PDA

View Full Version : cooperative play mode?



Dead-Eye
13th Aug 2008, 21:35
I don't recall if this was talked about before but I would like to bring up the talk about cooperative play.

jcp28
14th Aug 2008, 02:58
It might work, but difficulty ought to be adjusted accordingly.

Also, it would be more fun if they styles of both players somehow complemented each other. Like having both a shooter and a burglar could help you get through levels.

Romeo
14th Aug 2008, 03:11
I think it can be accomplished, such as in Borderlands. I think perhaps some dedicated mode would be better suited to the game. Perhaps some co-operative "challenge modes"?

K^2
14th Aug 2008, 04:15
Firs of all, difficulty. I stand by philosophy that every game should have an impossible mode, which should actually be impossible. Not because a vital key is missing, but because it is just so damn hard. It should seem to a very good player that they can just almost get through a level, but not make that an actual possibility due to guard placement, their AI, etc. For instance, have guards that have extra-sharp vision, and perform instant-kill head shots from any distance. Then place a few of these near the exit to an important level in a way that it isn't possible to sneak up on one without being shot by another.

Furthermore, there should be a sufficient number of gradations between "easy" and "impossible" that no matter how tough you are, there is a difficulty level that presents serious challenge, but one that you can overcome. A percentage slide bar would be nifty. Devs can even allow 0% to work as "enemies ignore you" cheat, but not allow access to all the content for beating the game bellow certain percentage. Like, maybe cut the final level if you are playing at under 10%?

With such a setup, the issue of difficulty levels in co-op is void. If a certain challenge level becomes too easy once you call for help of your buddies, simply give the slide bar another few notches. This would require no balancing from dev team whatsoever.

Now, on the matter of co-op being in the game. Eidos has no excuse for not including various multiplayer options, including co-op. I believe, this comic strip (http://www.cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20080811) summarizes my opinion on it quite effectively.

Romeo
14th Aug 2008, 04:22
Wow. Just... Wow. lol

And your idea sounds like a slightly more extreme version of Oblivion's system. A system I personally thought was amazing.

gamer0004
14th Aug 2008, 05:01
No. Just... No. lol

And your idea sounds like a slightly more extreme version of Oblivion's system. A system I personally thought was extremely poor.

I want some simple options, then I most of times choose the hardest setting, go play the game and finish it. I. Do. Not. Want. To. Be. Forced. To. Get. Help. to finish the game at the hardest setting.

Romeo
14th Aug 2008, 05:25
Why didn't you like Oblivion's system?

Igoe
14th Aug 2008, 05:54
Co-op is good but, and I can't believe I'm saying this, let the USERS design it.

Let the developers focus on the single player, and make it awesome.

Then, 3 months after the game is out, release a development kit.

The co-op mods WILL follow. It lets the community tweak and customize, and will breathe new life into the game AFTER you've played it 2-3 times.

Romeo
14th Aug 2008, 05:56
Nah, the engine is too hard to work with, from what I've heard. Either don't do it, or dedicate yourself to doing it, but don't rely upon us to do it. =P

gamer0004
14th Aug 2008, 06:13
Why didn't you like Oblivion's system?

Because it had so many options that I ended up not using it, because I couldn't be bothered to fine-tune it all. That in combination with the fact that in Oblvion you can't use any tactics made the game not harder, you just had to carry around an enormous amanount of helaing potions.

Romeo
14th Aug 2008, 06:19
Or cheat. Yeah, I hated that aspect of Oblivion too, but I still liked the concept of the bar though. It was quite nice, to me.

gamer0004
14th Aug 2008, 06:21
Or cheat. Yeah, I hated that aspect of Oblivion too, but I still liked the concept of the bar though. It was quite nice, to me.

Yeah, it worked in Morrowind.
But I just want to have a system where you can adjust the enemie AI and stuff like that. I don't want health to change much. I don't want to have, as a billion-dollar project, as much health as an NSF rookie.

Romeo
14th Aug 2008, 06:28
I wouldn't mind, as long as we can edit those options. I am a firm believe that the more choices a player has, the more likely they are to find options that please them. =)

K^2
14th Aug 2008, 06:49
No. Just... No. lol

And your idea sounds like a slightly more extreme version of Oblivion's system. A system I personally thought was extremely poor.

I want some simple options, then I most of times choose the hardest setting, go play the game and finish it. I. Do. Not. Want. To. Be. Forced. To. Get. Help. to finish the game at the hardest setting.
You are being silly, honestly.

It would be trivial to have an "Easy", "Medium", and "Hard" button on the screen, that set pre-defined level of difficulty. If you played through it on "Hard" alone, consider the game beaten. But if you want extra-extra challenge, or want to take it on with friends, just shove the difficulty bar a bit further than it is set to on "Hard".

In fact, all the slide bars can be in a separate, "Advanced", menu. Then the "difficulty" can be broken up into enemy AI, number of enemies, damage, number of healing and other items, etc.

This way, if you don't want to bother, just hit the button you like. But if you already beaten the game on "Hard", or you just want to get a different style of play, you have the "Advanced" options to mess with. And if you are really worried about simpletons finding a way to break it, hide the "Advanced" menu, and require a flag in .ini file for it to be brought up.

Now, wouldn't that make everyone happy?

