Underworld Ascendant - Questions Wanted

[DArtagnan]

Perhaps the unity engine does nicely dove tail for a co-op feature. But if you want to make a co-op game then make a co-op game right up front with no qualifiers regarding the funding. I'm not against co-op, just make it part of the original pie.

And your very own example is exactly how the developer should do it. Get the game out first and then add a patch later.

However, as I think about, if they get the funding they want then I guess you can say co-op is part of the original pie. So the resources will be allocated accordingly.

However, since I typed all this up, I'll be damned if I delete it. I guess I'm selfish too, people being people.

Hehe, well, as I said it's no big deal.

If you genuinely believe you can't, "truly" and successfully, adapt a game early in development to involve cooperative gameplay - I can understand being against it.

Personally, I think you can easily adapt a game with a design approach like this to it - and especially if you've already considered it an option from the start, and if you're an experienced developer using an engine with so many core features in place.

But your reasons don't strike me as selfish - so I take that back, in your case

 

[Kordanor]

For me "Coop" is a rather easy sum of facts.

The implementation of coop:
-You can implement Coop as a tacked on feature, like in the original Baldurs Gate. Some people enjoyed it. But imho it's a horrible experiences. Basically one player has to do all the reading while under time pressure and tell the other player what the actual story is. It doesn't complement the game at all.
-You can implement Coop as integrated feature like it was done in Divinity Original Sin. But even there is was implemented in a bad way (at least at release, reading the texts as the second player was a pain in the ass). In addition to net code, additional interfaces and so on this also requires a different quest design and adjustment in other elementary features. Some things, and some story won't even work in Coop. (Avatar, our prophecy told us that you will save our world!...together with Avatar 2 of course!)

In addition the audience using coop is tiny. So most of the players will not profit from this part of work the developers are putting into the game. And the budget is tiny anyways. So it's not just some small thing to put on top.

And now let's assume that we are interested in coop: Are there any games which have done it right? Which aren't MMOs and aren't Hack & Slay?
I can't think of any. Divinity: OS Coop might be working now after some patches. But I guess that's almost it.

So chances are that with the additional work put into the game is, there is not just "wasted" work for player who don't like coop, it might in fact "ruin" the game (having to find compromises for some mechanics/balancing/story/decisions).

In addition the description of coop sounded like an additional area which is then designed for coop only, which very much sounds like something like Mass Effect 3 had or something like Banner Saga had.

I would actually welcome a great coop RPG. But I don't think that this is the right project to pull off something like that.

 

[rjshae]

Perhaps the unity engine does nicely dove tail for a co-op feature. But if you want to make a co-op game then make a co-op game right up front with no qualifiers regarding the funding. I'm not against co-op, just make it part of the original pie.

And your very own example is exactly how the developer should do it. Get the game out first and then add a patch later.

However, as I think about, if they get the funding they want then I guess you can say co-op is part of the original pie. So the resources will be allocated accordingly.

However, since I typed all this up, I'll be damned if I delete it. I guess I'm selfish too, people being people.

Nope. If you're opposed to co-op, then this is the way to go about funding it.

If you put co-op mode in the original design criteria and only reached the base goal, then implementing it would use up a larger proportion of the net funding than if you add it in as a final stretch goal. I.e. if you don't reach the stretch goal, then nothing gets spent on co-op. If you do reach the stretch goal then you haven't really lost much because the extra funding is now in place; plus the total amount is now higher and so co-op is a smaller portion.

Adding co-op mode likely causes the game to reach a larger audience share, so in that sense it's comparable to doing a language port.

 

[Kordanor]

Also I think some people see the coop stretch goal as isolated thing.
Like it's the 1.2m stretchgoal instead of the 1.05 and so these isolated 150k are exclusively taken to make coop and the other three points in this goal working.
I don't think that's very realistic. They will not just put 100k away for coop and if 100k isn't enough to make it work, let it unfinished. I am pretty sure they will take as much as needed to make it work more or less. And this might indeed cut the budget/time for other things.

