I think they mean to being able to use the characters generated in the game to play the pen and paper version of the game, what point would be printing in paper the character sheet to use them in a multiplayer online game
Not necessarily. They said it's more of an R&D role. Maybe they are just exploring other ideas for online part of the game, not a typical multiplayer.
I didn't mean that. I was thinking -
If they would allow playing with our characters (from CG) in PnP games this would be weird if this would be an only possible multiplayer. It would be taking strong characters from single player and putting them in multi - like encouraging party of 4 Geralts or Shepards (each with slightly different role but still born to work alone).
I would love to see co-op play. It would definitely give the game more of a feel to the original PnP game. AI is limited to on how much they react to a players actions, but with other players it would elevate game play imho.
I paused for a second because Bloodlines didn't have multiplayer, then I remember Redemption.
The only thing I worry about with MP is it becoming the focus of the game and not a side thing to do with friends.
Optional multiplayer, like the different types of combat scenarios in Max Payne 3 or Assassin's Creed 3 I could deal with, but I don't want to share the limelight with anyone when it comes to the main campaign. I want to be the hero in my own story, not have to wait till all my friends are online so we can finally finish a mission.
I don't think this is a good idea at all...I want a single player RPG experience, and I want the devs to focus their time and efforts on perfecting that experience rather than be distracted by other modes of playing, or having to adjust the whole game to accommodate that mode. There's no need for it really, that's the kind of thing publishers like EA mandate to their devs because they feel the need to hedge bets and appeal to the widest possible market..IE Mass Effect 3.
That's the perfect example of spreading out resources too thinly..ME2 was awesome to me, because it was well-rounded in both main story and side-quests/exploration. I wanted to pick up and play that game all the time. But in ME3 they had to throw in multiplayer...and look at what happened to the main game....dozens of useless, lazy fetch quests that were a time-consuming chore to complete, zero fun, and only required Bioware to record a few lines of dialog to generate. That stuff totally took me out of the game and my motivation to play it (I bought it on release and am just now about to complete it).
Don't get me wrong, I love co-op gameplay, but in a game designed around co-op, not in my hardcore RPG. I want the focus of their limited resources here to be placed into game detail and depth...like everyone else I don't want to see a very good game, I want to see a genre-defining one, one that sets a new industry standard.
That's the perfect example of spreading out resources too thinly..ME2 was awesome to me, because it was well-rounded in both main story and side-quests/exploration. I wanted to pick up and play that game all the time. But in ME3 they had to throw in multiplayer...and look at what happened to the main game....dozens of useless, lazy fetch quests that were a time-consuming chore to complete, zero fun, and only required Bioware to record a few lines of dialog to generate. That stuff totally took me out of the game and my motivation to play it (I bought it on release and am just now about to complete it).
Don't get me wrong, I love co-op gameplay, but in a game designed around co-op, not in my hardcore RPG. I want the focus of their limited resources here to be placed into game detail and depth...like everyone else I don't want to see a very good game, I want to see a genre-defining one, one that sets a new industry standard.
I don't get all those NOOO's.
I realise that multi is different and multi in RPG is even harder to make that in a shooter for instance, but the experience could be soo awesome. We might be scared that they won't manage to do great single and multi on the same time - they definitely should think about singleplayer first but if possibility of multi wouldn't be forgotten during that time this could be awesome DLC and people would buy it even if this would cost the same money as singleplayer game.
I realise that multi is different and multi in RPG is even harder to make that in a shooter for instance, but the experience could be soo awesome. We might be scared that they won't manage to do great single and multi on the same time - they definitely should think about singleplayer first but if possibility of multi wouldn't be forgotten during that time this could be awesome DLC and people would buy it even if this would cost the same money as singleplayer game.
And you never will. I'm hoping that CDPR ignores all people asking for multiplayer.
Get your multiplayer/co-op thirst quenched somewhere else, not every single player game needs to have that added onto it.
Hello! Played most of the game from old Black Isle. Personally I am not a fan of that "Co-op" mode that was introduced in BG1 but your comments makes sense. Probably BG1 was a good exemple of how you can have a wonderfull single player experience and the chance of co-op. My statement was that, according to what you can see in the Game Industry, each Company tries to add a lot of Game Modes at the sake of the quality. I would avoid that for CP2077 and just focus on Single Player exeprience.
The reason for all the NOOOOOOOOs is simple. People are afraid that adding multiplayer to the game will ruin it, because quite frankly, there have to be a lot of changes for it to work out good, instead of it being there as simply an unpolished gimmick there to please a certain crowd.
You want coop in the main campaign? The story has to be told in such a way that all of the players are on equal ground, otherwise it works very oddly and dysfunctionally at best. Also, developing that requires time and money, both of which are limited. It also requires a different design stratagem towards developing characters, abilities and the like. Finally, if a lot of the minor details don't add up properly, you end up with a pile of crap instead of an awesome game.
I like the idea of releasing a modding toolkit, and allowing multi player coop sessions with say, a fifth player acting as GM. That would be all sorts of cool, but anything even approaching that requires a shitload of resources and time to pull off properly.
Meh, I don’t care if there is no multiplayer whatsoever. It’s okay for games to be singleplayer only. The most that I could imagine for this is something as “simple” as the arena mode in The Witcher 2 although I think this time direct player interaction (instead of just leaderboards) would be okay. A whole co-op campaign however? Nope, nope, nope, that sounds horrible. With that you could never have the same experience that you have without it since your decisions couldn’t affect the world much since everyone would have to play in the same world. The closest thing to that which I could imagine are some sort of side missions in another city altogether where you and a buddy could join up to kick some ass with your high-level characters. But even that seems like a nice gimmick at best.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I do want it to feature co-operative play. Saits Row 2 style.
I want to play with my friends, I want to play with some of you guys.
Adding Co-op doesn;t really take anythign out of the game, the only real coding issues are those required to connect online and synch up to another player. The game remains the same... free-roam co-op and co-operative capability for missions just makes the game more fun, and doesn;t really detract from it at all.
What I absolutely do not wat, in multi-player death matches, or special PVP maps, or any of that other bullshit which DOES significantly detract from the game.resources.
Saints Row co-op has kind of spoiled me on that...
I want to play with my friends, I want to play with some of you guys.
Adding Co-op doesn;t really take anythign out of the game, the only real coding issues are those required to connect online and synch up to another player. The game remains the same... free-roam co-op and co-operative capability for missions just makes the game more fun, and doesn;t really detract from it at all.
What I absolutely do not wat, in multi-player death matches, or special PVP maps, or any of that other bullshit which DOES significantly detract from the game.resources.
Saints Row co-op has kind of spoiled me on that...
For me too, but I think Mass Effect 3 has shown that you can have a decent single player campaign (if we ignore the end) and still have a engaging and enjoyable multiplayer experience. Like Mass Effect I would have it co-op only definitely. It certainly extended the life of that game well beyond the first play through.
I always played the pen and paper Cyberpunk with friends it would be nice to be able to do the same in a CRPG as well.
Some things might even work even better, say if you had one guy actually engaged in hacking while others had to defend him. You wouldn't need to split the GMs time like you do in the tabletop game.
Mass Effect 3 multiplayer was fine on its own but the fact that it STILL affected the single-player portion("here,raise your galactic readiness as much as you want with it")was wrong on so many levels.
Agreed although the whole Galactic Readiness concept was a load of crap in the way it was implemented, so lets not hold it against what is actually a pretty cool multiplayer experience. I know loads of people that hate CoD style multiplayer that really like the Mass Effect 3 experience, myself among them. I think the learning experience there is don't have multiplayer as a requirement for achieving an objective in the single player.