Walk in Arcades. public districts. Bars.

[omnivorously]

Walk in Arcades. public districts. Bars.

I dunno what kind of multiplayer is slated for this game- if any, but I think it would be kind of interesting to have arcades that you can enter with other players. Somewhat like the safe houses/dark zone in the division.

They would be places where you can trade/sell and socialize but also where you can play mini-games together and what not. From old upright cabinets to something like a holo-deck.

More talky talky after photos (for inspiration).

If you haven't seen new retro arcade for oculus, you should check it out. Video/Picture below
https://youtu.be/gB9jCEXVQDk

I'm not interested in any type of PVP really unless its in a mini-game for fun. It ruined the division for me. (In my opinion, Online play should never have an effect/ derail progress on my single player game like it did in the Division.) It's played out and if I want to play deathmatch I'll load up COD or DOOM or something, but what if I could do that in game?

I'm still interested in playing with other live people though. As much life as there was in The Witcher, I still would like to be able to take a break, kick back and shoot the breeze but not actually leave the game.

 

[matsif]

for me anyways, I'd prefer if this sort of zone (if implemented) was limited to netrunning only. I want Night City to be a superbly immersive experience, to see the neon and the slums and the industrial areas and such on my own time, and not have to bother with walking into a club and seeing a bunch of people with nonsensical names using an emote and trolling each other and spamming a chat box. now in netrunning, I can suspend that because hey, it's the internet, I expect it. but for the main city, I don't want these types of zones filled with other players, I want to be sucked into the world like I was with witcher 3 and appreciate it without the distraction of someone named "Loves2sp00ge" showing up on my hud without any clothes and spamming voice/text chat.

 

[Suhiira]

I don't think it's something we need to worry about much with CP2077, it's not going to be an MMO after all. Any multiplayer will probably be limited to team co-op and maybe, maybe, some team-vs-team stuff. All of which I'm sure will be optional not mandatory. So the only time you'll see "Loves2sp00ge" is if they're a friend of yours or you get to kill them!

 

[reidyboy102998]

I dunno what kind of multiplayer is slated for this game- if any, but I think it would be kind of interesting to have arcades that you can enter with other players. Somewhat like the safe houses/dark zone in the division.

They would be places where you can trade/sell and socialize but also where you can play mini-games together and what not. From old upright cabinets to something like a holo-deck.

More talky talky after photos (for inspiration).

If you haven't seen new retro arcade for oculus, you should check it out. Video/Picture below
https://youtu.be/gB9jCEXVQDk

I'm not interested in any type of PVP really unless its in a mini-game for fun. It ruined the division for me. (In my opinion, Online play should never have an effect/ derail progress on my single player game like it did in the Division.) It's played out and if I want to play deathmatch I'll load up COD or DOOM or something, but what if I could do that in game?

I'm still interested in playing with other live people though. As much life as there was in The Witcher, I still would like to be able to take a break, kick back and shoot the breeze but not actually leave the game.

I love this idea. It would be so awesome to have this implemented into CP 2077.

 

[omnivorously]

I could live with that. But they wouldn't be city wide in my vision of it. Just a couple of them peppered here and there. Seedy little back alley places.

 

[dragonbird]

Totally not interested in the idea of "trade/sell with other players". If the game is designed with that mechanic in mind, then I think it would harm the single-user version, and this should be primarily a single-user game.

The rest of it, fine, but there's no way I would actually make use of it, so I'd hope something like this would be 100% optional and separate from the actual game.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Totally not interested in the idea of "trade/sell with other players".

Something like that is OK, for on-line RPG. Multiplayer is too generic of a term. Is CP2077 supposed to have on-line roleplaying servers? I'd expect that from a roleplaying game. If yes, then trading with other players, and players driven economy should be perfectly fine. As you said, single player game should be separate from multiplayer one. Think of Star Citizen and its single player / multiplayer divisions.

 

[Suhiira]

Is CP2077 supposed to have on-line roleplaying servers?

No information at this time but very doubtful, it's not intended to be an MMO. I suspect team-play (if implemented) will be set up to allow a PC to act as a host. No clue how they'd do such a thing for consoles tho. But ANY multi-player functionality is merely conjecture at this time.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

No information at this time but very doubtful, it's not intended to be an MMO.

