I'll buy when Co-op is incorporated.

[Pwnmachine]

When this game has Co-Op I'll buy it. Till then I'll just say its a really cool, fun looking game, but multiplayer would just be too amazing to not have.

[Tezuz]

me too, or on a nice sale :D

[Sysgen]

If everyone took this position then how can they afford to implement coop?

[Shaneluls39199]

If everyone took this position then how can they afford to implement coop?

exactly.

buy this awesome game to show we like the base idea.and that they SHOULD expand on it with co-op or multi or mod tools or future DLC.

[wowpst]

exactly.

buy this awesome game to show we like the base idea.and that they SHOULD expand on it with co-op or multi or mod tools or future DLC.

Now if we could just get people to take THIS position...

[flunkorg]

Its 15$, quite whining.

[MIK3K]

I'm not buying until they have split screen co-op campaign and horde mode with zombies and modern weapons in Middle Eastern or intergalactic themed maps with conquest type gameplay and crafting and magic spells (specifically upgradeable fireballs) in destructible environments and looting with free DLC for at least 3 years. It would be really easy to incorporate.

Or I'll just buy it now.

[XRsyst]

If everyone took this position then how can they afford to implement coop?

If everyone took your position what incentive would they have to implement coop? It's just another great single player game that would be considerably more fun played with your friends. I've got about 4 of those on my to-play list, I don't need to add another at the moment.

[Jay667b]

If everyone took your position what incentive would they have to implement coop?

Because developers have never and will never listen to their paying customers and implement features based on suggestion, right?

[Nixiam]

Because developers have never and will never listen to their paying customers and implement features based on suggestion, right?

Sadly you are right.
Actually the only exception was for the game Sanctum, the developers are really active and they really try to give people what they ask for.
People asked for a 4 players co-op, they did it, they also have a list of futures they will develop and they are also clear about what they WONT do, wich is honest, so you will not buy the game hoping in something will never happen.
I'm not saying this particular game must change, but a co-op would boost sales, I don't know if I'll buy it, usually I avoid singleplayer only titles.
I tried the demo and is great, co-op can only make it better.

[Centy]

Having just played the demo I must agree. 2 Player coop would be sweet and 4 player would be an instant buy. As it is £12 is a little too much for me to spend on a single player game since I never replay the SP parts of games often.

Bloody good fun though if it never gets coop I will still pick it up in a sale.

[XMMX]

its not like the developers are unable to find new ideas, the problem is the work itself to produce co op and vice versa

[bstard]

Ehm not sure, the game is just fine as it is. More maps and more orc type would be more welcome imo. Co-op would result into messy trap setups and killingsprea/combo's will be harder to get.

[Karthis]

Ehm not sure, the game is just fine as it is. More maps and more orc type would be more welcome imo. Co-op would result into messy trap setups and killingsprea/combo's will be harder to get.

Then don't play CoOp?

[darkdave3000]

Attention Devalopers... I understand you are businessmen, and I am too, I have a proposal for you... release a 2nd version of the game that we must pay more money for with multiplayer coop. But don't charge too much, say $5. This will fund your expansion and give us players what we want at the same time. It is a good compromise. You get money, we get multiplayer. So you are actually investing your time to sell a sequel. This will open the door for a 3rd sequel as a MMORPG. World of Orcs Must die?

[IceBear13]

Sadly you are right.
Actually the only exception was for the game Sanctum, the developers are really active and they really try to give people what they ask for.
People asked for a 4 players co-op, they did it, they also have a list of futures they will develop and they are also clear about what they WONT do, wich is honest, so you will not buy the game hoping in something will never happen.
I'm not saying this particular game must change, but a co-op would boost sales, I don't know if I'll buy it, usually I avoid singleplayer only titles.
I tried the demo and is great, co-op can only make it better.
I believe he was being sarcastic. I avoid MP based games simply because of the people I meet :)

[lc520]

If everyone took this position then how can they afford to implement coop?

Lol, that does not make any sence, unless you developed the game and/or is a share holder.
You don't buy a car unless it is finished and ready to go, I asume.

[Sharkinu]

You know. Adding coop to a game that wasn't designed for that in the first place is not that easy. They cant just add a 2 new classes to the game code and expect it to work.

