suggestion Multiplayer

[Vetle Jensen]

it woud been awsome if ther was a multiplayer function! but there had to be a limit of players like 3 or 4. i dont know if it would be a negative thing because the game is based on being lonly, but i thaught it would be cool anyway.

[Mroz4k]

This has been discussed before many times.

I am sure it would be cool and hell, I would love it as well... but it is not coming, ever. 

First of all, there is the issue of in-game time. You spend the majority of in-game hours doing tasks like cooking, harvesting, crafting, sleeping, etc - all of these things advance the time. That is a big issue if you have multiple players - how would it work? (I think I made a pretty solid suggestion how to remedy this in the past discussion on this topic, but this is not even the worst problem.)

The biggest issue is, I believe, the problem that the TLD game was never intended to become a multiplayer game, it was done as a single player from the very start. While it may be difficult to imagine, coding something like a multiplayer for this game would, most likely, be harder than trying to create the whole game from the scratch (that is maybe going a bit too far, but it would be nigh-impossible. At least as far as I can tell - but my knowledge of coding and game developing is limited, going off my limited experience from what my coder friends told me.)

I would love it as well, heck, I would back a second Kickstarter if it would help the case, even if it was for the second game like a sequel to The Long Dark, but realistically, I wouldn't have my hopes high. Though I honestly believe something like this could multiply the enjoyment this game brings several times over.

[KinoUnko]

Being single player is the main selling point of TLD. If I wanted multiplayer I'd still be playing ARK or one of the other dozens of survival/exploration games. There just isn't any real gain from multiplayer. 

[Mroz4k]

4 hours ago, KinoUnko said:

Being single player is the main selling point of TLD. If I wanted multiplayer I'd still be playing ARK or one of the other dozens of survival/exploration games. There just isn't any real gain from multiplayer. 

I am sorry, and you have right to your own opinion, but this I just cannot comprehend...

Main selling point? What? How is this an argument, at all? What benefit is there to be a single player game as opposed to a multiplayer one? Unless the multiplayer requires more players to be started, or forces you to have an internet connection to connect to a server, you can play most multiplayers as if it was singleplayer. It does not work the other way around. Being a singleplayer is not a plus, it is not a minus either but it definitely is not a plus.

You could play other games too - but to my knowledge, there is no game that can even closely compare to The Long Dark in its type. Most of the other survival games are of the Minecraft sort - they have ridiculous or oversimplified mechanics to make them more dynamic. Like the Forest for example... hit a tree with a stone axe a few times, boom - the tree falls down to 4 logs. Collect 50 logs to build a house. Drag around 12 logs on a couple of sticks like its nothing. Run and poke a deer with a sharpened stick, it dies, there is your food. In other games, you can for example craft guns out of iron bars, like its that easy...

TLD goes the other way - by making realistic mechanics harder to make the game harder and more challenging. That's why it is so immersive.

If the TLD was singleplayer with an option for server connections, or LAN multiplayer, and you were only interested in singleplayer, you would see no difference here. On the contrary, if it was solely Multiplayer (again either server or LAN) you could still play it as Singleplayer by hosting your own LAN game.

Multiplayer option has so much potential. Your arguments were strange, and your statement untrue. A single reason good enough to have the Multiplayer - popularity. Being able to mess around with your friends and share that game with them makes it so much better, and by sharing it with your friends, the game would grow several times faster. Because if you play a solely singleplayer game, most friends of yours will likely not check the game out unless you literally push them into it, and that makes them instantly not like the game.

[KinoUnko]

think it through for a second or two...

What you describe of other survival games isn't any different in TLD. Instead of hitting a tree with stone axe a few times, you hit a cedar/fir limb with a hatchet fa few times (3) and you get some logs. Instead of spearing or shooting a deer or some other dozens of creature for food and hide, you shoot a deer or bear or wolf or rabbit. Sole difference being the wait time between click and result.

