SDiF Multiplayer is a Mistake

[aggimajera]

Does anyone else believe this game should not feature multiplayer and focus exclusively on the single player?

[Blade0351]

Does anyone else believe this game should not feature multiplayer and focus exclusively on the single player?

Given that the multiplayer is just going to be co-op and not versus, I'm fine with it. However, the primary focus should be the single player. I'm really hoping they can nail this game. I am getting tired of waiting for more info. Really hoping the next SITREP is more than just a few seconds of video.

[Ste91]

Does anyone else believe this game should not feature multiplayer and focus exclusively on the single player?

I think exactly like you, as you wrote in the previous post, if they had focused on the single player maybe now the game would be more advanced than it is

[BadKarma]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.co-opt ... s-too.html

It could be that the coop portion was a request from them at some point.

[Fallujah1019]

I like the coop because then I can play with friends.

[Kean_1]

Does anyone else believe this game should not feature multiplayer and focus exclusively on the single player?

.....a mistake in what way?

Morally? ....no because of reasons I posted in the other thread. To Blade's point, "multiplayer" in SDiF is going to be "co-op". Again, I think that needs to be clarified as MP can cover a variety of modes like PvP, etc. which is not in their plans at least for release.

From a development perspective? No, I don't think it's a mistake. In fact, I think it would be a mistake not to include it in a game like this. What better way to relay a sense of esprit de corps than with real people.....friends sharing in the experience.

This kind of tactical, team-oriented game is begging for a co-op mode IMO. Like Fallujah1019, I like it because I can play with my group of friends, several who are older like myself and consist of vets, active service, law enforcement backgrounds as well as others. No matter our experiences, we all share an interest in authentic tactical shooters, history, weapons, etc. Its actually kind of cool to apply real world tactics in games like these with human players.

Co-op provides so much more freedom to engage with the game and environment than bots IMO / IME. Don't get me wrong.... I still like the idea of bots especially when playing solo. Its a great feature to have but I'm sure glad co-op will be included as well.

Personally, I don't see how the addition of a mode like co-op can be a bad thing. Will the campaign suffer as a result? Who knows, but I don't see any evidence of that at the moment. There is no reason this game can't still be a great single player and co-op experience IMO.

[HumorlessHat]

Does anyone else believe this game should not feature multiplayer and focus exclusively on the single player?

.....a mistake in what way?

Morally? ....no because of reasons I posted in the other thread. To Blade's point, "multiplayer" in SDiF is going to be "co-op". Again, I think that needs to be clarified as MP can cover a variety of modes like PvP, etc. which is not in their plans at least for release.

From a development perspective? No, I don't think it's a mistake. In fact, I think it would be a mistake not to include it in a game like this. What better way to relay a sense of esprit de corps than with real people.....friends sharing in the experience.

This kind of tactical, team-oriented game is begging for a co-op mode IMO. Like Fallujah1019, I like it because I can play with my group of friends, several who are older like myself and consist of vets, active service, law enforcement backgrounds as well as others. No matter our experiences, we all share an interest in authentic tactical shooters, history, weapons, etc. Its actually kind of cool to apply real world tactics in games like these with human players.

Co-op provides so much more freedom to engage with the game and environment than bots IMO / IME. Don't get me wrong.... I still like the idea of bots especially when playing solo. Its a great feature to have but I'm sure glad co-op will be included as well.

Personally, I don't see how the addition of a mode like co-op can be a bad thing. Will the campaign suffer as a result? Who knows, but I don't see any evidence of that at the moment. There is no reason this game can't still be a great single player and co-op experience IMO.

i have to say, i wholeheartedly agree with everything you’ve said. i also think it would be a mistake to not include a cooperative multiplayer as that has a direct effect on the longevity and even popularity of the game. not to say that i’m not looking forward to the campaign, but what will keep people playing and actively engaging in the community is getting to play tactically with friends and share their experiences together.

[aggimajera]

Does anyone else believe this game should not feature multiplayer and focus exclusively on the single player?

.....a mistake in what way?

Morally? ....no because of reasons I posted in the other thread. To Blade's point, "multiplayer" in SDiF is going to be "co-op". Again, I think that needs to be clarified as MP can cover a variety of modes like PvP, etc. which is not in their plans at least for release.

From a development perspective? No, I don't think it's a mistake. In fact, I think it would be a mistake not to include it in a game like this. What better way to relay a sense of esprit de corps than with real people.....friends sharing in the experience.

This kind of tactical, team-oriented game is begging for a co-op mode IMO. Like Fallujah1019, I like it because I can play with my group of friends, several who are older like myself and consist of vets, active service, law enforcement backgrounds as well as others. No matter our experiences, we all share an interest in authentic tactical shooters, history, weapons, etc. Its actually kind of cool to apply real world tactics in games like these with human players.

Co-op provides so much more freedom to engage with the game and environment than bots IMO / IME. Don't get me wrong.... I still like the idea of bots especially when playing solo. Its a great feature to have but I'm sure glad co-op will be included as well.