IF (and that's a big if) they can find a stable way to add multiplayer without rewriting the whole game again... that would take months. And will most likely be called Orcs Must Die 2.

Saying taht wou wont buy it untill youget multiplayer is like saying that Torchilight or Trine are worthless and you wont buy them untill you see multiplayer.

[3x0r10]

The game is finished and polished.

And it is intended as SP game.

But if you had too many people love it too much, you'll get lots amount of "improvement" request, right from the most simple ones, to the weirdest ones.

Like your car analogy... I guess that's why the auto accessories lives on till today, since the condition car is sold isn't enough for them. They love it... but with some more "adjustments".

Don't get me wrong... I would love co-op aswell.

But so far I really enjoy this game. To say it isn't "finished" is kinda insult to the dev. And with OMD I feel that they really love their child. I never seen any indie that very well polished like this.

[Tulipopa]

Lol, that does not make any sence, unless you developed the game and/or is a share holder.
You don't buy a car unless it is finished and ready to go, I asume.

The better metaphor would be: The developers are selling a fully-working 2-seater convertible, but the customers are saying: "4-seater or I'm not buying!"

The game is finished. It is and was advertised as single-player only and they never even gave reasons to think otherwise. Even now after the demands they are saying that coop will not happen anytime soon if it happens at all.

[darkdave3000]

The better metaphor would be: The developers are selling a fully-working 2-seater convertible, but the customers are saying: "4-seater or I'm not buying!"

The game is finished. It is and was advertised as single-player only and they never even gave reasons to think otherwise. Even now after the demands they are saying that coop will not happen anytime soon if it happens at all.

Well lets use a diferent illustration, say you got a car without electric windows but apart from that it is a great car! But it is unthinkable today not to have electric windows as it is part of the norm now. So you got a game that does not have multiplayer but only single player, in the same fashion the game is outside the norm of today by excluding multiplayer of anykind in the game.

What the players want is for the company to install electric windows. It can be done and I think a lot of you guys are over exaggerating the problems associated with such a task. I don't think it's an over whelming task. I'm a game programmer I know.
It's all about levels, if you want to make the multiplayer game an MMORPG then yes, that will be extensive add on, but most of us just want a simple coop mission based functionality, and not necesarrilly with a multiplayer story to compliment it.

I think my suggestions to the devalopers to release a $5 multiplayer patch is a reasonable idea.

Lastly in regards to people saying that adding 1 feature demanded will invite a horde of other demands, that's like saying we shouldn't install electric windows because people will then ask for turbo, sunroof, in car refrigerator etc etc.

The electric windows has become almost a necessity for cars as multiplayer for games today. Meeting that very obvious standard that shouldn't require much effort (especially for $5 per patch licence) is much more a desirable feat compared to asking for anything else that most of the masses can wait in a sequel (sun roof and in car fridge for example in the car parable).

[3x0r10]

I'm a game programmer I know.


Any work samples of yours?

I WAS involved in a game dev studio loooong ago.

Nevertheless, considering my involvement or not. If it WERE that simple, multiplayer games won't take THAT long to develop right? Pick a game, slap in multiplayer module, then tadaa you have multiplayer feature.

We might aswell march to AAA games studio forums and troll em around to push them online multiplayer for their singleplayer games such as oh I dunno... maybe older capcom resident evil series? Or maybe THQ's Darksiders? I think it's better to troll the multi million dollar companies ones, instead of the indies.

And... how about playtesting em?

The COULD actually just slap things in around to achieve "hey our gehmz got moar fiturze than yourz". If it play bad... then what's the point?

As far as I'm concern one good example is Multi Theft Auto for earlier GTA was developed YEARS by the community and even that turn out a ♥♥♥♥.

How about bug hunting? If you're thinking to just slap in netcodes to your games and if 2 clients actually communicating to each other and you've consider it finish... well, sir... I won't touch your game even with 100m long pole.

I'm sorry... even tho I'm not a programmer but I must say I honestly really doubt that exact claim of yours.

