Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Another is interaction. I'm sorry, but Skyrim is as solitary as I'd want to get. I go stir crazy without friends. Any game that involves construction, should also involve friends. It helps to elevate the experience.
Exploring the depths of such a world would get lonely. Friends can help make it more fun and interesting!
Adding co-op would subtract nothing from the game as whole. It would only open it up to a wider audience. Remember that everyone doesn't like the same things. Not everyone experiences or plays games the same way.
You do don't see why co-op would make the game better for some, because it wouldn't make the game better for you. ^^
Nah. I don't say that it couldn't make it better. But I feel like it would take away from the intended (?) play-feeling, which the game wants to convey to you - Solitude and thoughtfulness (+ other "feelings", but I think these are the ones which are effected the most).
In my opinion, a coop or multiplayer feels best, when you have to gather a lot of things, can/have to build huge structures, mechanics where direct interactions between players are needed, or you have fight an enemy. Currently Subnautica lacks all of these points.
As said, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that co-op is a stupid thing or that I am necessarily right, as it's only my opinion. But only because the gaming culture goes in the direction "everything needs multiplayer" doesn't mean, that every game necessarily needs one. That's why I wanted to hear opinions from people - who want the co-op - (or don't want it too), what makes it necessary for them.
Besides that I was a little frustrated, when I wrote this post, because of the hundredth "multiplayer plssssssss" thread from someone who don't even own the game.^^
...Which doesn't make this to a rage thread.
Let me start by saying that these are my own opinions and not to be taken as law/fact/or the opinions of the community as a whole.
The Ship Aurora was quite a massive vessel so it does seem a bit odd that only one person managed to get to an escape pod but anyway.
Survival games where you can build, gather resources and fight nasty critters can always be made more fun with multiplayer. Sharing the experience with a friend/s can certainly look like it would detract from the idea and concept but I think it adds to the game more than anything.
With each additional player to the game you would have to find more food, water and resources just to survive, which makes the game more intense as you rush to keep everyone alive.
Currently there isn't a hole lot that players can build, I mean we don't even have rooms yet just corridors, but this isn't to say that more buildings won't be added soon.
SN is still in it's early days but the is plenty of room for improvement and plenty of room for multiplayer content to be added.
Personally I would like to see a ore processing room and an exosuit added, one player travels around gathering ores and blasts rooks to find more then when full returns to home base and deposits everything via an external port. The other player/s can then operate the machine to process the ore for greater returns, this is one of many possibilities that could be implemented for a multiplayer experience.
Another suggestion is a Mk.II Cyclops with multiple seats such as a pilot, sonar and a defensive turret (concussive or stasis), not only does this add a new ship in for players to work towards building but gives more jobs for everyone especially when exploring.
I don't believe SN is ready for a multiplayer co-op system yet as there is a lack of things to do that would warrant the addition of extra players but I can see why people want it and what potential there is for a multiplayer aspect being added to SN.
Games are good, but it's about replayability - there are only so many times you can build a base or craft stuff before it gets boring - the grind loses its interesting perspective quite quickly.
Coop enhances this by giving friends the opportunity to play with each other and adding individuality to each experience - 100 sessions with friends would all be completely different, whereas with coding it's relying on algorithms for playability.
IIRC, this is a Unity game, which means coop integration should be relatively simple, as multiplayer play is built into Unity and only needs integrating and tweaking (although, with that said, it could take weeks or months to have it integrated and fully working and bug free)
This game hopefully will be coop eventually, it'd suit it - being able to solo is good, but being able to play with your mates is just as good.
And if you think coop ruins the experience for YOU personally, just don't play coop :)
That's what I've said. And I don't say that I am right about what I feel regarding co-op. Maybe it's the best what could happen to this game. It's just a worry.
But good to read more than the usual "I want to play with my friends. Period.".
I think Subnautica needs some elements which are made for co-op. To finish the singleplayer and then add a co-op wouldn't be not that great.
According to the Cyclops 2.0 idea. There is a concept art for the Cyclops, which wasn't used.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/264710/discussions/0/618458030672903036/
This in particular might be a lot of work, and we likely won't see it, but I think co-op gameplay would benefit from such things.
