The Question Of Multiplayer in RTH

[FlowerChild]

This came up during the Gil's stream earlier, and I fear that I may have not made one crucial point here as clear as I should have:

The real question is not whether you want multiplayer in RTH.

The question is actually whether you want a lesser single player experience in trade for multiplayer in RTH. You can not have both.

That is what I was getting at in talking about the inherent limitations that bandwidth implies and that kind of thing.

Deciding that it will not be multiplayer right at the start, and sticking to that, allows me to do things that other games in the genre simply can not if they are to function in a multiplayer environment. In other words, what I would like to do is provide the best possible single player experience that I can, and that is simply impossible while also attempting to provide multiplayer support, as in doing so, concessions (and I mean large ones) inevitably have to be made.

I do not think this is something many people really get about game development, yet it is something I have mentioned many times while developing BTW: every single feature comes at the cost of another one. To give an example, I do not think it was coincidental that the KSP devs announced ditching their plans for a resource system at the very same time they announced they were caving to the community's misplaced demands for multiplayer in a game that's ill suited to it.

Down the road I may simply phrase it as follows: Ok, so you want multiplayer. What planned features do you want me to axe to make that happen?

In many cases I suspect that these type of requests or expectations are simply a case of people wanting their cake and eating it too, without realizing that what they want comes at the cost of something else they might not be willing to give up in trade if they had the choice.

Anyways, just wanted to clear that up, as I think that while I may have made a number of statements all pointing in the general direction of the above, I never got around to making the main point there, and these are the kind of things that keep me up at night ;)

[Gunnerman21]

Multiplayer doesn't have to include the same things as singleplayer. Like the Halo series with its different environments for PvE and PvP. The "campaign" of RTH can include everything you want, and the multiplayer part can be something small, maybe some sort of trade or communication. An example off the bat would be the station interiors in Eve Online, players can be around other players in a separate multiplayer zone without ships. Albeit unfinished, they will have little impact on gameplay but improve the way corps communicate with each other.

We really don't know anything about RTH... because it doesn't exist outside your brain yet ;)

[FlowerChild]

Multiplayer doesn't have to include the same things as singleplayer. Like the Halo series with its different environments for PvE and PvP. The "campaign" of RTH can include everything you want, and the multiplayer part can be something small, maybe some sort of trade or communication. An example off the bat would be the station interiors in Eve Online, players can be around other players in a separate multiplayer zone without ships. Albeit unfinished, they will have little impact on gameplay but improve the way corps communicate with each other.

I see...so what you're arguing is that making what amounts to two separate games simultaneously instead of one will have no impact on the quality of the first.

Interesting :)

You're also not telling me anything I don't know there in terms of what other games have done.

We really don't know anything about RTH... because it doesn't exist outside your brain yet ;)

Yes, I realize, and this is where I think a lot of these "misunderstandings" with indie game devs come up: multiplayer is easy for players to wrap their heads around and view as a good thing since they've likely had many experiences already along those lines. A bunch of new and innovative features that lack of multiplayer would make possible? Not so much.

The flip side of this is of course: why the fuck are people pushing for multiplayer in a game they know nothing about? :)

[Gunnerman21]

..why the fuck are people pushing for multiplayer in a game they know nothing about? :)

No idea :)

I personally don't care if multiplayer is included (as I don't have many people to play with), I was just trying to say it doesn't have to affect singleplayer experience much as you said in the op and stream.

[FlowerChild]

I was just trying to say it doesn't have to affect singleplayer experience much as you said in the op and stream.

Yup, and I'm just saying you're wrong :)

Again, it comes back to the trade-offs, both technical and in terms of development time. Why would I spend time developing a watered down multiplayer version of what is intended as a single player game, when I could be devoting that same time to making the primary gameplay mode better?

And that's not even taking into account the split-personality it requires design-wise in trying to simultaneously create features that work in two distinct modes of play with two different sets of technical requirements.

You can trace the design comprises that are necessary for any combo single/multiplayer title all the way back to the Quake games. Why did the nail gun from Quake 1, which was largely a single player title they added multiplayer to later disappear from Quake 2 despite it being a very cool weapon? Well, because in a mutiplayer environment, the nail gun became a lag factory due to all the individually tracked objects it was throwing around the environment. So, instead the design switched over to more direct-fire weapons with instantaneous impacts with a smattering of slow rate of fire weapons like the rocket launcher and BFG that only produced a limited number of projectiles.

Why not only make a nail gun available in single player? Because that results in art and programming assets being thrown at something that exclusively benefits one mode of play when they could instead be working on stuff that benefits both, and thus the design compromises that have been with us since began.