Think about what other multiplayer survival games offer... huge contiguous world with abundant resources and large variety of creatures, deep crafting, and large base building. All of which are tuned for the end game, with multiple players contributing in different ways simultaneously. Early and Mid game are designed to acclimate single player to basic game mechanics, the game world, and then PvP mechanics. None of these design pillars fit the direction of TLD. TLD's focus is early and mid game for immediate survival and then establishing some sort of routine mid game for long term survival, with nothing resembling end game.

The core TLD is scarce resources, constant danger from climate, compounded by the difficulty of having to do all tasks yourself, and having to prioritize for immediate survival vs long term goals. It's not for everyone, and was never meant for everyone. Sure you can make a multiplayer game in the same arctic setting, and I'm sure it'd be quite popular, probably more so than what TLD is now, but it won't be TLD. 

[stratvox]

I would say that if you wanted to do multiplayer, it should be limited to two players. That might be something one could have in TLD 2; in the current game, forget it, I can't see it happening. The time dilation is actually pretty easy to manage... only allow time dilation if the two players are working together on the same thing, say crafting a wolfskin coat at a bench, otherwise, you don't get to see time speed up when breaking down limbs. This could mean you have a situation where one person is blowing an hour chopping up a fir limb while the other one gathers sticks, tends a fire, keeps an eye out for wolves/bears, or something, and the person chopping up the limb just gets to wait.

I could see it being cool, but the dev investment required to bring it to TLD is prohibitive as the game was not built that way from the beginning. I'd rather they put that dev time into the other episodes plus more maps.

[JAFO]

6 hours ago, stratvox said:

The time dilation is actually pretty easy to manage... only allow time dilation if the two players are working together on the same thing, say crafting a wolfskin coat at a bench, otherwise, you don't get to see time speed up when breaking down limbs. This could mean you have a situation where one person is blowing an hour chopping up a fir limb while the other one gathers sticks, tends a fire, keeps an eye out for wolves/bears, or something, and the person chopping up the limb just gets to wait.

I can see that leading to fights pretty quickly..  <grin>

[stratvox]

2 hours ago, JAFO said:

I can see that leading to fights pretty quickly..  <grin>

 Yeah that'd be on the players to manage. KSP can't really do MP either for the same reason... time dilation is essential (first transfer window from Kerbin to Moho takes 22 days real time), given the spans involved (often literally years if you're travelling to the outer Kerbol system) there's no way to manage that properly. It's possible with TLD; I think the longest span is something like 25 hours? but yeah... could lead to player conflict. That's why I suggest two. With two you could pull it off (okay, your turn to punch the clock; I'll keep the fire going so you don't freeze and try to score enough rabbits for supper tonight), but any more than two the problem gets really intractable really fast.

[JAFO]

1 hour ago, stratvox said:

KSP can't really do MP either for the same reason... time dilation is essential (first transfer window from Kerbin to Moho takes 22 days real time), given the spans involved (often literally years if you're travelling to the outer Kerbol system) there's no way to manage that properly.

Mind you, the KSP multiplayer mod has come up with some original ways of dealing with it.. which is not to say the same approach would work in TLD.

Speaking of which, I see that KSP 1.3.1 is out at last.. time to go download it!

[Carbon]

21 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

I am sorry, and you have right to your own opinion, but this I just cannot comprehend...

Main selling point? What? How is this an argument, at all? What benefit is there to be a single player game as opposed to a multiplayer one? Unless the multiplayer requires more players to be started, or forces you to have an internet connection to connect to a server, you can play most multiplayers as if it was singleplayer. It does not work the other way around. Being a singleplayer is not a plus, it is not a minus either but it definitely is not a plus.

You could play other games too - but to my knowledge, there is no game that can even closely compare to The Long Dark in its type. Most of the other survival games are of the Minecraft sort - they have ridiculous or oversimplified mechanics to make them more dynamic. Like the Forest for example... hit a tree with a stone axe a few times, boom - the tree falls down to 4 logs. Collect 50 logs to build a house. Drag around 12 logs on a couple of sticks like its nothing. Run and poke a deer with a sharpened stick, it dies, there is your food. In other games, you can for example craft guns out of iron bars, like its that easy...

