PDA

View Full Version : Online gameplay why not?



asianboi1004
31st Jul 2009, 20:56
why cant they put online gameplay on all of them Co-op And pit them against eachother thatd be the koolest thing ever =/ Using jutsus on other players and sword fighting with mini ninjas or team vs team or something like that i think that would grab alot of people's attention and this game could be a sucess :P so can someone please tell me why their not going to make something like this? are they too cheap?

Nick@IO
2nd Aug 2009, 11:18
Making online coop is lot as easy as it sounds. It has to be fun and entertaining and takes additional time and money to develop. IO has decided to focus on the single player experience for Mini Ninjas and has done so to ensure the game is all it can be in terms of quality and fun. Every game in the world doesn't need to have online coop and while we appreciate the request, this has not been a focus for Mini Ninjas.

asianboi1004
19th Aug 2009, 21:34
Making online coop is lot as easy as it sounds. It has to be fun and entertaining and takes additional time and money to develop. IO has decided to focus on the single player experience for Mini Ninjas and has done so to ensure the game is all it can be in terms of quality and fun. Every game in the world doesn't need to have online coop and while we appreciate the request, this has not been a focus for Mini Ninjas.

Yeah i get it ur not a big company (no offense) And im fine with single player but i was kinda looking forward to some multiplayer stuff but only single player is fine too :D

Barkhing
19th Aug 2009, 22:20
I'm glad to see that Mini ninjas is focusing on making a really good single player game. There's so many games nowdays that treat single player as less important than multiplayer when for me and many others, it's the other way around. Nothing can beat a quality in-depth single player game. For people who want multiplayer or co-op there's lots of other games on the market that will satisfy your itch, like Lego Star Wars or something.

Falkenwut
19th Aug 2009, 22:42
I was hoping for multiplayer when I first saw the trailer. It would have been nice seeing a split-screen co-op. But hey, I'm totally in for the single-player. At least you guys managed to make a several-character game as a single player game... that's impressive anyways! Most games make it hard to pick one, now changing on demand seems awesome for gameplay purposes xD

Despite that, I think this game wouldn't be good on a VS basis... Like... who can bash the mouse buttons the fastest wins. And the lag... *humf*

Other than that, I'm glad you guys at IOI admitted that you wanted to focus on singleplayer instead of making a messy multiplayer game. Congratulations on your upcoming success^^

Twill├┐
19th Aug 2009, 23:40
I'm glad to see that Mini ninjas is focusing on making a really good single player game. There's so many games nowdays that treat single player as less important than multiplayer when for me and many others, it's the other way around. Nothing can beat a quality in-depth single player game. For people who want multiplayer or co-op there's lots of other games on the market that will satisfy your itch, like Lego Star Wars or something.

I couldn't agree more. I am a big fan of single player games. Sure, multiplayer can be fun, but nothing beats an amazingly brainclouded story with gameplay to match, which this game obviously has. I am glad it is single player, let's me focus more on the story and the growth of my own progress.

And @ asianboi1004 - This game will be a success. With or without multiplayer. Don't write it off just yet. :)

-Twill├┐

asianboi1004
21st Aug 2009, 20:05
Cant be too sure But i played the demo and it was really kool i look forward to playing the full version TEHEE :)
Also how much do u think itll cost 49.99?

Damage Inc.
25th Aug 2009, 11:28
I'm not sure if I posted it somewhere else on this forum, I think so though...
But it would be cool if, if not in the initial release, it would be cool if there would be an upgrade.
Like a Patch or an Expansion for free or a small fee, which of course includes some kind of online mode.
I'm thinking more of like a Coop Story Mode or something, maybe even have a whole group with all characters.
Plus a Mission-editor, which would be great for expanding the game.

A Singleplay Expansion would also be appreciated eventually, that's usually the case anyway.
But, like I said somewhere before, I can already see the (standalone-)title 'Mini Ninjas 2' appear.

RadarTrap
25th Aug 2009, 11:40
I'm thinking more of like a Coop Story Mode or something, maybe even have a whole group with all characters.
Plus a Mission-editor, which would be great for expanding the game.

A Singleplay Expansion would also be appreciated eventually, that's usually the case anyway.
But, like I said somewhere before, I can already see the (standalone-)title 'Mini Ninjas 2' appear.

I've got to say that all of those options would require huge development effort. So I strongly doubt that any of them are going to turn up unless it is in a Mini Ninjas 2.

So let's all hope that this first title makes enough money to convince the Eidos/IOI bigwigs to sign off on a sequel! :wave:

Damage Inc.
26th Aug 2009, 11:07
I've got to say that all of those options would require huge development effort. So I strongly doubt that any of them are going to turn up unless it is in a Mini Ninjas 2.

