Dude, don't you fucking get it? He has all the answers. Riley is, after all, the creator of such amazing titles as... well what i mean is, he has years of game development experience with companies like... hmm....

You see, you've already won. Pieces of shit like Riley have no purpose other than to troll those who are more important than them. They live to spew out rediculous bullshit ideas that they never have to face the consequences for, because they're not the ones who have to own up to them after the game they pollute ends up a steaming shitbag. I mean, you should have realized he was a fucking idiot after the voting suggestion... come on, voting?! Who wants to fucking vote their way through an entire game?! Unless it's a congress simulator, this should have been automatic red flag that You Are Dealing With An Ideological Shithead.

It seems you're making an FPS/RPG. That sounds good. So, why exactly are you here, on a gaming bulletin board, spending time trying to explain yourself to pieces of shit like him? Don't be fucking stupid. Get back to work on your game. He'll never create anything worth a damn in his entire life. At least you have a chance. Fuck.

Now, don't get me wrong, i never said it couldn't be done. Every game COULD do it, but there are games that SHOULDN'T.

Now, don't get me wrong, i never said it couldn't be done. Every game COULD do it, but there are games that SHOULDN'T.

Now, don't get me wrong, i never said it couldn't be done. Every game COULD do it, but there are games that SHOULDN'T.

So, what was your point again? You're absolutely right about one thing: when it came to our game i was not willing to do it. Again, it was not practical when applied to our gameplay. Compromise is fine, but when you get to a point that the compromise results in inferior or frustrating play, you have to be able to draw the line and say, "no, i don't want to do that." You're not willing to draw that line, which is what makes me guess that you've probably never gone through the design process. Because if you had, you would understand what i'm talking about when i mean impractical. I think the real problem you're having here is that i find your "solutions" unacceptable, and many others would as well, not to mention they don't even cover 5% of what it would mean to implement coop into our game. I've already gone over every single one of your "solutions" and decided that they just don't cut it for us. In other games, perhaps they would work. But not ours. Period.
This comment was edited on Aug 10, 20:59.

I'm sure that's why you refused to answer that question

I addressed all of your comments. Your point is that co-op isn't do-able. My point is not only is it do-able, but it has been done before (and fairly well in some cases) and can be done for any FPS game as I explained. Will there be compromises to implement it? Sure, but that's the nature of teamplay game design.

If you can't understand that, then that certainly explains why you aren't willing or able to create a co-op mode.

This comment was edited on Aug 10, 19:55.

Riley Pizt: LOLOLOLOL

Damn Riley, you have some serious superiority issues. My guess is that you really have no point to your argument, other than the need to be absolutely, positively RIGHT, no matter what anyone says, even if you claim gravity makes things fall up when i'm dropping apples on your head. I'm sure that's why you refused to answer that question when you had no problem answering the rest with your apparently mind-numbingly advanced intellect. And yet, you don't even realize that half of your "solutions" conflict with each other. Well, i'm done feeding you. You can get back to me when you've designed your own SP and coop FPS and developed it start to finish, because by then i'd bet you might be humbled enough to have a real conversation with.

The greatest two online gaming moments in my life:

Quake 1 co-op with my best friend Mike over our 28.8 modem (Direct Dialing, no less) going through scourge of armagon about 500 times.

BG2 Throne Of Bhaal: Beating Melissan and the Gorgon with three guys I met on gamespy. Went through the whole game TWICE with them.

Co-op has always been more meaningful for me. DM is ok, for awhile, but I prefer friendly interaction and teamwork. I used to think I was the only one, but apparently not.

"I can't wait until the start of September when it's annouced that coop has been cut!"

And is to be distributed solely over Steam


----------------------------
Yes, I abuse grammar for a profession.
This comment was edited on Aug 10, 08:42.

Riley, if you refuse to play games with content delivery systems, secureROM copy protection and so on, surely that means there's virtually no game you can play. Therefore you come here with your childish and poor arguments and argue... for the sake of it? Nobody's saying you can't have an opinion, but arguing with a game designer about the game he designed and you have never played, is just immature and boring. You don't know what you're talking about, yet you seem to claim otherwise.