TLD goes the other way - by making realistic mechanics harder to make the game harder and more challenging. That's why it is so immersive.

If the TLD was singleplayer with an option for server connections, or LAN multiplayer, and you were only interested in singleplayer, you would see no difference here. On the contrary, if it was solely Multiplayer (again either server or LAN) you could still play it as Singleplayer by hosting your own LAN game.

Multiplayer option has so much potential. Your arguments were strange, and your statement untrue. A single reason good enough to have the Multiplayer - popularity. Being able to mess around with your friends and share that game with them makes it so much better, and by sharing it with your friends, the game would grow several times faster. Because if you play a solely singleplayer game, most friends of yours will likely not check the game out unless you literally push them into it, and that makes them instantly not like the game.

 First, this response is a bit over the top mate and second, I think it's perfectly clear that the single player experience is the heart of TLD; it's simply stating the obvious. If not the single player experience, what is currently the selling point of the TLD experience then? Sure, it might have multiplayer potential, but what effect does that have on the initial claim? The game is successful and was demonstrably made to be single player, with everything built around solitude. So it's you who has all of your work ahead of you to not only sway player opinion, but the developers with a case for multiplayer.

[stratvox]

10 hours ago, JAFO said:

Mind you, the KSP multiplayer mod has come up with some original ways of dealing with it.. which is not to say the same approach would work in TLD.

Speaking of which, I see that KSP 1.3.1 is out at last.. time to go download it!

Yeah, I've never really checked it out so I don't know much about how it's done. Mine is already in... Steam keeps it up to date automagically. Though I've been macking hard on TLD for the last few months, KSP is pretty much the video game I've been waiting for since I grokked what the possibilities of computer games around 1980 or thereabouts (old enough to remember *some* of the moon shots, though I was only two when Armstrong took his stroll). It's a great great game.

TLD is also a great great game. Need moar regions!

[stratvox]

6 hours ago, Carbon said:

The game is successful and was demonstrably made to be single player, with everything built around solitude. So it's you who has all of your work ahead of you to not only sway player opinion, but the developers with a case for multiplayer.

Oh, I think two player MP would be good (Will and Astrid, together at last!) but putting something like that together in a way that's true to the vibe and works well is not trivial. Just consider the infrastructure needed to keep the game state right after a sesh so the players can return to the sandbox....

[Reahs]

On 2017-10-06 at 10:10 PM, Mroz4k said:

This has been discussed before many times.

I am sure it would be cool and hell, I would love it as well... but it is not coming, ever. 

First of all, there is the issue of in-game time. You spend the majority of in-game hours doing tasks like cooking, harvesting, crafting, sleeping, etc - all of these things advance the time. That is a big issue if you have multiple players - how would it work? (I think I made a pretty solid suggestion how to remedy this in the past discussion on this topic, but this is not even the worst problem.)

The biggest issue is, I believe, the problem that the TLD game was never intended to become a multiplayer game, it was done as a single player from the very start. While it may be difficult to imagine, coding something like a multiplayer for this game would, most likely, be harder than trying to create the whole game from the scratch (that is maybe going a bit too far, but it would be nigh-impossible. At least as far as I can tell - but my knowledge of coding and game developing is limited, going off my limited experience from what my coder friends told me.)

I would love it as well, heck, I would back a second Kickstarter if it would help the case, even if it was for the second game like a sequel to The Long Dark, but realistically, I wouldn't have my hopes high. Though I honestly believe something like this could multiply the enjoyment this game brings several times over.

just do like blockheads do for the 2nd time....

when all players do a task like crafting then we get the fast forward, if only one of two is crafting then that player will be crafting but in normal speed

 

[Mroz4k]

22 hours ago, Carbon said:

The game is successful and was demonstrably made to be single player, with everything built around solitude.

See, this argument I understand and agree with, rather than claiming it has to be single player or anything else people said so far. None of the other arguments actually made sense - to claim the game was intended to be single player and because of that has to be the single player is ridiculous, especially if multiplayer or coop games can be easily played solo anyways. That was my point.

Saying its meant to be a solitary game that evocates the feeling of being all alone is the actual statement that makes sense. And I agree - however, this "goal" of the game is clearly not that important because we all know that NPCs will eventually make their way into the game. This kind of goes against that "goal of the game is to provide the feeling you are all alone", so again I see no reason not to have a coop mode.

I see no reason not to have the multiplayer option on top of the options we already have. It is a lie to state the game needs to stay single player. It may be intended to be a single player right now but that does not mean it has to stay one. From purely business point of view, it would be idiotic to limit the game to single player because by giving access to a coop mode, you would broaden your audience a lot, without losing any audience in the first place - because like I said already several times, multiplayer can be played as single player just as easily.

The arguments made by others, comparing it to games that are fundamentally completely different and claiming them to be the only way to make TLD multiplayer were bad. Awfully so. TLD does not have to have a riddiculous base building or complex raids and crap like that to be successful multiplayer experience, it could still stay a "day-to-day fight for survival. There is no game like TLD in its existence - you cannot compare it to any other games and have that comparison mean anything solid - most survival games are dumbed down specifically to make them more dynamic, TLD is and always will be about harsh and more realistic basic survival. Because even if the two people make things easier in some aspects, like multitasking or quicker crafting, it also means two mouths to feed, more water, more firewood, more cloth consumption, more tools usage etc. If someone has a pal to play with, coop mode would make the game better because, with someone else around, the game will never get to that point where you are bored out of your mind, thinking of what to do - and closing your own game to start a new one.

5 hours ago, Reahs said:

just do like blockheads do for the 2nd time....

when all players do a task like crafting then we get the fast forward, if only one of two is crafting then that player will be crafting but in normal speed

 

 

No, this should not be an option, and it should be obvious why - JAFO summed it down perfectly:

On 10/8/2017 at 7:51 AM, JAFO said:

I can see that leading to fights pretty quickly..  <grin>

It would be boring mechanic for the player who is stuck, not doing anything. No, I think that forced cooperative crafting/harvesting etc. would work much better.

23 hours ago, Carbon said:

First, this response is a bit over the top mate

I don't think it was at all, but others seem to have a different opinion, which is why you did not see me posting for 24 hours. I thought the point of the forums was to discuss things. If something states things that are 90% untrue, (not false, just not true, either simply incorrectly summarized or irrelevant), I don't feel inclined to put on gloves.

[KinoUnko]

You clearly have a direction you'd like TLD to go. And clearly it's not the direction Hinterland intended, or intends, to go. And if you really believe TLD is dramatically different from other survival games in so far as game mechanics are conerned, then I suggest playing some other survival games for comparison. 

[Frosty]

I don't like the idea of multiplayer or Co op at all, it would just bring another category of technical bugs to contend with to a small team of devs who already have enough on their plate as it is and imo I don't see how it would possibly be a challenge anymore 

They would have to completely change how predators behave first of all, as all the players would have to do to takedown a bear for example, is take turns shooting it from different angles and watch it bleed out as it changes targets from one player to another And if the bear does manage to maul a player in this situation , they're going to want an ability to intervene and stop the mauling or tag team it with melee weapons or do this and do that and so on and so on.........

Wolves will no longer be an issue as one player just needs to distract one by aggroing it towards them while the other player shoots it at their leisure 

Not every game out there needs multiplayer or should even have the option just because it could be done, the question should always be - Why does this particular game need multiplayer and how will it affect it's design?

Gamers always want something personally tailored for themselves nobody is ever 100% satisfied with what they get, but that's not how it works in the real world not until Star Trek holodeck type tech happens anyway

[ingrobny]

Sorry, but i don't want multiplayer in TLD, it's not the right game for it, like people have said, it is about short of recourses, us alone against the nature etc, some games is best without multiplayer and TLD is one of those games.

[Reahs]

2 hours ago, ingrobny said:

Sorry, but i don't want multiplayer in TLD, it's not the right game for it, like people have said, it is about short of recourses, us alone against the nature etc, some games is best without multiplayer and TLD is one of those games.

I understand that IF they were to add a coop mode it would put everything else to a halt BUT when i say i want two player coop i do not NOT randomly say that just cuz i want to.

Just a few of the things i could think of is to make injuries A LOT more dangerus like REAL broken legs or that you DON'T get up to 100% condition by sleeping off a bear attack.

They could make the game almost force the players to really take care of eatch other if the other one did get really sick or got a really bad injury that got them bed bound because right now you are a solo deadpool 0.5 but in canada's wilderness.

 

[Reahs]

Just now, Reahs said:

I understand that IF they were to add a coop mode it would put everything else to a halt BUT when i say i want two player coop i do not NOT randomly say that just cuz i want to.

Just a few of the things i could think of is to make injuries A LOT more dangerus like REAL broken legs or that you DON'T get up to 100% condition by sleeping off a bear attack.

They could make the game almost force the players to really take care of eatch other if the other one did get really sick or got a really bad injury that got them bed bound because right now you are a solo deadpool 0.5 but in canada's wilderness.

EDIT: YOU WONT BE FORCED TO PLAY WITH SOMEONE

 

[Prestermatt]

8 hours ago, Frosty said:

Not every game out there needs multiplayer or should even have the option just because it could be done, the question should always be - Why does this particular game need multiplayer and how will it affect it's design?

This.

[Mroz4k]

22 hours ago, KinoUnko said:

You clearly have a direction you'd like TLD to go.

Is that so?

22 hours ago, KinoUnko said:

And clearly it's not the direction Hinterland intended, or intends, to go.

I thought the point of the Wishlist is to suggest the direction for the game to go in, as in what should be added next.

And actually no, I would not want the TLD to go down that way, for the reasons I mentioned in the first post. I would like it, but I am fully aware of the facts. I would only want them to go in that direction if it was possible in terms of resources.

22 hours ago, KinoUnko said:

And if you really believe TLD is dramatically different from other survival games in so far as game mechanics are conerned, then I suggest playing some other survival games for comparison. 

I don't have the money to spend on every "survival" game out there just to try them out. I am sure many people here see buying games as a meaningless expense in their daily lives but for me, they are a rather expensive commodity.

Thanks to YouTube videos, I don't need to own a game and play it to make that assumption. But I played several survival games, including the Forest, and I know that majority of "survival" games are like it. It is meant to be dynamic, not like TLD. Those games have majority of survival mechanics simplified to the extremes. Not dissing them, but you cant compare them because of that - there is no game truly comparable to TLD. If there was. and it offered multiplayer experience, it would make TLD suffer a lot just because it doesn't have this kind of experience as well, plenty of players who would wish for multiplayer/coop mode would switch over. (and, if you take a look at the Battle Royale games right now, we can assume that if such game existed and concurred to TLD, the Hinterland would be FORCED to actually make a survival mode or they would lose the battle for followers - that is how companies battle with their products).

 Always find it funny how the Survival games seem to promote "food" as a function in the game when it becomes irrelevant after first 15 minutes of the game, at which point you have so much food or have access to so much food it is no longer a concern anymore. Just a typical example of what I mean by being "more dynamical" - those games don't want you to spend time gathering food but want you to start gearing up for those raids etc.

The closest game to TLD, in my opinion, is The Don't Starve, and that one cant really be comparable to TLD either because of the universe it is set in. But dismissing that universe, if you take a look at Don't Starve Together, that is kind of how the TLD coop would go. Working together to try and balance out the limited resources, going day-to-day. Minus the adventure experience with DST where you go, tackling on a Cave or Ruins together.

@Frosty

I kind of agree with your comment on the size of the Dev team, but not the way you made it. This would only be a problem, for the most part, during the actual "development" - everything else would have to go on hold in the meantime. But once the basics would be finished, the game would be open to much broader player circle, and that alone brings income with it, more games sold means the dev team can grow, and thus all get faster. And so on. It would mean that right now, it would be slower, but once it was out, I daresay it would mean that the game updates would be faster then they are right now. Because of the bigger team Hinterland could have, working on it, thanks to the support brought in by the coop. If what you think was a problem, it would not be limited to multiplayer - basically, the issue of rebalancing everything can also happen if the single player game ever gets to the point where there is too much game content in it, and this content would cause issues with each other. But that never happens, because with more game content the game grows in popularity, and more devs enter the team and work on the issues. Same with multiplayer - it will only actually be slow in the beginning, during its development.

One of the solutions to prevent that initial slow build-up would be the second Kickstarter I mentioned, that would give the Hinterland the resources in advance as well as commit new support from new (and old) players behind this idea, with that money they could hire the extra help right away, grow their team right now, and distribute the new team to work on both the Coop, as well as the current game updates. Its an investment, plain and simple.

As for the mechanics, you said, I don't agree with those assumptions. You cant distract a charging bear anymore, I don't think it already works the way you think it would, the person that shot the bear would be mauled first, then the one who shot the other shot. And many of the issues you mentioned are actually issues in the Single player as well, when it comes to the wildlife... your argument literally is "Coop is a bad idea because it opens a new (easy) way how to deal with wildlife" when there already are very easy ways how to deal with the wildlife in the Singleplayer. This is already a fault of Single player, not issue of Multi player.

19 hours ago, Frosty said:

Not every game out there needs multiplayer or should even have the option just because it could be done, the question should always be - Why does this particular game need multiplayer and how will it affect it's design?

This particular comment makes me laugh. Nobody suggested it should have multiplayer just cause it can have one - the argument was "if I can choose to have multiplayer, which can be played as single player, or simply having a single-player-only, both being fundamentally the same game, choosing single-player-only would be an illogical choice. Why choose "less" when you can have "more"? The multiplayer in this case is Single player + option to play with more people. In economy, we call this "rational decision", because normal human being will always choose the option that provides more enjoyment/possibilities over less for the same or lower price.
This game would obviously have great potential with a coop mode.

It does not need it, but Coop mode would improve it: The benefit would be a new experience, one you can share with someone else. Different, less solitary feeling in the game. More in-game possibilities, without a need of new game content (example - you can have in-game hunting contest with your pal - using the old game content to provide new experience). Valuable real-life skills born of cooperation within the game - leadership skills, teamwork skills, decision-making skills as well as planning (because now you get to decide for two people who think differently). New experiences through errors (if you screw up, you will have to deal with an angry partner as well). More necessary micro-management of the essentials like hunger, thirst, cold... (for two people).

The game itself would not have to change at all, as long as the survival difficulty would be adjusted for more people. Again, using DST as an example - in DST, which can have more players cooperating together, also has the monsters in it with significantly more health.  That is just one example of the balancing feature. In case of TLD, it would likely have to be something else.

How would multiplayer affect its design? I see no reason for it to affect it at all. That is the whole point I was trying to make all this time. Besides some balancing features, of course. But those would not change the design. That is a mark of a great game, and why this game, in particular, has such a great cooperation potential.

What would be the downsides? There are none. Well, except for the insane resources and time necessary to create it, obviously. But that goes for every major decision. Some people would welcome it, some would not, I personally think if it was done smartly, it could be done at minimal risk and resource delay over a long time, but it could be done. But as far as gameplay downsides, there would be none, because you could still play the game as a single player and it would not change a single one bit in itself.

On top of that, business opportunities. Could be done like Don't Starve Together - and either be a data disc expansion for coop or as a stand-alone game which allows the cooperation. The other one could even have its own story mode, set in the same environment... but personally, the expansion option looks smarter to me from business and resources perspective.

Facts against coop mode are these, as I can see it:
It would take away that "solitary feeling" from the game - I agree, but since you can still play the game as a single player, it is not an issue. You can still get this experience - but you can also get much more by playing with a partner. So it is not a good argument against it.

It is way too costly to be realizable. - I agree, but so are all investments, seemingly. The business issue is to figure out how to realize them, at minimal cost, and minimal time, with maximal effect. I think there are ways to do this without it impacting the current game direction.

And that is it. There are no other actual arguments against this idea. 

13 hours ago, Reahs said:

I understand that IF they were to add a coop mode it would put everything else to a halt BUT when i say i want two player coop i do not NOT randomly say that just cuz i want to.

Just a few of the things i could think of is to make injuries A LOT more dangerus like REAL broken legs or that you DON'T get up to 100% condition by sleeping off a bear attack.

They could make the game almost force the players to really take care of eatch other if the other one did get really sick or got a really bad injury that got them bed bound because right now you are a solo deadpool 0.5 but in canada's wilderness.

 

No, that is exactly why people don't want the multiplayer. Because it would be different.
I can see broken limbs being an issue one has in a single-player as well. I don't see it necessarily as multiplayer-only material. Besides, lying around for 16 in-game days would be incredibly boring from the gameplay perspective. However, if one had a fracture, surviving with someone else would make it easier, for sure.

17 hours ago, ingrobny said:

Sorry, but i don't want multiplayer in TLD, it's not the right game for it, like people have said, it is about short of recourses, us alone against the nature etc, some games is best without multiplayer and TLD is one of those games.

Prime example of bad comment.

You have just committed a logical fallacy, one called bandwagoning. Maybe you don't want to have multiplayer, but instead to argument your point using facts, you used the arguments other people did before you like a fact instead. "like people have said, it is about short of resources, us alone against the nature, etc," "some games is best without multiplayer and TLD is one of those", "TLD is not the right game for it". Not to mention the ones I said last are basically the same thing.

There is zero value to that comment. It provides no constructive points at all, just your opinion, and it is hard to say if it even is your own opinion, because it honestly feels that you made it only because the majority of the people here have that opinion.

[Frosty]

8 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

This particular comment makes me laugh

That is quite a coincidence because nearly all of your essay length posts give me great amusement as well, such as this very one which I stopped reading after your comment below

8 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

the argument was "if I can choose to have multiplayer, which can be played as single player, or simply having a single-player-only, both being fundamentally the same game, choosing single-player-only would be an illogical choice. Why choose "less" when you can have "more"?

Wow we are soooo lucky to have someone of your grand intellect here to enlighten us lesser beings of what is going on around here  I think the only one "arguing" anything here is you my friend

I gave my "opinion" on the issue of multiplayer being implemented in the game and I have nothing to elaborate on further 

[Reahs]

1 hour ago, Frosty said:

That is quite a coincidence because nearly all of your essay length posts give me great amusement as well, such as this very one which I stopped reading after your comment below

What does this even mean? Wow we are soooo lucky to have someone of your grand intellect here to enlighten us lesser beings of what is going on around here  I think the only one "arguing" anything here is you my friend

I gave my "opinion" on the issue of multiplayer being implemented in the game and I have nothing to elaborate on further 

I do hope that you are "bright" enough to understand that he ment that why have only singleplayer when you can have Coop/singleplayer

[Mroz4k]

I explained myself again, as I have seen you misinterpret my words to underline yours, and I detest that. This has nothing to do with intellect at all, but go ahead, mock me, just don't be surprised if you meet with the consequences. Apparently, simply saying that someone´s opinion is a pile of crap is considered a personal insult around here, can't imagine that mockery will be met with warmer welcome... not that it bothers me at all, I am above petty insults. 

Mock my words all you want, the fact stays that I brought out facts to point out the benefits to a multiplayer, as well as all the "actual" demerits, when there are next to none, on top of a decent line of benefits. You might not want to have multiplayer, but many here would like it, and it ain't all about what you want.

Now I am waiting for someone to include some demerits to the multiplayer that I forgot to mention. 

 

[Patrick Carlson]

Folks, these arguments for argument's sake discussions aren't helpful of welcome here. The personal comments about each other aren't either. Keep it civil and respectful or don't comment at all. 

Please step back and take a deep breath - I am locking this thread for now.