Multiplayer experience

[Little_Sparrow]

I briefly mentioned in other threads what way they could possibly go with the multiplayer for fable 4.

They could expand on what they did in 2 and 3 by having a co op experience where you invite other players to your world (1-4) and dungeon raid or have them help you with quests and opening demon doors..

Or they might be like bethesda and make it 100% multi player focused. I personally hope they dont go this direction because it seems like a very lazy excuse to cut content and voice acting and quests by having less characters, only simple fetch quests ( like the archeologist mini quest in fable 2 or the gargoyles and gnomes) where you are sent to an area to kill a bunch of enemies and retrieve an item to bring back to an npc that is repeatable to do over and over.

It takes away from the rpg feeling and if I do really want an open world with no loading screens but I also want the world to be shaped by my actions. Which is impossible to do if you have thousands of players constantly shaping the one world or server. Inviting other heroes to your world added variety and follows the path of tue heroes guild where heroes can be good or evil in alignment. To give arfur the warrants instead of derrick and have bowerstone old town become a slum. Or to plant the golden acorn and have oakfield flourish with beauty. Or ignore it and have the shadow temple steal the essence of oakfield and have it over run with hobbes and hollow men.

Seems companies are moving in that multiplayer direction as a cheap measure. You can make a bunch of repeatable quests and make dlc to sponge more money out of the players kind of like what EA is notorious for.

If there is an arena in witchwood having a pvp element there would be cool where you can work alongside players fighting monsters or player versus player.

I am just sick of companies that make rpgs make their games a PubG wannabe.

 

[Dark Drakan]

Best middle ground would be to allow you to have a henchman/hero like you can in Skyrim for example but have ability for them to be player controlled. In an ideal world I would love for a fully open co-op experience without being tethered to another player but from a quest & tech standpoint it might not be feasible in a story focused game like Fable.

 

[Little_Sparrow]

Best middle ground would be to allow you to have a henchman/hero like you can in Skyrim for example but have ability for them to be player controlled. In an ideal world I would love for a fully open co-op experience without being tethered to another player but from a quest & tech standpoint it might not be feasible in a story focused game like Fable.

I think the henchman Idea is too primitive for 2019. They did that with fable 2 and improved it with fable 3 allowing the actual hero join you.

They could do what WOW and Swtor do. Its an open world with npcs and real players with no loading, but when you enter a quest area the door is highlighted green so when you walk through its seperate for each individual hero. Then if you accept a party invite you enter their world and The world as you know it changes to theirs. So if you are a good hero entering an evil heroes world it changes to the way the hero did each quest.

 

[Dark Drakan]

I think the henchman Idea is too primitive for 2019. They did that with fable 2 and improved it with fable 3 allowing the actual hero join you.

They could do what WOW and Swtor do. Its an open world with npcs and real players with no loading, but when you enter a quest area the door is highlighted green so when you walk through its seperate for each individual hero. Then if you accept a party invite you enter their world and The world as you know it changes to theirs. So if you are a good hero entering an evil heroes world it changes to the way the hero did each quest.

Depends what sort of engine the new developers use, that will determine how limited any co-op would be. I would always prefer to be going about my own business doing quests and have someone free to drop in and out and do quests alone or with me in same world. Would take quite a good infrastructure to allow that capability however without limitations, WoW & SWToR are both MMO games and doubt they would take that route with new Fable as it’s known as being a single player RPG with basic co-op elements.

 

[Little_Sparrow]

Depends what sort of engine the new developers use, that will determine how limited any co-op would be. I would always prefer to be going about my own business doing quests and have someone free to drop in and out and do quests alone or with me in same world. Would take quite a good infrastructure to allow that capability however without limitations, WoW & SWToR are both MMO games and doubt they would take that route with new Fable as it’s known as being a single player RPG with basic co-op elements.

I prefer that as well. Breath of the wild in terms of open world and fable 3 in terms of my ideal co op except faster to load and drop into someones world. Having the orbs like in fable 2 is also an idea.

The main thing Is I could completely do without multiplayer if it means a great rpg experience. Look at what God of War did for story telling. For goodness sake, that was a fable of it's own with all the mythology and story telling and foreshadowing. Kind of reminded me of batman arkham city.

Ideally I want my weapons and armor and experience to come with me if I go to another players world. It was cool visiting players that made different choices than me in fable 3. Seeing bower lake turned into a mining area and the orphanage a brothel and what not. My character was a good guy in fable 3.

 

[Dark Drakan]

Having the orbs like in fable 2 is also an idea.

Ideally I want my weapons and armor and experience to come with me if I go to another players world.

Orbs is too basic of a concept now, No Mans Sky did it to test their multiplayer functionality before the latest update and now they have fully fledged multiplayer incorporated. So if you can manage orbs then the engine is capable of more as they have now shown.