Why not an on-line RPG? It's the only thing that makes sense for me in such game, if multiplayer is concerned. Whether server can run on any machine isn't that relevant - there are on-line RPGs which allow you running your own servers in addition to some official dedicated ones. Issue of roleplaying vs non roleplaying environment in the multiplayer game is orthogonal to that.

Team-play can be perfectly natural to it of course, that's part of the fun in on-line games. But why should roleplaying be gutted from it? That would be a disservice to the settings.

 

[Claylex]

Pffff I shouldn't talk about the arcades.

Unless I get the mob on me.

 

[Suhiira]

Why not an on-line RPG? It's the only thing that makes sense for me in such game, if multiplayer is concerned. Whether server can run on any machine isn't that relevant - there are on-line RPGs which allow you running your own servers in addition to some official dedicated ones. Issue of roleplaying vs non roleplaying environment in the multiplayer game is orthogonal to that.

So you think CDPR should bankroll servers for multi-player because ... ?

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

So you think CDPR should bankroll servers for multi-player because ... ?

they are fans of roleplaying? They are taking an interesting pen and paper RPG, and making a game from it. Single player one should be good. But if they are making a multiplayer from it, what should you expect? As a roleplayer, I expect a roleplaying game that tries to provide tools / environment that can substitude pen and paper experience at least in some way. That's what good on-line RPGs are trying to do. I'm not talking about grinding hack-n-slash kind of games (WoW and the like) which call themselves MMO, because they are embarrassed and dropped RPG from the suffix. I'm talking about ones where RPG is prominently in the title.

And again, if they release a flexible game, anyone will be able to run a server, and funding issue won't be a major burden for CDPR.

 

[Suhiira]

I certainly expect an MMO or multi-player only game to do so. A single-player game that may have the potential for some multi-player aspects, no. I play any number of games that have PBEM or multi-player (you host the game) options. Neither of these costs, nor should they cost, the developer/publisher a penny.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

@Suhiira: That's what I'm asking. Why wouldn't CDPR make a proper multiplayer RPG if they are already busy with multiplayer? Making a multiplayer action game would be a disservice to the settings, like I said above.

 

[Suhiira]

Because I sincerely doubt the game will be designed to be multi-player, it's designed to be single-player.
Adding a few multi-player options is not the same as designing the game as multi-player.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Sure not the same, but then it would probably be better for CDPR to stay away from multiplayer altogether, lest it will turn into some mindless shooter type of thing. Multiplayer for an RPG isn't something that can be done easily and without proper design.

 

[Suhiira]

@Gilrond-i-Virdan I totally agree! Why I don't personally think multi-player is a good idea in CP2077. But many do, and CDPR has said they intend to include some sort of multi-player, so it'll be there, good idea or not.

 

[Claylex]

@Gilrond-i-Virdan I totally agree! Why I don't personally think multi-player is a good idea in CP2077. But many do, and CDPR has said they intend to include some sort of multi-player, so it'll be there, good idea or not.

And hey if isn't good then who cares? At least we'll have an enjoyable single-player experience.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

CDPR has said they intend to include some sort of multi-player, so it'll be there, good idea or not.

Then, back to square one - if they are already doing multiplayer, why can't they put more effort into design and make it actual RPG multiplayer? That's what Star Citizen plans to do. It's not like CDPR have no resources for it. I'm OK with either or (just single player, or good roleplaying multiplayer), if both are done good. But some mediocrity in between - that just doesn't sound like CDPR to me.

 

[Suhiira]

@Gilrond-i-Virdan ... well ... chess and checkers both use the same game board, each player takes turns moving pieces on that game board, any game piece can capture any other game piece. While they share many similarities they are fundamentally different games. The same with single-player and multi-player. if you add more then superficial (i.e. limited) multi-player function to a single-player game it can no longer function as a single-player game because cooperative or competitive elements that do not, can not, exist in a single-player environment become central to the game play.
If you're going to shoe horn multi-player into a single-player game for some reason ... probably driven by your Marketing Department rather then your game design team ... don't add any more then the absolute minimum or you change the very nature of the game.