Would you play it online?

garazdawi · #1 (**permalink**) 08-29-2004, 04:23 PM

Would you like to see a more extensive online gameplay in BGIII? If so should it be MMO styles or just a direct connection between friends who wants to play?

I am not be completely against extending the multiplayer support, if only it is still in the spirit of BG (ie great party interaction etc..), but I don't think it should go MMO as that would kinda ruin your need for party members and their interaction...

Ares2382 · #2 (**permalink**) 08-29-2004, 06:36 PM

Well let's me think what I liked about the previous two BG games...... hmm nope MP was not part of what I liked about them(although it was nice to play through the story with my brother).

If you want MP you can invest in NWN, that is the strength of that game, there are some really great servers out there that you can really enjoy.

BG games are known for their great single player campaign and I think they should stay that way. the only MP that should be included is the same type that was included with BG2. Meaning just co-op mode for the campaign. Nothing more. Just my 2 cents.

Xandax · #3 (**permalink**) 08-29-2004, 10:23 PM

Maybe - that depends on how it is constructed.

If it is static as in BG1+BG2, then I will not, because those games were bad in multiplayer in my opinion.

Brynn · #4 (**permalink**) 08-30-2004, 12:26 AM

Of course! MP is fun!

Nightmare · #5 (**permalink**) 08-30-2004, 11:56 AM

Just for co-op, like before.

nephtu · #6 (**permalink**) 08-30-2004, 05:19 PM

My two gold worth:

It would be good to have a fairly large population online "city" where you could get supplies & buy/sell gear, etc. as well as hook up with your friends or a pickup group for adventures - with instanced single-party adventuring. The DnD engine is built around small group play.

Paranitis · #7 (**permalink**) 09-02-2004, 07:15 PM

I agree with the D&D stuff being based on small parties..if you had a thousand people on a server all adventuring and trying to save the world, then it would take a day and a half before every quest is completed and there is a baddie genocide.

That's one reason I think MMO's are stupid. But if they are going to make a BG3, it better as hell be somewhat like BG1 and 2. Fallout 3 is going to be fine as long as it stays with the concept of you as the main character, you get a small party together, then you go do stuff with your party..so I don't see why BG3 should be stupid and go all MMO on us.

Maybe BG:Online would be fine if you want to have a MMO, but you can't put a 3 on a game that has a 1 and 2 and make it be nothing at all like the previous entities.

Xandax · #8 (**permalink**) 09-02-2004, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranitis

I agree with the D&D stuff being based on small parties..if you had a thousand people on a server all adventuring and trying to save the world, then it would take a day and a half before every quest is completed and there is a baddie genocide.

That's one reason I think MMO's are stupid. <snip>

Well - that is the reason why quests in MMOs are persistant. You solve it - but that dosen't mean it is solved for everybody else outside your group.
As for how D&D will work in a MMO, then we will have to see when D&D Online gets released.

Paranitis · #9 (**permalink**) 09-02-2004, 11:51 PM

I'm not gonna even bother with D&D Online..mostly because a new setting shows up (Eberron) and then immediately it is turned into an MMORPG! It wasn't even a fully established setting and it gets the MMO treatment. I might have actually been interested in D&D Online if it were the Forgotten Realms setting, but not something like this..especially in a setting where alignment doesn't mean anything at all.

Ares2382 · #10 (**permalink**) 09-03-2004, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranitis

Maybe BG:Online would be fine if you want to have a MMO, but you can't put a 3 on a game that has a 1 and 2 and make it be nothing at all like the previous entities.

Have you heard of a game called Lord of the Realm? Basically what you said people can't do has been done, unfortunatly thus ruining a great franchise. I just hope Atari has enough wisdom to avoid making that mistake.

Drizzit · #11 (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 03:31 PM

I don't, but its just like what Xandax said "its how its set up".The bad thing about going online is that then u get all the little kids that don't now anything about the game but wanna play it because "this game has good graphics" or "this game is popular so I should play it too".And then if it gets big then its in the paper and every ware , so i hope that if it comes out ,it stays small like the first two.

C-K'R[PhoEniX] · #12 (**permalink**) 04-13-2008, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ares2382

If you want MP you can invest in NWN, that is the strength of that game, there are some really great servers out there that you can really enjoy.

Correct, in the time of BG1&2 there was no NWN - now there is and it's more than enough to suffice for the computer D&D online experience. Investing time in making the multiplayer part as developed as in NWN would possibly draw the quality away from the singleplayer aspect, which should be the game's focus if ever made. It is now clear that the companion interactions were the brightest points in that game, it should be the same for BGIII.

Thrifalas · #13 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garazdawi

Would you like to see a more extensive online gameplay in BGIII? If so should it be MMO styles or just a direct connection between friends who wants to play?

No, there are enough good MP-games as it is. I would like the multiplayer just as in BG2, but easier and not as slow and annoying to use.

Claudius · #14 (**permalink**) 04-20-2008, 12:42 PM

Let's wait until 2012 and then post again

I'm just kidding. I am not looking for BGIII to be a MMO but I put maybe because I'm open to something new. Just don't want to mix up WOW with BG.