Tomi on 7/2/2015 at 19:02
Yeah, the editor would be really nice! Definitely more exciting than the co-op mode. If done right, it could really breathe some new life in here too and keep the game alive for a long time.
Quote Posted by Melan
Here we are on TTLG, discussing whether coop belongs in the game. Who cares?
Huh? Are you saying that all of us TTLGers are some anti-social people who only want to play on their own, or what do you mean by that? I've played some co-op games with other TTLG folks before, so we're not all lonely hermits or something.
Renzatic on 7/2/2015 at 19:20
That's the way I've become with my game playing time. I don't have as much time to play them anymore, so when the chance arises, I want to lay back, relax, and spend a couple three hours setting my own pace. I've become cantankerous.
As for hitting a cool million, if it keeps at the pace it's been going, which is about $50,000 a day, it'll make it and then some. Thing is, most kickstarters tend to slow down during the middle, then see a flurry of activity at the end, when random people with a lot of money to spare start dumping $100,000 on it to push it past some point.
I'll say it still has a good chance of getting high enough to get the editor even with that in mind, but it'll probably just squeeze past.
ZylonBane on 7/2/2015 at 20:06
Quote Posted by GodzillaX8
Good thing they never added co-op to System Shock 2. Who knows how badly the single player would've suffered if they had. It probably would've been the worst game ever made.
Quote Posted by Jonathan Chey
Irrational did not want to introduce multiplayer support into System Shock 2 because we considered it a tangential feature that did not contribute to our core strengths. However, marketing concerns dictated it, so ultimately we acquiesced.
(
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131813/postmortem_irrational_games_.php?page=3)
Quote Posted by Ken Levine
It was a real distraction. There are a number of people who really enjoyed it, but the amount of time versus the amount of reward for that versus what we could have done with the rest of the game... I don't think it was a win. The single player game would have been much, much, much stronger if we had that time back.
(
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/120849-Ken-Levine-Says-Multiplayer-Hurt-System-Shock-2)
Any more feet you'd like to stuff in your mouth?
driver on 7/2/2015 at 20:13
Quote Posted by Melan
Here we are on TTLG, discussing whether coop belongs in the game. Who cares?
What we should care about is the Underworld Builder Toolkit at 1.05 million. That's the stretch goal we ought to be rooting for.
This.
This right here.
Renzatic on 7/2/2015 at 20:25
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Any more feet you'd like to stuff in your mouth?
Given the way it's set up on the reward tiers, and what they already know about development, I doubt it'll do much to distract them from all the single player experience. They're making it sound like it's nothing more than a throwaway bonus, not something they'll be balancing the entire game around.
Plus, with all the middleware we've all got these days, doing an MP patch would be considerably easier than it was back in the late 90's.
ZylonBane on 7/2/2015 at 20:35
I'm sure. Not really relevant to the quoted post though.
Still, no matter how easy it is, it would take effort that would be better spent elsewhere. People who want to dick around in a multiplayer RPG, that's what MMOs are for.
Tomi on 7/2/2015 at 21:06
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
People who want to dick around in a multiplayer RPG, that's what MMOs are for.
Eh, it's not really the same though. Playing a game together from start to finish with a good friend is a bit different than playing a bunch of quests with some random strangers.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
That's the way I've become with my game playing time. I don't have as much time to play them anymore, so when the chance arises, I want to lay back, relax, and spend a couple three hours setting my own pace.
That's very much like me then. I may have come across as some hardcore multiplayer gamer in my earlier posts, but the truth is that I don't even play much nowadays (and I certainly can't stand the idea of MMOs these days) and all multiplayer gaming for me happens over LAN a couple of times a
year. But those rare events are pretty damn fun. :cool:
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Given the way it's set up on the reward tiers, and what they already know about development, I doubt it'll do much to distract them from all the single player experience. They're making it sound like it's nothing more than a throwaway bonus, not something they'll be balancing the entire game around.
Plus, with all the middleware we've all got these days, doing an MP patch would be considerably easier than it was back in the late 90's.
I think that Renz pretty much nailed it here.
Renault on 7/2/2015 at 22:17
Not to pile on, but...
Quote Posted by Tomi
Huh? Are you saying that all of us TTLGers are some anti-social people who only want to play on their own, or what do you mean by that? I've played some co-op games with other TTLG folks before, so we're not all lonely hermits or something.
I think it has more to do with the fact that no LGS game has ever had multiplayer (unless you count the aforementioned SS2 patched coop). In other words, his comment had more to do with the LGS style of game design than with the gaming habits of TTLGers.
Tomi on 7/2/2015 at 22:42
Oh right, that makes more sense then. I was genuinely wondering what he meant by that. :)
I still think that the "who cares?" is a bit harsh though. I'm sure that plenty of people care. It's true that the LGS games had no multiplayer, but these games were released at a time when multiplayer gaming wasn't such a big thing. LGS were all about innovating and coming up with new ideas and designs, so if even (
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/02/04/ultima-underworld-sequel/) the founder of LGS talks about "redefining the fantasy RPG for this generation of gamers" and mentions the co-op play in the same breath as one of those innovative features, I have faith that they can pull it off adequately without messing up everything else in the game.
GodzillaX8 on 8/2/2015 at 00:00
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Any more feet you'd like to stuff in your mouth?
So what exactly is wrong with SS2? Because Ken Levine mentioned once that he thought it took away from single player, somehow that means the game was horrific and wrecked by adding it, and every game that ever implements co-op (after achieving twice their initial budget) will be a miserable, hideous, unplayable failure?
As it stands, I still think SS2 is the single greatest game ever made, what could they really have done with the extra budget gained from scrapping co-op? A handful of bug fixes? Time has rendered that obsolete thanks to fan patches. A new deck/new missions? I think if the game were much longer it'd feel pretty bloated and would completely kill the pacing.
I think Ken's speaking from the perspective of an artist that is never happy with their own work, or possibly some bitterness towards the publisher, and you're taking it as though it's some quantifiable fact that the game was objectively worse than it could have been otherwise.
