I feel like I should make some (or at least A) multiplayer games that don't use all the modern bandwidth for many players but rather just to have very rich worlds for 4 players.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Depending on the gameplay (ie coop, low-action), I feel like there's a lot of leeway for simpler networking models that produce janky multiplayer but also don't rend your being in twain to make.
Just sayin' that I could do with a Diablo Jr or some such. idk
yeah; like 4-player co-op-with-buddies is the only multiplayer space I would willingly touch, because you just cheat as much as you want, go for it man. (also the only kind I actually play these days)
Mhmm, and if the draw is the world, no one is really gonna care if some positions desync or something. As long as numbers change and nothing breaks horribly. So you can easily get away with P2P, low send rate. Steam and Epic libs make it reaaaal easy.
one of the extremely shitty pressures of gaas is immutable servers that are 'fair'; and instead I just want people self hosting personal rules sets or whatever.
I remember being astonished by the ability for people to host their own TF2 servers with custom rules/mods when I was a kid, and then wondering why nobody else did it. I know why now, but it still sucks that we don't live in a world where dedicated server software is available for most games.
Simulating the rich world on a dedicated server is more of a bottleneck than bandwidth imho. We had to constantly optimize server-side gameplay code on TheDivision1/2 to maintain a good experience, bandwidth was seldom an issue.
I still want a 1v1 rpg where over the course of like a 20 hour game one player plays as a hrro trying to unite people and the other as an antagonist trying to grow their power
i really want to see a game that actually captures that "adapt your run specifically and individually" feel that roguelikes demand but competitively against other players
Honestly 2 players w/ great experience is a sweet spot. All our RTS work to support 4, 8 players but most games by far were 1:1. Also I remember first Gears of War — coop only, 2 player only, but an epic new experience.
versus for sure; I think 4 players is a sweet spot for any sort of narrative-heavy co-op, you see this all the way down to tabletop experiences I think
Deep Rock Galactic is honestly my favourite coop game of all time and that's 4 players. I will say that they've managed to make it scale perfectly in all player counts too. Solo they give you Bosco a little drone you can customise to help out but is still distinctly different from another player.
They cracked the code on toxicity too. Have the dwarves yell at each other for friendly fire, combined with a contextual ping system and the only emote being "rock and stone" as a positive means everyone naturally just has a good time. Encountered one troll in 500+ hours.
(and for versus I guess it's often the opposite, where the more sedate the pace the more it needs to be 2 player. hungry hungry hippos is fine with 4, and quake deathmatch with 64, but chess wants 2)
yeah for sure, it's a niche play; but I have a little group of old guys that still get together once or twice a month to play 4-player co-op games, we all played tabletop together 30 years ago. I think there's a servable niche there that's still fairly unserviced.
I am only interested in playing multiplayer games if I never have to interact with any of the other players, and especially if I don’t need to try and synchronize my schedule with real-life friends. The thought of doing that gives me anxiety.
Comments
Just sayin' that I could do with a Diablo Jr or some such. idk