Although thats how it should work it can sometimes cause balance issues as if for example you have finished the game and maxed out everything then join a friends game who has just started you could pretty much obliterate ANY enemy in your path.

 

[Little_Sparrow]

Orbs is too basic of a concept now, No Mans Sky did it to test their multiplayer functionality before the latest update and now they have fully fledged multiplayer incorporated. So if you can manage orbs then the engine is capable of more as they have now shown.

Although thats how it should work it can sometimes cause balance issues as if for example you have finished the game and maxed out everything then join a friends game who has just started you could pretty much obliterate ANY enemy in your path.

Yeah I didnt know about that.

Maybe they can balance it like diablo with different difficulty settings.

 

[lee]

I would hate Fable 4, if they were to try to put to much effort into making it multiplayer. I think that at its core Fable has mostly been a single player experience with a little bit of multiplayer effort tacked on. I would love to see a massive world, Albion is truly massive and we have only ever explored one side of it. Reguardless of which period of time they choose to base it on there is so much world to still explore and experience. I would personally prefer that they just focused on the single player side of things and multiplayer only used as a secondary effort like they have in the past.

 

[Dark Drakan]

I would hate Fable 4, if they were to try to put to much effort into making it multiplayer. I think that at its core Fable has mostly been a single player experience with a little bit of multiplayer effort tacked on. I would love to see a massive world, Albion is truly massive and we have only ever explored one side of it. Reguardless of which period of time they choose to base it on there is so much world to still explore and experience. I would personally prefer that they just focused on the single player side of things and multiplayer only used as a secondary effort like they have in the past.

I would imagine this is the route they would take, Fable isnt really suited to be an MMO and games should always cater to single players with multiplayer being an 'option'. They do need to put a little more effort into multiplayer than they have in the past however as its always been basic at best. Could do with being fleshed out a little more but still not drag too many resources away from the single player development side.

 

[Angel]

If Fable 4 is just a big ol' multiplayer I'm going to have a full on tantrum. It just doesn't lend itself to being like that. It'll lose that special something that makes it so unique amongst rpgs.

I'm not adverse to a multiplayer mode which is entirely optional or making an arena multiplayer - but not the game proper. That would suck.

 

[Little_Sparrow]

If Fable 4 is just a big ol' multiplayer I'm going to have a full on tantrum. It just doesn't lend itself to being like that. It'll lose that special something that makes it so unique amongst rpgs.

I'm not adverse to a multiplayer mode which is entirely optional or making an arena multiplayer - but not the game proper. That would suck.

I would say God of War really showed what a single player game in 2018 is capable of. I mean the whole father and son dynamic blew me away.

 

[Dark Drakan]

I would say God of War really showed what a single player game in 2018 is capable of. I mean the whole father and son dynamic blew me away.

Still got to pick it up myself but heard so many good things & lots of games in the genre sound like they could learn a thing or 20 from it.

 

[Little_Sparrow]

Still got to pick it up myself but heard so many good things & lots of games in the genre sound like they could learn a thing or 20 from it.

Honestly if they slapped the fable logo on it I would honestly be okay with it. The mythology and story telling and foreshadowing was incredible. There is a reason it won so many awards. It is literally a game that the gamer community deserves after so many years of garbage

 

[Nichool]

If we look at what Eurogamer said "We've heard the new Fable is planned as a story and character-focussed open-world action RPG" then I think we can put aside the possibility of a full multiplayer game or even a destiny/division type of experience.

I actually wouldn't mind them experimenting with the same ideas than Fable 2 & 3. Having one player as the host, inviting other players into your world so that they can see the choices you made and vice versa.

 

[Dark Drakan]

If we look at what Eurogamer said "We've heard the new Fable is planned as a story and character-focussed open-world action RPG" then I think we can put aside the possibility of a full multiplayer game or even a destiny/division type of experience.

I actually wouldn't mind them experimenting with the same ideas than Fable 2 & 3. Having one player as the host, inviting other players into your world so that they can see the choices you made and vice versa.

I just dont like tethered multiplayer in open world games, I can see the design choice behind it but I dont want to feel tied to another character and want to be able to go about my own business. For that reason I prefer shared world style multiplayer like in No Mans Sky (also started with an orb system like Fable). Your quests are independent from other player and you can go on your way freely to other planets etc or stick with your friend should you choose to do so.

 

[Nichool]

I just dont like tethered multiplayer in open world games, I can see the design choice behind it but I dont want to feel tied to another character and want to be able to go about my own business. For that reason I prefer shared world style multiplayer like in No Mans Sky (also started with an orb system like Fable). Your quests are independent from other player and you can go on your way freely to other planets etc or stick with your friend should you choose to do so.

Yeah I like that type of experience too and I'm all for not having to stick with your friends if you want to do your own thing.

I guess it depends on what features from Fable they want to bring back. For example if your choices impact the world and the people around you in a significant way
(like in Fable 2 transforming the starting area into a slum or a wealthy district), then you can't really do that in a shared world.

