Multiplayer ags games

[SinSin]

I sense some good ideas for competitions using this.  Time trial puzzles capture the flag etc ooo the possibilities.

[Construed]

Yea, I might make a pixel based fps, would be simple to implement and fun.

[Tentacles]

 The thing I'd want to do with this, is make a game where you can't complete a certain puzzle without having a second player.

[void]

I second that. But I don't think there will be any game like this in near future, at least not made with AGS. I thought the audience would be somehow attracted by the thought of playing adventure games together with a friend (hence my plugin attempts), but on the other hand noone really seems to care about making one. Mixing up those genres still seems to be a little weird at all i guess.

[Monsieur OUXX]

I second that. But I don't think there will be any game like this in near future, at least not made with AGS. I thought the audience would be somehow attracted by the thought of playing adventure games together with a friend (hence my plugin attempts), but on the other hand no one really seems to care about making one. Mixing up those genres still seems to be a little weird at all i guess.

It's because a proper gameplay hasn't been discovered yet.
I wouldn't say it's weird, I'd say it's hard.

Most multiplayer games rely on the metaphor of fighting: Either the players fight together, or they fight against something.
But in adventure games, you don't really fight (or even if you fight it's rarely arcade-based, it's more of a disguised puzzle).

And the lifespan of a point n' click is veeeeeeery long -- not very fit for two players meeting online at the same time for a quick game. RPGs have worked around this with dungeons instances -- with the dungeon's "lifecycle" reset when a group of players enter them (it's also a way not to overload the severs, but it's two birds with one stone).


Note:
In that thread I was discussing some sort of two-players murder party/Cluedo game but it's still not refined enough to produce a prototype.

[blueskirt]

But it can be done. The Portal 2 coop campaign and Gobliiins series are proof of that in my opinion. It's a matter of implementation, fine tuning and streamlining the experience. Obviously that means keeping the gameplay tight and linear, with very few rooms accessible at any one time during the course of the game but cramming them with puzzles, characters and interactions, because you want players to stay close and solve puzzles together (and not run out of puzzles), not part ways in a King's Quest huge game world. That also means sharing inventory to reduce the item trading in Coop games.

That means handling conversations with NPCs so both Player A and B have unique convo options, maybe Player A can explore while Player B talks if he's not interested in the discussion, maybe the PCs can throw quips during conversations if they are close to conversing NPCs while exploring, unique conversation options could also be available when both players are conversing at the same time with a NPC.

It also mean fine tuning and streamlining the plot progression. Brevity is the soul of wit, so short cutscenes, short intro, let players have fun and immerse themselves in your world and love its characters before you bring the epic plots. Vehiculate the plot through the environment or during the gameplay rather than long cutscenes, and always keep your players playing. For longer plot, consider a series of short episodes rather than a long game to accomodate player scheduling.

Learn to walk before running. There are no precedent for such a game, so think two players before eight players multiplayer or MMO, think coop before versus, and think one or two room prototypes before epic games like Secret of Monkey Island or Gabriel Knight.

How about a two rooms whodunit? One room has the murder, with clues and red herring, one room has the witnesses and murderer, players play as Sherlock and Watson, find clues, interrogate suspects, argue between each others and try to find who's the culprit.

The sooner we'll get rid of our bad designs and figure out what works and what doesn't, the sooner we'll be able to tackle bigger projects, longer, with more players or players with opposing goals, which will open up new plot possibilities.

[Eric]

Tossing this out there...would it be possible with a multiplayer adventure game to not have necessarily a co-op, or a player versus player mode, but rather a gamemaster / player(s) mode, wherein the physical construct of the world stays the same, but the gamemaster is able to control events in the game based subjectively on the actions of players? Admittedly, I don't play RPGs, so the term 'gamemaster' might be used wrongly here. What I mean is someone who takes in player input, and decides, based on a semi-subjective basis -- say, what's best for the story, or what's the most in-character dialogue reaction to parser input? -- the game's response.

A video game is a fixed, final product. This sort of venture would likely still have to have all of the outcomes pre-programmed, but would allow for some greater flexibility in recognizing player input.

This is all very abstract, because I'm having some trouble coming up with a concrete example of how it might be implemented. But I've just come from a murder mystery dinner where the host improvised the third act, and it was pretty fun.

[cat]

Eric, you might want to take a look at this: http://sleepisdeath.net/. I haven't tried it myself, but it seems to be close to what you want.

[Eric]

Even if it's not, it looks incredibly fascinating anyway. Thanks!

[Victor6]

I'm not sure how I got to this from Eric's post (since it has nothing to do with player(s) vs GM), but;-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_vs._Spy_(computer_game)

The original multiplayer pvp adventure game? Swap the joystick for point n click gui and you're basically there, especially if you consider the sequel. The only part that requires quick responses is the direct combat, but you could just autocalc it.