Live Chat

Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Anything related to Wolfire Games and/or its products

Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby adm.melonhead » Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:41 pm

So, what is the fanbase looking forward to for the Multiplayer aspect of Overgrowth? I'd be 300% fine with this if all we got was 4-player online deathmatches, personally. In fact, if that's what we got right now, I'd be more than satisfied with my spent $30. So, how can we make this concept even better? My first instinct of 6v6 capture the flag probably doesn't hold up.
adm.melonhead
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:10 pm

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby johndh » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:10 pm

The fighting system in Overgrowth is based largely on precise timing. Even a little bit of lag would be deadly. Plus, PvP would have to exclude many of the cool things about the gameplay, like much of the stealth. Two-player co-op would be awesome, though. There are various moves that you could only do cooperatively, like one player boosting the other over a wall, or one player distracting a guard so the other player can sneak past.
User avatar
johndh
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:20 pm

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby adm.melonhead » Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:13 pm

johndh wrote:The fighting system in Overgrowth is based largely on precise timing. Even a little bit of lag would be deadly. Plus, PvP would have to exclude many of the cool things about the gameplay, like much of the stealth. Two-player co-op would be awesome, though. There are various moves that you could only do cooperatively, like one player boosting the other over a wall, or one player distracting a guard so the other player can sneak past.


Co-operative moves pique my interest. Although I haven't detected much stealth. The AI doesn't appear to allow it from what I've seen so far. Might be because I didn't play lugaru. I can see why stealth would be important, though. Every enemy has potential to kill you. That kind of weight is the same reason I liked earthbound.
adm.melonhead
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:10 pm

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby Kicktar » Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:26 pm

Well, currently the stealth system doesn't allow for much sneaking, but base off what was in Lugaru, it should improve eventually.
User avatar
Kicktar
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:25 pm

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby Sil » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:29 am

This game NEEDS multiplayer. Adding it is absolutely mandatory.

Multiplayer would enable so much more content, especially if the main focus is PvP.
The editor allows the creation of many custom maps, be it Coop or PvP.

Just look at what made Warcraft 3 great.
Overgrowth is, right now, just an engine and only having Singleplayer would lead to the same disaster which happened in Lugario: a great engine, great gameplay, but no or just repetitive content.

What Overgrowth needs is custom map support in multiplayer and focusing on multiplayer PvP gameplay.
You could then even have leagues like in many fighting games like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat.
Sil
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby Endoperez » Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:10 pm

Sil wrote:This game NEEDS multiplayer. Adding it is absolutely mandatory.


The developers disagree. No offense, but I doubt the people who've worked on this game for a few years would've missed that if it was as simple as you think.
User avatar
Endoperez
 
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby Count Roland » Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:17 pm

And 6 years later I still play lugaru occasionally
User avatar
Count Roland
 
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: Galapagos Islands, rodeoin some turtles.

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby johndh » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:38 pm

I really enjoyed Warcraft 3 despite having never played it online. The campaign(s) were great, and that made it well worth the price. There are some games that are only worth it to play online (e.g. I never play MegaGlest unless it's with other people) but that just means that their single player experience isn't very good. Basically, if a game is only good or only bad when playing with other people, I think that is just as much a reflection on your playmates as it is a reflection on the game itself.

Edit: This is obviously a broad generalization and there are bound to be exceptions, but I think it holds true enough to prove my point.
User avatar
johndh
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:20 pm

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby Sil » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:43 am

Endoperez wrote:
Sil wrote:This game NEEDS multiplayer. Adding it is absolutely mandatory.


The developers disagree. No offense, but I doubt the people who've worked on this game for a few years would've missed that if it was as simple as you think.


I guess you said that about Lugario, too.
Look how it turned out. A nice engine, nice combat, but that's it. No content at all.

This is why Overgrowth needs multiplayer - to add content.
If the developers' goal is to create a game with lasting appeal then this is the easiest way to create it.

Overgrowth wouldn't be able to keep my and many other people's interest for long if it really just boils down to singleplayer sandbox boxing. There has to be some binding element that doesn't get repetitive. A bit of randomness.
Multiplayer would be an easy answer - human behaviour is pretty much unpredictable for the untrained eye. Or random maps with really different seeds...
Unless the AI is so complex it can somewhat emulate the experience of playing against a player character the combat will soon become repetitive and since the combat (plus movement and editor) is the main appeal of this game, the game itself won't bind many people to playing it.
Sil
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby Krabman318 » Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:19 am

Well, playing against another human would surely add to the game, but, like Endoperez said, the possibility of lag makes it pretty much impossible.
User avatar
Krabman318
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:34 am
Location: Planet Decapod 10

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby Endoperez » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:00 pm

Sil wrote:I guess you said that about Lugario, too.


Yes. I only played through it once or twice. That was fun. I got my money's worth.

Look how it turned out. A nice engine, nice combat, but that's it. No content at all.


Only if by "no content", you mean "a campaign and a set of challenge levels and rudimentary mod support".

This is why Overgrowth needs multiplayer - to add content.
If the developers' goal is to create a game with lasting appeal then this is the easiest way to create it


I'm not sure if this is the "need", you're talking about, but... A product needs to be worth your money. Ten hours (for 3$ per hour) should easily be worth the money by most gamer's standards. A game doesn't need more content, though it's nice. The game doesn't need any more lasting appear after that, since you already got your money's worth. If the game does have that, great! That's nice! However, that doesn't mean every game needs to be like that.