 

[rjshae]

In addition the audience using coop is tiny.

The audience using co-op mode is likely much larger than you think because it's a popular form of play with mobile platforms.

 

[Kordanor]

The audience using co-op mode is likely much larger than you think because it's a popular form of play with mobile platforms.

I doubt that they will develop this game for mobile platforms.

But to be more precise: The amount of people, who seriously play such an RPG for more than just a couple of hours in Coop mode, is tiny.

I doubt that from the people who finished Divinity:OS it's even 10% who finished the game while playing in coop. I don't have any numbers to back that up though. Maybe worth a poll

Me personally? Started Divinity OS in Coop (with a friend), other player dropped out after ~4h, then I restarted an finished the game alone.
Baldurs Gate? Started in Coop (with my brother), were checking stuff out, toying around. Then both restarted and played through the game alone.

 

[DArtagnan]

For me "Coop" is a rather easy sum of facts.

The implementation of coop:
-You can implement Coop as a tacked on feature, like in the original Baldurs Gate. Some people enjoyed it. But imho it's a horrible experiences. Basically one player has to do all the reading while under time pressure and tell the other player what the actual story is. It doesn't complement the game at all.
-You can implement Coop as integrated feature like it was done in Divinity Original Sin. But even there is was implemented in a bad way (at least at release, reading the texts as the second player was a pain in the ass). In addition to net code, additional interfaces and so on this also requires a different quest design and adjustment in other elementary features. Some things, and some story won't even work in Coop. (Avatar, our prophecy told us that you will save our world!…together with Avatar 2 of course!)

In addition the audience using coop is tiny. So most of the players will not profit from this part of work the developers are putting into the game. And the budget is tiny anyways. So it's not just some small thing to put on top.

And now let's assume that we are interested in coop: Are there any games which have done it right? Which aren't MMOs and aren't Hack & Slay?
I can't think of any. Divinity: OS Coop might be working now after some patches. But I guess that's almost it.

So chances are that with the additional work put into the game is, there is not just "wasted" work for player who don't like coop, it might in fact "ruin" the game (having to find compromises for some mechanics/balancing/story/decisions).

In addition the description of coop sounded like an additional area which is then designed for coop only, which very much sounds like something like Mass Effect 3 had or something like Banner Saga had.

I would actually welcome a great coop RPG. But I don't think that this is the right project to pull off something like that.

I believe I already mentioned SS2 as a great example of how "tacked on" isn't a bad thing.

I'm sorry you had some bad personal experiences, but I've had a ton of wonderful experiences - and that includes "serious" RPGs like Baldur's Gate (even if the implementation WAS lacking back then), System Shock 2, Divinity, Dungeon Lords, Neverwinter Nights, and others.

D:OS had a near-perfect implementation, by the way - and my brother and I loved it to bits. Reading all the text was optional for the second player - and there's a meaty log where you can always go back and check out what's up. We had no issues with it, anyway.

Without cooperative gameplay, I wouldn't really have cared about D:OS much at all.

As for "tiny" that's speculation - and since it's a rare feature, we don't really know the potential market for it. We just know that it's perceived as not worth it by a lot of suits.

But the whole point of Kickstarter projects is that you don't have to target the masses, and you have a chance to go for a vision - rather than charming the mob.

We can come up with anecdotal evidence all day long, but it doesn't really prove anything.

We'll see what happens with this game - but I can give you my personal guarentee that I'll love playing it cooperatively, if the game lives up to the Underworld legacy otherwise.

Sounds like the perfect cooperative experience, to be honest.

 

[crpgnut]

I've pledged but if the co-op goal is close to being reached, I'll back out. I can't stand the fact that some people might like playing with other people. The idea of friends sickens me

 

[Couchpotato]

Alright everyone I had to limit the interview down to twelve questions. I will resend the questions, and hopefully they will answer them now. So fingers crossed.