Co-op mode and MMO in The Witcher

[slamelov]

Co-op mode and MMO in The Witcher

HiI have read this interview at the Witcher France, and I would like to ask developers for some points:

Right now implementation of any form of multiplayer mode is not taken under consideration. Multiplayer games require a slightly different approach, not mentioning the technical changes that would have to be done to our engine. It is hard to imagine a world populated by "Geralts" or even by a large number of witchers, who are relicts of the past and almost an extinct profession. On the other hand implementing something like Diablo II or Neverwinter Night, where a player can choose from various races and professions is nearly impossible in The Witcher's world - it just doesn't fit. On the other hand we are aware that interacting with other players is very important and fun. In my opinion the best way to allow that is to implement some kind of co-operative mode (like in Gears of War for example), but this is a question for the future.\Katarzyna Kuczyńska, designerWell we're definately not interested in any MMOs at this point. As far as multiplayer -- the reason there's no multiplayer in The Witcher is not because we were prevented from doing it technologically -- it's just something we chose not to do, because first of all the gameplay and story was built around the idea of a game for one player and secondly we just didn't think multiplayer would work in the current setting we had.

I don't like most actual MMORPG's, but the same problem that you say about "Geralts" occurs in star Wars Galaxies, but they solved not allowing to play as "Han Solo" or another main characters. Only common people living in the same universe and that could be a good point for The Witcher MMORPG if you want to do it. The main problem about MMORPG's is the lack of innovation. Only WoW clons. But really I don't care. The point I'm most interested is about cooperative in the same way that NWN single player campaign, but only 4 or 6 players, like Baldur's Gate. In the books, I think 4 and 5, Geralt forms a group with Regis, Mila, Zoltan, Jaskier and so. They are involved in many situations and that could be a starting option for a cooperative The Witcher. Imagine; a player with Geralt, another one with Mila or Jaskier... you don't need to create characters, only using the book ones. Curely you can create a good history to be played cooperatively. If you say that there is not technical limitations...I think that cooperative gameplay is the better if it's made correctly. There is not necessary to create a MMORPG, only a few players playing together. Regards

 

[thilnen]

HiI have read this interview at the Witcher France, and I would like to ask developers for some points:

Right now implementation of any form of multiplayer mode is not taken under consideration. Multiplayer games require a slightly different approach, not mentioning the technical changes that would have to be done to our engine. It is hard to imagine a world populated by "Geralts" or even by a large number of witchers, who are relicts of the past and almost an extinct profession. On the other hand implementing something like Diablo II or Neverwinter Night, where a player can choose from various races and professions is nearly impossible in The Witcher's world - it just doesn't fit. On the other hand we are aware that interacting with other players is very important and fun. In my opinion the best way to allow that is to implement some kind of co-operative mode (like in Gears of War for example), but this is a question for the future.\Katarzyna Kuczyńska, designerWell we're definately not interested in any MMOs at this point. As far as multiplayer -- the reason there's no multiplayer in The Witcher is not because we were prevented from doing it technologically -- it's just something we chose not to do, because first of all the gameplay and story was built around the idea of a game for one player and secondly we just didn't think multiplayer would work in the current setting we had.

I don't like most actual MMORPG's, but the same problem that you say about "Geralts" occurs in star Wars Galaxies, but they solved not allowing to play as "Han Solo" or another main characters. Only common people living in the same universe and that could be a good point for The Witcher MMORPG if you want to do it. The main problem about MMORPG's is the lack of innovation. Only WoW clons. But really I don't care. The point I'm most interested is about cooperative in the same way that NWN single player campaign, but only 4 or 6 players, like Baldur's Gate. In the books, I think 4 and 5, Geralt forms a group with Regis, Mila, Zoltan, Jaskier and so. They are involved in many situations and that could be a starting option for a cooperative The Witcher. Imagine; a player with Geralt, another one with Mila or Jaskier... you don't need to create characters, only using the book ones. Curely you can create a good history to be played cooperatively. If you say that there is not technical limitations...I think that cooperative gameplay is the better if it's made correctly. There is not necessary to create a MMORPG, only a few players playing together. Regards

The biggestproblem with MMO in The Witcher's world is the difficulty of making it realistic. In WoW you've got dozens of heroes, running around and trying to save the world, everybody completing the same missions and killing every boss billions of times. In a cartoon-like world that we have in WoW it is acceptable, but IMHO in The Withcer's world it would be a disaster. To make a decent MMO, we would have to develope a completely new approach to the MMO's, one that would fit to a mature and realistic world. As I said - a question for the future. As for the co-operative mode, the problem is different - we would have to design our story in a complete different way. I don't say it's impossible, it just requires time and lots of creative thinking I hope that this is a challenge that we'll take one day, but anything I can tell for sure.

