Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous - Interview and Hands-on

Wccftech interviewed Owlcat Games about Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous and asked about the possibility of multiplayer.

Has Owlcat Games been thinking about adding multiplayer in some way?

Yes, we thought [about] and calculated it. Our two previous games, Allods Online and Skyforge were two big MMORPGs. We know perfectly well how much it costs to provide a level of cooperative multiplayer experience similar to [Divinity Original Sin and it is a *lot*. It will take from the single player experience. We would have to assign resources to make this kind of game mode and we want to provide the best single player experience we possibly can, so no, not for now.

Will you officially support modding, like Steam Workshop capabilities, for Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous?

Yes, we reached a social goal on Kickstarter to officially support modding. I will not say a direct listing workshop because our programmers will still work with how we will approach that. It's a high percent chance of doing Steam Workshop but they didn't give me information that we are really sure of that we'll do [Steam Workshop] so I cannot promise it. But yes, there will be some kind of mod support.

[…]

CGmag Online went hands-on with Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous.

Wrath of the Righteous' major hook lies in its new Mythic Path progression system. Adjacent to standard classes, Mythic Paths allow characters to embody powerful archetypes, each with their own unique abilities to choose from. For example, The Lich will turn your character into an immortal undead lord, capable of replacing their companions with undead minions. The Azata embodies the chaotic good alignment to the fullest, thriving in disorder and empowering those outside the purview of the crusades. My personal favourite is the Swarm-That-Walks, an unlocked stretch goal for the Kickstarter that lets characters shed their physical bodies to become a humanoid horde of locusts. And since the Mythic Paths are divorced from the class system, it opens the door to a host of interesting combinations.

While I was unable to explore the Mythic Path system in full, combat and character progression will be familiar to both isometric-RPG players as well as those who played Kingmaker. Real-time with pause is the default method of playing the game, though there also be a turn-based mode available to play at launch. Furthermore, players can switch between both modes at will. Its inclusion is the result of the popularity of a turn-based mod for Kingmaker, and Mishulin says that Owlcat wanted to include it to provide an alternate option. Don't expect it to be balanced, however, as Wrath of the Righteous is designed with real-time with pause in mind.

[…]

Thanks Farflame!

More information.

We know perfectly well how much it costs to provide a level of cooperative multiplayer experience similar to Divinity Original Sin and it is a *lot*. It will take from the single player experience.

It's funny how many companies (and forum posters) try to deny this. More respect to Owlcat (as if they needed anymore) for telling the truth on the topic, although I suppose it's true that it's in their best interest to say it anyway - they're making single-player games and a lot of their competitors are making games that include multiplayer.

Darn! I'm so annoyed that I was careless enough to miss backing this. I'm hoping they somehow decide to do an extra "late pledge" campaign.

Originally Posted by Stingray
It's funny how many companies (and forum posters) try to deny this. More respect to Owlcat (as if they needed anymore) for telling the truth on the topic, although I suppose it's true that it's in their best interest to say it anyway - they're making single-player games and a lot of their competitors are making games that include multiplayer.

I don’t think anyone would debate that it costs more to implement MP. The debate is if it will take away from SP. If you raise additional funds for MP then it doesn’t have to use funds that are allocated to SP.

Originally Posted by sakichop
I don’t think anyone would debate that it costs more to implement MP. The debate is if it will take away from SP. If you raise additional funds for MP then it doesn’t have to use funds that are allocated to SP.

There is no doubt that you are right that multiplayer would bring in extra funds, but it also would require more starting capitol to implement and either a bigger team to execute or significantly more development time. So its is an additional risk, since more development time or a bigger team as well as a larger scope can add additional complications. That's why its better for a smaller studio to focus on making multiplayer games or singleplayer games and to keep the scope smaller so less can go wrong.

Originally Posted by Feist
Darn! I'm so annoyed that I was careless enough to miss backing this. I'm hoping they somehow decide to do an extra "late pledge" campaign.

@Feist, they saud there would be more pledging available but they need a few weeks to set up the website first.

MP isn't just about additional funds either. Unless you have a totally different team and company making the MP part there is going to be an impact on SP and vice-versa depending on focus.

I simply don't believe the marketing spin that adding MP will have zero impact on the SP experience. I tend to lose respect for any developer that tries to spin that.

So was very pleased to here they will focus on SP.

