Shadow : Source Announced. - by [NAUC]Chief
sparhawk on 18/4/2006 at 08:12
Quote Posted by Domarius
@Spar - Well you didn't say "Sharing it the first time is ok and fun." the first time around, you said "I don't really see the point of co-op with story" and go on to explain how boring it is to see the same thing over and over, so naturally I was explaining the "first time" aspect to you.
How do you see that "over and over again" come into play if not by repeatedly playing? Of course this was implicit when I said that I see no point in co-op when I also specifically mention the repeatedness of MP style games. If you play a co-op you can only see the "over and over" again when playing multiple times, where the story becomes boring.
z-vap on 18/4/2006 at 13:41
Sorry, but I don't think a Thief-type universe is a good setting for any kind of multiplayer - even co-op.
For a deathmatch setting, I can picture all the thieves hidden away in shadows, and the guards all on patrol - or if they're ranger guards, they 'll be shooting arrows into every shadow they come across.
IF its co-op it gets worse, because you'll have one or two guys, frobbing all the goodies and blackjacking all the guards, and the others will be coming across all the bodies, and going "frak this."
For me it's just not the right setting. Now Halo and Doom are better examples.
Sneekers are just not good multiplayer games.
(my 2 cents)
sparhawk on 18/4/2006 at 14:27
Quote Posted by z-vap
Sorry, but I don't think a Thief-type universe is a good setting for any kind of multiplayer - even co-op.
I don't think so. I can easily imagine that it could be a very fun game if properly done. Similar to hide and seek I played when I was a kid. It all depends on how well it is translated. It would not be enough just to replace the control of the guard AI with human players, because they would either have a hard time or very easy, depending on the implementation details. So it has to be well balanced that guards have a chance, and of course to provide enough motivation to play both. If playing guard is to boring, then everybody will try to play the thief which would unbalance it.
The devil is in the details but I think it could be a very interesting game. In fact I tried often to play Enemy Territory by sneaking, but of course this game is not geared towards sneaking so you have a problem there. Still it can be done sometimes, depending on the map and the players. And it is really rewarding if you manage to sneak in by the backdoor while everybody is watching the front. :)
Domarius on 18/4/2006 at 14:34
Quote Posted by sparhawk
How do you see that "over and over again" come into play if not by repeatedly playing? Of course this was implicit when I said that I see no point in co-op when I also specifically mention the repeatedness of MP style games.
What makes you think MP implies repeatedly playing the same thing??
All it is, is the same as playing a game SP for the first time, you just have other people along for the ride. It's a very simple concept.
sparhawk on 18/4/2006 at 15:09
Quote Posted by Domarius
What makes you think MP implies repeatedly playing the same thing??
Because MP usually involves to find new tactics for a given map. Most of the time I played in MP people would want to play maps they already know, because then they can focus more easily on the tactics to overcome the enemy, and not only learn a new map. Note that this "overcoming the enemy" doesn't not neccessarily imply (team) deathmatch variants, because it can also mean co-op objectives.
So you want to tell me that you primarily play new maps in multiplayer mode? Somehow I don't believe it. :)
Domarius on 18/4/2006 at 15:25
Look, whatever.
Me and my 2 brothers played through these games for the first time together, from start to end, as if playing in SP mode, experiencing the story together;
Serious Sam
Serious Sam Second Encounter
Serious Sam 2
Ghost Recon
Heretic 2
Hexen
Hexen: Death Knights
Hexen 2
Swat 3
System Shock 2
Secret Of Mana
and more that I can't remember right now.
I really don't care what your personal co-op experiences have been like.
sparhawk on 18/4/2006 at 16:29
Quote Posted by Domarius
I really don't care what your personal co-op experiences have been like.
You see? Same for me. I doubt that your experience is the usual, because most multiplayer games are not focused on such a playstyle, though I concede that it is certainly fun if you have proper co player.
But you might notice that the emphasis on MULTIplayer is on MULTI and not on player, so oyur single personal experience doesn't say much for a generic multiplayer experience.
And you might also tone down your agression a bit, just because somebody doesn't have the same experience or opinion that you have.
