure there is.There's no denying it, really.
Nothing wrong infusing co-op with an element of competitiveness at all.For example, choice and consequence from dialogues can never be as elaborate as in a pure SP game because you don't want to enable player A to force player B into certain consequences or vice versa. You'll have to "dumb down" the consequences and make them rather mild to avoid massive frustration.
You need to design games to hold against an abusive player, MP component or not.The moment you start walking down the MP road you need to analyze each feature very carefully to figure out whether an abusive player could wreck the game and you definitely need to make some compromises that you would not have to make if it was a pure SP game.
On the other hand, in this particular case the co-op considerations might actually enhance SP positively - like party dynamics (for example, since the pool of responses exists for both protagonists, the game could pick the non-pc one´s responses randomly to some extent, to maintain unpredictability) or quest solutions (non combat, I mean) where player has to switch between the characters.It doesn't necessarily have to ruin the SP but the SP will likely never be as good as it could have been if the game was made with purely SP in mind from the beginning.