Common, I challenge you to find one problem with this. "Extra development time" doesn't count, because devs already have all these options to work with as the tune the game. Giving you another screen where you can do the same would be trivial.

Fen
14th Aug 2008, 11:06
You are being silly, honestly.

It would be trivial to have an "Easy", "Medium", and "Hard" button on the screen, that set pre-defined level of difficulty. If you played through it on "Hard" alone, consider the game beaten. But if you want extra-extra challenge, or want to take it on with friends, just shove the difficulty bar a bit further than it is set to on "Hard".

In fact, all the slide bars can be in a separate, "Advanced", menu. Then the "difficulty" can be broken up into enemy AI, number of enemies, damage, number of healing and other items, etc.

This way, if you don't want to bother, just hit the button you like. But if you already beaten the game on "Hard", or you just want to get a different style of play, you have the "Advanced" options to mess with. And if you are really worried about simpletons finding a way to break it, hide the "Advanced" menu, and require a flag in .ini file for it to be brought up.

Now, wouldn't that make everyone happy?


Not really, because I like to play games on the hardest difficulty mode. If the hardest difficulty mode turns out to be just stupid, and then I have sliders to choose what parts of the game I want to make less difficult, ill end up playing a mode thats just too hard. But I wont want to pull down the difficulty, because thats just *****fying the game.

If there is multiplayer in DX3, then I would like it to be able to work like halo or half life 2 and garry's mod (The maps would act like normal multiplayer maps, with triggers enabled. This way you could work your way through the game, but two people were never acknowledged, only the first person). I dont really want the DX3 story to have a coop storyline where there are two of you. Just the ability to add in a second player. DX is primary about the immersive single player experience, so that has to be the main focus.

El_Bel
14th Aug 2008, 16:07
System shock difficulty system was quite good.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/Dentonas/SS2.jpg

Now for the co-op.. I think that we should have it out of the box, but i dont mind if it isnt polished (If they have time to make it good, they should. Surely the players (and the reviewers of course) will love it) I wouldn't mind if the story, npc etc react ass if there was only one player!!


Also, it would be more fun if they styles of both players somehow complemented each other. Like having both a shooter and a burglar could help you get through levels.

Yes or a thief and a hacker.

Thief: Hey man i cant get past this camera.
Hacker: Hacking right now, the camera will disabled in 40 seconds(system about hacking will be explained in the appropriate forum)
Thief: 40? oh my god,someone is coming!! I dont have time!!
Hacker: Relax. Do exactly as i tell you and you will be fine. The blueprints i acquired shows that there is a ventilation shaft near you but you have to be careful.
Thief: Ok man. I am listening.
Hacker: Ok, run to the end of the corridor to the closed door. Dont worry about the camera, i'll spend some of my bio energy to stun her for a couple of seconds. I hope you are fast enough at lockpicking. Ok once inside you will see three corridors. Left, right and center. Left someone is coming your way. I see him through the camera. Right there is a bot, i can hack it but you dont have that much time. Center there is a man walking on the opposite direction. Run silently and use the prod.
Thief: *He back stab him with a knife* Eye did you like that bastard?
Hacker: Hey why did you do that for? Man, we agreed on a non-lethal run.
Thief: Spare me.. I just felt like killing him.
Hacker: Well now figure a way to clear the blood from the floor, because camera 4 says that a guard approaches and he will be there in half minute.
Thief: Oh no, i cant brake the light!! Its inside some glass and it will do a lot of noise, but it is my only chance.
Hacker:No wait!! I'll close it, just grab the body and get in the shaft at the end of the corridor. Just Run!!
-------------3 minutes later----------------
Hacker:Oh no, i am busted. Someone logged in to turn on the lights again, he checked and caught me. A squad is coming to my position. I am surrounded. No hope for me :(
Thief: Wait, dont log out!!Just guide me so i can come in front of them.
Hacker: And then what? You cant fight an augmented squad. You dont have that kind of weapons!!
Thief: Trust me!!!
--------------1 minute later-------------------
Hacker:You should be above the corridor they will be in a minute. I hope you know what you are doing.
*Thief sets up four gas grenades*
Hacker: It wont stop them for long.
Thief: Hey i know what i am doing ok?!!
Hacker: Fine! Your funeral..
*Thief hides around the corner and waits for the first bip of a gas grenade*
Hacker: They are trying to deactivate them, they have managed two!!
*Thief leans and throws a LAM :O and a couple of gas grenades.. The gas is flammable and half the squad dies from the explosion or the flames!! The rest of them, wounded run on the opposite direction to regroup and to find a medic*
Hacker: You saved my ass mate.
Thief: No problem, but we still have to complete the objective.
Hacker: Lets do it!!

jcp28
15th Aug 2008, 00:00
^
No, it would have to be polished enough so that the AI could tell there was more than one player, assuming both of them happened to expose themselves. Otherwise, it'd be far too easy to exploit certain glitches involving enemies, sequences and all that if the issue of balance wasn't addressed better.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 01:09
In retrospect, we're discussing the wrong thing here people: We have a thread discussing difficulty. This is for co-op. So... Get co-operating.

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 03:36
^
No, it would have to be polished enough so that the AI could tell there was more than one player, assuming both of them happened to expose themselves. Otherwise, it'd be far too easy to exploit certain glitches involving enemies, sequences and all that if the issue of balance wasn't addressed better.
That is a very good point. All of the scripting needs to anticipate multiple players, which isn't necessarily trivial.