I'm suggesting co-op aswell and support it... but I wouldn't like if someone actually said that what I do for living is actually trivial stuff, I'm pretty sure the devs too :)

[jaredhite1]

My car has manual windows, and I don't care about MP in OMD. Saying you won't buy until it gets MP is like me going to the TF2 forum and saying I'm not playing until it gets orcs. It's fine if that's your purchasing criteria but it's a bit weird to ask for a major feature that a game was never advertised or intended to support.

[Tulipopa]

Well lets use a diferent illustration, say you got a car without electric windows but apart from that it is a great car! But it is unthinkable today not to have electric windows as it is part of the norm now. So you got a game that does not have multiplayer but only single player, in the same fashion the game is outside the norm of today by excluding multiplayer of anykind in the game.


The electric windows has become almost a necessity for cars as multiplayer for games today. Meeting that very obvious standard that shouldn't require much effort (especially for $5 per patch licence) is much more a desirable feat compared to asking for anything else that most of the masses can wait in a sequel (sun roof and in car fridge for example in the car parable).

My car doesn't have electric windows ;(

Anyways... you are probably under-exaggerating the difficulty to add coop and the others are most likely over-exaggerating it (I really have no idea). However, I do not think it's the norm to have multi-player. There are lots of single-player only games released all the time. Skyrim will be single-player, Batman will be single-player, Sonic generations will be single-player and so on.

[jaredhite1]

Great points and examples, Tulipopa, +rep.

[3x0r10]

oh yeah... let's troll bethesda to include multiplayah to skyrim!

[darkdave3000]

Any work samples of yours?

I WAS involved in a game dev studio loooong ago.

Nevertheless, considering my involvement or not. If it WERE that simple, multiplayer games won't take THAT long to develop right? Pick a game, slap in multiplayer module, then tadaa you have multiplayer feature.

We might aswell march to AAA games studio forums and troll em around to push them online multiplayer for their singleplayer games such as oh I dunno... maybe older capcom resident evil series? Or maybe THQ's Darksiders? I think it's better to troll the multi million dollar companies ones, instead of the indies.

And... how about playtesting em?

The COULD actually just slap things in around to achieve "hey our gehmz got moar fiturze than yourz". If it play bad... then what's the point?

As far as I'm concern one good example is Multi Theft Auto for earlier GTA was developed YEARS by the community and even that turn out a ♥♥♥♥.

How about bug hunting? If you're thinking to just slap in netcodes to your games and if 2 clients actually communicating to each other and you've consider it finish... well, sir... I won't touch your game even with 100m long pole.

I'm sorry... even tho I'm not a programmer but I must say I honestly really doubt that exact claim of yours.

I'm suggesting co-op aswell and support it... but I wouldn't like if someone actually said that what I do for living is actually trivial stuff, I'm pretty sure the devs too :)


I am devaloping my first title as we speak, solo. The game engine I am using is completely my own, which would make my job even harder.

However you are forgetting that steam has built in multiplayer functionalities such as searching for servers and joining them, so half the work is already done for Robot Entertainment. They don't have to re-invent the whole wheel, they just need to create multiple instances of the player avatar and connect them to various client computers.

Yes there will be testing but half the testing is already done... the single player client! The collision detection for the singple player avatar has already been tested, so all they need to do is to make support for multiple instances of what has already been tested and the only testing left to do is to see if each of the avatars interfere with each other in ways that are not fit.

Once again I think you are making a mosquito of a problem into a flying fire breathing 200 meter dragon which it isn't.

Some of the moderators here that work for the company may also have been briefed to downplay the credibility of adding such an obvious feature, they have their official responses.

The reasons may be political or it may be corporate directives, such is the nature of the industry unfortunately because they have so many voices to follow and each have authority over their work, not just Robot Entertainment but I imagine maybe Valve maybe involved. I'm not saying I'm specifically right in my guesses as to the reasons, but you get the general idea, not everything is as it seems.

[SixOkay]

As a self-professed developer, you should know never to assume anything about the development of another game.

For starters, simply cloning one player and having a second person running around pretty much breaks most of the game. There are design and balance considerations to take into account, along with a whole host of others.

[3x0r10]

However you are forgetting that steam has built in multiplayer functionalities such as searching for servers and joining them, so half the work is already done for Robot Entertainment. They don't have to re-invent the whole wheel, they just need to create multiple instances of the player avatar and connect them to various client computers.

