Serebii Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 I played Total Annihilation with a mod that let us have a total of 1000 independent units on a map at any one time with 4 players, 2 of them on the same (myself an my brother) 56k connection with no latency issues whatsoever. Also a Cisco Certified network engineer (CCNA), you should think about retaking the exam. How can you possibly think that to be true? Look at what GTA V is going for (obviously we can't see how seamless and latency issues yet, but I bet it'll be fine). Look at hundreds of other MMORPGs and other games that work online with absolutely no issues whatsoever. Take off your blinkers and open your eyes. That really doesn't sound likely. With that many units it'd have caused a massive bottleneck in the connection. This is the issue I was referring to. Having to constantly be sending and receiving this information is the hindrance. Serebii thinks its too difficult because he also lives in the stone-age. :p Great, a personal insult just because I don't agree with you. Guess I should come to expect that from here.
Charlie Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 That really doesn't sound likely. With that many units it'd have caused a massive bottleneck in the connection. This is the issue I was referring to. Having to constantly be sending and receiving this information is the hindrance. I can post you the install discs and mods and we can have a match as soon as they arrive if you like? I'm pretty sure there's a decent size community that still plays the game. We can even throttle our connections to get it down to 56k speeds. I also played Cossacks: The Art of War that had a unit camp of something like 8000 with no latency issues. Supreme Commander has an even higher unit count.
Zechs Merquise Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 I'll give you Pikmin, though as a Cisco-certified network engineer, I can tell you outright that there would be serious issues to overcome if it's to be completely seamless and fluid for those with weaker connections. In games I have played with similar amount of units, they have had issues with latency. NintendoLand being online just because it's multiplayer is not logical. The way that it is multiplayer does not lend itself well to the online environment. Would it be nice? Sure. Does it fit? No. I'm sorry, but the 360 had C&C and that ran fine. There's far more going on in a C&C game than in a Pikmin game. Pikmin, whilst it does have a fair amount going on is a relatively relaxing game played for the most part at a rather pedestrian pace! In C&C you can have hundreds of units engaging each other in multiple battles at the same time over a huge battlefield. As for NintendoLand, of course it is logical! What is not logical about me playing as Link on the big screen in my home, Kav Playing as Link on the big screen in his home, LostMario playing as Link on the big screen in his home and Blade playing as Link on the gamepad in his home and we're all enjoying it together online with a bit of voice chat? Because I can tell you now, we would have done that. But as it stands NONE of us are playing NintendoLand as none of us have people to play it with! I love Nintendo as much as you do. But they are destroying themselves with their decisions. Basing a whole console around the failed experiment of GBA/GC connectivity was a stupid idea, but claiming that multi-player gaming via that method is the future and where gaming is heading when we live in an increasingly online world is utter bollocks. Nintendo are living in a parallel universe. It's funny, Nintendo and MS were both so on the ball last gen, this gen both have totally forgotten the formula that gave them success and have gone in the opposite direction. No wonder Sony are cleaning up!
Serebii Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 I'm sorry, but the 360 had C&C and that ran fine. There's far more going on in a C&C game than in a Pikmin game. Pikmin, whilst it does have a fair amount going on is a relatively relaxing game played for the most part at a rather pedestrian pace! In C&C you can have hundreds of units engaging each other in multiple battles at the same time over a huge battlefield. As for NintendoLand, of course it is logical! What is not logical about me playing as Link on the big screen in my home, Kav Playing as Link on the big screen in his home, LostMario playing as Link on the big screen in his home and Blade playing as Link on the gamepad in his home and we're all enjoying it together online with a bit of voice chat? Because I can tell you now, we would have done that. But as it stands NONE of us are playing NintendoLand as none of us have people to play it with! I love Nintendo as much as you do. But they are destroying themselves with their decisions. Basing a whole console around the failed experiment of GBA/GC connectivity was a stupid idea, but claiming that multi-player gaming via that method is the future and where gaming is heading when we live in an increasingly online world is utter bollocks. Nintendo are living in a parallel universe. It's funny, Nintendo and MS were both so on the ball last gen, this gen both have totally forgotten the formula that gave them success and have gone in the opposite direction. No wonder Sony are cleaning up! It's just the entire concept behind NintendoLand lends itself to local multiplayer. having it online would completely gut this. It's an example of "sure, it could be online, but that doesn't mean it should". I've also played many a game with many units online before. Take Halo Wars. Once the units start getting to be over 100 in number, the bloody thing has issues. Plus, Nintendo doesn't have much experience with online. Do you really want them to essentially ruin Pikmin 3 just because it "should" be online?