Ziemanskye on 18/4/2006 at 18:31
[Not my fight - but please both of you ramp it down a tad]
I like co-op games, those that I've played.
And I've *never* just joined a server and played true co-op*
System Shock 2 is/was a lot of fun played that way - but it's a very different atmosphere, and much of the plot is skipable if you've witnessed it. The Thief universe does not support that kind of co-location of information: there is no electronic transimittion of messages, no radio headsets, no email...
It also lasts better than many because of the variety of player choices available - the size of the game and the progression of the characters go well to create an atmophere of possibility. But again - by it's nature, Thief isn't geared so much in that kind of variety of character. Largely it'd be Thief/Thug/Pagan/Guard/Watch/Hammerite in whatever sets you choose (*natch: could be cool if the mappers could set the allying sides, more meta-plot options that way).
Then there's issues of Balancing - I played SS2 co-op last as a hacker. I was useless with weapons and needed chaperoned all over the world, but I made sure his ammo was cheap, his equipment repaired and everything I could hack was. Ergo, dispite the obvious devision between us, we both had fun. Where could/would you draw such lines in Thief? Even at most simple Guards Vs Thieves there's a class distinction, and as already mentioned it'd have to be fun for both - even without active story. Add to this that a large part of the fun of Thief is the equipment and the emergent behaviours and you're gonna annoy folk by restricting things. (*again, possible, again, better perhaps on mapper discretion, but it needs thinking about from the start)
I'm not trying to dis the idea - just being cautious about the scope of it: more of a sit down and think it through with some like-minded people than a "We're making a mod!" kind of thing, if that makes sense to you. Plan first.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I say true co-op because I'm a big fan of CTF, which while cliched is very easy to understand/explain the rules of, but how much of a team thing really depends on who you end up with - most games which feature it are mostly designed to be playable with all the extra "I"-s in team
demagogue on 18/4/2006 at 20:12
Quote Posted by Ziemanskye
Where could/would you draw such lines in Thief? Even at most simple Guards Vs Thieves there's a class distinction, and as already mentioned it'd have to be fun for both - even without active story.
Co-op theiving reminds me of the Ocean's 11 movie, where "jobs" are specifically designed to require multiple talents. Actually, the problem with a Thief-like world is more that it is limited by being in the past. it's harder to specialize than you could in a Splinter cell or SS2 sort of world which is more technology-centric. But that doesn't have to be necessarily that way, e.g., if you add magic or differentiate by ability with certain tools/skills (lockpicking, climbing, archery ... where not everyone can do these skills). With the right design you could make this differentiation make a gameplay difference and recreate some of what you were talking about with MP SS2.
Kurgan on 18/4/2006 at 20:34
Quote Posted by sparhawk
No point in responding to the other stuff you wrote, because apaprently you didn't even read or respond to what I wrote.
Sad thing is, I really did respond to what you said. You've misunderstood the related implications of what I said. My whole point was to point out that you're only seeing half the picture, but applying that mindset to all of it. Imagine someone coming into the thread, saying vehemently that they speak Latin, and when I reply, "
requiescat in pace" they respond with, "Huh? That's just gibberish!" Your next comment illustrates this perfectly:
Quote:
I didn't even mention any distinction of co-op or deathmatch, because for the definition of a MP game it doesn't matter. An MP game is a game where multiple people can play at the same time the same game together. Wether it is against each other or WITh each other is beside the point for the definition of multiplayer.
Anyone reading that, who has played both typical MP and Coop games, immediately understands that you're a MP (deathmatch/team/ctf/etc) gamer that's never played a true coop, and thus doesn't understand the difference. You're applying your understanding to another facet of multiplayer, and it simply doesn't work, because it
isn't the same thing.
Please don't take any offense. I'm not trying to be rude or insulting in the slightest, and appologize if any of that came across that way. Coop and contemporary MP are two entirely different things, and yes, the labeling being used sucks, and is completely misleading. You're completely correct in that. Coop is a form of multiplayer, but it's rarely incorporated, and most games that say they're multiplayer are using the term to describe a very limited function of the game that does
not allow the game to actually be played by multiple persons, but only after-the-fact, using maps from the game to fight in, or some sort of team-based session, without actually being able to play the full, out-of-the-box game.