Yes there will be testing but half the testing is already done... the single player client! The collision detection for the singple player avatar has already been tested, so all they need to do is to make support for multiple instances of what has already been tested and the only testing left to do is to see if each of the avatars interfere with each other in ways that are not fit.

mmmprrrrtttpfffttttbwahahahaha... I'm sorry. I can't help but to actually LOL'ed here :D

A game where the only thing that really matters is actually "multiple instances" and "avatars that won't interfere". So... about that game you currently write. Are you writing a game where two square actually hitting at each other? One square controlled by the first player and the other square controlled by the second? And... it does nothing but a very well executed collision detection and multiple instances of avatars? Good luck selling it :D. That kind of gameplay is for '70s era... you know... pong? You're 4 decades late bro.

Once again I think you are making a mosquito of a problem into a flying fire breathing 200 meter dragon which it isn't.


okay... enough talking. I can't wait to see your awesome future game release then, with steamworks-featured multiplayer.

I'm sure, technically it will kick skyrim's ♥♥♥♥ even when bethesda decided to slap in steamworks multiplayer in it... ;)

why do I even bother replying anyway...

Seriously guys... they never advertised multiplayer in this game. And trolling them won't make them consider to adding it sooner.:D

[darkdave3000]

mmmprrrrtttpfffttttbwahahahaha... I'm sorry. I can't help but to actually LOL'ed here :D

A game where what matters is actually "multiple instances" and "avatars that won't interfere". So... about that game you currently write. Are you writing a game where two square actually hitting at each other? One square controlled by the first player and the other square controlled by the second? And... it does nothing but a very well executed collision detection and multiple instances of avatars? Good luck selling it :D. That kind of gameplay is for '70s era... you know... pong? You're 3 decades late bro.



okay... enough talking. I can't wait to see your awesome future game release then, with steamworks-featured multiplayer.

I'm sure, technically it will kick skyrim's ♥♥♥♥ even when bethesda decided to slap in steamworks multiplayer in it... ;)

Seriously guys... they never advertised multiplayer in this game. And trolling them won't make them consider to adding it sooner.:D

I'm not the one who is Trolling: I'm not the one who is looking forward to seeing some one else's game and at the same time not even having the means of identifying that game when it is released.

Besides Trolling is a very broad term, anyone can be labelled as Trolling these days in this "quick to take offense" and over sensitive modern society.

[darkdave3000]

As a self-professed developer, you should know never to assume anything about the development of another game.

For starters, simply cloning one player and having a second person running around pretty much breaks most of the game. There are design and balance considerations to take into account, along with a whole host of others.

I believe you, there are design and balance considerations to take into account. But I don't think these are very great barriers.

As for a whole host of others... I'm sure there are other considerations too but still I don't believe they would prevent a team of devalopers from achieving the task of releasing a multiplayer module that has a reasonable ammount of design, balance and other considerations taking into account within a few months.

Sure there may be a few bugs even after that but I don't think it would be too serious and nothing that a few small patches could fix after that.

Not everything has to be done 100% perfect the first time. We has players/consumers understand that.

But to say that to add a BASIC multiplayer module would require A LOT !! A LOT !! A LOT !! of things... without going into specifics, is just a condensending(no offense) ton

[3x0r10]

I'm not the one who is Trolling: I'm not the one who is looking forward to seeing some one else's game and at the same time not even having the means of identifying that game when it is released.

Besides Trolling is a very broad term, anyone can be labelled as Trolling these days in this "quick to take offense" and over sensitive modern society.

fair enough... but I'm not the one who's claiming being a "game programmer" while doesn't have any work samples, and then admitting that the FIRST title is currently in the work. Then you criticize others works while using that kind of empty claim to make you seems more legit. Newsflash : it doesn't. In fact, the effect are actually the opposite.

Most people can run but we can't just claim being a 100m sprint athlete out of thin air. You can try to advice 100m sprint athletes how they should do their things... I'm sure they will be quite happy about it :)

[darkdave3000]

fair enough... but I'm not the one who's claiming being a "game programmer" while doesn't have any work samples, and then admitting that the FIRST title is currently in the work. Then you criticize others works while using that kind of empty claim to make you seems more legit. Newsflash : it doesn't. In fact, the effect are actually the opposite.