 

[Steve_Theim]

yes that makes sense, co-op would certainly imbalance the game as is, maybe in the future will see some new chapters that were build specifically for extra damage, it all depends on how well the game did in sales in the end.

 

[slamelov]

Thanks for the answers, KatarzynaReally I'm most interested in coop than a MMO, and may be you can think on it for a future expansion or a possible The Witcher 2. I suppose that if you design the game for coop from the beguinning, you could solve many issues. I think that games like System SHock 2, Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter, worked well in coop and a new "Witcher" game could do it also.Anyway, thanks again for your atention.

 

[ulteriormodem]

completing the same missions and killing every boss billions of times. In a cartoon-like world that we have in WoW it is acceptable,

Spot on ! Maybe thats why I like Witcher so much

 

[LadyRolePlay]

A co op game would be awesome. Especially if you released a good and easy to use tool set to go with it. NWN 2 tried to follow in the footsteps of NWN 1 and failed horribly. But to this day I still use NWN 1 to play online dm run games, and there are still persistent worlds out there based on nwn one, it's still a game heavily used today, years and years later.Such a good job was done with the graphics in this game, using the Aurora engine. In the hands of such a talented modding community that is part of the nwn one and two community over at the vault, this could make this game last and last and last for years to come. Love to see both co op and modding tools combined.I guess what I am saying is not only to make the game itself playable by more than one, but more important make the engine so that it would support more than one player, and perhaps a dm client. I realize that would be very very far down the line, maybe in a future release full game or xpac, I think being able to to have that would sure be a lot of fun as people built their own adventures using the tool set that many players could jump on to play, or builders could build their own persistent worlds for others to enjoy questing in, such a great job was done with the graphics engine. Custom content builders would have a blast, and bring a different sort of fantasy set up for people to enjoy that is not WotC and traditional d and d.

 

[username_2068391]

I really don't know why people think anything + MMO = Awesome.Seriously, it doesn't matter WHAT franchise it is, all a 'themed' MMO is is the same crappy concepts with a new look. It's like putting a Ferrari body over Geo Prism. It might look like a Ferrari, but it's still a pile of crap.

 

[username_2071599]

I really don't know why people think anything + MMO = Awesome.

I second that. Most fun I've EVER had with ANY MMO was with "Shadows of Angmar", mostly because I could do most things on my own, without anyone else coming in my way. MMOs take all the fun out of exploring the world, because in your first 5 minutes someone WILL come and WILL say "wna duel?".

 

[cracker1090]

personaly i think MMO=epic fail/sucks ass everything bad but a co-op feture might be nice..im thinking it should be available after finishing the game so it can be played with out cut senes because garelt dont have any "team mates"and adding them will mess with the story line IMHO

 

[BadSector71]

HiI have read this interview at the Witcher France, and I would like to ask developers for some points:

Right now implementation of any form of multiplayer mode is not taken under consideration. Multiplayer games require a slightly different approach, not mentioning the technical changes that would have to be done to our engine. It is hard to imagine a world populated by "Geralts" or even by a large number of witchers, who are relicts of the past and almost an extinct profession. On the other hand implementing something like Diablo II or Neverwinter Night, where a player can choose from various races and professions is nearly impossible in The Witcher's world - it just doesn't fit. On the other hand we are aware that interacting with other players is very important and fun. In my opinion the best way to allow that is to implement some kind of co-operative mode (like in Gears of War for example), but this is a question for the future.\Katarzyna Kuczyńska, designerWell we're definately not interested in any MMOs at this point. As far as multiplayer -- the reason there's no multiplayer in The Witcher is not because we were prevented from doing it technologically -- it's just something we chose not to do, because first of all the gameplay and story was built around the idea of a game for one player and secondly we just didn't think multiplayer would work in the current setting we had.