This actually also relates to what we were discussing about hidden costs. What hidden cost did the games that went that route pay? We'll never know, because the development time they devoted to the multiplayer portion ultimately resulted in lesser features than what could have been otherwise, and technical concessions that resulted in the same, but not being able to see what those features could have been, we can only guess at their potential.

However, from experience in having worked on several multiplayer titles, I can say with confidence that cost is entirely non-trivial.

[RandomObj3ct]

It's a bit difficult to say with the lack of information currently, even you don't know how everything will go yet.

Multiplayer is great but if it's going to take away from the single player experience and lead too two experiences that aren't as good as what one fully fleshed out experience would be don't bother.
Look at the trend with AAA titles seemingly needing to have multiplayer, half of the games good, the other is complete utter crap(see modern military shooters, reasonable multiplayer, garbage single player), almost always both areas of the game suffer from doing this.

I'm not a developer so I have no idea how hard it is to do but would it be possible to make the game support multiplayer but not do anything with it until you feel it's ready for it? it would let you make the game for singleplayer and then switch to multiplayer if desired.

[Rob]

I'm sure most people request multiplayer because 'oo shiney', but it may also be fueled by a statement you made regarding it in the RTH Q&A Thread. My understanding of the situation is you'd be coding for it, but not implementing it until you felt the single player experience was in such a state that the label 'done' could be loosely used.

I personally don't care if multiplayer makes it into the game in any form, cause: Screw you guys, I'M going home.

[logorouge]

[...] would it be possible to make the game support multiplayer but not do anything with it until you feel it's ready for it? it would let you make the game for singleplayer and then switch to multiplayer if desired.

If he includes multiplayer at all, he has to chain down his ambitions from the get-go.
That's why I would love no multiplayer. I want to see the full extent of Flowerchild's creative fury in a singleplayer game.

[DaveYanakov]

I am a fan of a singleplayer only idea except for one drawback. When a player does not have excessive free time available, placing the sheer amount of stuff that goes into large builds can be daunting. It would be nice to be able to build some sort of automation for building if we cannot ensl... I mean, recruit friends.

Even without that, the benefits of dropping multiplayer seem to greatly outweigh the loss of opportunity. In the end, this is the game you want to make and it sounds like you want it to be a singleplayer environment with multiplayer being left for the water cooler at work where everyone talks about the differences in their personal experiences.

[TheGatesofLogic]

One step at a time! FlowerChild, do NOT put this decision up to us and don't worry about our preferences in this regard, you have to make up a strong forward oriented plan for the game first.You ought simply to make the game exactly how you wish it to be and if that game happens to be marginally conducive to a generally good multiplayer experience THEN you might want to consider it, designing with it in mind from the get-go might seem to be less daunting than working on it ad-hoc later on, but the very fact that you are designing the game with multiplayer in mind will change key aspects of the game which may stray from your original intentions. You may already have a comprehensive plan for RTH, and if you do then stick to it, whether multiplayer makes sense or not.

[Gilberreke]

Meh, whatever you choose is fine by me :)

I agree with the sentiment that doing both is probably crazy talk.

[LupusExMachina]

Would Lan only Multiplayer lift the design restrictions bandwidth brings? On the other hand it surely is still a lot of work for a niche within a niche.

And if somebody didn't notice by now: I have no clue what I am talking about, just brainfarting :D

[Rianaru]

One step at a time! FlowerChild, do NOT put this decision up to us and don't worry about our preferences in this regard, you have to make up a strong forward oriented plan for the game first.You ought simply to make the game exactly how you wish it to be and if that game happens to be marginally conducive to a generally good multiplayer experience THEN you might want to consider it, designing with it in mind from the get-go might seem to be less daunting than working on it ad-hoc later on, but the very fact that you are designing the game with multiplayer in mind will change key aspects of the game which may stray from your original intentions. You may already have a comprehensive plan for RTH, and if you do then stick to it, whether multiplayer makes sense or not.

I totally agree. This feels like a decision that should be made by someone with a complete inside view of the game experience. FC is the only one that fits that description. We don't really know whats planned, so we can't make very good guesses as to what will be good for the game anyways xD

[Stormweaver]

I'm one of those people who tends to almost exclusively play single player games, with the only exceptions tending to be dedicated multiplayer, so it's fairly obvious which choice I'd support were my choice to have any bearing on the end result :p

That said, I wouldn't be against the game having some form of online features (community-building stuff) but I don't imagine RTH is going to be big on the old high scores and bragging rights. To be honest, I kinda have trouble imagining it at all outside of some voxel-styled rougelite full of madness, horror and non-euclidian landscapes.

[FlowerChild]

All right, fair enough. I was left with the impression there were some background rumblings going on about the game potentially not being multiplayer which I was hoping to address and really explain why it might not be the good idea some view it as.

