MAKE IT CO-OP or MP

[COHelius]

The game of this epicness should never be single player!!!!!!

[サマエル (Samael)]

Publicado originalmente por Anarchist Jurisdictor:

I suppose it is again a totally random coincidence that the grand strategy games in the top 100 do have multiplayer that is commonly played (Civ 5, 6, Stellaris, Europa Universalis IV, Hearts of Iron IV, Total War WH II), or maybe the real coincidence is that they all invested into multiplayer and happened to make accomplished games anyway.

I do not know about other games, but Total war notorious for very bad multiplayer, especially Warhammer series, with synch errors which not allow players to get even to mid-game. So for Total war it's mostly solo players in statistics.

Other games have multiplayer but that only assumption that those numbers in statistics is those who playing in multiplayer.

Publicado originalmente por Sticky Wicket:

I'd much prefer to see time spent on making the actual game good, co-op can come later.

+1

[rafael]

+1

For me, multiplayer/co-op in a 4x game is a must. I always play with friends.

[LtWeasel]

Publicado originalmente por CeeRo:

There's no way they won't make it multiplayer i think, apparently they also launched Northgard with no multiplayer and I'm pretty sure they know how much less successful it would be at this point if they didnt implement it after EA launch.
Personally I'll buy it once they implement multiplayer

I agree.

[Sticky Wicket]

Publicado originalmente por JBGarrison72:

Co-op and MP can wait. Fully optimizing for single player is best for an immersive story-focused game.

RTS competitive multiplayer "balancing" very often WRECKS any fidelity to source story and theme... so it's important to have the foundational single player elements done and optimized before that wrecking ball starts swinging.

This is a very good point.

Introducing multiplayer tends to get overly obsessed with having to balance units and factions. Multiplayer also leans so much towards meta-builds. I think it could ruin the experience of a strong lore-rich story-rich driven game.

[JJ]

Co-op in these kinds of games are a ton of fun.

[MaGicBush]

I completely disagree with the OP. The focus should most definitely be on SP. Coop/MP would be nice, but as a bonus not as the focus. Even then only coop really, but it depends on how this game is designed. A lot of RTS/4x gamers including myself solely play for campaigns/skrimish.

Player numbers on Steam do not indicate at all how much they sold, but only the current active players. MP games obviously have higher active numbers than SP games, because it requires multiple people to play them. That has zero indication on the number of sold copies however, as many SP gamers tend to play a while and quit. Come back later, and quit. Played in short bursts basically, and so concurrent player numbers never get very high. You can look at the launches of RTS/strategy games and see a big spike followed by a downward trend like every other game in existence. MP games tend to keep that trend a bit higher, because of the inherent nature of such a feature.

Even saying that looking at a different approach would be using Total War as an example. One of the most played strategy games on Steam Warhammer II has over 16k people online atm(which includes both SP and MP players), and maybe an 1/8th of those are actually playing online atm and that's being generous glancing at the lobbies.

[CeeRo]

Idk where you guys get the impression that this will be a strong lore-rich story-rich driven game? I see nothing that suggests that.
What I see is something that looks like it will flop without multiplayer at launch, like i've seen happen with many other games.

[WhitePhantom]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: multiplayer is a waste of time for smaller developers with smaller budgets. Instead of spreading the already limited resources thinly, I'd rather they focus on a quality core single player experience.
Dune got more attention with the recent film, but it's still pretty niche as far as franchises go. It would be such a waste spending all that time and effort on multiplayer that's guaranteed dead on arrival.

[Rincewind]

For any game to have longevity; multiplayer is a must.

[サマエル (Samael)]

Publicado originalmente por Rincewind:

For any game to have longevity; multiplayer is a must.

I didn't knew that Skyrim or Cities: Skylines have multiplayer.

[COHelius]

The reason I suggested this ... Was in part of the rich background and pure content ...picture yourself landing (player 1)Harkonnen dropships as House Atreides (player 2) defends ... we could in short create a new story line where Atreides actually defends and wins ... I would love to see co-op as player 1 & 2 work together creating/attacking/building/destroying as one House (let me once with my friends be able to move as fast as the AI does... THINK about it... my love for gaming is vast, but I want a game I can play with my friends that gives us both total control (working together to achieve a goal)

[TD2013]

Just do not make it Multiplayer only. We need a SP Sandbox and campaign and not deal with the Online/Multiplayer part of the game.

[Brother Mungus]

agreed.

[Harada.Taro]

NO WAY This game should allow Single player ... and well if you have some extra cash try do a coop/multi side but that is NO priority for that....

[CeeRo]

Publicado originalmente por Harada.Taro:

NO WAY This game should allow Single player ...

You don't want singleplayer? I agree though, multiplayer is most important in a game like this, but a campaign is always welcome too