So let's all hope that this first title makes enough money to convince the Eidos/IOI bigwigs to sign off on a sequel! :wave:

Hm, maybe not as big as you might think.
I think the biggest issue would be setting up like the "online-department", to actually have servers and such.
But for the software itself it could almost be like a mod someone could make at home.
I mean, they have done it for more games that were only offline, say 'GTA III'.
Only then there would also be work for creating extra content and levels/worlds or something.
Unless they can use the same contents and just create a new world or modify the existing ones of the current full game.

I guess it won't be easy enough for a free upgrade, but perhaps an expansion without a full price.
I would hate to sign off the "first part" too soon though, immediately when "part 2" comes out.
It would be great if they could use it if it indeed will be a successful game.
Then again, it kind of seems like there will be a nice story to it.
And going to a classic "Part 2" would make sense in this case too.
But for modern "standards", if I made this/a game, I'd treat like "the fans" with some kind of expansion.
Just depends on all the situations.

Falkenwut
26th Aug 2009, 14:15
I'd have to disagree with you Damage Inc.
Expansions tend to be flaky, and MAY cause more problems. I'm just saying it MAY be a bad idea to put in multiplayer to this game, since the programmers built the game in a way to beat the game in single-player mode ; 2 players will only make the game claustrophobic.

The Part 2 system on the other hand i'd agree... Like.. episodic series makes sense... U can introduce the multiplayer system at any time.

On side note: Split-screen co-op would be perfect, I miss that in games. Kane and lynch provided it and it was fantastic.

Damage Inc.
26th Aug 2009, 15:06
I'd have to disagree with you Damage Inc.
Expansions tend to be flaky, and MAY cause more problems. I'm just saying it MAY be a bad idea to put in multiplayer to this game, since the programmers built the game in a way to beat the game in single-player mode ; 2 players will only make the game claustrophobic.

The Part 2 system on the other hand i'd agree... Like.. episodic series makes sense... U can introduce the multiplayer system at any time.

On side note: Split-screen co-op would be perfect, I miss that in games. Kane and lynch provided it and it was fantastic.


Oh yeah, but I'm just throwing out suggestions anyway.
Just like I said, they could eventually create a Multiplay-feature for the original game.
Whether that would be with the original levels, or alter them so they're only similar but more compatible.
Things like that.

Oooh, you know what would be fun actually, if you'd have like a "Mario"-type of gameplay.
Like you have 1 vs 1 in the same world/level, take say the entire Demo or something.
One player starts at one position and the other player at "the other end".
Then put in challenges like "who finds the most coins" within a time-limit,
or who finds the randomly "hidden flower" first.
That last one seems pretty fun and hilarious, have these two characters run around searching for something. XD
Or have a race to a certain point or through a level,
or even transport-specific, by foot, boat or snow...hat...mobile... I don't know. :D
Even get some kind of "King Of The Hill"-mode, just think of what you could do in a game like "Tony Hawk".

But yeah, let's just try the Singleplay first. XD
Actually, the main question hasn't really been answered (I find) though.
I mean, sure (online-)Multiplay might not be that easy to create, especially in addition to Singleplay.
But, if anyone on the creating team reads this,
what did you say when you like sat around the table and the Multiplay-question came up?
Was it like "No, there will simply not be any." or... something else?
I'm just interested.

Falkenwut
26th Aug 2009, 16:55
Oooh, you know what would be fun actually, if you'd have like a "Mario"-type of gameplay.
Like you have 1 vs 1 in the same world/level, take say the entire Demo or something.
One player starts at one position and the other player at "the other end".
Then put in challenges like "who finds the most coins" within a time-limit,
or who finds the randomly "hidden flower" first.
That last one seems pretty fun and hilarious, have these two characters run around searching for something. XD
Or have a race to a certain point or through a level,
or even transport-specific, by foot, boat or snow...hat...mobile... I don't know. :D
Even get some kind of "King Of The Hill"-mode, just think of what you could do in a game like "Tony Hawk".
But yeah, let's just try the Singleplay first. XD
Actually, the main question hasn't really been answered (I find) though.
I mean, sure (online-)Multiplay might not be that easy to create, especially in addition to Singleplay.
But, if anyone on the creating team reads this,
what did you say when you like sat around the table and the Multiplay-question came up?
Was it like "No, there will simply not be any." or... something else?
I'm just interested.

The Mario-style suggestion doesn't sound like a bad idea actually... for a VS style that would make sense. (LOL @ Hatmobile xD)

The prob with Split-screen co-op is that you can't give 2 different situations occuring on split-screen basis. Example...
Hiro has climbed up left side of mountain and Futo the other. Hiro meets Tengu bird 1, Futo meers Tengu bird 2. And listening to BOTH tengu birds talking would confuse both players.
And another example showed up in K&L; the part in the bank, Where Lynch protected the top-part of the bank, whilst Kane opened the vault, It may have confused whoever was playing with lynch, coz they were doing something and a cutscene would pop up.

My guess reguarding the developers on multiplayer would be that they tried finding people with multiplayer programming.. (about a year after K&L was released, the IOI was showing applications for Multiplayer programmers) but not enough people applied for the job to develop the function, so they dropped it. It's better that way then (as I said before) Then doing a messy job of it.