For example Skyrim would be the best game for next 100 years if it had one :P
I would like to have it coop just for one reason. I like games like this, i like to play them alone, but i like them alot better when i can play them with my brother. We spend so many hours/nights playing such games together but singleplayer only games arent in the slightest a good or viable purchase for us, because when we want to play singleplayer only we go for games with story like, lets say a Witcher, Batman or Skyrim.
And even those games are often alot fun in multiplayer.
And seriously, even when you cant see it, apparently people all the time enjoy multiplayer for pretty much every game out there. You can see that easily on multiplayer mods being made for most sandbox and open world games. Just Cause is still mostly just popular because of its multiplayer mod.
And now we go back from this subjective reasons and lets face the objective reasons:
would a game be better with multiplayer/coop? Yes, obviously. Its an additional feature. A game with more features is better than a game with less features.
A game that appeals to a wider audience is better than a game that is only good for a very small community.
A game that offers options for all of these people and many different tastes is a better game that only offers one choice.
Its like you are against people asking for Linux support. I personally couldnt care less for Linux support, but why do a shady hypocritical thread saying they cant know if the game would be better with Linux support because they dont own it?
Because it is an option for the people using it. SImple as that. And a game supporting as many things possible allowing as many people to play the game how they want to play it is simply a better game.
So instead of trying to hate against people asking for such support, you might turn your brain on and support them instead. Because obviously as we can see a game with such a mode is better than a game without such a mode. Whether i now use it or not is irrelevant.
I take the right to quote myself:
"Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of Coop/multiplayer games and I wouldn't have a problem with SN having coop. So let me know: why does Subnautica need coop?"
I said what I thought about mp and wanted to know what other, especially those who want to see mp, think about the multiplayer aspect. At no point I was hating.
What you've described as "objective" is simply the description of a casual game. Is Battlefield 4 better than CS:GO just because BF4 has more features? I think not. BF4 wants to make it right to everyone with as many features as it could possibly contain and this ends into a mess.
A more specialized game like Counter Strike aims for an audience with tactical preferences. It has less features than BF4 but does the things, it wants to offer, right. BF4 however wants to be everything. A tank simulator, a flight simulator, a infantry combat simulator, it wants to be tactical and competitive and many things more. Everything it contains works, but only at 70% which turns it into a shallow fun game.
Everyone should be careful what he wants and that's why I've tried to start a discussion about pros and cons for co-op in Subnautica. So, maybe you "should turn your brain on" and best before writing something.
"But I honestly don't see, why the addition of a coop mode would make this game better.
Sure, I know the benefits, of playing with friends and random people, for games. In the right game, coop adds tactical variety, "fun" and generally the aspect of sharing the experience of gameplay elements.
On the other hand, coop is an immersion reducer. It gives you a save feeling and drags some aspects in a ridiculous direction."
You take a subjective route, fail to understand what i just wrote and try to drag it into a subjective matter aswell.
I explain the whole objective (because it is objective) matter to you again.
A game supporting more features and trying to give more options for more players is a better game than the game just offering options for less people in a smaller amount.
I dont know why you drag a BF 4 or CS comparison into it, i nowhere compared games to each other because that isnt what multiplayer is about. That isnt what objective comparisons or arguments are.
You fail to differ between subjective and objective and i already gave you an exact example of how to understand, yet you fail.
You compare the game itself with another version of itself.
Differently said, a game offering Linux support on top is a better game than the same game offering only windows support. Because more options to choose from and more support for as many people possible automatically makes it a better game.
When i can choose from resolutions up to 4k and not only in an area between 640x 480 and 1024x600 or whatever it is a better game. When i can choose between controller or mouse and keyboard input, instead of being forced to use one of them, then its a better game.
Added features support more people, offer more options. More options mean people can customize their experience to their liking WITHOUT forcing someone to use it.
A game offering multiplayer on top to the singleplayer is a better game than the game just offering singleplayer. Thats an objective and mathematical argument. And its even simple. With it having multiplayer people like me and many others can not only play singleplayer but also play with their friends.
For example im not interested in this game anymore with knowing it has no multiplayer, as i am not interested in a game like Rust currently because it offers only multiplayer.
I want both for the best experience. Thats just me, but i know for sure that a game like Subnautica would be a better game with multiplayer, because it doesnt matter if its perfect or not, whether it works perfectly or not, it offers me the option to play with a friend in coop. Whether it now is balanced in multiplayer or works flawless is a totally different discussion and besides that also a discussion no user could argue about because that would be up to the developers.