The best thing to do would be to avoid scripted sequences all together. They aren't necessary for things other than conversations if the AI is good. Instead of having a script spawn reinforcements, have an alarm that calls them from a predefined location. Things like that.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 05:42
The AI should be able to react to multiple opponents, otherwise pitting rival factions against eachother, using turrets, hacking bots, and such thing, would all be rendered over-powered or completely useless.

El_Bel
15th Aug 2008, 11:48
It should be polished, but i dont care if it is not!!! Yes it would be cool to have a perfect DX co-op game with a story about two heroes and every dialog to assume there are two players(and in single it would change back to one player) or make the augmentations and skills system balanced for two players as long as it is balanced for one player as well.

But do you think they will have time for this? I wouldn't mind if co-op is unpolished. You can always agree with your buddy "hey we should not both use the X skill. It would make the game cheap."

And after 6 months, assuming the game sells well, they could release for free, a polished version of co-op, the sdk, missions and other goodies. Their work wont stop when they finish the game!!

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 14:08
Personally, if Eidos is not going to release an SDK, I'm planning a much more serious approach towards building mod tools. Last time, I was a bit unprepared, and by the time I got a Python script to import character models into Blender, nobody really cared anymore. A few people used my viewers to help texturing, though. I guess that was something.

But this time, Underworld comes out before DX3. I'll have a chance to crack the format for maps and models before the game's even out. I'm sure there will be some changes, like there were between IW and Thief III, but they should be easy to take care of within days of release.

I'm usually pretty bad with writing actual editors, but hopefully I'll be able to put together various converters and compilers, so that you can work on things using professional editors designed for something else, and then convert it all into things that the game will understand. I can definitely do import/export scripts for Blender and 3DS Max. I'll have to see what's current for map editing. Haven't done any map editing since HL2 leak.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 20:28
Hmm... I wonder what the explanation for co-op could be... Two agents?

And K^2, are you going to sell or share?

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 20:33
Sell? My mod tools? They are such hacked up duct tape codes that sometimes I feel like I have to pay people to use them. But then again, I'm often the first person to crack the format and manage to write tools of any kind, so most modders don't have a choice but to use these. Their suffering is all the payment I need.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 20:41
Hahaha, nice. Sounds like a plan.

GruntOwner
16th Aug 2008, 15:03
For instance, have guards that have extra-sharp vision, and perform instant-kill head shots from any distance. Then place a few of these near the exit to an important level in a way that it isn't possible to sneak up on one without being shot by another.

No. No, no, no, no, no.:mad2: ****

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty This is DX. Not a jrpg, not some sprite game, not some sick joke for the world's biggest saddo to try and pull on some form of map editor. Anyone whose played Diablo 2 will know the frustration to be had with Duriel in Tal Rasha's Tomb. If you're suggesting giving him a barret, telecopic vision and a wingman or two, then you are going to that special layer of hell reserved for child molesters and George Lucas. I don't care if it's only an option, because programming it in would be a waste. making it a seperate difficulty would take precious time that would better be spent jumping out of a window, and putting it on the slider would serve only to desensitize it so that when someone's looking for a little bit harder, they end up jumping to suicide with the slightest push on the slider, when all they wanted was not to be able to hide behing their potted plant.

jordan_a
16th Aug 2008, 18:03
New! Cooperative (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=79166)

K^2
16th Aug 2008, 19:40
No. No, no, no, no, no.:mad2: ****

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty This is DX. Not a jrpg, not some sprite game, not some sick joke for the world's biggest saddo to try and pull on some form of map editor. Anyone whose played Diablo 2 will know the frustration to be had with Duriel in Tal Rasha's Tomb. If you're suggesting giving him a barret, telecopic vision and a wingman or two, then you are going to that special layer of hell reserved for child molesters and George Lucas. I don't care if it's only an option, because programming it in would be a waste. making it a seperate difficulty would take precious time that would better be spent jumping out of a window, and putting it on the slider would serve only to desensitize it so that when someone's looking for a little bit harder, they end up jumping to suicide with the slightest push on the slider, when all they wanted was not to be able to hide behing their potted plant.
The entire idea is always to start the enemy AI from super-competent. It should see everything on line of sight, be able to never miss, and have an excelent sense of cover and tactics. After that, you start to "break" it to make it appear more human. But this is also the best place from which to control the difficulty. And if the difficulty can already be scaled, there is no reason not to allow the player to scale it to maximum capacity of the AI. And if at full power the AI can be beaten, the developers failed at their task.

Now, I agree, giving the enemies extra powers to do this would be kind of cheap. But all they need is a one-shot kill capability, which they'll have if it works like original DX, where all head shots are instantly lethal.

In such a scenario, there is absolutely no reason not to have an "impossible" setting. And if the devs don't provide one, I feel only that they are trying to hide their mistakes on AI.

GruntOwner
17th Aug 2008, 17:04
If they randomize their patrols, keep eachother in eye shot at all times, fine, but if they can drop you from halfway across the military complex with naught but a normal crossbow bolt, it'll get frustrating. If you have gary's mod, Give a trio of cambine elite annebelle. The result will be what you seem to be talking about. They will drop you as soon as a single square inch of you leaves cover. Perhaps if they has significant fortifications that didn't give them direct visual contact, but had heart monitors that you had to hack to fool them, then fine, but the very thought of instant death for the slightest mistake is like the combination of tomb raider do and die gameplay combined with a Final Fantasy boss battle. It should always be possible to fool them, granted not through learning a routine but there should at least be an oppurtunity. Not a big one, perhaps they leave a corridoor unguarded for 30 seconds for you to run in and plant a LAM. Don't schedule it by any means but make it happen occasionally.

