I'd say single player, maybe with an extra head when it comes to difficult puzzles, but not another player.
Good to hear. I'm really leaning toward a single player, because you can make the world more immersive, and control the experience more, and plus, my triggers and locations would be a lot more complicated for 2 players. An extra head -- definitely, that's one of the reasons single player seems so attractive with this map: it's designed so that the player will have more than one (and often many) units at his command at any given time.
Hmmm...
Depends on the replayability. If there are some randomized elements in the map, I would definately play it again, especially if I felt there were undiscovered secrets.
Cool. That's definitely what I'm going for in this map. I think you and I have similar tastes in RPGs.
Both. Single for regular bonuses. Group for extra bonuses.
What do you mean by bonuses?
I like rpgs that can make each character/player feel unique and useful.
Definitely, me too. Although in this map, if there were multiple players, the nature of the world is such that the personality and background of each character would be pretty much exactly the same. The only thing that would distinguish them from other players would be the decisions they make. This is very intentional and essential to the character of the map itself. So the appeal of playing this map with other people would be the experience of figuring out the same puzzles together. Yeah, I just realized that only one player is needed to win, and I'm not willing to make other players required to win, not for this one. So this probably shouldn't be a multiplayer map at heart. But I do like the idea of having two players, just in case, so if someone figures some puzzles out, then they can play with their friend and show them what they learned.
Although to be honest, I may be weird, but if I like a single-player map enough, and my friends are over, I'll show it to them. In a single-player map, you can switch off between two people. The nature of this map isn't extremely time-sensitive, so it'd be easy to switch off, and two heads are definitely better than one, especially with puzzles. In the Starcraft campaigns, it's boring to watch -- you want to be able to play. But with maps that have puzzles, some of the playing
is watching and figuring things out. So both people can contribute even though only one person is at the keyboard.
I'm not patient enough (most of the time) to finish a single player map (I've only finished RUSH xD).
I've always prefered maps RPGs with 3 players: this allows you to make awesome teamworking puzzles, have a great storyline based off each character and get them to keep interested into the map.
Aesthetics and gameplay would push me to play a RPG again (like SpellSwords).
Three players, interesting. You're right, there is something about 3 that gives a group feel, but still somewhat intimate which allows for involvement by everyone.
Yeah, I guess there aren't too many engaging single player maps. I found a few way back in the day, but they all seemed to be broken. That was before I knew that patches could mess things up. Maybe I should try them again with previous versions...
Aesthetics are huge for me too. And gameplay. Freedom of action,
IF it's used well, can make for very fun gameplay. And replayability.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 30 2009, 11:42 am by razorsnail.
None.