G/A/E muitiplayer?

AuthorTopic: G/A/E muitiplayer?
Lifecrafter
Member # 7557
Profile #0
I've just been thinking, what exactly would be the problems of making a Geneforge/Avernum/Exile (yes I really did say it; Exile) game that you could muitiplay?

Note: I want logical reasons and discussions here about it iyself NOT pages of phiosofical (I can't spell that arrrgh!) debate about how its so good or so horrid etc.

--------------------
The force is with ME! I'm not so sure about YOU!

Never trust a man who can say "Pickles" with a manic gleam in his eye.
Posts: 942 | Registered: Sunday, October 8 2006 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 1092
Profile Homepage #1
Geneforge could be possible since Jeff just recently finished the last edition to the series, although I do doubt it happening.

As for Exile, and maybe Avernum, I beleive this idea was knocked back although I can not remember why.

--------------------
When you think you can't get any lower in life and hit rock bottom, God hands you a shovel.

Why should I say somthin intelligent when idiots like you make me look intelligent in the first place.
Posts: 615 | Registered: Friday, May 3 2002 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #2
1) Turn-based combat and multiplayer games are pretty much incompatible, unless you want to spend a lot of time waiting for other people to take turns.

2) It'd be a huge financial risk. Online games require servers. Servers cost money. Jeff doesn't have the kind of funds needed to absorb a major loss; if the game didn't succeed in a big way, SW would likely go under.

[ Friday, March 23, 2007 01:37: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #3
Another point against an Avernum multiplayer game (I can't speak for or against Geneforge)... the sheer size and general emptiness of the caves would probably make for rather dull gameplay, at least in the normal context of an MMO. If it got too crowded, it wouldn't feel like the caves anymore... part of the fun for me in playing A2 was the feeling that there was nobody else out there capable of accomplishing all of that. An MMO ruins that feeling, because suddenly anyone is capable of killing a legendary beast because it respawns for some reason.

Also, throw enough adventurers into the caves, and the sheer number of "kill & fetch" quests issued would throw the already rather fragile ecology of the caves so far out of whack as to be beyond help. Of course, it might finally be enough to exterminate the chitrachs from the upper caverns, so it could be the lesser of two evils. :P

So, basically there'd be enough elements of the standard MMO that work against everything Avernum excels at. Besides, there'd be that awkward period of leveling up that Jeff has already said he rather hates in RPGs, and I was always under the impression that the process gets even longer and more boring in an MMO.

...so then I realized I was digressing into why an MMO won't work, and wasn't quite addressing the question. Multiplayer wouldn't be all that interesting, except maybe some sort of co-op campaign mode. I'd play that.

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Jeff doesn't have the kind of funds needed to absorb a major loss; if the game didn't succeed in a big way, SW would likely go under.
For more stories like this, see "Blades of Avernum: Why it's not ever getting fixed."

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
Profile Homepage #4
Add to Thuryl's list:

3) Jeff had stated that he has no experience with the kind of programming required to make an online game. And it doesn't sound like he has the money to hire outside developers either.

quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

I don't like MMORPGs.
FYT :P
(The problems you've talked about are standard for MMORPGs and would actually be less severe in Avernum and in some other settings I've seen.)

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #5
quote:
Originally written by E=MC Hammered:

Geneforge could be possible since Jeff just recently finished the last edition to the series, although I do doubt it happening.
Geneforge 4 isn't the last game in the series. We're expecting at least one more.

I actually think one could make a fairly good MMORPG out of the world of Avernum, but I think it would go best with A1 or pre-A1 as the setting. The caves have become too tame since then and the surface is generic fantasyland. I think it would do better as a very niche game or somethin in the style of A Tale in the Desert.

Either way, it's not going to happen. Too much risk, too little experience, and Jeff already has a market for single player games.

—Alorael, who is always slightly surprised that there's no Exile/Avernum MUD. It's a good thing, though. Even though Spiderweb isn't full of graphical wonders, the caves really do require a visual representation.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Warrior
Member # 8338
Profile #6
quote:
Another point against an Avernum multiplayer game (I can't speak for or against Geneforge)... the sheer size and general emptiness of the caves would probably make for rather dull gameplay, at least in the normal context of an MMO.
OMFG OP said no "phiosofical" responses gais!!! :P

quote:
...so then I realized I was digressing into why an MMO won't work, and wasn't quite addressing the question. Multiplayer wouldn't be all that interesting, except maybe some sort of co-op campaign mode. I'd play that.
Haha yeah. Most of the people in this thread seem to equate multiplayer with MMOs (why!?!?!?!?!?!) for some reason. To me, when the OP mentioned multiplayer I thought more of a Diablo style gameplay where you can start a game and other people can join you (your party) to play through an area or several levels with you.

