I respectfully disagree with this statement in your FAQ: “Our focus is very much on the single player campaign, and we are aiming for something deep, involving, and highly replayable. Consequently, we have no plans to implement multiplayer options for Phoenix Point.”
These things aren’t mutually exclusive! You can have a great game with deep story and replayability WITH co-op. You can see that in games like Divinity original Sin, Gears, Halo, Neverwinter Nights, For The King, Pit People and so many others!
As of now, I’m playing XCOM 2 for the second time in co-op. We control 3 characters each other in the battle and we discuss each of the things to do when we are on the world map and the station. We are having a lot of fun!
When I think about co-op in Phonix Point I think something similar as that. Nothing too complex.
I know you have limited resources and time, but saying you can’t have a deep game with co-op is an old argument.
Anyways, keep up your great work, guys! Can’t wait for this game
It may be old, but that doesn’t mean it’s false, limited resources means limited resources, you have to prioritize stuff or you will have a horrible game.
And when asked in a survey, players (around 2k participated, most of them should be fans of the genre) put coop/multi at the bottom of the priority list compared to “deep, involving, and highly replayable” content/systems, which competes towards similar resources (it’s not just another skin, you need game-mechanics supporting it, designed, realized, tested, again designed, realized, tested, just like things which make a game deep, involving, and highly replayable).
I know all of that, but nothing you said actually denies what I said: You can have a great game with co-op. The way the FAQ is written may lead people think that you can only have a deep game if it’s single player.
Now, if we look at the resources and time arguments, you really can’t have everything on a game. But more resources also doesn’t mean a good game. I’ve seen this argument a lot and a lot of these games turned out to be bad games in the end as well, even focusing on single-player only, so I think Phoenix Point should have tried co-op. That’s my opinion!
And I think it’s pretty unreliable trusting in open internet polls, especially when we consider a Turn Based game in which people barely have co-op games in this genre to compare. They know Xcom and other TB games, but most of them are single-player only
For me, the FAQ suggest that they focus so much on other aspects that they don’t even plan to have multi/coop, as it would only distract them. Doesn’t say other games can’t do “both”, just that the devs of PP will not do it.
Money may not make the game better by default, but without money, I don’t see how can you have the same quality, you have to compromise to have a great game. For a quality game, you have to pay good devs, and that cost money (even if they are in BG where it’s cheaper), including more things costs more time/money, making those things good costs even more. Without enough resources, you simply can’t do that.
Everything stated in the FAQ is correct. We’re focusing on a single player experience and we want to make it as great as it can be. We do not state anywhere in the FAQ that you can’t have a deep and involved story with co-op (that is just your misinterpretation). However, we’re focusing on making a single player game because that’s what we want to do at this stage.
Hey guys i understand both sides here. But i will say you always want to appeal to the largest audience you can. That goes for everything that you market.
There are a lot of people out there that hunt co-op games… Like when you try to narrow games down because there are millions out there now. Same reason put 900 #'s on everything so it pops up to more people. Any what im saying is there are a ton of people that wont even look at this game, as good or bad as it man be because it never makes there search.
If they are looking for co-op then Phoenix Point is not for them no matter how good the game will be. Maybe later some paid DLC will add multiplayer. Now I will be glad if developer will deliver what they have in plan - so great single player experience come to us.
I think a multiplayer Phoenix Point might be cool–co-op or PVP, it would be fun to meet new people and figure out strategies with them about armor/outfit compositions, cooperating on missions, that kinda thing. However, I can also see why they’d concentrate on single player. For multiplayer, there’s a ton of stuff you have to do, like balancing things out so all players can have a fair shot, networking issues, etc. It’s a lot of work
Honestly I’m not sure how it would materialize in PP because I’m still unclear as to the exact mechanics intended for the factions. Sometimes it sounds like they’re meant to be playable, others they sound like just outside entity to interact with. I’ma have to do some more reading.