Most people can run but we can't just claim being a 100m sprint athlete out of thin air. You can try to advice 100m sprint athletes how they should do their things... I'm sure they will be quite happy about it :)

I didn't say I was a 100m Athlete, but I am an Athlete.

I worked in the industry for a game company. And now I am doing my own thing. As for work samples, sure I can share. But your hostile attitude make me want to.

[3x0r10]

I'm not really interested anyway. But... here's the deal. Analogy wars won't magically give OMD multiplayer feature.

As much as personal attacks (Not directed to you. You're not doing any I can see. I'm talking about other threads here).

There's already a multiplayer petition thread. You can actually participate there. And there's this one guy actually lurking around the forum. I'm pretty sure it was delivered to the team too. It just won't magically happen in 1 or 2 days.

Maybe the approach of RE is not to make any promises, because when promised and then what they got isn't quite what expected... a mob of angry gamers mob are much more deadlier than a thousand of hyena packs that hasn't been eating for months :D. Maybe they work on something back there, it's just that they don't want to make the crowd excited and dissapointed later.

I'm not sure why I even bother doing this. It's just that some guys are really way out of the line. So... I even tho I'm just a customer, I'm more sympathetic to RE rather than to the angry mobs.

I'm pretty sure when I do this thing (developing indie studio), probably someday in the future... I want the players to ask politely aswell, realize my intention and at least appreciate my purpose to entertain em with the products.

Meh. I dunno about you but I feel like slaying some orcs now ;)

cheers.

[SixOkay]

I don't think these are very great barriers.

Your belief in something is not a prerequisite for it being true, particularly when it comes to design and code that you didn't actually create yourself.

You can go on all day long about how you think things should be, but only the programmers here who actually made Orcs Must Die! have any truly actionable insights into how the game functions.

Once again, I'm not saying that any of these ideas are bad ones. What I'm saying is "Do you really believe that if these things could be achieved easily, quickly, and at a high quality level that we wouldn't have done them already?" Why would we do that? Why would ANY developer leave easy-and-quick-to-achieve awesome features just lying on the table?

We all agree - developers and community alike - that co-op would be a great area to explore with the Orcs Must Die! universe and gameplay.

But as I've said many times before, there's no such thing as "makeCoOp = True" code that can just make it all work, especially for a game that was designed and programmed from the ground up to be a single-player experience.

[jaredhite1]

But as I've said many times before, there's no such thing as "makeCoOp = True" code that can just make it all work

That's because it's actually a command-line parameter to gcc.
gcc -coop

[darkdave3000]

I'm not really interested anyway. But... here's the deal. Analogy wars won't magically give OMD multiplayer feature.

I'm not sure why I even bother doing this. It's just that some guys are really way out of the line. So... I even tho I'm just a customer, I'm more sympathetic to RE rather than to the angry mobs.
cheers.


Ofcoarse youre interested, but you can't afford to appear to be.
This is the nature of public forums, it often becomes more about having the last say and appearing dignified rather than a quest for finding the truth.

[3x0r10]

Nope. I don't. Kthxbai.

[darkdave3000]

Your belief in something is not a prerequisite for it being true, particularly when it comes to design and code that you didn't actually create yourself.

You can go on all day long about how you think things should be, but only the programmers here who actually made Orcs Must Die! have any truly actionable insights into how the game functions.

But as I've said many times before, there's no such thing as "makeCoOp = True" code that can just make it all work, especially for a game that was designed and programmed from the ground up to be a single-player experience.

I have exposure and involvement in the industry to have sufficient common sense to deduce a reasonable assumption.

Yes I know there is no makeCoOp = True code that can make it true, I always knew that. But at the same time it's not like youre rebuilding the entire game.

I know there will be some hard work involved in making the module, but it couldn't possibly be harder than re-building even half of the entire game. Most of the work has already been done, it's a matter of modifying existing work and intergrating it with the steam online multiplayer mechanisms.

By charging $5 per module/patch licence for this add on, all these dificulties will also seem much easier and you will even come off making a profit knowing that so many people want it they will be willing to pay for it.