Of course, I'm sure you don't give a crap, and that's fine. I just thought you might like to know.

Chill man, i don't appreciate the holier-than-thou attitude.

I couldn't care less about your personal opinion of me, and by telling me that you are the one with the "holier-than-thou" attiitude.

I think those 3 months lends just tiny a bit of credibility to my point.

Based upon your description of the problems, I don't.

Personally, i don't even see how you can apply the coop implementation of a single game to all others, unless they play exactly the same.

All others, maybe not, but to your so-called problems, yes.

First point, saving the game was an issue with us because we're talking about a 30+ hour game, where not every player in your original coop team might be available to play with you to the end. Having the host save was what we had originally chosen. However, if you wanted to play the game start to finish in coop, you basically had to get the same group of people together at exactly the same time and all play through it together.

No, you wouldn't. You save the states for the players you have at the time, and you either substitute an incoming player or a bot/NPC for one which left, or you simply don't reuse the state for a pleyer once he is gone if he is not at the same part of the game/map as the rest of the party.

Furthermore, we considered that one would probably want to play through some of the game coop, and some of it single-player, because it was a long game. We can't award that ability only to the host, so we couldn't have those kinds of requirements.

Here's a real novel idea: don't make the co-op game the same as the single-player one. Have separate maps/missions which are co-op only and others which are single-player.

Your "lesser of two evils" argument is NOT valid in this case (nor should it be in many others), because in game design you don't choose the method that pisses the player off the least, you choose the method that doesn't piss the player off at all...what you call "1 player spoiling the game for the other 3" i see as "3 other players spoiling the game for 1."

LOL! Life and games are about compromise especially in group situations. You can't please everyone all the time nor will everyone always get what they want, or you simply will have no game (which is exactly what you ended up with. Go figure.)

I still don't see exactly what point you're trying to argue with me

LOL! Judging by your response, that is certainly no surprise.

unless you're trying to argue that all FPS games should have coop. And that's just silly.

All FPS games could have co-op. However, the co-op mode may or need not be identical to the single-player version.

This comment was edited on Aug 10, 06:30.

Hmm, i never tried the coop patch for System Shock 2. I could see it working, though. Not too much NPC interaction in SShock2, although i'm curious how they handled item management. Did they use an inventory pool? Duplicate drops of each item? Were individual players allowed to save their game seperately from the rest of the group? If so, how did they manage items gotten in multi when switching to single? I may have to install this again just to see.

How would a FPS/RPG coop differ that much from a game like Neverwinter Nights (I've never played it though)?

System Shock 2 was a FPS/RPG, and it had co-op. I didn't like SS2, though, so I'll recuse myself from any commenting on whether I thought that worked or not.

However, the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games were pure RPGs with co-op, and I thought it was a completely worthless in this case. The fun part of those games isn't controlling your little dudes in combat, and you couldn't split up effectively, so it just didn't work for me at all.
This comment was edited on Aug 9, 19:07.

Chill man, i don't appreciate the holier-than-thou attitude. We spent 3 months working on the design for coop before finally deciding to scrap it. I think those 3 months lends just tiny a bit of credibility to my point. Personally, i don't even see how you can apply the coop implementation of a single game to all others, unless they play exactly the same. Design just doesn't work like that.

Now, don't get me wrong, i never said it couldn't be done. Every game COULD do it, but there are games that SHOULDN'T. NOLF 2 was not an FPS/RPG. It was an FPS, and not a very deep one at that. First point, saving the game was an issue with us because we're talking about a 30+ hour game, where not every player in your original coop team might be available to play with you to the end. Having the host save was what we had originally chosen. However, if you wanted to play the game start to finish in coop, you basically had to get the same group of people together at exactly the same time and all play through it together. Furthermore, we considered that one would probably want to play through some of the game coop, and some of it single-player, because it was a long game. We can't award that ability only to the host, so we couldn't have those kinds of requirements.