I don't like most actual MMORPG's, but the same problem that you say about "Geralts" occurs in star Wars Galaxies, but they solved not allowing to play as "Han Solo" or another main characters. Only common people living in the same universe and that could be a good point for The Witcher MMORPG if you want to do it. The main problem about MMORPG's is the lack of innovation. Only WoW clons. But really I don't care. The point I'm most interested is about cooperative in the same way that NWN single player campaign, but only 4 or 6 players, like Baldur's Gate. In the books, I think 4 and 5, Geralt forms a group with Regis, Mila, Zoltan, Jaskier and so. They are involved in many situations and that could be a starting option for a cooperative The Witcher. Imagine; a player with Geralt, another one with Mila or Jaskier... you don't need to create characters, only using the book ones. Curely you can create a good history to be played cooperatively. If you say that there is not technical limitations...I think that cooperative gameplay is the better if it's made correctly. There is not necessary to create a MMORPG, only a few players playing together. Regards

The biggestproblem with MMO in The Witcher's world is the difficulty of making it realistic. In WoW you've got dozens of heroes, running around and trying to save the world, everybody completing the same missions and killing every boss billions of times. In a cartoon-like world that we have in WoW it is acceptable, but IMHO in The Withcer's world it would be a disaster. To make a decent MMO, we would have to develope a completely new approach to the MMO's, one that would fit to a mature and realistic world. As I said - a question for the future. As for the co-operative mode, the problem is different - we would have to design our story in a complete different way. I don't say it's impossible, it just requires time and lots of creative thinking I hope that this is a challenge that we'll take one day, but anything I can tell for sure.

I agree Kata, MMO would be awkward in the Witcher world. And you are cute. :-*

 

[kaanthewise]

I'd just like to chip on here and say that The Witcher is one of the most 'credible' RPGs I've ever played. Of course it's 'incredible' too, but let me explain...I've always found that MMORPGs lack 'credibility' in the sense that you're constantly aware that you're playing alongside or against a bunch of teenagers sitting behind a PC. That doesn't make the games bad in any way, but it makes it much harder to establish an atmosphere of true immersion. I've always been a fan of The Elder Scrolls series because they didn't implement a multiplayer function, but concentrated on making a really amazing single-player experience. That way you can ensure depth and continuity throughout an exciting story. This may not be everyone's favourite sort of game, but for me it's one of the main factors which makes The Witcher a fantastic game. I cannot imagine The Witcher being suitable for a multiplayer function, and I really hope that no one wastes time on pushing for it.

 

[airiak]

The Witcher could work as an MMO, your just looking at the wrong style of MMO.Turn your gaze from the 800 pound gorilla that is WoW and take a look at Ultima Online (pre renaissance).The economy was player run, we gathered the resources, crafted the items and then sold them via a vendor we owned at a shop or our own house. There was no questing and no "levels", you worked the skills you wanted to and they advanced through use up to a limit of 700 points. Your strength, dexterity and intelligence went up according to what you were doing as far as your skills went. PvP was amazing, and it could happen at anytime for any reason as soon as you stepped outside of the protected area around towns. If you made The Witcher into a pure sandbox style MMO, it could work. Anyway, I would love to see you guys do an MMO .. even if it isn't based on The Witcher. Most MMOs are WoW clones, and us MMO players are getting tired of the repetition.

 

[vaernus]

