Weekly Poll 9/17/18 - The Multiplayer Question

[Tree_Fox]

I'm wholly against multiplayer.

I'm assuming its going to be like someone coming into your world and having the ability to kill you. I think that'll break immersion, something that CDPR has been trying very hard to create.

This can lead to griefing. Something that GTA V has an issue with.

Another problem, if the multiplayer is competitive, is balance. What we saw in the gameplay demo where you could ricochet bullets, see people through walls, have bullets that lock on to people, etc. Is going to cause an uproar in the PvP crowd, leading to the forums being filled with people saying "nerf this, need that, nerf those!" Just look at Destiny 1 & 2. It will become a bigger headache for CDPR than its worth.

Network issues will affect the world. Someone comes in with a bad connection, suddenly they're teleporting all over the map, your shots aren't registering, and it becomes very frustrating very quickly.

Lastly, multiplayer in games like this always feel very gimmicky. It doesnt add anything to the experience. Look at Mass Effect 3 and Watch Dogs.
The multiplayer didnt add anything to the single player experience, and it didnt add any immersion for the gamer. It felt like it was just included so the dev could say their new game has multiplayer.

 

[Sardukhar]

I'm wholly against multiplayer.

I'm assuming its going to be like someone coming into your world and having the ability to kill you.

Why would you assume this?

 

[BaalNergal]

I'm wholly against multiplayer.

I'm assuming its going to be like someone coming into your world and having the ability to kill you.

Have you been reading my notes on multiplayer fun? [lie]I swear, I totally don't plan to betray and murder you at the first moment you make a mistake of trusting me![/lie] In fact, [damned lie]I plan to do no murder at all![/damned lie] [statistics]Exactly 0% of the players of CP2077 have been murdered by me.[/statistics]

Why would you assume this?

There's far too many games where that's an accurate description of multiplayer, unfortunately.

 

[Sardukhar]

There's far too many games where that's an accurate description of multiplayer, unfortunately.

And there are lots where that isn't. Every non-friendly-fire MP option, actually.

Never mind the vast majority that require an arena of some kind, a specialized mode you have to activate. GTA Online for example.

How many let people come into your world and kill you? Dark Souls?

 

[Darkarhon]

No thanks, get that multiplayer away from this SP game.

There are many other MP/Co-Op games, you can play these.

 

[Dr.Phantom]

And there are lots where that isn't. Every non-friendly-fire MP option, actually.

Never mind the vast majority that require an arena of some kind, a specialized mode you have to activate. GTA Online for example.

How many let people come into your world and kill you? Dark Souls?

Well GTA online would probably be worst example of what you are speaking of. In GTA online you load into a social space and there is pretty rampant toxicity and hacking. Lots of people running around with all sorts of weaponry just looking to shoot at other people. Of course you can opt out of being shot at by others using a passive mode...but that also disables the ability for you to run any of the MC, CEO, bunker, pilot missions which is honestly 99% of the content for the social space. It isn't a mode its the default play area when you load into MP.

To the point of the thread.....I like multiplayer games, I love multiplayer games even. But I'm real tired of every game having to hamstring one in. Strictly multiplayer games are great but 99% of them don't provide any real immersive experience, and even so that's not why I play them (I'm competitive). Even MMO's if you are in a RP space its very hard (for me) to immerse myself.

Now I'm not saying coop shouldn't be added I think that is perfectly fine, sharing your experiences with others is always a plus. I'm just saying in my humble opinion that a PVP or some other multiplayer activity besides coop would be somewhat pointless. God forbid they actually use a GTA style social hub...it would be unbearable. Even more so that's not why I'm buying or playing this game at all. Its not why I played fallout or ES games for 900+ hours, its also why I never enjoyed ESO and will not be buying Fo76. But that's just all my opinion (expect the GTA bit in the first paragraph those are facts).

I'm just being a stick in mud at the end of the day, I still believe people should have fun and have choice in what they think is fun. If the people want pvp shooter arena in CP2077 who am I to say no?