Your "lesser of two evils" argument is NOT valid in this case (nor should it be in many others), because in game design you don't choose the method that pisses the player off the least, you choose the method that doesn't piss the player off at all. If someone wants to wander around a town, they should be allowed to. That's what that town is there for. They shouldn't be forced to exit the town because 3 other people decided they should. See, what you call "1 player spoiling the game for the other 3" i see as "3 other players spoiling the game for 1." That's just not how an FPS/RPG is played.

Like i said, the deeper you get, the less practical coop becomes. I felt we made a realistic judgment call and removed the coop because it was detrimental to gameplay. I still don't see exactly what point you're trying to argue with me, anyway, unless you're trying to argue that all FPS games should have coop. And that's just silly.

How would a FPS/RPG coop differ that much from a game like Neverwinter Nights (I've never played it though)?

PS Quake1 did have coop.

Descent had coop too...

Nobody wants to have to have a vote to move onto the next area.

Voting is NOT mandatory. It only occurs if one player tries to spoil the game by taking too long as you suggested.

Nobody wants to...be in the middle of purchasing items at a shop when the other 3 out of 4 guys decides they want to leave.

First, majority rules in co-op so one player can't spoil the game. Just like on most group trips in real life, keep up with the group or get left behind.

It is not a viable solution for the problem.

It beats the alternative which is one player slows down everyone or ruins the game by refusing to exit.

The point of an FPS/RPG is to take time to explore your surroundings and experience things on a slower pace than in a standard FPS.

Look, co-op is about compromise. When you play with other people, you don't always get your way unless you are hosting the game, and even then don't expect people not to leave if they don't agree with what you want.

Not only that, it doesn't address the issue of saving games...

It can be done. The host saves the game. See NOLF 2 co-op.

What happens when you get a story quest from an NPC, but someone else is buying items from a shop elsewhere in the map, or talking to another NPC? Should it just interrupt them and warp them to the quest NPC?

Co-op works best when everyone is on the same mission. If there are multiple missions available, the first player to get a mission is the one the group does. If players want to wander around on their own, that is what single-player is for.

You seriously need to play NOLF 2 co-op, so you will get an idea of what mission based co-op is like in an FPS game. It's not perfect, but it's the best co-op implementation in a commercial FPS game to date. The Japan rescue mission is the best one and spans three maps which are covered twice.

This comment was edited on Aug 9, 18:35.

Coop > all others multiplayer gametypes

A message to any dev out there: WAKEUP!! The Coop demand is higher than you think!

Didn't buy Halo2 PC because it had no coop. Will buy SS2 cuz it will. For games that are basically JAFF (Just another ... FPS) it's really that simple a decision for me.

Of course, games like the Battlefield series, and Counterstrike and any other team play game is the modern solution to the problem. It solves the AI problem, and have proved to be popular. To make a good cooperative game you have to design it specifically to be just that, and then you have a game that has a limited single player appeal.

IANA game designer / programmer, but I can see the problems. SquirrelZ's example serves as good (and interesting) evidence of the problem.

That is why you make the progression dependent on either a single player or a majority of players, e.g. if 3 of 4 are in the map exit zone, you exit anyway or call a vote to exit where >=50% progresses.

We had that down as a possible feature, but decided it was still too detrimental to gameplay. Nobody wants to have to have a vote to move onto the next area. Nobody wants to be outvoted, or be in the middle of purchasing items at a shop when the other 3 out of 4 guys decides they want to leave. It is not a viable solution for the problem.

The point of an FPS/RPG is to take time to explore your surroundings and experience things on a slower pace than in a standard FPS. I guarantee you, if you decided to play through an entire FPS/RPG, you would end up getting pissed off on at least several occasions at such a system. Not only that, it doesn't address the issue of saving games, item distribution, quest distribution, etc. What happens when you get a story quest from an NPC, but someone else is buying items from a shop elsewhere in the map, or talking to another NPC? Should it just interrupt them and warp them to the quest NPC? Or should the NPC give the same quest out multiple times? Neither is desireable. It works in an MMORPG, but not in a story-based game like this. These are all issues that had to be dealt with and in the end, they just made coop inpractical.
This comment was edited on Aug 9, 16:29.

cool!

---
USA 2010: "Citizen, where are you going? Your Papers Please." (Just say NO to the National ID card)