K^2
17th Aug 2008, 19:23
I disagree, there should be no way of fooling them on highest level of difficulty. The highest level is meant not to be beaten, but to show the player what the game is capable of. The AI guards on highest level should anticipate your moves, guard all important objects, check up on each other, and recognize and check good hiding spots. It should be impossible.

I'm sure a lot of people will find some sort of a problem with that. This is why I suggested hiding away the impossible level of difficulty in some advanced options or even in some config file. That way, if you simply go into the game and click the button corresponding to highest difficulty level, you'll still be able to beat the game. But that shouldn't be all that game is capable of.

GruntOwner
17th Aug 2008, 19:32
When I purchase a game I intend to play it and have fun, the prospect of it wowing me with mindblowing AI to the point where it is borderline uninterative does not appeal to most of the game market. If they want to be wowed by something then they can watch pre rendered cinematics. FF does it all the time when it needs to hype something and guess what: They always churn out rubbish. If they are to program such an awe inspiring AI it should be for the purpose of the game, not to show off so all the programmers can sleep happy every night safe in the knowledge that they can outsmart a player. If it exists to show off, not to improve the playing experience, then it is not part of the game.

K^2
17th Aug 2008, 21:15
It doesn't need to be part of the game. An AI that can actually outsmart the player, rather than simply outgun him, like most games do, is going to be interesting. Why do people prefer to play with or against other people? Because the challenge level is entirely different, even on level playing field.

If you start out with the task to have AI that is better then the player, you can always dial it down later, to make it interesting to play against. And if you already have that, there is no reason not to show off its capabilities. Every time that I play a game where I can set difficulty as high as I want and still beat the game, I feel that developers have not done their job.

After all, if you can beat the game on highest difficulty, somebody out there can probably do it with one hand behind their back. That's unfair to that player.

Furethermore, if you can just beat the game on 90%, I bet my last buck you'll try it on 91%. And after some time, you might even beat that. But if you can beat it on 100%, that's it. You're done with the game.

A game that has its difficulty scalable all the way to impossible is the game that you'll keep playing. It is a game that will give challenge to every player. It is a game that you know was properly done. All around, developers cannot be excused for not doing something like that.

GruntOwner
17th Aug 2008, 21:46
Eventually, it will get repetitive though. I'm all for difficult, outsmarting is great, but impossible does not make a game. Look t all those flash games that pride themselves on being impossible. Now take away any level of curiosity because you'll already have done it on all the other settings, take game's title challenging you to complete it if you're one of the people who care about that, and leave you with a room that you've done many times before, only now the secretary can nail a fly in the wing with one hand. Using a staple gun. It has gone from an entertaining challenge to a screaming piece of hell to the point where it simply sits on your hard drive waiting for your return. By this point you have moved onto another game.

In other new, this is the co op thread, so I for one request either continuing this in another setting or agreeing to disagreeing.

Co op would be a great addition though the main flaw could be dialogue. Unless one player was selected as team leader there would have to be someway of letting everyone choose objectives and outcomes on their own. personally, the idea of going into an instance when you meet Leo Gold on Liberty Island so you can choose his fate would kill immersion for me. Also, skill points would either be handed out on a one man basis, so only one person can benefit from dialogue objectives, or it could be team based, which would make more sense and encourage player to work together, say covering their back whilst the team mate explores an area.

K^2
18th Aug 2008, 04:19
The idea of an impossible setting serves more than one purpose though. I still insist that the game should prove that it is, in principal, "better than you" on level ground. This isn't always possible, of course, so this is more of an ideal.

But what gives it some utility beyond just showing off is the fact that you can design the difficulty settings so that you can always push it an extra inch. If you just barelly made it with one setting, you can increase it just a bit and see if you can still do it. This is still within the realm of possible. But the only way to make sure you can push it that far for any player is to make it plain impossible at 100%.

And the reason I brought it up, of course, is that you can always tweak it for playing cooperative. If different components of difficulty can be tweaked, this can also be used to play a certain way. If you want difficulty to steam from stealth, reduce number of items, forcing yourself to sneak by guards. If you want firefights, increase gurads' perception and that will cause more firefights. Of course, you can just chose to play a certain way, but this will force you to see it through to the end.

Essentially, it is all about giving players extra options. And I'm sure, there will be people who'll keep trying exploiting engine to beat the impossible setting, and in many cases, some will suceede. Then they'll really have something to brag about.

GruntOwner
18th Aug 2008, 09:55
I am going to admit defeat and agree with you now, as an Operation Flashpoint style of difficulty has only just come up, and it would be far better than the slider given that the inclusion of an impossible AI may require the slider to be ungodly sensetive, though with self contained factors of the difficulty changable independently, it does seem like a better idea. You'd have to include some kind of caution metre, so on the lower settings they cover where they saw you last, defult they cover where they know you to be at that exact moment, and the higher allowing them to watch their back incase you have a team mate, regardless of if you're in co op or not.