Anyhow, my dream for old xcom and all xcom-likes since was an asymetric PvP campaign where the aliens launched missions to scout, perform research/abductions or hunt XCOM, and the humans did the same as always. Alien would have initiative on the strategic map, while XCOM would have initiative on the tactical map. I assume balancing the early game would be hard, it would be too easy for the aliens to land across the world from XCOM, but there’s a million potential mechanics to mitigate/eliminate such a problem.
Anyhow, probably just daydreaming, balancing asymmetric game modes is a nightmare as demonstrated by the ArmA mod I play and the massive commercial failure of the otherwise excellent game Evolve. Both sides always complain the other is OP and getting solid balance data is near impossible unless you boil it down to pure stats, and that can be treacherous too in it’s own way.
I think the easiest (and for me, the best) would be to have multiple players start the game as PP, from different PP bases (which are already on the map, just abandoned and your PP doesn’t know about them… and that can mean you don’t know other PP bases functioning like yours), and then you can play CiV, fighting each other, fighting factions, fighting the virus… With some toggles/sliders, you could adjust the strength of the virus (what do you want, a coop against the STRONG virus, or a post-apocalyptic human-war-simulator with occasional beasts), the strength of the factions (are they enemies [“civs”] or just “cities”), etc. etc.
It would still require balance/design for the real-time aspects (geoscape), and that would take up more resources than it warrants (the small amount of players actually playing a mode like this), but it does sound fun to me. But being this late in the development, I don’t see it happening, maybe after underwater/other DLC already having massive financial success…
A few people have suggested that a pvp tactical only multiplayer mode be added. Sometging like that post launch, might be possible. Mr… Gollop created some multiplayer games in the past … most recently Chaos Reborn.
I played xcom 2 pvp only one time on Xbox and a lot of time after the game launched. I remember that when I started the pvp mode I unlocked and achievement that only 3 per cent of the people unlocked back then, and it was “play pvp mode” or something like that. So I think it’s safe to say it’s not a popular mode.
But co-op? I’d love to see that. I think it would work great. Since it’s turn based a lot of latency issues wouldn’t be so much of a problem.
Honestly, tactical PvP doesn’t excite me that much either. It having PvP on the GeoScape I wanna see! While it does imply tactical PvP too, that’s already been done and as you point out never really drew the crowds to xcom-like titles.
but it would need to be 1vs1 player. Or if more players can be connected then most likely 1 faction vs 1 faction. No other factions would be possible. Because when there would be 3 or more players and 2 of them would start the battle other would need to wait for the outcome of that battle. It would be annoying.
I cooked up this idea for the old Xcom titles, like I mentioned up there I have no clue how it could materialize in PP. I’m also pretty sure it would be a nightmare to balance but hey, a man can dream!
Honestly, I am utterly sick of seeing multi-player shoehorned into damn near every release I see these days. I know I’m exaggerating, but it feels that way sometimes. Oftentimes, tacking on a skirmish mode or the like just steals away resources that could’ve been used in the primary mode. Similarly, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to develop a pvp game and tack on a token single player campaign. The best pvp games are nearly always designed that way from the ground up. If someone wanted to develop an “xcom” pvp tactics game, that would be awesome. I could do without it in games I buy for single player campaigns, though.
I dont see why some distant expansion could not introduce some “weirdo” mode.
Instead of player vs player online battles, (which I expect always to bepopular)
I would find more “personal” and strategic - Syndicate style “1 player per soldier / agent” approach.
That would mean voice chat and real turn based strategy, per player and per team.
How easy to implement is, I have no idea, but I believe turn based system can enable it.
We used to do it on CBM64 and Speccy (Amiga too!) by simply rotating player on hot seat, that is always a bad option. Internet and LAN would be enjoyable. Some future simplified version can be just client to such system, once implemented. Can be quite interesting and popular retro add on to multiplayer options.
Havent played newer games enough to comment on other implementations.