[darkdave3000]

Nope. I don't. Kthxbai.

Yes you do. Otherwise you would really be killing Orcs at the moment rather than monitoring this thread still and making sure you have the last say :)

[Tulipopa]

To be honest, I think lots of players would be angry if the coop-gamemode costs 1/3rd of the full game's price. It would be no different than the DLC complaints:
"why was not this in the game to begin with? You should've delayed the release date",
"this was obviously cut from the game and then secretly kept hidden to get more money from the customers!"
"This just shows that the developers care only about money! Sanctum added 4-player coop after release, because community demanded it and they did it for free! RE is just trying to nickle and dime their customers!"

Personally I don't care if the game has coop or not, because I like to play tower defenses alone. None of my friends are that into this genre, they rather play FPS-wargames and I don't like playing with strangers. Not to mention if I play alone, I can only blame myself for failure.

[darkdave3000]

To be honest, I think lots of players would be angry if the coop-gamemode costs 1/3rd of the full game's price. It would be no different than the DLC complaints:
"why was not this in the game to begin with? You should've delayed the release date",
"this was obviously cut from the game and then secretly kept hidden to get more money from the customers!"
"This just shows that the developers care only about money! Sanctum added 4-player coop after release, because community demanded it and they did it for free! RE is just trying to nickle and dime their customers!"

Personally I don't care if the game has coop or not, because I like to play tower defenses alone. None of my friends are that into this genre, they rather play FPS-wargames and I don't like playing with strangers. Not to mention if I play alone, I can only blame myself for failure.

You're right that some people will voice complaints of that nature, but I think most people will just shrug and fork out the money regardless.

The company can only profit from this venture now that we have done their marketing for them in regards to this subject.

[Smertnik]

It's based around singleplayer. If you're looking for co-op just get Dungeon Defenders instead.

[SixOkay]

I have exposure and involvement in the industry to have sufficient common sense to deduce a reasonable assumption.

Yes I know there is no makeCoOp = True code that can make it true, I always knew that. But at the same time it's not like youre rebuilding the entire game.

I know there will be some hard work involved in making the module, but it couldn't possibly be harder than re-building even half of the entire game. Most of the work has already been done, it's a matter of modifying existing work and intergrating it with the steam online multiplayer mechanisms.

By charging $5 per module/patch licence for this add on, all these dificulties will also seem much easier and you will even come off making a profit knowing that so many people want it they will be willing to pay for it.

I've said this many times before, but here goes...

Good co-op in Orcs Must Die! requires us to re-touch every part of the game - design, code, and art. Simply duplicating the main character and increasing enemy hit points doesn't sound very fun to us, and we suspect that most players would find it unsatisfying as well. Not to mention that many of the levels that are designed to pull a player in multiple directions become trivial if you just add more players to them. Simply put, the game, as it is, was explicitly designed as a single-player experience.

I've said my piece on the subject. Sorry you don't want to hear it, but there' not much more to say.

[darkdave3000]

It's based around singleplayer. If you're looking for co-op just get Dungeon Defenders instead.

Yes it is single player, but people recognize that this game could easily qualify for a multiplayer game too.

It's like making a car that looks like a sports car but it does not have Turbo.

So people buy the car for the looks but they are a little dissapointed whenever they are reminded, it's not a real sports car.

[darkdave3000]

I've said this many times before, but here goes...

Good co-op in Orcs Must Die! requires us to re-touch every part of the game - design, code, and art. Simply duplicating the main character and increasing enemy hit points doesn't sound very fun to us, and we suspect that most players would find it unsatisfying as well. Not to mention that many of the levels that are designed to pull a player in multiple directions become trivial if you just add more players to them. Simply put, the game, as it is, was explicitly designed as a single-player experience.

I've said my piece on the subject. Sorry you don't want to hear it, but there' not much more to say.


Regarding the design "limitations" that's just a failure of imagination on your company's part, you all give up too quickly. I can help you with that if you're willing to listen to my ideas on these specific subjects.

The most simple strategy to tackle this problem is first of all:

1) chain all the levels up into a hughe multiplayer campaign so that all the players stay together between levels like in left 4 dead but they all start of as if they are novices. Any skills they gain will have to be limited to within the multiplayer session.