Cr4sh
18th Aug 2008, 13:11
Well, to finally get back to the topic, I would think it's cool to make it like the coop in one of the splinter cell parts (I only played the first one, but there was at least one with coop), so that you slightly change the levels making it impossible for one player but beatable for two players helping each other. On the other hand, it would be soooo awesome if the players could decide for different fractions, leaving them playing against each other - maybe because one of them always gets the honor when accomplished a mission and the other is being laughed at as his handyman or so...

CJRamze
20th Aug 2008, 22:18
I've not played Deus Ex 1/2 - in around 2 years now
The other day, I went to find the discs. Totally lost them

So I decided to buy them both, Install them and patch them and give them a whirl.

The other night I was sat there thinking I wish there was a co-operative mode.
Maybe even 3/4/5 man Co-operative play.

I thought maybe a massive online server MMO type thing, but then I thought, Could you really imagine 150 Aug'd players in one place?
It'll be like World of Warcraft in the furture and thats terrible (Your the one, no your the one, No your the one, Each 300/400 of you are the ones)

Its terrible

However I we all know the agents didnt work alone, you had other Unatco and modified agent's who operated in the area's.

I propose an online save game
And an offline save game.

I'll elaborate.

Example
Myself, Dan and Joe are playing co-operative mode, We are helping each other through the game and doing really well. We decide to call it a night and I the host end the game.

It autosaves each of our locations within the game,

The next day, Myself and Joe start the game up but there's no dan, we do a few more missions, call it a day

The following day, we are all online, Myself and Joe have already completed Dan's missions the previous day, Dan either has the choice to skip this mission (Thus forfitting Credits, Upgrades and other points) or we can go back and do this mission with him again but we wont get the credits for completing the mission or the rewards.

Obviously it would require more thought that my small paragraph but I think that it would be a fantastic addition to the game.

Single player only games tend to leave the users wanting more and the addition of a good co-op element makes the games 100x more fun.

As said before, I've played Rainbow six vegas 2 and completed it on single player.
However the Co-op mode breathes new life into a mundane game.

Spiffmeister
21st Aug 2008, 04:58
A coop mode would be good, but the story would need to be built around it then, there wouldn't be any point having it if the story based NPC's only ever talked to the one player.

Necros
21st Aug 2008, 08:49
I think it can be accomplished, such as in Borderlands. I think perhaps some dedicated mode would be better suited to the game. Perhaps some co-operative "challenge modes"?
Yes, I'd be fine with that. But not with a complete co-op mode, Deus Ex is a single player game, it needs to focus on that experience. :cool: I don't care if there will be any MP or added co-op modes, all I'm interested in is a great SP. :thumbsup:

Voltaire
21st Aug 2008, 21:22
Sweet Helios! Make it dedicated or don't do it at all!

CJRamze, your idea is cool and new, but not at all elegant. The idea of Deus Ex is (I believe) to take the player on a philosophical journey. Now you may jeer, but I think that this sets itself apart as a didactic, intellectual video game. This kind of gameplay decribed would desecrate all that is good and holy about DX (and DXMP was pretty awful as it is).

CJRamze
22nd Aug 2008, 00:50
Sweet Helios! Make it dedicated or don't do it at all!

CJRamze, your idea is cool and new, but not at all elegant. The idea of Deus Ex is (I believe) to take the player on a philosophical journey. Now you may jeer, but I think that this sets itself apart as a didactic, intellectual video game. This kind of gameplay decribed would desecrate all that is good and holy about DX (and DXMP was pretty awful as it is).

I whole heartedly agree with you,
However during games current cycles almost every single game has a multiplayer feature. Now I'm not saying make the game Mutliplayer only, I will always complete the game single player first before moving to the multiplayer.

However what I am thinking that to extend the replayability of the game the addition of a Co-operative mode would be fantastic.

Whilst not on the same level as the single player it would still increase the length of the actual game.

It's a bad example but theres nothing more I love than sharing the experiance of a game with someone else, For example if They had a Co-Op mode in call of duty 4 I think that would of been one of the games I'd rated 100%! :D

Gomeril
7th Nov 2008, 01:04
Get your discussion about difficulties to another thread. This is too important.

I and a lot of friends are looking for The Multiplayer Coop Campaign Game.
All you get is death match, which is stupid and boring for a little LAN party for 2 to 6 people. And where you get a coop mode as in Splinter Cell or Ghost Recon, there is no campaign progress and therefore no strategic planning and which is even more lame, basically always the same equipment. Deus Ex 3 could do so much better...

Its fun to plan a career for each party member so that party will be more than the sum of its parts. This demands hard choices: If everybody can do and carry everything thats boring.
So limited inventory and limited skill points and or cyberenhancement slots are needed. Specialisation means every game could play differently. Which is already very nice for single player.
So give us the sniper, the recon expert, the hacker, the psyker, the demolition man and the man who shoots faster than his shadow.

And gameplay should reward or demand cooperation. The "fire-at-will and everyman for himself" approach is boring and should end in disaster. It should all revolve around different tasks, timing and planning. Lets plan crossfire traps, coordinated attacks. And give us a clever AI. Whats the use of a buddy covering my back if nobody tries to get at my back? (Well I know, the buddy system is essential to your survival. It gives the enemy someone else to shoot at)

GmanPro
7th Nov 2008, 04:45
Co-op would be cool i guess. But I personally don't want it.

