I'm saying it's too bad, I agree with you on that, but I get that that's the reason why Obsidian didn't want to chance it. But a lot of follow-the-leader attempts to implement multiplayer in RPGs after the Infinity Engine days ended up not being very good, and when they were good, weren't used very much. And I don't think it's true to say that DOS1 and 2 were successful specifically because of having multiplayer, though there multiplayer has definitely been successful, and part of that is also down to implementing the ability for the second player to also contribute to dialogue. There are people who play BG multiplayer, always did and always will, but they weren't a huge enough portion of the game's market to justify continuing to make it part of future games, is what I'm saying. The weird thing to me is that Divinity, which is a turn based RPG, have a lot of multiplayer features (including the full main campaign), while PoE, being a real time RPG, and thus way better for multiplayer purposes, have not this feature. Success of those games is greatly dependant on the multiplayer features. Also Baldur's Gate was being played in a different "internet era" not everybody was looking for multiplayer into RPG. People play BG multiplayer even now, after 20 years. As to why they didn't implement it initially, it's a tricky feature to add in, tends to break a lot of quests and the like even if they're not allowing the second players to choose dialogue, and as fun as it can be, there just aren't a lot of people who actually play it when it's there, which was true for BG as well. They're not really working on this game anymore, it didn't sell all that well, unfortunately. Originally posted by Du-Vu:Not sure what's going on with these two, but yeah.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |