Legend of Grimrock 3

[ByFstugan]

Have the devs ever completely ruled out multiplayer?

Multiplayer, I think, would make it an entirely different game. Because, LOG works on the fact that all four characters are on the same "square" for lack of a better word. You throw in multiplayer, and you're going to have people running all over the map at the same time.

Sir Tawmis... Hejsan

I think a multiplayer would be possible if you keep it in a main team that's always on the same square - though it's more like a "coop-game" than a "multi-player". I'll type some extra thoughts about things as "spoilers", though they are not spoilers but just other things one might need to concider. I hide them to avoid a wall of text to start with.

Like this:

- As normal, you have 4 (or more) partymembers in a team that's always on the same square.

- DEFAULT PLAY: Let's say it's always playable and saveable as a Single-player (as LoG is now), but in this we will call the "player" for the potential "host" instead (when chosing multi-player).
(((*Because of this paus is always possible, even in multi-player mode - hence one could pause to discuss some puzzle in game without time going in game.)))

- MULTI-PLAYER-OPTION: You could always choose to add a person (max 3 beside the host) to control same team each time you play.

SpoilerShow

(((DROPS: If someone drops you would have options to set game either to pause/wait for him to reconnect, or if control should by default just go back to host.)))

SpoilerShow

(((INDICATOR: It should be visible with some "lamp" that has a certain color when one or more partymembers is controled by someone else, like each player could choose a color and a "lamp" show that color as long as they are active. If one drops the lamp changes color if set not to paus. In pure single-player mode the lamp is inactive.)))

- SET CONTROL: When doing so the "host" of the game sets which one or more partymembers the other player(s) will be able to control. Perhaps you are two friends and one do front row and one do back row - the host controls movement unless giving it to the/some other player.

- INVENTORY: The host should be able to set if only he will be able to take/move/use things in all inventorys, or if one or more other should also.

SpoilerShow

(((*Also if other players should be able to use even their own inventorys - perhaps you don't trust them not to throw away good gear when you're not looking?)))

Advantages:
- I could have a team with 4 members and let my wife/girlfriend play the one I named with her name, and even she could think it's fun to play and not to much to control since I do movement and control the other three.
- The fun game for me can always be fun for me, OR me AND my friends.
- The game will NOT be stuck if some day one or more of my friends can't play or don't wanna be in game any more, since it's saved by host as a single-player game would. It's just that each time playing one could CHOOSE to let someone else join in with limited access.
- As you understand your team will always be on same square as in a normal LoG game.

Example:

SpoilerShow

I started a game and a couple of friends calls and wanna join in. I paus the game and they connects to my IP. I see him "knock" and let him in by active choice, or he has a password that let's him in.

My first friend is a such person that he don't wanna miss anything and I trust him (his multi-player-handle is "Mr.Serious"). My second friend is not that much into games and I don't trust him to understand what not to touch and throw and such, his multi-player-handle is "BadISP".

So now I have to choose their involvment in team. In this case I want them to play one front row fighter and a back row rouge - and I'll play the other front row and the back row wizard.

Another setting (I didn't mention earlier) is two boxes, will he be able to pick up things from the dungeons and place them in the inventory? Another is if he will be able to THROW things away. A third is if he will be able to use things (like potions) from inventory.

All Multi-player-settings could be like this:

CONTROL:
Movement done by player: [x] Host [ ] Mr.Serious [ ] BadISP

"Party member #1 name" [x] Host [ ] Mr.Serious [ ] BadISP
"Party member #2 name" [ ] Host [x] Mr.Serious [ ] BadISP
"Party member #3 name" [x] Host [ ] Mr.Serious [ ] BadISP
"Party member #4 name" [ ] Host [ ] Mr.Serious [x] BadISP
(((*you can change anytime during game. You can also set one person to control all and the other will just be spectators.)))
(((*There could also be a possibility to let more than 4 players join as pure spectators so 5-10 friends could sit on skype talking and looking at and commenting on the same adventure)))

DISCONNECTS:
If someone drops pause/wait [x] or continue [ ] (one choice)

Mr.Serious INVENTORY:
Control of inventory items: none [ ] own only [ ] or all [x]
*(one choice, when choose "none" all choice below will be unable to choose)
Use from inventory: Potions/Crystals [ ] Inventory only (excludes gear) [ ] or use anything (includes gear) [x] (one choice)
[x] Pick up from map (yes/no)
[x] Throw from self (yes/no)

BadISP INVENTORY:
Control of inventory items: none [x] own only [x] or all [ ]
*(one choice, when choose "none" all choice below will be unable to choose)
Use from inventory: Potions/Crystals [x] Inventory only (excludes gear) [ ] or use anything (includes gear) [ ] (one choice)
[x] Pick up from map (yes/no)
[ ] Throw from self (yes/no)

[Isaac]

Realms of Arkania is a dungeon crawler [with heavy coat of the RPG sauce on top; more so than with Grimrock or EoB]. One ~among many neat aspects about it is that the party can sub-divide and explore in different directions. In a modern [computing] environment, the multiplayer dungeon crawler can have as many players as PCs in the game... with the addition of one simple rule: sub-divided parties [or allies in general] can pass through the same cell, while others cannot. Add to it the option to merge parties (up to the maximum size [of six or eight?), and you have a co-op without too much difference needed in the map designs, or the engine's tracking of the players. In Grimrock's case, a networked game could have the linked hosts handling the entity updates when parties are on different levels; and just hand off [share] the current level states when a party transitions between levels that were being handled by different machines. For that matter, all of the linked machines could distribute the task of updating the other levels, or even sections of the same levels.

Puzzle design could implement the need for a split party; and this could be part of the single player game from the outset of design, and go unchanged in the presence of additional players. For single player mode, transition between sub-parties could be as simple as a hotkey & alternate teleport sound, or could include a full camera shift between parties in the same open space. Players could start as members of the same, or different parties. Combat UI might need to be altered with dual player parties in mind, for if each control two of four PCs, then the cooldowns between player clicks, are perceptually doubled.... So there would need to be something else for them to do during the fight while they wait for their champions to become ready.

*Obviously any such game would have to model the player characters, so they could show up in the game when they step outside of the other player's cell. Realms of Arkania didn't do this, and the player relied on a UI button becoming active when they stepped into an occupied cell.

[Sir Tawmis]

I think a multiplayer would be possible if you keep it in a main team that's always on the same square - though it's more like a "coop-game" than a "multi-player". I'll type some extra thoughts about things as "spoilers", though they are not spoilers but just other things one might need to concider. I hide them to avoid a wall of text to start with.

I'd say it's possible...

I don't know how how many are familiar with SHADOW OF YSBERIUS from TSN (The Sierra Network)... but it operated in a similar fashion... where you'd have a small party moving on one square... while it was fun (back in the day).... I am not sure I'd be happy not being the leader who directs the party and just being the mule led by a carrot of whoever the leader of the party was...

[Isaac]

In story mode?

IRRC Baldur's Gate worked in a similar fashion... The ~extra players could not actually interact with the quest NPCs IRRC; and were effectively controlling the combat AI for certain party members.

[Sir Tawmis]

Realms of Arkania is a dungeon crawler [with heavy coat of the RPG sauce on top; more so than with Grimrock or EoB]. One ~among many neat aspects about it is that the party can sub-divide and explore in different directions.

I love me some Realms of Arkania.

[ByFstugan]

I think a multiplayer would be possible if you keep it in a main team that's always on the same square - though it's more like a "coop-game" than a "multi-player". I'll type some extra thoughts about things as "spoilers", though they are not spoilers but just other things one might need to concider. I hide them to avoid a wall of text to start with.

I'd say it's possible...

I don't know how how many are familiar with SHADOW OF YSBERIUS from TSN (The Sierra Network)... but it operated in a similar fashion... where you'd have a small party moving on one square... while it was fun (back in the day).... I am not sure I'd be happy not being the leader who directs the party and just being the mule led by a carrot of whoever the leader of the party was...

Sometime it's the social part that's fun. For example. My main game through all times has been Age of Empires 1-2, mostly 2. That's as you probably know a RTS where you just play shorter games, like 20 minutes to 1+ hour, sometimes more. In the old days we OFTEN did coop, but not to play - mainly to watch other better players or just friends play, and the game due to that became more fun both for us watching and the players who got some watchers. Today there is a site called voobly that has expanded this game with alot of new features - one of them being the ability to "spectate" without doing "coop" (where you share control of a civ). Often hundred+ players watch the best players in the world there and it's a real boost to the game-community.

If you like a game, or the people playing it for that matter - just to be a part of the adventure/game is a fun-factor in itself - even if you maybe never would like to watch others play or "play in the backseat" I'm sure it would add to the fun of MANY others. Also, in this way it would just be an extra option for those who like it, it's still mainly a single-player game - but like this with an option to travel-companions. It's not like it would work bad in this genre - usally there was a set "party-leader" even in singleplayer mode - this would be the same but with real persons also in the gang and not just imaginary ones.