I find that making decisions with regards to your design constraints early on in a project is rather crucial in getting things done down the road, so for me, as I'm looking for all the interesting and cool things I can do, it goes hand in hand with me also looking for limitations I can put in place to make those things possible. "Constraints breeding creativity" is not something I only apply to the gaming experiences I try to create :)

At a certain point during the initial design process for RTH I began to think "You know, if I just ditch the concept of multiplayer I can do a whole bunch of really cool stuff that wouldn't be possible otherwise instead". As I thought about that more and more, it became clearer to me that it was the smart way to go.

Looking at the forums for other indie games though, I know that's already going to be a hellish decision to defend and maintain. You look at games like Don't Starve and KSP that clearly stated up front they would NOT have multiplayer and at a certain point, almost every second message (hyperbole there...but it's a shit-ton) they were getting involved a request/demand for it.

Now granted, my spikey exoskeleton is extremely well developed at this point, but I may have to start sharpening my spikes in preparation for that one :)

[Kazuya Mishima]

I think the theme of solitude sort of enhances the environment of a survival game. It also gives the the opportunity to play at your own pace and makes minecraft and even BTW more relaxing at times. I dont' mind competitive games or coop games but minecraft or BTW thrives as a solo game. That may be my own personal bias i guess.

Seeing what you did with BTW leaves me with little doubt I think RTH would be better being single player. I know there were anarchy servers in BTW and then they were suddenly made Coop. So opinions there might be interesting. The ability for player interactions is minimal in a game that has endgame systems for automation are rather simplistic systems for combat.

One thing multiplayer may give you access to is free advertising as famous youtubers would be more likely to pick it up to do a series on. They would potentially invite related youtubers exposing you to more eyes. Obviously with your opinion of unsophisticated juvenile gamers, which is very warranted, that may actually be a horrible thing.

[mazer246]

In my experience with BTW, I had lots of fun playing by myself for the first couple patches, but as I kept restarting worlds due to various reasons (world restart syndrome + MC updates to world gen), It became harder and harder to play each time. Once I started playing with friends however, it became much more engaging and fun. Boring and grindy tasks such as mining are much easier when you can have a nice discussion with a buddy.

So, ideally I would like to see some sort of co-op possibilities to extend the lifetime and enjoyment of the game.

[FlowerChild]

One thing multiplayer may give you access to is free advertising as famous youtubers would be more likely to pick it up to do a series on. They would potentially invite related youtubers exposing you to more eyes. Obviously with your opinion of unsophisticated juvenile gamers, which is very warranted, that may actually be a horrible thing.

Yeah, not the kind of thing that I want to focus on really.

I am very "old school" in terms of my business mentality. My view of how businesses should be run in a self-sustaining fashion is to make something, or to come up with a way to provide a service which is of value in itself (or "good" as I tend to think of it), and then to offer that thing to people in exchange for something (usually money). To me, those kinds of interactions are the basis of human trade, and much of our society.

This differs drastically from what I view to be the way many modern businesses are run in terms of trying to manufacture a need (or the perception of value or other people's "needs" if you are open to public trading), rather than a product that fills an existing need or desire. I don't want to descend into politics here, but I view that "manufacturing a need" philosophy to be the root cause of many of the problems western society is facing, and ultimately while it may be a quick way to turn a buck through what amounts to an elaborate con-game (and somehow one most of us have been convinced is a normal and socially acceptable way to do business), I also view it as acting counter to the long term viability of a business, in terms of creating something that has a foundation largely resting on bullshit.

To me, investing time in a feature because of the publicity it will generate, basically creating the perception of value rather than what I know to be true value, falls into the former category. If a game is fun to play, people will ultimately play it in videos and such, thus it is the "fun" part that I desire to devote most of my attention to (and which I feel plays to my own strengths as a designer), and largely leave the rest to sort itself out.

Now granted here, my use of the word "need" may not be entirely accurate, as I'm not talking about growing crops or what have you, and will likely come down to whether you view entertainment as a fundamental "need" for humans (which I personally do).

I guess I can put it in another way in that saying I want to create a business whose goal is to make good games which I can hopefully make some money off of, rather than a business whose goal is to make money, and just happens to do that through making games.

So, ideally I would like to see some sort of co-op possibilities to extend the lifetime and enjoyment of the game.

I don't think "me want" is a valid argument here. Obviously one of my goals will be to keep the game engaging in its primary mode of play, and therefore drawing comparisons to the development history of BTW, particularly in relation to the update schedule of vanilla, isn't really valid in this context.

[Marasambala]

It seems to me that even if you start development with multiplayer from the beginning, you are still utilizing resources on a non-game part of the game. It ends up being more infrastructure development instead of game development. Ultimately you're taking away potential for the Game as a whole, whether multiplayer or single player.

