John Deiley gets jiggy with it..

That would be interesting. Especially if you only have the equipment that the mercenaries would have around that level. Then you would have to employ more thorough tactics as you're not your uber character anymore. The downside is I can see those short scenarios getting old fast.
 
Although multiplayer would bring longevity to the game, it's still quite complicated to make an RPG multiplayer different than the others like BG and Diablo.

I think a good idea would be two or more players each other with an objective. Each one chooses to be good or bad, thief, combatant, charismatic or some new characteristics for a change(each one with ups and downs) and try to knock each other out, like the families in New Reno. Or each one controls a town (somehow managed to rise to power, the way we rose depends again on our character). This way instead of a 1h game it becomes much longer and it's like you still have that single player experience but with real enemies.

I just came up with that, it's not bad at all :D .
 
Damn, this thread has been hijacked rather badly. It's funny how some think that multiplayer is just a lesser form of a MMOG. The mechanics are quite different.

I had to point that same exact point out to one of BioWare's leading dumbshits, David Gaider. I should wander back over to the Codex and see how he's making more excuses in reply to it, if he hasn't tried to squeak out of it again.

Francisco M L S G S said:
I just came up with that, it's not bad at all :D .
Click to expand...

For you, perhaps. You're assuming that people would want to play an RPG "deathmatch style". No, I'm not going to bother pointing out the other mass of flaws that would be inherent to such a system except to note that much time on that type of gameplay had better be limited, as I doubt a couple of people are going to want to play competitively in such a way, for more than an hour at a time. Co-op takes out some of the doldrums from playing in a game designed for multiplayer, but competitive just makes it more of a strategy game, and there's games crafted to suit that kind of gameplay much better than a scripting HELL that you've come up with without any regards to game design. Even if it were made, I don't see enough people wanting to play in such a manner.

I do think your idea is a bit novel, and might work in a lesser scale, but otherwise it would be a waste of time and money. While I do like novel design, there should be some appeal to it, otherwise it does fail both in presentation and feasibility. There comes a problem when someone dies, and explaining it in the game world without having that player stop playing. "Sorry dude, but you died. See you when we next start a game." isn't really going to cut it.

By the time you've "fixed" the problems so they aren't such a pain for the players, then it starts to become more like a MMORPG in mechanics to support persistent world gameplay (and in ignoring Fallout's setting). Then you might as well make a core server, charge money for admission, and invite every idiot to play. Then I could also bring up limited scope MMORPG servers like NWN, but they still have a good number of the problems inherent with MMORPGs as well.
 
I didn't know it would be that complicated, my gaming design knowledge is quite limited. But I did say it would be complicated to make a RPG multiplayer different than Diablo or BG, at least I got something right :)

Point taken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top