A multiplayer functionality could easily increase the gameplay time hundredfold or more, that's true, but the development costs would also increase severely. The people interested in ninja bunny brawl will buy the game any way, even without multiplayer, and the vast majority of people who're not interested in it won't buy it even if it does have multiplayer.


The way I understand your words is that Wolfire NEEDS to spend more of their money to give you an even better bargain that you're already getting. I don't think you mean it like that, and I might be wrong on my assumptions, but that's how I understand the situation.
User avatar
Endoperez
 
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby Ragdollmaster » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:18 pm

I don't know what this Sil kid's on. I played through Lugaru's default campaign twice (once on Normal, once on Insane) and played through it three more times for usermade campaigns (Empire, Temple, and Reluctant Assassin) I also probably spent at least an hour to an hour and a half playing through the challenge levels. For $10, it was a buttload of content.
User avatar
Ragdollmaster
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:49 am
Location: Island of Lugaru

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby Aleol » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:41 am

Sil wrote:
Endoperez wrote:
Sil wrote:This game NEEDS multiplayer. Adding it is absolutely mandatory.


The developers disagree. No offense, but I doubt the people who've worked on this game for a few years would've missed that if it was as simple as you think.


I guess you said that about Lugario, too.
Look how it turned out. A nice engine, nice combat, but that's it. No content at all.

This is why Overgrowth needs multiplayer - to add content.
If the developers' goal is to create a game with lasting appeal then this is the easiest way to create it.

Overgrowth wouldn't be able to keep my and many other people's interest for long if it really just boils down to singleplayer sandbox boxing. There has to be some binding element that doesn't get repetitive. A bit of randomness.
Multiplayer would be an easy answer - human behaviour is pretty much unpredictable for the untrained eye. Or random maps with really different seeds...
Unless the AI is so complex it can somewhat emulate the experience of playing against a player character the combat will soon become repetitive and since the combat (plus movement and editor) is the main appeal of this game, the game itself won't bind many people to playing it.

A game doesn't need multiplayer to have lasting appeal. They could just make the game fun to play, or the story awesome. Personally, I'd much rather they devote the resources towards making the single player experience fun. I played through Lugaru multiple times, and It was very fun, and doesn't have multiplayer.

... Actually, didn't I see a video about this very subject? Oh, yeah, it was yesterday.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/3677-Linearity-versus-Replayability

And I agreed with him 100%
User avatar
Aleol
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:28 pm

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby Endoperez » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:01 pm

Aleol wrote:A game doesn't need multiplayer to have lasting appeal. They could just make the game fun to play, or the story awesome.


That depends on what's meant by "lasting appeal". If it means "entertain me for a few months", with an average of 1/2 to 1 hours of play per day, single-player will probably not be enough (30 to 60 hours). And even that's miniscule compared to multiplayer games. 80 hours to complete an epic single-player console RPG plot (e.g. Grandia) is short when compared to a MMORPG or MOBA or a competitive FPS or whatever. Even if the story is awesome (e.g. Grandia), that's still just 80 hours. You won't be playing e.g. Grandia continuously for a year or more.

You'll remember a good game for years, and it can still a worthwhile game, and a good game and all that. But there's not as much gameplay in it as there are in multiplayer games.
User avatar
Endoperez
 
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Overgrowth Multiplayer discussion

Postby Ragdollmaster » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:24 pm

Multiplayer games inevitably get repetitive and boring. There are a few gems out there (Battlefield Bad Company 2, Team Fortress 2, Counterstrike) that seem timeless, but honestly, most multiplayer games only hook me for maybe a total of 20 to 30 hours of gameplay. Meanwhile, I spent over 100 hours playing Oblivion and Fallout 3- each- and I've replayed a bunch of absolutely spectacular games on singleplayer at least once- more or less every game in the Metal Gear Solid series, Bioshock, Star Wars: Battlefront I & II, SaGa Frontier I & II, Final Fantasy IV, VII, and X, Uncharted 1 & 2, Kingdom Hearts I & II... to suggest that singleplayer holds no replay value is utter bollocks. The overwhelming majority of my time spent playing video games has been with singleplayer titles. Multiplayer is more or less the same shit with some variation- if you're on map X for game mode Y, you're going to by default use strategy Z and do the same crap over and over again. A well-crafted singleplayer campaign holds an enormous amount of variety, narration, and emotional impact that a multiplayer mode will never be able to have. Not to say multiplayer is bad as an addition, but I'd much rather take an extremely well-made singleplayer game than an average singleplayer game with average multiplayer. It doesn't hurt if an already great singleplayer title has a multiplayer mode, or if a game is crafted to be multiplayer only and does a good job of it, but more often than not, I find singleplayer titles more enjoyable and of a much higher quality than multiplayer titles.

tl;dr -> I'll take quality over "lasting appeal" any day. Anyone who wouldn't do the same obviously either hasn't had the pleasure of playing through some utterly fantastic singleplayer titles or just has a ridiculously short attention span, and rapid, repetitive multiplayer games (CALL OF DOOTIE) are the only thing that they can play without getting bored.
User avatar
Ragdollmaster
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:49 am
Location: Island of Lugaru

Next

Return to Wolfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group cron