No one could ever argue about a intention of a game.
Why?
Because that would be argueing about a reality that doesnt exist.
Would you argue the same way when Subnautica would have been released with multiplayer? Would you when it was multiplayer only?
Any negative effects on the game with it having multiplayer cant be proven, are not only subjective but plain wrong, because you cant know that.
You make assumptions based on nothing else than opinion, which is based on nothing.
But i can deliver you a sure thing, multiplayer would add a option for players and so attract more players that could enjoy the game, ergo it would be a better game.
Because multiplayer must not affect singleplayer your assumptions would be useless. Whether it now would be good or bad multiplayer is subjective and cant be really a discussion, because no one really knows the answer.
Its like saying Battlefield is worse with the singleplayer and was intended to be multiplayer.
Yeah i think Battlefield was better when it was only multiplayer, but thats not because it has singleplayer. In fact the best BF experience i had was with Bad Company 1 and the game had a great singleplayer.
Those modes are absolutely unrelated to each other.
The only connection you can make here would be a ressource discussion, whether ressources should be used to include a mode you dont want. But because you have no clue about the ressources of the developers you cant argue about that aswell.
So what are we actually talking about?
When its that: "In my opinion, Coop would destroy the intention of the game, as it would take the negative effects of coop. Subnautica is based on exploration (in all its facets) + it might be a survival game. But it's neither comparable with games like Minecraft nor with The Forest - whats appropriate for them doesn't have to be good for Subnautica."
then you are wrong out of the reasons i just named. Its based on nothing else than assumptions, which is btw exactly the "hating" i talked about, the agenda of trying to say "it would have a negative effect on it".
Can you prove that? Where? Its like saying videogames have a negative effect on children in the age of 10-14. You have to prove it otherwise its just BS someone randomly throws around without knowledge of any kind.
Exploration is btw a great thing to do together. I played many games with exploration with my friend.
1) I've made "thesis", saying that I'm concerned that I feel it could hurt the game experience in some ways. That IS obviously only based on assumptions, as we don't have "Subnautica Co-Op" and I NEVER said anything else.
2) I wanted to elaborate with this thread what could be wrong with a multiplayer and what could be or have to be done to make it good.
An assumption is clearly not wrong from the start on, as it's a thesis and never stated that it uses facts.
You say I'm wrong, because I can't know it, but you by yourself said that the game will sell more copies when it has a multiplayer, which is exactly the same thing you accuse me to do with my thread.
You can't know if the game sells more copies until you actually have the multiplayer; + how do you know that mp would be not totally crappy with lags and glitches over and over? Contrary to you, I let you the freedom of assuming things because I have no problems with it. But it bothers me, when you accuse me, that I can't do a thesis, while you do it yourself. You criticize me while you do exactly the things you criticized. Hypocrites at its best.
It's 100% not hating - whatever you understand under this term. Hating would be "F*off with your multiplayer" while to say "I'm concerned that multiplayer could hurt the game experience, what do you think about it?" isn't.
You're talking about features of the game like Linux and say "if it supports Linux, it would be a better game, because it would sell more copies" while I am talking about content of a possible feature and its possible gameplay impacts and not its ability to sell 100 more copies.
A good selling game don't mean necessarily that it has good gameplay ("is a good game"), as you said. And I've never wanted to talk about such things as they're not related on the topic.
You're taking phrases I've said and use them without its context. You try to defend something what I've never attacked.
And I'm entitled to say that multiplayer wasn't intended because it was/is planned as a singleplayer game. The game(play) is build around singleplayer. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up.
And you seem to miss what I've wrote I quote myself again...
About these sentences is the thread. Not an "agenda" against coop or multiplayer. No, I was just asking for opinions about this thematic, while I've stated my own opinion for a better understanding. Could I've spared it out? Sure. But my point is valid. Playing singleplayer or multiplayer changed the feeling of every game, I've played so far, in both modes.
There was not a single thread about "how could coop look like?" that's why I've made this one. To get some more depth into the subject "coop".
Our conversation added absolutely nothing to this thread and never should have taken place...
Sums it up perfectly.