Anyhow, it was just a suggestion - do with it what you will ^^

[Sir Tawmis]

Sometime it's the social part that's fun. For example. My main game through all times has been Age of Empires 1-2, mostly 2. That's as you probably know a RTS where you just play shorter games, like 20 minutes to 1+ hour, sometimes more. In the old days we OFTEN did coop, but not to play - mainly to watch other better players or just friends play, and the game due to that became more fun both for us watching and the players who got some watchers. Today there is a site called voobly that has expanded this game with alot of new features - one of them being the ability to "spectate" without doing "coop" (where you share control of a civ). Often hundred+ players watch the best players in the world there and it's a real boost to the game-community.

If you like a game, or the people playing it for that matter - just to be a part of the adventure/game is a fun-factor in itself - even if you maybe never would like to watch others play or "play in the backseat" I'm sure it would add to the fun of MANY others. Also, in this way it would just be an extra option for those who like it, it's still mainly a single-player game - but like this with an option to travel-companions. It's not like it would work bad in this genre - usally there was a set "party-leader" even in singleplayer mode - this would be the same but with real persons also in the gang and not just imaginary ones.

Anyhow, it was just a suggestion - do with it what you will ^^

Hah! Well, first I don't have a say what does or doesn't go in the game - I am merely a moderator on the forum. The Admins are the actual programmers & developers!

That said - I think it's very different watching an RTS game compared to watching a First Person Perspective game. With RTS, even if you're not fighting one another, there's much more "to do" in regards to building a city, gathering resources, etc. With the type of game for LOG; it'd merely walking down halls until you fight (which, I admit, can be exciting). A long time ago on TSN (or sometimes called INN), they had a game VERY similar (with MUCH more dated graphics, obviously) called SHADOW OF YSBERBIUS.

But essentially the same idea; a party of four people, doing a first person perspective dungeon crawl.



It was, I admit, fun (especially back then!) to have that kind of game. But I did find myself bothered sometimes, because the person controlling the party would do foolish (as in fatal) mistakes, killing the party and sending us all back to the tavern.

[Isaac]

Quake had similar. [spectator/observer mode]

[kingius]

I sure hope that they make a third.

[ByFstugan]

Sometime it's the social part that's fun. For example. My main game through all times has been Age of Empires 1-2, mostly 2. That's as you probably know a RTS where you just play shorter games, like 20 minutes to 1+ hour, sometimes more. In the old days we OFTEN did coop, but not to play - mainly to watch other better players or just friends play, and the game due to that became more fun both for us watching and the players who got some watchers. Today there is a site called voobly that has expanded this game with alot of new features - one of them being the ability to "spectate" without doing "coop" (where you share control of a civ). Often hundred+ players watch the best players in the world there and it's a real boost to the game-community.

If you like a game, or the people playing it for that matter - just to be a part of the adventure/game is a fun-factor in itself - even if you maybe never would like to watch others play or "play in the backseat" I'm sure it would add to the fun of MANY others. Also, in this way it would just be an extra option for those who like it, it's still mainly a single-player game - but like this with an option to travel-companions. It's not like it would work bad in this genre - usally there was a set "party-leader" even in singleplayer mode - this would be the same but with real persons also in the gang and not just imaginary ones.

Anyhow, it was just a suggestion - do with it what you will ^^

Hah! Well, first I don't have a say what does or doesn't go in the game - I am merely a moderator on the forum. The Admins are the actual programmers & developers!

That said - I think it's very different watching an RTS game compared to watching a First Person Perspective game. With RTS, even if you're not fighting one another, there's much more "to do" in regards to building a city, gathering resources, etc. With the type of game for LOG; it'd merely walking down halls until you fight (which, I admit, can be exciting). A long time ago on TSN (or sometimes called INN), they had a game VERY similar (with MUCH more dated graphics, obviously) called SHADOW OF YSBERBIUS.

But essentially the same idea; a party of four people, doing a first person perspective dungeon crawl.

It was, I admit, fun (especially back then!) to have that kind of game. But I did find myself bothered sometimes, because the person controlling the party would do foolish (as in fatal) mistakes, killing the party and sending us all back to the tavern.

What kinda game it is isn't very relevant for the social part - which I specifically talked about. Also I said "If you like a game, or the people playing it for that matter" - it's clearly not about watching a exiting movie, but to be part of something that happens that got your intrest. With your reasoning there shouldn't be anyone interested to look on streams with i.e Minecraft - but is that true? Are there any game that people can't stream and get watchers to really?

I think this is the new win or break for many games - that if it also has an social platform (either it's built in to the game or if it happens on stream) it can make a game go very popular or not sell at all. If I would guess this would be a boost for LoG-serie to have this function built in, that would make it easier to make it popular on social media like streams.