jtr7 on 19/8/2009 at 04:31
It would a fantastic surprise if all the options were doable under the budget and time constraints and no option leaked over into the others! :D:cool:
RavynousHunter on 19/8/2009 at 07:27
Quote Posted by Iroquois
I don't want one, but I'm pretty bloody sure we're getting one. Let's see how stealth-centric it's going to remain in the hands of caffeine-overdosed 14-year-olds, whose kneejerk reaction when they so much as smell a gamepad is to mash the attack trigger until something dies.
That's what the "Avoid Player" option is for. I make it a rule of thumb to avoid the annoying children. I'm not saying that I avoid all children, god knows there are some children online who are more mature than most of the adults I've met.
The one thing that would brick it for me would be the idea of "Ranked Matches," or more specifically, ranking players based solely on their multiplayer track record. If the online rankings take into account one's experience and skill in single player, then that could also keep the more experienced players away from the annoying kids out there.
Of course, the whole idea (ranked matches) is a bunch of crap at best because most of the time the algorithms used to determine one's rank are so poorly written and/or implemented a child would laugh at them. Just give us the options of split-screen, system link (w/ split-screen), and "Friends Only" lobbies, and I'll be a happy camper.
hexhunter on 19/8/2009 at 15:16
I said yes, I hope though that they think carefully about it and design something different, fun and accessable to all levels of player skill. And they should test it in a public beta.
Co-op would be a definite yes.
Ostriig on 19/8/2009 at 16:19
I said "No", mostly due to considerations of development costs for a game that I'm interested in as a single-player experience. However, I do think the poll is missing the neutral "Don't give a shit" option. OP, do you work for BioWare?
Jarvis on 19/8/2009 at 16:58
Stealth related multiplayer experiences are fun. People here have these concerns about 14 year olds and so on, but an experiment in multiplayer Thief has already been run. Thievery UT.
Despite that being converted from a first person shooter, by far the average player was on the mature side. Sure there was the occasional impatient kid, but even when there was I didn't find my game experience ruined.
Let me put it this way... ask any of the developers what the chief failing of Thievery UT was. They will all say that it was "too slow for mainstream audiences". It required patience. Games regularly lasted 40 minutes or more. There was even a thriving community of ghosters, of which I was one, who would attempt to complete every game with out being seen, KOing, or killing.
Most of the objections I hear on this subject are speculative and baseless. The only one worth any salt is "we don't want resources taken from the single player experience". I would agree with that. My hope is that they release the single player game, and then add on a multiplayer component via update later. But no matter what they do, I would love to see a multiplayer Thief.
I vote a resounding yes.
*edit*
And for the record, Thievery UT had both a coop mode and a thieves versus guards mode. While I think a Thief 4 coop mode would be better implemented than Thievery did, the T vs G mode was leaps and bounds more entertaining. I've said it before, you don't understand the joys of stealth until you pit your wit against a living, thinking mind.
jtr7 on 19/8/2009 at 20:52
Quote Posted by Jarvis
The only one worth any salt is "we don't want resources taken from the single player experience". I would agree with that. My hope is that they release the single player game, and then add on a multiplayer component via update later.
Yes.
This is the most important! The rest is not entirely without merit and comes form experience, which we hope is not repeated...ever again.
Jarvis on 20/8/2009 at 01:02
You hope what is not repeated ever again?
jtr7 on 20/8/2009 at 02:15
Quote:
Most of the objections I hear on this subject are speculative and baseless.
So, I meant that "most of the objections" minus:
Quote:
The only one worth any salt is "we don't want resources taken from the single player experience".
...has a reason behind it, and we don't want a repeat of those negatives we experienced.
Jarvis on 21/8/2009 at 21:23
Ahh, I take your meaning. I don't think anyone wants another TDS. But I do want another TUT, or something even better.
jtr7 on 22/8/2009 at 00:59
Yeah. Growth overall, more depths as well as heights of experience, with no repeated or new handicaps.