[FlowerChild]

It seems to me that even if you start development with multiplayer from the beginning, you are still utilizing resources on a non-game part of the game. It ends up being more infrastructure development instead of game development. Ultimately you're taking away potential for the Game as a whole, whether multiplayer or single player.

Yup. Which is the conclusion I eventually reached myself. I pretty much realized I was only planning on architecting with MP in mind because I thought it would be expected that the game eventually have it. In the end, I felt compelled to call "bullshit" on myself there, as it really has nothing to do with the overall quality of the game to provide what amounts to secondary modes of play.

With time I came to the conclusion that even leaving the possibility open was affecting my design decisions in a "no...can't do that cause it wouldn't work in a MP environment" kind of way, and that as you point out, if I spend time on an MP architecture that may wind up never being used, I am not only hobbling myself design wise on a "maybe", but I am also potentially burning development time for no good reason.

Saying "no MP" right from the start allows me to both adopt a much simpler internal architecture that will facilitate not only faster initial progress, but also more rapid development of new features pretty much throughout the project (meaning more features total in the long run), while freeing up my design-mind to make decisions that simply wouldn't be feasible in an MP environment.

[Xeo]

No matter what, we'll always have BTW multiplayer :) But seriously it seems to me that (from why little I know about RTH) the more dreary environment of RTH would fit better with isolation, unlike the more lighthearted (even with BTW) minecraft. I totally support your decision man :)

[Ozziie]

As you've already proven yourself over multiple titles and genres, I'd like to think that RTH won't be your last game anyway.

Maybe we'll get "Screw you Home, I'm going with Guys" as a full blown multiplayer experience? :)

[jakerman999]

I've got a couple different points with conflicting 'opinions' on yay or neigh for MP.

First, the technical limitations probably afford you a little more room than you think. Bandwidth is improving just about every year, in North America Google Fiber will drive decent competition in the states, and companies in BC are doing similar for Canada. Europe will probably respond to the rising conditions, and Asia already has excellent infrastructure. Predicting what the market will look like on release of RTH is quite a bit different than looking at the market of BTW or BTSM, but I know this isn't your first game. That said, the other points about internal frameworks aren't likely to change, unless you decide to code RTH in a language that's targeted at that problem, but again I'm telling you things you already know.

Second, I look at the audience of BTW and of games like Dark Souls (which cater to similar tastes, if in dissimilar styles) and it looks mostly like a single player genre. This doesn't exclude a multiplayer element, but perhaps something really low. At that point, it largely boils down to your same cost:product ratio, and may or may not add up.


Third, and perhaps most important, why are you asking us? I mentioned over in the dev diary that I am a firm believer in that the best games come from developers making a game that they want to play. In much the same way I wouldn't want to impact your design by suggesting some method of doing something, I wouldn't want to make a suggestion to your development by saying what I would do. It's in this spirit that I've tried to phrase my above two points as observations. If you believe that multiplayer is going to be the feature that turns RTH into something I want to play, I want to see it. If you believe that the time would be better spent elsewhere, I want to experience that instead. There's enough crowd-sourced games out there already. I want your game.

[FlowerChild]

First, the technical limitations probably afford you a little more room than you think.

No :)

As you yourself point out, this isn't my first rodeo.

Third, and perhaps most important, why are you asking us?

I'm not actually. This came up during Gil's stream last night, and I created this post as a further explanation of my stand on it.

Not asking for opinions here as much as I'm explaining the reasons behind a decision I've already made to hopefully offset the amount of grumbling that will occur about it.

I think I'm also using this thread as a litmus test regarding how much hell I'm going to go through as a result of this decision. Many of you guys know me and my design philosophy rather well, so I think that if I can't convincingly explain why this is the right way to go in this environment, I'm in for a total shit-storm down the road.

Now granted, I'm capable of weathering that regardless, but I would like to have some idea of how much of an issue it's going to be.

[Kazuya Mishima]

With time I came to the conclusion that even leaving the possibility open was affecting my design decisions in a "no...can't do that cause it wouldn't work in a MP environment"

Reading this gets me really excited for what you are planning and simultaneously anxious that you might happen to go the MP route. Systems like Platforms and pulleys were a great addition to gameplay and base design. When Mojang forced multiplayer on everybody we lost some functionality from pulleys for good. Other mods like finite liquid lost tremendous functionality because, as per your Quake 1 example, too many objects had to be tracked making it a networking nightmare.

In BTW you've given us a glimpse at ecological systems, you have provided us satisfaction from assembling and designing large, complex resource creation/refining constructs. If weather plays a greater role as do fauna interactions i can see us potentially loosing out substantially on tremendously compelling gameplay that no survival game has even attempted. The Quake 1 nail gun example should give everyone pause as just the notion of "more stuff going on and being tracked in the world" + flowerchild gives me goosebumps.