 

[AlexiaRevan]

Voted neutral..cose I don't care for MP or co-op (only co-op I ever played and that was only once with a friend was Divinity Original Sin 2) . Any game that has MP , I never play MP . It doesn't do anything to my single player haven .

The only time it would bother me , is if a game lock single player content behind a 'You gotta play MP to get that' . ME3 had it.......

But here , I think they will be separate entity . So up to them I guess .

 

[Heart Of Dawn]

It seems like some don't want multiplayer because of poor implementation in other games. 2077 doesn't have to do things they way they do. It can learn their mistakes, adapt what they do right, and invent its own way of doing things.

No Man's Sky and Fallout 76 have some good ideas, the former has a list of PvP controls so you can toggle on or off the aspects you want, and 76 has it so that PvP only fully engages if the attacked player chooses to fight back. If someone griefs, they become 'interesting content' and the rest of the population gets to see who can claim the bounty on them first.

 

[BaalNergal]

And there are lots where that isn't. Every non-friendly-fire MP option, actually.

Never mind the vast majority that require an arena of some kind, a specialized mode you have to activate. GTA Online for example.

How many let people come into your world and kill you? Dark Souls?

GTA, Diablo 2 for awhile, Diablo 3 on and off, Dark Souls... The list goes on. As of late, I've noticed a lot of games, even some MMOs like Monster Hunter World, have trended toward allowing for intentional limitation of player interaction simply because of the toxicity online. Fallout 76, for example, is advertising this kind of design strategy as a selling feature.

When designing against something becomes a selling point, you have a major problem.

Well GTA online would probably be worst example of what you are speaking of. In GTA online you load into a social space and there is pretty rampant toxicity and hacking. Lots of people running around with all sorts of weaponry just looking to shoot at other people. Of course you can opt out of being shot at by others using a passive mode...but that also disables the ability for you to run any of the MC, CEO, bunker, pilot missions which is honestly 99% of the content for the social space. It isn't a mode its the default play area when you load into MP.

This is a good answer for an example.

It seems like some don't want multiplayer because of poor implementation in other games. 2077 doesn't have to do things they way they do. It can learn their mistakes, adapt what they do right, and invent its own way of doing things.

You know the saying "one bad apple spoils the bunch?" Imagine if most of the apples you had from the same tree were bad. Like, bad as soon as they fully matured. Eventually, despite knowing the occasional good apple comes up, you're going to just want to chop down the damn tree rather than sift through all of the rot to find something edible.

That's basically the root of entrenched opposition to multiplayer. It's not that a lot of us hate interacting with other people, just we've had enough bad experiences that it's easier to simply treat it as a cancer than as anything good.

 

[Heart Of Dawn]

Yes, and here's another expression: throwing the baby out with the bath water. While I can understand being wary, tarring all games with the same brush isn't fair.

MP needs to be built from the ground up to be a solid and fun experience, and not simply taked on as as afterthought so that they can add that bullet point to the back of the box for marketing reasons. IMO, CDPR should release 2077 as a really polished SP experience, and then, if there's demand for it, do a separate MP spin off, whether that's a co-op campaign, DM, or an MMO. That way both games can be balanced and refined independently, without having to worry about how PvE items and stats will affect PvP and vv.

 

[BaalNergal]

Yes, and here's another expression: throwing the baby out with the bath water. While I can understand being wary, tarring all games with the same brush isn't fair.

MP needs to be built from the ground up to be a solid and fun experience, and not simply taked on as as afterthought so that they can add that bullet point to the back of the box for marketing reasons. IMO, CDPR should release 2077 as a really polished SP experience, and then, if there's demand for it, do a separate MP spin off, whether that's a co-op campaign, DM, or an MMO. That way both games can be balanced and refined independently, without having to worry about how PvE items and stats will affect PvP and vv.