Personally, I don't see how the addition of a mode like co-op can be a bad thing. Will the campaign suffer as a result? Who knows, but I don't see any evidence of that at the moment. There is no reason this game can't still be a great single player and co-op experience IMO.

I think you read my reasons for thinking this in the other thread already. I think morally and practically the coop should not be a feature.

There’s a diverging idea in what this game should be. I assumed looking at it day 1 it was an interactive documentary to tell war stories. But it’s seemingly undergone a shift to becoming RoN in Fallujah. We went from documentary fostering empathy to tactical co-op shooter, and I am not able to reconcile the two. I think in this form they’re conceptually incompatible.

Consider it like watching a thought provoking movie all alone vs. watching one in a group. When watching in a group it becomes easier to detach from the events on screen. When watching alone, you pick up more details and are more likely to form thoughts and feel emotions you may not have felt in a group setting. This concept, war, screams for introspection. It’s an extremely serious topic, and a group setting discourages introspection. Or at least de-amplifies it.

A better example might be like reading a book vs. going to the theaters. Both achieve an entertainment goal, but they’re worlds apart in how they approach storytelling and how you experience them. One has the potential to be far more personal.

We should note many vets want this made. Many vets do not want this made. Many vets are on the fence. Vets are quite all over the place here. If anything to me seems to be in danger of compromising the product I regard it with skepticism. To me, coop multiplayer is a potential compromise to the sort of game Six Days aspires to be.

Like I said though, I could be wrong. We know so little at this point. I hope I am wrong but I don’t think I am.

[Kean_1]

There’s a diverging idea in what this game should be. I assumed looking at it day 1 it was an interactive documentary to tell war stories. But it’s seemingly undergone a shift to becoming RoN in Fallujah. We went from documentary fostering empathy to tactical co-op shooter, and I am not able to reconcile the two. I think in this form they’re conceptually incompatible.

From the website cover page:

"Six Days in Fallujah® is a first-person tactical military shooter that recreates true stories of Marines, Soldiers, and Iraqi civilians during the toughest urban battle since 1968."

I'm not sure what RoN stands for but since the development restarted with a new developer and publisher, this has been part of the vision and the term "first person tactical shooter" has been used.

Consider it like watching a thought provoking movie all alone vs. watching one in a group. When watching in a group it becomes easier to detach from the events on screen. When watching alone, you pick up more details and are more likely to form thoughts and feel emotions you may not have felt in a group setting. This concept, war, screams for introspection. It’s an extremely serious topic, and a group setting discourages introspection. Or at least de-amplifies it.

A better example might be like reading a book vs. going to the theaters. Both achieve an entertainment goal, but they’re worlds apart in how they approach storytelling and how you experience them. One has the potential to be far more personal.

We should note many vets want this made. Many vets do not want this made. Many vets are on the fence. Vets are quite all over the place here. If anything to me seems to be in danger of compromising the product I regard it with skepticism. To me, coop multiplayer is a potential compromise to the sort of game Six Days aspires to be.

Like I said though, I could be wrong. We know so little at this point. I hope I am wrong but I don’t think I am.

Yeah, we simply don't see eye to eye on the ability to share an experience like this with friends.
....and there is nothing in it that disrespects the subject matter, etc. or even suggests that it would IMO.

[aggimajera]

There’s a diverging idea in what this game should be. I assumed looking at it day 1 it was an interactive documentary to tell war stories. But it’s seemingly undergone a shift to becoming RoN in Fallujah. We went from documentary fostering empathy to tactical co-op shooter, and I am not able to reconcile the two. I think in this form they’re conceptually incompatible.

From the website cover page:

"Six Days in Fallujah® is a first-person tactical military shooter that recreates true stories of Marines, Soldiers, and Iraqi civilians during the toughest urban battle since 1968."

I'm not sure what RoN stands for but since the development restarted with a new developer and publisher, this has been part of the vision and the term "first person tactical shooter" has been used.

Consider it like watching a thought provoking movie all alone vs. watching one in a group. When watching in a group it becomes easier to detach from the events on screen. When watching alone, you pick up more details and are more likely to form thoughts and feel emotions you may not have felt in a group setting. This concept, war, screams for introspection. It’s an extremely serious topic, and a group setting discourages introspection. Or at least de-amplifies it.

A better example might be like reading a book vs. going to the theaters. Both achieve an entertainment goal, but they’re worlds apart in how they approach storytelling and how you experience them. One has the potential to be far more personal.

We should note many vets want this made. Many vets do not want this made. Many vets are on the fence. Vets are quite all over the place here. If anything to me seems to be in danger of compromising the product I regard it with skepticism. To me, coop multiplayer is a potential compromise to the sort of game Six Days aspires to be.

Like I said though, I could be wrong. We know so little at this point. I hope I am wrong but I don’t think I am.

Yeah, we simply don't see eye to eye on the ability to share an experience like this with friends.
....and there is nothing in it that disrespects the subject matter, etc. or even suggests that it would IMO.

Welp ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
RoN stands for Ready or Not btw.