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
MP isn't just about additional funds either. Unless you have a totally different team and company making the MP part there is going to be an impact on SP and vice-versa depending on focus.

I simply don't believe the marketing spin that adding MP will have zero impact on the SP experience. I tend to lose respect for any developer that tries to spin that.

So was very pleased to here they will focus on SP.

Agree. Reminds me of that certain game called Shroud? Is that still alive?

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
MP isn't just about additional funds either. Unless you have a totally different team and company making the MP part there is going to be an impact on SP and vice-versa depending on focus.

I simply don't believe the marketing spin that adding MP will have zero impact on the SP experience. I tend to lose respect for any developer that tries to spin that.

So was very pleased to here they will focus on SP.

Yep, that’s why the single player campaigns in the infinity engine games were so bad.

MP is just another feature. It’s like saying you don’t want a story in the game because it will take resources away from combat development. Nobody says that because they realize you can have enough resources to make combat and a story.

Originally Posted by sakichop
Yep, that’s why the single player campaigns in the infinity engine games were so bad.

MP is just another feature. It’s like saying you don’t want a story in the game because it will take resources away from combat development. Nobody says that because they realize you can have enough resources to make combat and a story.

Yes but then if you want to make a story + combat + MP then you may not have the resources to do all three so you skim some time/money/resources off story and combat to make MP.

There are only so many Zots to make features and thinking that making MP cost nothing at all - no time, no resources, … well I don't know how else to explain it when even developers admit it can take away resources.

EDIT: Of course there might be a situation where there is an excess of zots available which could be thrown towards MP but to think that MP is cost free. Don't really know what to say that. I also don't how often developers find themselves with too much disposable resources at hand versus not enough.

MP is another feature but any feature cost resources. For some adding in MP to a SP means adding an unnecessary feature and those resources best put elsewhere. Of course some like the MP and nor disputing that. Merely pointing out I am not big on MP so would rather see all resources focused on SP.

Each feature you add requires time, people, money, Q&A, etc. So adding MP is going to use resources no matter how you look at it. Don't add it and then those resources can be used elsewhere.

Plus perhaps the single player campaigns in the infinity engine games could have had even better stories if the MP part hadn't been done and the time/resources put into adding that could have put elsewhere.

Lastly I know resources for MP can be different from resources for art, writing, etc. although there is some overlap if you had to consider scenarios for both single and MP game play. It also cost money.

Can MP be added to a SP game and still have a good SP game? Of course. But hard to say how much more it might have had if the entire focus was solely on the SP aspect. hence why I prefer have the developers put all their resources into that.

Originally Posted by Feist
Darn! I'm so annoyed that I was careless enough to miss backing this. I'm hoping they somehow decide to do an extra "late pledge" campaign.

I'm not. Kickstarter takes a 5% cut of the money, while PayPal only takes 2.9%. They actually will get more money back from direct contributions using PayPal, and its safer for the contributor.

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
Yes but then if you want to make a story + combat + MP then you may not have the resources to do all three so you skim some time/money/resources off story and combat to make MP.

I already said you’d need to budget for MP. This would be a dev budget problem, not a MP cant be implemented without taking resources from SP problem.

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
There are only so many Zots to make features and thinking that making MP cost nothing at all - no time, no resources, … well I don't know how else to explain it when even developers admit it can take away resources.

Unfortunately you haven't read my posts in this thread. My very first sentence in my first post says MP costs more.

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
EDIT: Of course there might be a situation where there is an excess of zots available which could be thrown towards MP but to think that MP is cost free. Don't really know what to say that. I also don't how often developers find themselves with too much disposable resources at hand versus not enough.

Again, please read my post as I didn’t say MP is free.

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
MP is another feature but any feature cost resources. For some adding in MP to a SP means adding an unnecessary feature and those resources best put elsewhere. Of course some like the MP and nor disputing that. Merely pointing out I am not big on MP so would rather see all resources focused on SP.

Each feature you add requires time, people, money, Q&A, etc. So adding MP is going to use resources no matter how you look at it. Don't add it and then those resources can be used elsewhere.

I already said MP costs resources. That was never in debate. Saying those resources have to be taken from SP is. It’s simple actually if you need a million to make your game and 250,000 to implement MP then raise 1.25 million. As i said before its another feature and as you pointed out every feature takes resources. You have combat, story, world building, character progression, loot , etc , etc. no one complains about those taking resources from somewhere else. Apparently MP is the only thing that cant be budgeted and will need to take resources from somewhere else. You know that’s not true.