Fair enough the OP wants some kind of in-depth discussion on the benefits of multiplayer but it ain't complicated.
Yeah. Instead they gave us ESO. Crazy! It makes me hopeful for the next elder scrolls game though.
The problem with a multiplayer implementation of Skyrim was the game was designed from the bottom up for single-player. Like how they handled player bonuses. Each of them was an active effect - from very short term buffs right through to permanent bonuses. That's fine for single-player but crazy inefficient for multi.
Having made ESO though, and having so many years of people crying for multi-player Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, I am hopeful they'll design the next elder scrolls game either with multi-player or at least in a multi-player friendly fashion.
And yes I know it was different teams and companie which did ESO and Skyrim. But the money all comes from and goes to the same place. So they could easily share the code and / or move some of the programmers over.
You also try to establish a so called thesis with a factum:
"On the other hand, coop is an immersion reducer. It gives you a save feeling and drags some aspects in a ridiculous direction."
Please do us a favor and do not try to wriggle yourself out of the affair that you just show what i already stated and you go wrong with it.
Just posting a one-liner about how much you like something doesnt hide the totally opposite way you approach it. Or differently said, you contradict all of your previous OP with the last sentence, which seems to be only an approach to avoid others calling you out and leaving you a backdoor to wriggle you out.
I obviously dont expect you to see that and even agree to it, because it would show a failure.
At least get this one out of it, a game gets better with more options and features so more people can play it, a game with an additional mode is automatically a better game.
Besides that please dont quote me and then do it wrong, because you again fail to even understand an example in the slightest and drag it into a direction it was never meant to be nor was it ever there.
You dont want a discussion, otherwise you would follow the basic rules of discussions. Quoting correctly and not scrapping sentences out of context to change their meaning are two basic rules you cant follow.
You dont know whether multiplayer has an impact on gameplay, even the opposite is provable as i even did before, if you would read it properly as examples.
You talk about sales while i was never even in the area of selling copies. So you try to accuse me in doing something you did wrong because you simply cant get out of the fact that you just failed with it.
Tell me where i use the word "sell" or "copies" in any of my comments? I can tell you, nowhere.
You already failed from the very beginning, you tried to get a game comparison going where i wasnt even anywhere near to such a topic, and now you try to establish a new topic i never even touched myself.
Maybe to refreshen your mind i again: More features and options mean a wider audience and more players can be supported and reached so every player can customize the experience to his/her liking. Multiplayer is only a feature that gives the option to players to use it when they want, but has the advantage that it isnt forced to any player because it comes as an addition (when both modes are in the game, otherwise its obviously singleplayer/multiplayer-focussed, which limits the options)
Differently said, people can choose whether they want to play with others or leave it be and use AI or none at all and play solo.
Thats a basic objective advantage, no assumption, not subjective. My Linux support example shows you the same basic point from a different perspective.
My controller and mouse-keyboard example showed it from another perspective.
I could go on with examples and say that having an objective based multiplayer mode and a deathmatch mode in a game are better than only having one of these modes, because having both gives all players one more option.
Multiplayer and singleplayer are only modes. Having more modes gives more options and so is better than having less. Not more not less.
As i said, you asked for it in your Op and i can give you the answer. People like games but they want to play these games in the way they want. The more options people can choose from the more they can have their customized experience. If people want a exploration underwater game and want to play it together with a friend, they have very limited options. In fact i cant think of even one underwater exploration coop game.
And even if there were any, maybe its the style they find appealing. So they want to play such a game but cant play it the way they want to play it.
TLDR:
I can give you the exact answer here. I would like to play it, but i wont buy it. Why? Because it lacks the option for me to play it the way i want and thats with a friend on my side, talking over skype or teamspeak and doing the exploration. Thats leading back to the point you didnt understand. The game lacking multiplayer equals it missing an option i would choose. I cant choose that option now because it is not existant ergo i cant play the game how i want to play it.
The result is, a game with more options includes more possible ways to play the game. My previous examples all fit into that when you think about it. The option to choose between mouse and keyboard or controller is the same choice to play the game how you prefer to play it as when you choose between single or multiplayer. Its only one option to pick from to make the game better for you/me/everyone. Having wheel support might be a great positive addition for many players in racing games, multiplayer support might be a great addition for people who prefer to play with others. Its the same point over and over, yet you cant see it?