2) reduce the speed in which players can gain new items and buy new ones during these sessions. So instead of making orcs harder to kill, you level up slower instead.

Do that, I gurantee you we will consider it fun enough and pay you $5 each for it.

[Tulipopa]

I feel like neither one of these suggestions actually answered to the problems SixOkay brought up.

The levels are designed to have the player run between the orcs' entry points. With 2 players that would be very easy to manage, because one player could stay at one entry point and the other players could stay at the other entry. Giving the players less money or less traps/weapons wouldn't change that.

There is no leveling up and players gain new traps/weapons only when they complete a level, so I really don't know what that second suggestion even means.

[Sonris89]

I will say this out of the two 3rd person tower defenses that came out I think Orcs Must Die beat Dungeon Defenders in every aspect but co-op. I just find orcs much more challenging and fun, but sadly there is no multiplayer. I love playing TD's with my friendsand I'd love to see orcs must die have co-op.

[Amander]

Even without forcing the player to run back and forth due to a buddy covering the second entry, the game would be really fun. I, for my part, don't even like running back and forth much.

[vendor_death]

i wona coop too!

[DamnedBrit]

I love this game, as it is. It was built and released as a single player game and works really well. I don't particularly care for co-op as it's not something that interests me as I've found my gaming being very casual over the last few years, yet I've managed to put in some 25 hours on single player 'casually'. It's ok to want to play co-op games but is it really a problem if developers don't make their games co-op? Do you hunt all the other forums for all the other games on Steam demanding that they make them co-op otherwise you won't buy them?

Really it's a bit silly: "I won't buy your product unless you make it exactly like 'this'.."

It's not what they are selling, so why not go buy the product you do want from someone who is making it rather than berating those that aren't?

Eh, you'll do what you want, and it'll either make you happy or not. Robot Entertainment put out a great single player game that was designed, developed, marketed and released as such. I think for $15 it's an outstanding bargain, especially compared to alleged AAA games for $50-60. Playing it makes me happy. If it wasn't the game I wanted, I wouldn't buy it. Nor would I hassle the developer for not making the game I want. I am happy. You can not buy the game and not play it and carry on with your life and all will still be well with the world.

Or not. YMMV.

Good job Robot Entertainment, I've had more fun playing OMD than any of the other 20+ games I've tried this year. I'll be buying your DLCs and the OMD2 (assuming there is one) or looking very hard at any other products you release.

[HorrorScope]

Customer feedback is a good thing.

[JamesJimRaynor]

According to the main modder on the forum there is NO NETCODE what so ever for OMD, however. There is a good possibility of a level editor according to him.

[darkdave3000]

Even without forcing the player to run back and forth due to a buddy covering the second entry, the game would be really fun. I, for my part, don't even like running back and forth much.

I agree with this comment, running back and forth although that may have been the original intent by the devalopers as a singple player game, is not necessarilly what most players want.

Noticed that although very few people ocassionaly say they don't mind not having Co-op, there are tons more people saying that they prefer that the game has Co-op, we have seen this in teh pertition thread, yet the game company is acting as if the co-op movement is a minority race.

Also another thing they could do to make the game more challenging for co-op is to create new characters for the players to control ,each with less ability but more specialized in the fewer abilities they have.

There simply is no excuse to not have co-op implemented, there are so many ways to overcome the limitations they make out as being too big to over come.

Remember the customer is always right especially when they out number the ones that are wrong! :)

[Jasper_]

Remember the customer is always right

WRONG.

[darkdave3000]

WRONG.

Read the whole quote: especially when they are the majority.



Therefore:

Remember the customer is always right especially when they out number the ones that are wrong!
RIGHT.

[Megalocerous]

Ok, first off...

I just downloaded the demo for this game, and hands down it is the most fun tower defense game I have played. I will be purchasing it here shortly.

About the co-op...

I think it should be added, however I am unsure as to why we are discussing adding it to the CURRENT single player experience. I understand that the game was built and balanced around single player, so I think it would be incredibly unwise and difficult to implement co-op into the single player.