To be honest, WoW is simply a clone of EQ. There really has not been any true innovation in that genre beyond games like Eve Online for years. It would be interesting seeing a new way of building an immersive MMOG with living, breathing characters and a living breathing world. If you look at "The Witcher MMO" and attempt to build this idea based off all the MMOGs to date, yes it's completely impossible and improbable. It goes the same with the entire debate over whether MMOGs can have permadeath. No, they cannot if you see the word permadeath and then attempt to put that into WoW. You die every time you play these games.However, using The Witcher world as a basis, if every NPC had a purpose, a story, and they lived that story and weren't simply filler, and everyone started as a certain race (considering witchers are simply humans that go through mutations, cannot begin as a witcher), and the same care was put with the story and details that was The Witcher, I can see a powerful MMOG. Toss in the many innovative but "risky" features like permadeath and true player economies that publishers don't want to touch because EQ-Clone equals money, and you have a new breed of MMOs.I can easily see where everyone would join the game and want to be a witcher, or a sorceress, and so people start flocking to Kaer Morhen only to be killed off by the Witchers living there for invading their castle. Or they aren't home because it's spring and they're traveling around the continent taking contracts from players and NPCs alike. Add in that the Witchers go through the world (either scripted or developers/GMs) and perhaps find gifted swordsmen to offer them the chance to become witchers, or perhaps a feature to start the game as a child and then be picked up by a witcher, and it still fits the story as being a nearly extinct profession. But it would take a precise approach with risky innovative features to pull it off effectively.

 

[sibbtigre]

To be honest, WoW is simply a clone of EQ. There really has not been any true innovation in that genre beyond games like Eve Online for years.

Guild Wars (2005), though horribly subjective I fear..To be honest, I don't want Witcher to turn into an MMO, but I like the idea of 2-person Co-op.And MMO, however, based on the witcher and perhaps looking at the war between Humans and Non-Humans prior to the Witcher?

 

[stabs]

The closest MMOs to Witcher is probably going to be Age of Conan when it's released. The problem with MMOs though is individual players can't effect anything like you can in a single player game, since the game has to cater for 1000s of people at once.I don't think The Witcher would really work as an MMO because it would just end up being another EQ/WoW clone and currently WoW is king of fantasy type games. It would be good in co-op though, with small objective based maps.

 

[vaernus]

Sure an individual player can't do a thing in an MMO if based off MMOs now because you die, revive somewhere, and continue on. In all reality, all MMOs are supposed to continue on forever and yet, because there really is no risk beyond losing some experience or items, they have put an end to MMOs. You hit the highest level, be it character level or skill cap, and perhaps raid an area over and over until an expansion is released and that's the end. Eventually you've raided everything 1000 times and get tired of it, and perhaps start a new character or quit. Everybody is a hero because it's impossible not to be. It's given to every character on a silver platter, if you devote the time.An individual player CAN affect a lot if there is risk involved. Take an example in The Witcher world.A dwarven player becomes a blacksmith in this fictional The Witcher MMOG. At this time in the world, the best sword somebody can get is a standard steel sword. Because there are no dungeons or raids that constantly respawn monsters, everything is built by the player economy from scratch, so this sword is all the world has. Many other blacksmiths are, however, trying to make a better weapon. Perhaps they are doing it to make their business do better, or they are helping Temeria out by giving it's soldiers a better weapon.This original player creates the first meteorite sword. Stronger than all others, and lighter. This creates a dilemma. The player is now a target once this news gets out. If, for example, this blacksmith is working with Redania, then he is now a target by every other nation, as well as every other blacksmith. Other nations know by killing this blacksmith and stealing the recipe, they gain an advantage. Other blacksmiths know killing this blacksmith, they gain an advantage in their business. And if the original blacksmith is killed, he's dead. Permanently in a "permadeath" system. Thus there's always the possibility he is accidently eaten by a monster and the recipe is lost. Sure the player is still there, and he may create another blacksmith and attempt to rebuild the recipe, but it may have taken him quite a while of trial and error to get to that point and he would have to do the same with a new character.Permadeath provides a completely new approach to MMOs. Leaders can be assassinated, causing political strife (Foltest is killed, and a player takes over by a political coup). Soldiers killed in battle, causing a true end to a war. And if you take away a level system, every character has no idea how tough another person is. Thus everyone has to think. And if there is annoying people asking to "duel" or grief players killing people outside cities, all you gotta do is kill them and they're gone. After a few deaths, they eventually quit.

 

[planewalker]

Co-op mode wouldn't work, because witchers work alone.