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
Plus perhaps the single player campaigns in the infinity engine games could have had even better stories if the MP part hadn't been done and the time/resources put into adding that could have put elsewhere.

Perhaps and perhaps it would have been worse. More money doesn’t necessarily mean better game. Maybe the money saved wouldn’t have went towards the SP but straight in to their pockets. No way for us to know, but what we do know is that they had excellent SP campaigns. So it’s obviously possible.

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
Lastly I know resources for MP can be different from resources for art, writing, etc. although there is some overlap if you had to consider scenarios for both single and MP game play. It also cost money.

Can MP be added to a SP game and still have a good SP game? Of course. But hard to say how much more it might have had if the entire focus was solely on the SP aspect. hence why I prefer have the developers put all their resources into that.

I think we could have saved ourselves some time if you’d just said you don’t like MP and would prefer no resources were spent on it no matter where they come from.

Look, I’m not a big fan of MP and I don’t think they should put it in this game. However, It is 100% possible to implement MP in a game without using resources that are allocated to SP.

They said they will not do MP from the start so I think this isn't really a piece of news?

MP not only takes SP resources but it can destroy or corrupt SP game and complete genres altogether as it can have a profound effect on the game its core and identity… We would have 100 or more high-quality CRPGS per year if MP wouldn't exist.. instead of that, we have a crap shitload of MMORPGs that we - I wouldn't touch with a stick… DOS 1 and 2 could possibly be different games altogether if they didn't have MP and maybe I could actually finish one of them in spite of boring TB combat.

Originally Posted by Pladio
@Feist, they saud there would be more pledging available but they need a few weeks to set up the website first.

Sweet! Thanks for the info, I'll be keeping a close watch for developments during March/April then.

Originally Posted by rjshae
I'm not. Kickstarter takes a 5% cut of the money, while PayPal only takes 2.9%. They actually will get more money back from direct contributions using PayPal, and its safer for the contributor.

Huh, ok I did not know that, good to know. Still, I was planning to buy in to a higher than needed "pledge level", at least "US$ 60" or above, so that should make up for the difference in earnings for Owlcat.

You can either develop SP game and attach MP to it. Or you can develop MP game and make it playable offline. Resources aside, both options have its shortcomings and outcome will never be equal.

Originally Posted by sakichop
I think we could have saved ourselves some time if you’d just said you don’t like MP and would prefer no resources were spent on it no matter where they come from.

Look, I’m not a big fan of MP and I don’t think they should put it in this game. However, It is 100% possible to implement MP in a game without using resources that are allocated to SP.

I do apologize as I did miss that (EDIT: some of your earlier statements on resources). And taking your last sentence as a pure statement I can agree that if a company set aside X resources for SP and Y resources for MP then that is built in as features and in theory they would not borrow resources from either side for the other, thus limiting any real impact.

(EDIT: Side note that beyond resources MP can influence SP design, for instance I think BG3 developers indicated night/day cycles would be harder to do in MP so they aren't going to do them - but night/day is something many folks like that might have made it into the SP game if the MP feature hadn't been added. They also point out other ways adding MP can impact SP in a negative way … but I also admit there might be some things MP requires that could affect SP in a positive way).

Where I disagree is on the following connected ideas. One is resource allocation. In a limited pool of resources if you remove some for X you have reduced the pool for Y. If there are ample resources than the reduction could be negligible. If tight for resources it could have a large impact.

Second if a company is planning out features, and they have their pool of limited resources (and it isn't so ample as to make worrying about resources an issue), then they are going to have to allocate some of those resources to the MP feature if included. But if there is no MP feature included then that allocation could go to additional feature(s) for the SP game … which would then, in theory, improve it by adding more to it.

That is my main point above - developers have to plan resources and in planning to add MP as a feature they need to put some resources on it. Those resources could, potentially, have been used to instead enhance the SP game more.

1) Could the game still be great regardless, with both MP and SP? Yes

2) Could the MP be added and be considered an enhanced feature by some? Yes

3) Could the MP be left-out so those resources could be used to enhance the SP game? Yes

The third point is the one I am trying to make, that you don't seem to agree with, even though I do agree with you on the first two.

If you don't agree 3 is a valid point then ah well. I tried my best to present my case and if I failed I failed. I still believe it is a valid point so will just have to leave the discussion here as I did my best to present my case.