Why are we not instead discussing the possibility of adding perhaps 3-4 new co-op only maps? It would be much easier to design a new batch of maps that were built from the group up for co-op. You wouldn't have to worry about breaking the current game, you would more or less be creating a new one in a sense.

You could also make it just 2 player co-op, and rather than making each player the same avatar, create another one. Maybe a strong female character who makes a lot of cracks towards the male character? A little bit of avatar interaction like that really makes the co-op experience a lot better.

The new character could have similar but different weapons and abilities. With this in mind, you could create weapons for the new character that compliment the existing characters weapons.

With creating a completely separate co-op side, you have a lot of room for creativity. Not to mention it would be much easier to balance.

It doesn't need to be free, you could absolutely charge for it. Co-op maps + a new character is definitely worth the money, especially since it really adds new legs to an already fantastic game.

Maybe this post helps, maybe it doesn't. It just seemed from my perspective that everyone was looking at this the wrong way. It's not a matter of reworking the entire game for the sake of co-op, it's about implementing it in a way that doesn't harm the existing game. If you think of it like that, there is no reason why it could not be accomplished...look at what you guys have created already :)

[jaredhite1]

^That sounds like OMD2 to me :-) I don't think they should bother putting co-op into OMD...the game is done, cramming a huge feature like co-op into a cheap (in price, not quality) game like this just isn't going to be worth the effort. Hopefully they can design the next one with co-op in mind.

Personally, I just don't get the appeal of co-op strategy games...But it appears I'm in the minority there.

[s1234567890m]

@Megalocerous too much logic, and rightness

+1

[DragonRR]

^That sounds like OMD2 to me :-) I don't think they should bother putting co-op into OMD...the game is done, cramming a huge feature like co-op into a cheap (in price, not quality) game like this just isn't going to be worth the effort. Hopefully they can design the next one with co-op in mind.

Personally, I just don't get the appeal of co-op strategy games...But it appears I'm in the minority there.

Totally agree with you. The devs have made it pretty damn clear there will not be coop in OMD and putting network code in after the fact is just not trivial at all.

However on your last point:
MP in Dungeon Defense, especially with people you know, is truly great, it's hard to explain why in a quick forum post but it is. I'm sure many people here think, like me, that OMD might have been even better than DD in MP... it just hasn't got it.. but it's still a great, no, a really great, TD game. :)

Oh... and thanks devs for responding to the posts here. Good luck with the new games and plz put MP in OMD2!

[Tapewormz]

No coop, no multiplayer... Deal breaker!

[Kikstyo]

Any plans on adding coop in the near future?

This game clearly seems more fun compared to dungeon defenders but it is less popular due to the lack of coop multiplayer. If the devs implement coop mode, it will most likely overtake dungeon defenders in terms of sales so hopefully the devs will consider adding this feature soon. :)

[s1234567890m]

Any plans on adding coop in the near future?

This game clearly seems more fun compared to dungeon defenders but it is less popular due to the lack of coop multiplayer. If the devs implement coop mode, it will most likely overtake dungeon defenders in terms of sales so hopefully the devs will consider adding this feature soon. :)

0 to zero chance atm

[oldbrokenlink]

ok we got it

doing multi player is not a slam dunk

but a technical challenge and a business opportunity

so why not make it the focus of omd 2

this way you have a little more time to work out the technical details and some well earned cash payout if you succeed.

i think the easiest way is to take as much of the current game and work from there

best of luck and in the meantime to keep you going periodically release some details of your progress to keep us interested and some dlcs to get you some money to help you offset the cost of doing omd 2

best of luck! and let us know when we can preorder

[OmegaRed60]

I'm fine with it as is. I can't see enjoying this if I had to deal with some other guy placing traps that conflicted with mine. Worse if people could or couldn't sell the other guy's traps.

[oldbrokenlink]

noone is forcing you to play coop

you can always play single player

or if they support it coop with bots as your teammates

anyways it all works out in in coop games like sanctum

[OmegaRed60]

Sanctum was built with co-op in mind. Just because they are the same genre doesn't mean all things would work equally in both games. Most co-op games feel lacking without other players and AI bots are either get in the way or make the game too easy.

There are plenty of other co-op games out there. I don't think they need to change this game into another clone of those games.