Multiplayer and Singleplayer COLLISION!

[Herko Lategan]

We are progressing well through the design of our game, and are making great progess with game dynamics. But we've reached a point in our game design where we noticed a slight collision of ideas:

We have a multiplayer and singleplayer section, but our reward system in singleplayer consists of "getting the new gun!"

So we are afraid that if we put in Multiplayer we might spoil the suprise of the guns in the single player campaigns.

We would like your input on the situation: What to do?

1) Not worry and put in Multiplayer? (will it effect the fun of singleplayer?)
2) Don't include Multiplayer in the Demo, so players won't see all the guns
2) Don't put in Multiplayer, because Indie Gamers are mostly Singleplayers
3) Only put in CO-OP as a multiplayer option / no death-match etc...

[Robert Cummings]

Quake4 gets around this issue by having specific upgrades to the guns. Single player guns behave differently and are upgraded to be ultimately more powerful than their multiplayer versions.

[soniCron]

If your reward system relies so heavily on weapon upgrades that your single player mode would be ruined by the inclusion of all weapons in multi-player, then figuring out what to do with the multi-player is hardly your greatest concern.

That said, I'm usually quite pissed when I have to unlock multi-player features from a single-player mode. If I sit down with a game and a bunch of friends, I don't want to be required to have played the single-player all the way through just so me and my buds can have a good time together. The two modes are largely independent and often have little to do with each other, short of running on the same engine and using the same assets. To require progress in one to enjoy another is just stupid and only serves to artificially (and quite unpleasantly) extend the life of a game.

Leave the two separate and let the player have fun in multi-player, even if it means accessing all the weapons. Chances are, they'll play through a good portion of the single-player mode before turning friends on to the multi-player mode anyway.

[revve]

If your main goal is to not give away everything in the demo mode, the simplest thing to do is to cripple the demo. This is a solution, but many people will argue this will cost you sales.

To me, the best solution will be to use different weapons in single player and multiplayer. Don't get me wrong, don't develop completely different weapons, rather, rebalance them for multiplayer. I found that in many games, weapons that has been developed to fit in with the scheme of things in single player can be very unbalanced in multiplayer games. Example, you might have a BFG equivalent in single player that turns everybody into sticky little bits as soon as you press the trigger. Using this in multiplayer will be grossly unfair, so this weapon should be made less powerful in multiplayer.

If you go with the second option, you'll still have everything in mutiplayer, but if you do play singleplayer, the gamer will still have surprises. As soniCron mentioned, having additional addons or powerups will also help.

[Dylan Fitterer]

As revve said, think hard about crippling your demo. I think most games give away far too much. I know I'm usually satisfied.

Include a short run of single player. You should include the multiplayer since it could have a viral effect, but limit it to only the guns included in the demo's solo mode. Don't stop there though. Put up a nag screen on every spawn or dump everyone back to the menu every 10 minutes.

The demo is an ad.

[Herko Lategan]

Dylan Fitterer,

I like your, we want to include the multiplayer in the demo without having to give away too much, all the armour / weapons / perks... So limiting a level to only a few "item kinds" is a good idea. (originally we wanted to put full Multiplayer in the demo, and limited Singleplayer, this is where we started to doubt our original design plan)

And I've seen what some games have done not to spoil Singleplayer via the multiplayer, like Need For Speed locks the cars you may use and you have to unlock them.... BUT

Like soniCron said: It pisses people off... And I Agree 100%... And I've encoutered it too, to limit the player in multiplayer even if he has the full version is not a smart move, it's frustrating, unlocking things is meant for Singleplayer only.

Our reward system doesn't rely so much on "getting the new gun!", there are perks, weapon upgrades, and many other stuff, but all those are exposed in the multiplayer.

So making the demo multiplayer very limited would be the best. If anyone has any better suggestions please let us know!

[HappyCat]

You could always think of it the other way around - that letting the players see the weapons in multiplayer might actually incentivise them to keep going in the single player in a "Woah! I wanna use that in single player!" kind of a way.

Or does that kinda thing not work?

[gpetersz]

UTs, Quakes, Dooms all made available all weapons in multiplayer.
(naturally you shouldn't in the demo version)

Why bother? I really don't see.

The single player experience is (or should be) always a way different than multiplayer. Back to the examples, in singleplayer you kill monsters (with limited capabilities and great numbers), or play a different game mode, while in multi you compete the other players (with unlimited capability and few in numbers).

I still played through all single player modes even if I saw the BFG in multiplayer, since the two experiences are very much different.

[Mark Sheeky]

Howabout when they find the guns in single player they become unlocked in multiplayer but not before. They can be seen as "locked" though so people will anticipate them.

Mark

[soniCron]

Howabout when they find the guns in single player they become unlocked in multiplayer but not before. They can be seen as "locked" though so people will anticipate them. I suspect not many people like that sort of design -- I know I don't.

[DrWilloughby]

I would just make a few maps that only had the guns from the trial experience in them, and then make those maps be the only ones available in the multiplayer trial experience. Once they buy the full game they can play all the maps, and thus all the guns from the get-go.

[Ska Software]

Quake 1 + 2, Doom 1, 2 + 3, Halflife 1 + 2, etc, get around this issue by *not making an issue out of it*. Not saying you should always follow the crowd, but if the crowd made a model for success, maybe they're on to something.

So I vote option 1.

[Jim Buck]

One thing that I hate about games is when they lock stuff out for multiplayer until when I unlock them for single player. I bought "Guitar Hero" for PS2 last weekend, and a friend of mine and I immediately wanted to play the multiplayer as soon as I opened the box. How many songs were available to us? 5. Until I unlocked more through single player. Argh. So, he had to watch me play by myself for a while until I unlocked enough songs for it to be interesting enough for us to play. (And for us to play "Bark at the Moon", I had to play through almost the whole game first since it was at the end of the list!)

[Anthony Flack]

I agree with the sentiment that single-player and multi-player weapons should probably be a bit different, anyway. Single-player weapons, dished out as "rewards", will typically get more and more powerful. Multi-player weapons should be more balanced.