lack of multiplayer roguelikes.

[Reverend Prohna]

it seems to me that people must not be very interested in tomenet. I mean a lot of people do play but whenever I've been on no more that 7 or 8 half of which don't seem to communicate with anyone anyways. I'd like to see more multiplayer roguelikes, maybe done in an easier to use way.

[Karry]

If you ask me - there's enough of that sort in the mainstream gaming.

Look at each and every magazine/website review these days, they all scream "ZOMG, there is no multiplayer in this game, therefore it sucks major ass !"

[shinygerbil]

Well, maybe they've got a point. Just because major magazines/websites want it - doesn't make it automagically a bad thing

If a multiplayer roguelike is done right, it could be very popular. (Popularity in this case being a good thing!)

[Adral]

Well, I'd really like to see a multiplayer roguelike with cooperative options, that's for sure. Deathmatch would be fun, but maybe more difficult to balance.

I am no programmer, so I do not know the chance of this happening. Perhaps the best way would be the "I go, you go" approach, and not the real-time approach TomeNET takes (although I guess on TomeNET it makes more sense the other way around).

[Lavastine]

I think the "I go, you go" approach would work with small multiplayer games(perhaps 2-4 players), but with very many people it would quickly become unbearable to play.

[Slash]

A multiplayer roguelike would be interesting, altough I am almost sure it would be quickly shunned as a mediocre MMORPG by mainstream gamers, which may not be so relevant for us roguelikers

An alternative to real-time interaction would be indirect interactions between players, so their worlds are connected; for example, they may share worlds, or bone files (this already happens in akrasiac IIRC?)

Also, sometime ago the idea of "Surreal Time" rose, in which players have a "your turn, my turn" schema only when they are near each other an in a "direct interaction" mode; else the game is what you may call "real time"

[Karry]

Well, maybe they've got a point. Just because major magazines/websites want it - doesn't make it automagically a bad thing Wink

Basically - it does. Nowadays multiplayer is just a marketing point, simple as that. Devs add multiplayer not because it will be interesting for THIS game, but because the sales will be lower without it.

[Adral]

Well, maybe they've got a point. Just because major magazines/websites want it - doesn't make it automagically a bad thing Wink

Basically - it does. Nowadays multiplayer is just a marketing point, simple as that. Devs add multiplayer not because it will be interesting for THIS game, but because the sales will be lower without it.

Well, I personally *enjoy* multiplayer on certain games. I have played long with my friends online on certain FPSs (Rainbow Six, Battlefield 2, Delta Force, and even Duke Nukem). I have done LAN parties at some friend's house, and we have had fun. So it's not a bad thing just because it's mainstream.

So I guess it's part marketing and part "real feature" in present day games. However, for free games, I guess the marketing point does not make any sense.

For the case at hand, roguelikes, I'd like to try a cool multiplayer roguelike. And to me, a feature does not matter at all whether it is mainstream or not, as long as I enjoy it.