 

[Dark Drakan]

Yeah I like that type of experience too and I'm all for not having to stick with your friends if you want to do your own thing.

I guess it depends on what features from Fable they want to bring back. For example if your choices impact the world and the people around you in a significant way
(like in Fable 2 transforming the starting area into a slum or a wealthy district), then you can't really do that in a shared world.

Unless you use the hosts world choices and it’s a drop in/drop out co-op style but you can still complete missions as if it were in your own game & character progresss etc carries back over into your game.

 

[Nichool]

Unless you use the hosts world choices and it’s a drop in/drop out co-op style but you can still complete missions as if it were in your own game & character progresss etc carries back over into your game.

Well not really, sorry I feel like I didn't explain myself correctly.
Yes character progression (stats, skills, exp, gear) would always be yours, and carry back to your own game.

However if we assume that your choices does change the world around you, then the only missions available would be those of the host. Because if he has made different choices or hasn't progressed enough, then you won't have the same quests available than in your own world.
Therefore the mission progression cannot carry back to your game, since you wouldn't want the host's choices during a mission changing your own world. Maybe it could carry back for side quests that don't affect the world.
All of it assuming you have unlocked the exact same quest in both games.

The only way to have a truly shared multiplayer where every player can do what they want, when they want, with who they want is if the world never changes. And If all quest givers are always in the same hub areas, like in a MMO.

 

[Dark Drakan]

Well not really, sorry I feel like I didn't explain myself correctly.
Yes character progression (stats, skills, exp, gear) would always be yours, and carry back to your own game.

However if we assume that your choices does change the world around you, then the only missions available would be those of the host. Because if he has made different choices or hasn't progressed enough, then you won't have the same quests available than in your own world.
Therefore the mission progression cannot carry back to your game, since you wouldn't want the host's choices during a mission changing your own world. Maybe it could carry back for side quests that don't affect the world.
All of it assuming you have unlocked the exact same quest in both games.

The only way to have a truly shared multiplayer where every player can do what they want, when they want, with who they want is if the world never changes. And If all quest givers are always in the same hub areas, like in a MMO.

Depends how much effect your choices have on the game world and how much is just based on aesthetics and economy. It worked to an extent in the multiplayer Skyrim mod though that didnt have the underlying systems to sustain it to its full extent before Bethesda shut it down unfortunately. Also besides the war there isnt many things that actually change the world or factions in it. However you could go into another players game and had your own individual quest system but then acted like a hired henchman if you joined another players quest paths.

Most games that have mission progression transfer back to games work on an individual quest or level basis rather than an over arcing story unless you play from the beginning with a friend or have a separate mode for co-op.

No Mans Sky does this by giving you option to join other peoples games in a session or allow people to join yours. I would imagine it matches peoples based on their progress and if you havent progressed to that point in your game in spawns you in another system and you find your own way to the other player. I was around 15 hours in and Steve was at very start and he spawned in same system as me and we both had our own quests to do. I use this as an example as it used similar multiplayer style to Fable with orbs and drop in and out and it was introduced after single player so wasnt designed fully around it but they managed to introduce it without throwing off balance of the game.

 

[Nichool]

Depends how much effect your choices have on the game world and how much is just based on aesthetics and economy. It worked to an extent in the multiplayer Skyrim mod though that didnt have the underlying systems to sustain it to its full extent before Bethesda shut it down unfortunately. Also besides the war there isnt many things that actually change the world or factions in it. However you could go into another players game and had your own individual quest system but then acted like a hired henchman if you joined another players quest paths.

Most games that have mission progression transfer back to games work on an individual quest or level basis rather than an over arcing story unless you play from the beginning with a friend or have a separate mode for co-op.

No Mans Sky does this by giving you option to join other peoples games in a session or allow people to join yours. I would imagine it matches peoples based on their progress and if you havent progressed to that point in your game in spawns you in another system and you find your own way to the other player. I was around 15 hours in and Steve was at very start and he spawned in same system as me and we both had our own quests to do. I use this as an example as it used similar multiplayer style to Fable with orbs and drop in and out and it was introduced after single player so wasnt designed fully around it but they managed to introduce it without throwing off balance of the game.

I haven't played a lot of No man's sky multiplayer but yeah I do remember joining a random player's game when i finished all the story, and the other player was just starting.
But correct me if I'm wrong the only quest that you can share simultaneously are the quest from the freighter terminal ?

I don't think multiplayer would throw the game of balance. As you said being a henchmen in another person's world would work great. And yeah I agree maybe have side missions that can be progressed simultaneously in coop across saves, without affecting the world or story.

Something that I think could be interesting also is what rockstar does with GTA V and the upcoming Red dead 2. If they made a separate multiplayer mode with its own map (copied from the single player) and own quests.
Although that probably would had an extra year to the games dev time