Damage Inc.
26th Aug 2009, 17:31
The Mario-style suggestion doesn't sound like a bad idea actually... for a VS style that would make sense. (LOL @ Hatmobile xD)

The prob with Split-screen co-op is that you can't give 2 different situations occuring on split-screen basis. Example...
Hiro has climbed up left side of mountain and Futo the other. Hiro meets Tengu bird 1, Futo meers Tengu bird 2. And listening to BOTH tengu birds talking would confuse both players.
And another example showed up in K&L; the part in the bank, Where Lynch protected the top-part of the bank, whilst Kane opened the vault, It may have confused whoever was playing with lynch, coz they were doing something and a cutscene would pop up.


Ah, that's not my idea of a Coop-mode though.
I mean, the Singeplay-story should just be for the Singleplay, but the Coop-mode would probably get new missions or something.
Besides, when playing a Coop-"story" of sorts, you should be together at the same goal.
It also doesn't even have to be split-screen, I didn't even think of that.
Many of these adventure/beat'm'up-games have like one view where you walk through with 1-4 players,
if you talk about local Multiplay that is...
It actually shouldn't even be "two situations" as you described.
If that's the case, you'd simply be "playing the game" (running x2) next to each other.
Rather than playing the one same game in the same moment.
So if you play the actual same game in real-time, you wouldn't get like the same character on each screen irregularly.
The meaning would be that you see the same characters in both screens and the same mountain
and even one player, if standing close enough, would see the other player in their own view.
You could do the other way if you want to kind of look who plays it best, but it's not really the purpose of Multiplay.

Falkenwut
26th Aug 2009, 17:57
Besides, when playing a Coop-"story" of sorts, you should be together at the same goal.
It also doesn't even have to be split-screen, I didn't even think of that.
Many of these adventure/beat'm'up-games have like one view where you walk through with 1-4 players,
if you talk about local Multiplay that is...
It actually shouldn't even be "two situations" as you described.
If that's the case, you'd simply be "playing the game" (running x2) next to each other.
Rather than playing the one same game in the same moment.
So if you play the actual same game in real-time, you wouldn't get like the same character on each screen irregularly.
The meaning would be that you see the same characters in both screens and the same mountain
and even one player, if standing close enough, would see the other player in their own view.
You could do the other way if you want to kind of look who plays it best, but it's not really the purpose of Multiplay.

Yep, agreed. Seeing both character's 1 screen would be nice (getting old memories of Fighting Force - Eidos & Core Design).

I remembered Cyber-Dogs, an ANCIENT game, there was the option, of when 2 players were close to eachother, it would resort to single-screen and when far apart, to split-screen.

An intriguing theory but this was a very confusing fact when the 2 players were just the right distance... Since split-screen centered the player, and single-screen centred the distance between the 2 players.. shaking the view from central to edge-of screen, which was really frustrating at times.

Damage Inc.
26th Aug 2009, 19:17
Yep, agreed. Seeing both character's 1 screen would be nice (getting old memories of Fighting Force - Eidos & Core Design).

I remembered Cyber-Dogs, an ANCIENT game, there was the option, of when 2 players were close to eachother, it would resort to single-screen and when far apart, to split-screen.

An intriguing theory but this was a very confusing fact when the 2 players were just the right distance... Since split-screen centered the player, and single-screen centred the distance between the 2 players.. shaking the view from central to edge-of screen, which was really frustrating at times.

I never even thought of that way.
But it might be a good idea to have mainly a single-screen and then when really too far apart it would split up.
Because I was thinking of a general singe-screen, depending on what mode/situation,
but then the farther the distance between players, the farther it would zoom, until a certain distance.
They could potentially apply the "split-up" when going over that limit
and slowly/quickly let each screen zoom in on the designated player.
But generally I was thinking or single-screen or split-screen, maybe still both depending on what mode.

Here's a good example of a single-screen Multiplay-game:
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/shrek2/videos.html?tag=tabs;videos
You can even play with up to 4 there.
It's actually one of the games that 'Mini Ninjas' made me think of, because of some elements.

GameKing92
6th Sep 2009, 03:42
Offline and Online Co-Op in Mini Ninjas would be awesome! If not patched in maybe Mini Ninjas 2 will support it.

the resolute girl
11th Sep 2009, 08:52
same here, online coop aint the same as multiplayer where you develop new modes, maps and assets. but of course it should have been taken into account before starting the game so the maps and possilbe pathways would be balanced for that. Every game where you can switch characters on the fly is screaming coop (Frozenbytes Trine at least has offline coop and THOSE are a small studio). Anyways, I wanted to say that I LOVE the game and hope for a great success. I told everybody I know about it and the lovely DEMO was surely THE incentive to order the game immediately.

So, thx and keep it up. Keep doing demos for your games and give after-sales support in patches and please consider loosing the dreadful Securom on the retail discs and you have a loyal new customer.