Given what I pointed out about MMOs up above, it seems that baby is getting some frequent flyer miles. Guild Wars was the first to advertise controlling the ability of other players to interact with you. Diablo 3, Monster Hunter World, Fallout 76, the Animal Crossing series, even GTA Online recently... All have been adding or advertising the ability to limit or even eliminate other players interacting with you, despite all of them being set up with interacting with others in mind. And as Fallout 76 shows, this is a growing trend.

Basically, we have to deal with the fact that something within the online gamer community has become bad enough the proverbial bathtub manufacturers have started adding automated baby flingers to their products. So, perhaps, we need to deal with the fact there's a problem that makes the bathapult popular?

 

[4RM3D]

As others have pointed out, CP2077 is already ambitious enough as it is now. Making a MP mode would only divert budget from the core game, which might make the game worse, in the end. Let's just keep it SP. There are plenty of other MP games out there. However, immersive SP games? Those are a rare breed. Stick to the strenghts of CP2077.

 

[Sardukhar]

GTA, Diablo 2 for awhile, Diablo 3 on and off, Dark Souls... The list goes on.

Only if you activate MP. If you don't, that doesn't happen. So, not a problem for SP players.

Disable no player attacks hurt other by host and job done.

Not really that hard.

 

[BaalNergal]

Only if you activate MP. If you don't, that doesn't happen. So, not a problem.

Disable no player attacks hurt other by host and job done.

Not really that hard.

Which means the solution to the problems with multiplayer in those games is no multiplayer. That does not sell the idea of multiplayer in CP2077.

 

[Sardukhar]

Which means the solution to the problems with multiplayer in those games is no multiplayer. That does not sell the idea of multiplayer in CP2077.

Not at all. It means the solution is don't have Dark Souls multiplayer.

Turn off FF Co Op. Easy. No Player Killings. Easy. Still allow for Co Op.

Also have DM and CTF games with teams. Like the vast majority of MP games.

 

[BaalNergal]

Not at all. It means the solution is don't have Dark Souls multiplayer.

Turn off FF Co Op. Easy. No Player Killings. Easy. Still allow for Co Op.

Also have DM and CTF games with teams. Like the vast majority of MP games.

Okay, cool. Plenty of exploits to do things like attach a sticky bomb to a friend in co-op and let them act as an suicide bomber. Or solve a friend's dilemma in being pounded on by a group of enemies by firing a rocket at them or tossing a grenade at their feet. Also, teammate-assisted grenade jumping and rocket jumping become easier, not to mention the issues caused if someone ever uses a netrunner ability to hijack your friend (no way to stop them from completely screwing you over in some way, even if they can't hurt you directly).

Exploits galore are why "no player killings" is in the "Don't Do That!" file for many developers when it comes to co op. It prevents players from abusing the immunity.

And, trust me, you don't want to sell those other two as the primary MP content. Entirely because they are in the vast majority of MP games, most of which also have other modes.

 

[hukhan97]

please no TDM or any other modes, just no, too many games like that. Maybe something like far cry 5 or ghost recon wild land.

 

[joecool548]

Multiplayer could work, but I'm mostly leaning towards no. If CD Red comes out with multiplayer for Cyberpunk that completely blows my mind, then I'll applaud them. But for now, Cyberpunk as a singleplayer only game is fine as is.

 

[Kyrinael]

Considering the style of the game, I personally do not think it would suit multiplayer really well, even if it was added after. The huge single player content itself will be enough and provided we'll be able to play the game in different styles, depending on what skills we pick for our characters, as well as what decisions we make, there's no separate need for a multiplayer mode.

Better to make a great single player game than add a forced multiplayer mode, I say. If multiplayer has to be done, it should be a separate game entirely.

 

[ZoroasterK]

No matter our oppinion on mp itself, the fact stays the same. CDPR would have to spend money, time and other resources on doing mp, instead of further developing single. That is the main reason why I'm against it. I will always support getting additional singleplayer content over multi.