Nothing against co-op in general. In fact I'm looking forward to Left 4 Dead, but i don't think it would work out so well for DX.

Lazarus Ledd
7th Nov 2008, 13:07
Cooperative play for me would be I we had mission and objectives to share, you do this, i'll cover you with completing the other objective which lets you pass "there"...etc....

but today co-op def is both dude in the same area, same screen


I wish it to be like in the Nikita series. Two teams, Red and Blue, each one responsilbe for his goals

GmanPro
7th Nov 2008, 14:10
If they make such a big feature out of co-op then the game would be lacking in the single player department don't you think?

Games that do co-op mode well are usually the games that are meant to be played co-op...

Yargo
7th Nov 2008, 14:22
So they have said that DX3 will be single player right? I mean Co-op is with Multiple Players right? so......:scratch:

GmanPro
7th Nov 2008, 14:24
Yeah, there's not going to be co-op. :thumbsup:

But we can still talk about it I guess...:D

Yargo
7th Nov 2008, 14:47
I don't mind Co-op but its frustrating playing through the hardest setting with a partner that refuses to back you up, steals your kills, and then say hey "I got more points so i'm better" :mad2:. But ya otherwise Co-op is all fun and games.

I don't think it would be such a good idea in a DX game because a common theme is who should you trust. (Sudden thought interruption) Alright what would be cool is if some game featured an online Co-op and you couldn't trust your partner but needed him/her to finish the game. Kind of like having 2 different agendas. :D

GmanPro
7th Nov 2008, 19:34
Deus Ex online co-op!?!?!

NOOOO!:eek:

That's already being tried by Bioware with KotOR 3 and it's a bad idea imo.:thumbsup:

I feel like I'm being robbed of an actual KotOR 3.:(

Yargo
7th Nov 2008, 19:52
I don't think it would be such a good idea in a DX game because a common theme is who should you trust.
Sorry let me specify. I was thinking of a new type of game in general. Not necessarily to do with DX.

The new Kotor is an MMO. I was thinking strictly 2 player.

I'm every bit upset about the new KotoR as you are.

GmanPro
7th Nov 2008, 20:28
Actually the idea of a game designed around co-op, with each player handling specific goals/objectives in order to complete a mission sounds like a lot of fun.

I can see it in my head right now... a game where specialization is very important, and there's countless ways of going about doing a mission depending on what type of character you and your partner have chosen to be...

Like I said, I am looking forward to Left 4 Dead.:thumbsup:

Lazarus Ledd
7th Nov 2008, 20:34
Actually the idea of a game designed around co-op, with each player handling specific goals/objectives in order to complete a mission sounds like a lot of fun.

I can see it in my head right now... a game where specialization is very important, and there's countless ways of going about doing a mission depending on what type of character you and your partner have chosen to be...

Like I said, I am looking forward to Left 4 Dead.:thumbsup:

My line of thinking :)

Yargo
7th Nov 2008, 21:08
Actually the idea of a game designed around co-op, with each player handling specific goals/objectives in order to complete a mission sounds like a lot of fun.

I can see it in my head right now... a game where specialization is very important, and there's countless ways of going about doing a mission depending on what type of character you and your partner have chosen to be...

Like I said, I am looking forward to Left 4 Dead.:thumbsup:

I think it would be awesome if those goals were sometimes of conflicting interests:thumbsup:
Mixes things up a little:D

GmanPro
7th Nov 2008, 21:10
I'd be inside your base, hacking your computer systems and you'd be in the control room, throwing up firewalls and spam trying to keep me out. :D

Yargo
7th Nov 2008, 21:10
I'd be inside your base, hacking your computer systems and you'd be in the control room, throwing up firewalls and spam trying to keep me out. :D

:lol: All your base are belong to us :D

GmanPro
7th Nov 2008, 21:11
You have no chance to survive make your time :D

Yargo
7th Nov 2008, 21:15
You have no chance to survive make your time :D

I've already triangulated your location and have my Kick a$$ railgun Sniper rifle honed in on the back of your head :cool:

GmanPro
7th Nov 2008, 21:23
I've already triangulated your location and have my Kick a$$ railgun Sniper rifle honed in on the back of your head :cool:

Oh nooos! :eek:

Quick! Use an escape tool!

http://epicninjamaneuver.ytmnd.com/

:D

spm1138
8th Nov 2008, 00:08
Given the multiple approaches in DX's levels I actually think you could make a really good co-op game out of it.

What I'd probably do is build a couple of objectives that required cooperation.

Like where in the SP game you could do either/or in the co-op game you'd have to do a couple of things.

Maybe multiple synchronised objectives or something like that.

Ideally it'd be like a heist movie.

GmanPro
8th Nov 2008, 00:30
What I'd probably do is build a couple of objectives that required cooperation.


That's the problem though. It would have to be designed around co-op. So they would have to either force you to use co-op, or have it be optional and let the quality of the separate pieces be lesser.

spm1138
8th Nov 2008, 00:37
That's the problem though. It would have to be designed around co-op. So they would have to either force you to use co-op, or have it be optional and let the quality of the separate pieces be lesser.

What's the problem with requiring cooperation?

It's kind of the point of having a coop game-mode.

You wouldn't even have to rework the whole level, just the bits with the objectives.

GmanPro
8th Nov 2008, 00:44
That's the whole problem right there!