 

[makar40]

Do the advocates of perma-death never think about the fact that an mmo with perma-death would have like few players. I played UO back in 98, before they did the shard splits. The reason they DID the shard splits were because SO many people were quitting the game due to the fact they could and would be ganked anywhere. So they seperated the game into Trammel and Feluca. One side was pvp anywhere, anytime, the other side was no pvp. Immediately after implementing this, the pvp side cleared out and was mostly empty. In UO when you died, you dropped EVERYTHING you carried and would promptly be looted. You lost it all. I currently play Eve Online, which is an awesome game. But the same thing applies. You can pvp mostly anywhere and when you die you are set back in a big way alot of times. Eve has spent most of its gaming life with 6-10k players. Recently it has hit up to 40k players, but that is NOTHING compared to most mmo's. The simple fact is the mmo community for years has spoken. They dont like extreme gameplay. They dont like non-consensual pvp. And nobody wants to spend 100's of hours worth of work to build a character, only to have it gone for good,due to some jerk who ganks them, or even dies due to lag when fighting npc's. Hell even the XP loss in EQ kept alot of players away. Before I get flamed hehe, understand that the MMO's I like are the more hardcore ones. UO, EVE and Asherons Call 1 because it was different. But the fact is most mmo'ers dont like that kind of exreme gameplay, and I highly doubt a Dev House or Publisher would spend the massive money required to make an mmo that would barely be able to support itself due to lack of subscriptions.

 

[vaernus]

Do the advocates of perma-death never think about the fact that an mmo with perma-death would have like few players. I played UO back in 98, before they did the shard splits. The reason they DID the shard splits were because SO many people were quitting the game due to the fact they could and would be ganked anywhere. So they seperated the game into Trammel and Feluca. One side was pvp anywhere, anytime, the other side was no pvp. Immediately after implementing this, the pvp side cleared out and was mostly empty. In UO when you died, you dropped EVERYTHING you carried and would promptly be looted. You lost it all. I currently play Eve Online, which is an awesome game. But the same thing applies. You can pvp mostly anywhere and when you die you are set back in a big way alot of times. Eve has spent most of its gaming life with 6-10k players. Recently it has hit up to 40k players, but that is NOTHING compared to most mmo's. The simple fact is the mmo community for years has spoken. They dont like extreme gameplay. They dont like non-consensual pvp. And nobody wants to spend 100's of hours worth of work to build a character, only to have it gone for good,due to some jerk who ganks them, or even dies due to lag when fighting npc's. Hell even the XP loss in EQ kept alot of players away. Before I get flamed hehe, understand that the MMO's I like are the more hardcore ones. UO, EVE and Asherons Call 1 because it was different. But the fact is most mmo'ers dont like that kind of exreme gameplay, and I highly doubt a Dev House or Publisher would spend the massive money required to make an mmo that would barely be able to support itself due to lack of subscriptions.

I agree with everything you typed. As a developer, I have seen all of this first hand since Meridian 59 (which I feel is the true first MMO). The issue here is that there was no consideration for killing other players, as well as NPCs killing players.If you put permadeath into any game, Eve Online included (which it kind of has), then yes, it is going to completely fail and many people will not play it. It's hard to compare Eve Online to other MMOs. It's a space sim and I don't think that's a big hit for many gamers. If World of Warcraft had been designed differently, and had made permadeath work, I guarantee they still would be where they are. It's all about implementation.First off, there is always going to be jerks and I don't care if you lose a character, or items, or a jerk camps your spawn point when you die, it all sucks no matter how you put it. The difference is you can't do a thing now to that jerk, so he'll always be there. Players cannot police their own game because the mechanics don't allow it, and there's not much a GM can do. You could do the same to him perhaps, but he'll come back.So let's say you get rid of dungeons, raids, etc. The entire game is a living breathing world, not a bunch of instances you run into for loot. The game also starts on a clean slate. You got cities of players, big open world that needs to be explored, and npcs. And everyone has next to nothing, with all new equipment and items being invented and built. For the world to expand, people must do it. They must build cities, fight wars, open businesses, run for politics, make every single item in the game, and evolve it. Everything. You don't just enter the game and require grinding by killing monsters to level up, as there is no levels or skill caps. Just in those cases above, which require permadeath to be effective as in my previous post about a blacksmith, a player could easily be a profession that does not involve as much killing or risk, and have just as much fun.First, like in our world, most animals don't tend to attack you on a whim, they run. Second, many animals don't kill you if they do attack. So even if an animal attacks, the game mechanics cause you to become knocked out and you wake up after the animal leaves, no harm done. Unless it eats you, then you're dead. But that should be extremely rare as death should be a very hard thing to accomplish. Same thing applies to other players and humanoid NPCs. There is a "safety" feature on that only allows people to knock others out. A bandit would rather, imho, knock someone out and steal their goods over killing them due to the consequences. For one thing, that same person won't be there to be stolen from in the future, and the murder can be led to the bandit.Since players aren't going to know what "level" or "skill" someone else is, it's a catch 22 whether it's worth it to attack someone. It's a risk that the old cloaked man in the corner is not just a farmer, but a blade master, just as it is in real life. That means every decision must be weighed just for the initial attack. It requires strength in numbers to be sure you can take someone down, and at the same time everyone would safely travel in numbers to begin with. With an efficient justice system, whether player run or NPC, murder could involve sitting in a jail for a few weeks, or death by hanging. Not fun at all, and that may be more a deterrent for people to needlessly attack and kill people. And it opens up player immersion as you play detective and find murderers and thieves.On top of that, you could also have an afterlife in case a player does die. Perhaps a place you go for some time, and if you complete some task there, you are returned to the world. If you don't, you stay in the afterlife forever. There's a lot you can do to make it work when someone sits down and really thinks it through, and that hasn't been attempted by any Dev House or Publisher because the current trend makes a lot of money, at the cost of innovation. Eventually, you need to try something new or else people get tired of the trend.