quote:
]Jeff doesn't have the kind of funds needed to absorb a major loss; if the game didn't succeed in a big way, SW would likely go under.
What's so major being discussed here that Jeff would have to shell out so much cash for? Scripting a protocoll to allow for simply co-op (at least LAN based) sounds like something right up Jeff's alley to me.

quote:

[QB]1) Turn-based combat and multiplayer games are pretty much incompatible, unless you want to spend a lot of time waiting for other people to take turns.
Wrong. Change the game mechanics to include a timer for multiplayer/co-op games. Meaning, you have a predetermined amount of time (say, 45 seconds) to complete your turn and spend all your AP. You can, of course, click the "End Turn" button earlier or click it right away to pass. It'll take work to implement, sure, but turn based combat is far from a show stopper in multiplayer or even MMO games.

Edit: My own two cents is that Jeff would be in a win-win situation if the next game (from whatever series) included co-op play mode either over internet (hard) or LAN (easier). Heck, partner with Gamespy Arcade and you might even get more customers! Also, will any kind of multiplayer anything in SW games allow for twinking, player-killing, griefing, swearing, and other such? Sure. However I've yet to here anything where these things in on themselves should stop innovation.

[ Friday, March 23, 2007 11:58: Message edited by: Eugi ]
Posts: 85 | Registered: Sunday, March 18 2007 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #7
The only way that it could really be done is small groups of players (6 or less) could team up online to run together as the party instead of a single player controlling them. Otherwise the place gets over run. You just stand around waiting for an area to repopulate and then it's a race to kill it before another group does,

Still Jeff has repeated said he doesn't want to program it and he hates these types of games even though he plays them himself.
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #8
quote:
Originally written by Eugi:

Haha yeah. Most of the people in this thread seem to equate multiplayer with MMOs (why!?!?!?!?!?!) for some reason. To me, when the OP mentioned multiplayer I thought more of a Diablo style gameplay where you can start a game and other people can join you (your party) to play through an area or several levels with you.
Why would he bother to make that? Would it really get him any more sales? I think it'd come across as a gimmick.

quote:
What's so major being discussed here that Jeff would have to shell out so much cash for? Scripting a protocoll to allow for simply co-op (at least LAN based) sounds like something right up Jeff's alley to me.
Jeff is a self-taught programmer; anything he hasn't done before is not only not "right up Jeff's alley", but something he likely has no experience with whatsoever. Every week he spends trying to figure out how to program in multiplayer functionality is a week he doesn't have a game released and making money.

quote:
Wrong. Change the game mechanics to include a timer for multiplayer/co-op games. Meaning, you have a predetermined amount of time (say, 45 seconds) to complete your turn and spend all your AP. You can, of course, click the "End Turn" button earlier or click it right away to pass. It'll take work to implement, sure, but turn based combat is far from a show stopper in multiplayer or even MMO games.
The idea of taking my turn and waiting around 5 minutes for everybody else to take their 45-second turns before my turn comes around again does not thrill me. Keep in mind that half the reason most of us play SW games is the fast pace of gameplay compared to commercial bloatware; the simple animations and short load times mean we spend most of our time actually playing stuff instead of watching it. Having to wait around for other players to take their turns would destroy one of SW's greatest advantages.

Besides, the "it'll take work to implement" part is basically a killer. Jeff is a businessman, and one in a niche industry; if something isn't guaranteed to make him more money, he can't afford to do it. Somebody mentioned Blades of Avernum earlier in this thread; it was a game that took a little longer to make than most of his games, sold a little less well, and nearly sent Jeff bankrupt. That's how small his margins are.

[ Friday, March 23, 2007 16:14: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #9
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Keep in mind that half the reason most of us play SW games is the fast pace of gameplay compared to commercial bloatware; the simple animations and short load times mean we spend most of our time actually playing stuff instead of watching it.
Hear, hear!

—Alorael, who has now realized that Battle for Wesnoth is set up perfectly to make the Empire War into a strategy game. Anyone feeling frustrated by BoA and looking for a new creative outlet?
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #10
...goodness. You're right about that, Alorael.

It would probably need to be from the perspective of the Empire, seeing as they won pretty much all the actual battles. But really, who doesn't want to lay siege to Bargha?

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00