This is what I am imagining right now:

Your in a lab with your companion and your objective is to enter the vault and steal the experimental laser-rifle.

There's a blast door that requires that you swipe identification cards at the exact same time to open the door.

Now, first off that's just annoying in and of itself. Second off, what if you aren't playing with someone else. Will there be another way into the lab? If so, why do you even need to bother with putting the door in there in the first place. Or maybe the door will be there, but you can't interact with it because your playing single player.

You'd need to have it be either entirely co-op or no co-op at all.

spm1138
8th Nov 2008, 01:02
Ah yes right.

Yes.

You'd have optional stuff in the levels that only became active with multiple players I guess OR just seperate edited co-op levels.

Gomeril
10th Nov 2008, 23:23
I do think you could use the single player levels. You just had to add some multiplayer objects and opponents. And of course coop would be more challenging, it always is. Its not that hard to do. In single player you might have to rely on claymores or a robot to cover your back.

GmanPro
10th Nov 2008, 23:47
If there were multiplayer specific levels designed for co-op play only, the over all quality of the game would suffer. I would rather that EM focused all of their attention towards making the actual game good before they start dabbling in multiplayer.

If there is a relatively easy to understand SDK, then I have no doubt that someone (maybe I'll do it :D ) will make a co-op mod for DX3.

Yargo
14th Nov 2008, 20:19
Has anyone seen Borderlands? That would make an interesting format for a DX multiplayer. What do you guys think?

K^2
14th Nov 2008, 21:57
Your in a lab with your companion and your objective is to enter the vault and steal the experimental laser-rifle.

There's a blast door that requires that you swipe identification cards at the exact same time to open the door.

Now, first off that's just annoying in and of itself.
And that last sentence is the exact reason why this is a stupid way to do co-op in the first place.

No, the way you do co-op is by keeping the levels and objectives exactly the same. What you change is the defense of the level. You place more guards, more turrets, and more cameras. There is no need to create specific tasks that are physically impossible to perform alone, like requiring two simultaneous actions in two locations. Why? What's the point? There are very few real-world situations like that, yet, there are plenty of situations where a single person will fail objectives. Not because they are absolutely impossible, but simply because of being overpowered by defense.

With some thinking it is entirely possible to set up defense points to be very sensitive to number of defenders and attackers. In single player, one person can cut through defense or bypass it undetected. Add a few guards and cameras, and now it is a suicide for a single person. But two players can surround enemies, they can use one to distract, or they can specialize. Suddenly, the level is possible again. Furthermore, this introduces flexibility in your co-op play styles. You can use no specialization if you plan to attack targets from two fronts. You can use minimal specialization if you want to use distract-and-flank attacks. Or you can have heavy specialization with dedicated tank and hacker attacks.

Such is the proper way of organizing co-op for DX-style game, and if the level design is good for different types of approaches from the start, while maintaining an appropriate difficulty curve on all of them, it is easy to shift balance for co-op without re-inventing anything.

GmanPro
14th Nov 2008, 23:43
If I was playing co-op DX3, I'd want to split up. I'd want my partner to go in through the front while I climb up to the roof and descend down inside the complex from there.

Right there is a big problem.

If you and a friend are playing on PC, then there is no problem here. BUT on a single console in split screen, how is one machine supposed to be able to render what both players are seeing when they are in completely different sections of the map. It would have to load very large portions of the map in high detail and I don't think the technology is there to do that on 360 or PS3.

In Halo, the game would teleport you closer to your partner if you got too far away. I don't want to play co-op DX that way. So in order to do it properly, It would have to be a PC exclusive feature, or at least require system link of 2 consoles.

spm1138
15th Nov 2008, 03:03
What are you talking about?

PS3 and 360 games have split screen games.

They also both have online services.

GmanPro
15th Nov 2008, 03:46
Reread my post sir.

In all split screen games, the large maps are not being entirely rendered.

Multiplayer maps allow the players to be at opposite ends of the map because they are small and confined, but single player maps are much much larger and more complicated.

You couldn't have the players be in different areas of the map because the console would have to render those areas at the same time. Which is one of the reasons why in Halo, the game would teleport your characters closer to each other if they got too far away.

I'll use the source engine to extend the example because I happen to know how it works generally... Map designers have to keep in mind, that not too much of the map can be exposed to the view of the player. A lot of times they will use an air-lock type mechanism to separate two vis-leafs. The engine is designed to cut up the maps somewhat effectively during the compilation process but there are still times where bad mapping can force the engine to render unnecessarily large parts of the map (even if the player can not directly see these areas). Mappers can use hint brushes to manually cut up the maps if they see a problem area, but the point is that with the engine being forced to compile separate areas of the map, that will put a lot of strain on the hardware and lead to lower fps.

Now granted, I do not know how DX3's engine works, and I'm sure that it isn't the same as source. But this seems like a common type of issue to me.

Jerion
15th Nov 2008, 03:49
LAN/Online Co-op play. I think that would solve the issue for PC- that way each person's machine is only rendering the map from their point of view.

Make online Co-op a PC exclusive feature.

GmanPro
15th Nov 2008, 03:52
Exactly. I think I said that already :scratch:

DX doesn't need split screen. :thumbsup: It's probably already being heavily consolised anyway... though I hope not so much.

But anyway... Online/LAN co-op does sound appealing.