 

[username_2071599]

So let's say you get rid of dungeons, raids, etc. The entire game is a living breathing world, not a bunch of instances you run into for loot. The game also starts on a clean slate. You got cities of players, big open world that needs to be explored, and npcs. And everyone has next to nothing, with all new equipment and items being invented and built. For the world to expand, people must do it. They must build cities, fight wars, open businesses, run for politics, make every single item in the game, and evolve it. Everything. You don't just enter the game and require grinding by killing monsters to level up, as there is no levels or skill caps. Just in those cases above, which require permadeath to be effective as in my previous post about a blacksmith, a player could easily be a profession that does not involve as much killing or risk, and have just as much fun.

This all sound very nice, but I can see one flaw in such an approach. Once the world is expanded to a certain degree, new players would find it WAY more difficult to find a place for them within it than people who play in it since the early stages of its development. Plus, they will possibly not be entitled to all the fun of world exploration, foundation of new cities, and so on, simply because someone has done it all before. One solution would be opening new worlds every so often, but (a) you can't do it indefinitely (b) people who want to invite friends into such a game would rather them to play in the same world, I think.

First, like in our world, most animals don't tend to attack you on a whim, they run. Second, many animals don't kill you if they do attack. So even if an animal attacks, the game mechanics cause you to become knocked out and you wake up after the animal leaves, no harm done. Unless it eats you, then you're dead. But that should be extremely rare as death should be a very hard thing to accomplish. Same thing applies to other players and humanoid NPCs. There is a "safety" feature on that only allows people to knock others out. A bandit would rather, imho, knock someone out and steal their goods over killing them due to the consequences. For one thing, that same person won't be there to be stolen from in the future, and the murder can be led to the bandit.

I like this idea, but that would also require a different (i.e. non-point based) character development model, simply because you wouldn't get as many fights as in usual MMOs. Of course, this is just a river to be crossed, not an impossible obstacle.

On top of that, you could also have an afterlife in case a player does die. Perhaps a place you go for some time, and if you complete some task there, you are returned to the world. If you don't, you stay in the afterlife forever.

A similar approach was found in a single-player game Spellcraft, and it worked well there. But then again, there should be a variety of such tasks for characters to perform, otherwise the concept would soon become dull and repetitive.

There's a lot you can do to make it work when someone sits down and really thinks it through, and that hasn't been attempted by any Dev House or Publisher because the current trend makes a lot of money, at the cost of innovation. Eventually, you need to try something new or else people get tired of the trend.

True, although I don't blame the developers for following a well-trodden path instead of engaging in risky trailblazing through uncharted territory.Altogether, I think your idea would work more as a 'virtual world', similar to, for instance, Gaia Online, than as a game in its own right.