K^2
15th Nov 2008, 04:31
If you and a friend are playing on PC, then there is no problem here. BUT on a single console in split screen, how is one machine supposed to be able to render what both players are seeing when they are in completely different sections of the map. It would have to load very large portions of the map in high detail and I don't think the technology is there to do that on 360 or PS3.
I don't think you understand how rendering works exactly.

First of all, if you render the scene from two view points, it is already double-load. Nonetheless, many games handle it successfully. They tend to cheat, of course, and render with slightly lower detail, reduce LoD range, bring the fog closer, or do some combination of the above. At any rate, they free up the GPU load on first render to allow the second.

Now, some games do stream some of the content. But it is not a problem at all. Both PS3 and 360 allow sharing of the video RAM. In fact, in 360, there isn't even a distinction. Textures take up most of that. Cut down resolutions of textures by half, and you suddenly have 75% of that memory free. Use 1/3 of that to load second set of textures, and then you still have more than enough memory left over to load extra geometry.

For reference, a single "level" in Tomb Raider Underworld, running on the same engine, takes up about 50MB. The next/previous areas are streamed to allow seamless transitions, so you will have more than one of these loaded at once. By far, most of that data is textures. With half-resolution trick, you can store two "levels" in the same 50MB chunk of memory.

So even with consoles and split-screen, there is no technical reason not to do co-op. Never mind the fact that a lot of people would be happy even with purely LAN/WAN co-op.

GmanPro
15th Nov 2008, 05:37
True. What I was thinking about was keeping the graphics at max quality. Which is difficult to do with one machine, if not impossible by today's standards. But you could do it with 2 machines no problem. Not a bad idea if they do it properly. But they shouldn't make a feature out of it you know? Like you suggested b4, simply increase the difficulty of locks or number of enemies or whatever.

K^2
15th Nov 2008, 05:55
Well, yes. If your machine is pushed to the limit by the engine, it can't do any extra work by definition. And if it isn't, then you could have done more with the engine.

But yeah, I was mostly thinking of co-op as an on-line thing. But if they want split-screen, it will come at a cost of quality. No way around.

Which is easier to code is a question. In split-screen, there are a lot of things that need to run in a more general ways to accept multiple player characters. AI, triggers, scripting, controls, camera, etc. From perspective of "good code", that's how it should be done from the start. Unfortunately, practices of "good code" are too often sacrificed in favor of quick development. Not to mention that it isn't up to EM so much, since they are working with Crystal Dynamics engine. So it's hard to say how much modification is needed. You also have little things. Like textures, for example, are stored in DXT1 format in TRU (Same compression as used by IW, just FYI). CD can work with uncompressed textures, but there is little point of that, so I'm sure DX3 will also run DXT1. These are stored as 4x4 blocks of pixels. That means, if you want to change resolution, you have to decompress, filter, and recompress these. It will take some extra code and CPU time during streaming.

On the other hand you have networking. Now, I'm not an expert on networking. The most complex thing I coded is a light HTTP server. But I know enough to tell you that the stuff can get hairy. If your game does not otherwise need net-play to function, it might not be worth the trouble to develop net-code just for co-op. Especially when you have all these different platforms floating around, potentials for hacking, etc.

So yeah, a lot of extra work either way, but it would be nice to have, and it is sure to boost the sales. So we'll see, I guess.

rockyrr
17th Dec 2008, 19:15
The AI should be able to react to multiple opponents, otherwise pitting rival factions against eachother, using turrets, hacking bots, and such thing, would all be rendered over-powered or completely useless.

I agree whit you

Dazza
5th Jan 2009, 10:55
I know this seems like a very non-DX idea but does anyone enjoy co-op campaign play? A.k.a. Left 4 Dead and Kane & Lynch? In essence DX3 will, of course, be a single player game but does anyone here think that co-op capabilities would be a kinda cool addition to have?

I realise though that implementing such a thing would add some extra work for the developers on many levels. However, it's more about the concept that I'm after.

Thoughts?

jordan_a
5th Jan 2009, 10:56
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=79166 :thumb:

Dazza
5th Jan 2009, 11:45
my bad sorry bro. thx :)

Jerion
5th Jan 2009, 18:30
Bump for merging. :)

qJohnnyp
12th Jan 2009, 02:35
Has anyone played this in coop?
It's one of the most fun experiences in my gaming life, with me concentrating on science and hacking and my brother on shooting. This made a great team. We were immersed enough in the game to be actually scared. Looking Glass released multiplayer for SS2 a few months after its release. They took their time to tweak the singleplayer missions to work for two players working together.
We actually thought DX1 multiplayer would be the same thing, but turned out to be the competitive mode, which while fun, was far from what we saw in SS2. I don't think DX3 will have coop, but if it does (as it's a popular trend recently) I'll be delighted to play it.

iWait
23rd Jan 2009, 06:13
Ok, seriously now.

Hey Kieranator, I know how often you exercise you're modulent powers of authority. Mind getting your banhammah down here?

Jerion
23rd Jan 2009, 06:31
Right on it. :)

EDIT: Got him. I'm running it by GoranAgar first, but he'll be banned shortly. http://www.kof.invisionzone.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/banned.gif

iWait
23rd Jan 2009, 06:43
I wub yoo.

Jerion
23rd Jan 2009, 06:52
It's why I'm here. :thumb:

He's gone. ;)