Blade Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 That really doesn't sound likely. With that many units it'd have caused a massive bottleneck in the connection. This is the issue I was referring to. Having to constantly be sending and receiving this information is the hindrance. Great, a personal insult just because I don't agree with you. Guess I should come to expect that from here. I didnt see the personal insult. Unless you do live in the stone age of course. The stick out tongue face gave it away that he was having a laugh with ya. Why dont you think Pikmin could not be online compared to games back in the day that ran online fine with 56k dial ups?
Mokong Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 I'll give you Pikmin, though as a Cisco-certified network engineer, I can tell you outright that there would be serious issues to overcome if it's to be completely seamless and fluid for those with weaker connections. In games I have played with similar amount of units, they have had issues with latency. Outright? Really? So you'd also have a cert in Software development in the field of creating online modes for games? Sorry Serebii but you are coming across so pig headed and blinded in this whole thing. As a Network Admin/Engineer you would know how to build a network, wire it, hardware involved, how to manage that hardware and how to optimise traffic flow within that network for that office/building that you work on and trouble shoot it if there are any issues. But I cannot see how you can say you can tell exactly how much and what kind of data any given game type/genre will be sending/receiving. That would be the job of the people making the game. If @Charlie says he has played RTS games with 1000+ units online with little or no issues that holds a bit more weight than someone else near crying "no it won't work because I said so", which is what you seem to be doing. He gave you an example of a game he played himself with what I assume is more action taking place at any one time than Pikmin (I don't play RTS's or Pikmin ) and instead of maybe asking him questions about his experience or maybe putting your hands up and saying "ok, you;ve given me a real world working example...." you instead tell him he must be wrong That really doesn't sound likely. With that many units it'd have caused a massive bottleneck in the connection. He's just told you it worked so are you telling him he is imagining what he played? This is the issue I was referring to. Having to constantly be sending and receiving this information is the hindrance. You say this like you somehow already proved Charlies example wrong? All online games are constantly sending and receiving information that's not a hinderance that is what happens. Take an FPS for example, 10+ players, running around a map, even if that was all they did there would still be packets of data constantly being sent and received. Going back to Charlies examples of RTS games he's played, more than 1000 units in play, 4 players information constantly moving back and forth across the net and he says the game worked fine for all..... is it so hard to assume perhaps the information being sent and recieved letting all computers involved know of all units positions, movements, attacks etc isn't as big a packet(s) as you think it is and that it might be possible to apply the same train of thought to an online co-op Pikmin mode?
Serebii Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Outright? Really? So you'd also have a cert in Software development in the field of creating online modes for games? Sorry Serebii but you are coming across so pig headed and blinded in this whole thing. As a Network Admin/Engineer you would know how to build a network, wire it, hardware involved, how to manage that hardware and how to optimise traffic flow within that network for that office/building that you work on and trouble shoot it if there are any issues. But I cannot see how you can say you can tell exactly how much and what kind of data any given game type/genre will be sending/receiving. That would be the job of the people making the game. If @Charlie says he has played RTS games with 1000+ units online with little or no issues that holds a bit more weight than someone else near crying "no it won't work because I said so", which is what you seem to be doing. He gave you an example of a game he played himself with what I assume is more action taking place at any one time than Pikmin (I don't play RTS's or Pikmin ) and instead of maybe asking him questions about his experience or maybe putting your hands up and saying "ok, you;ve given me a real world working example...." you instead tell him he must be wrong He's just told you it worked so are you telling him he is imagining what he played? You say this like you somehow already proved Charlies example wrong? All online games are constantly sending and receiving information that's not a hinderance that is what happens. Take an FPS for example, 10+ players, running around a map, even if that was all they did there would still be packets of data constantly being sent and received. Going back to Charlies examples of RTS games he's played, more than 1000 units in play, 4 players information constantly moving back and forth across the net and he says the game worked fine for all..... is it so hard to assume perhaps the information being sent and recieved letting all computers involved know of all units positions, movements, attacks etc isn't as big a packet(s) as you think it is and that it might be possible to apply the same train of thought to an online co-op Pikmin mode? All I'm going on is my experience with these things. If Charlie managed to get it to work on a 56k modem, then ok, but I am doubting it based on my knowledge of how these things work. Just because he said it does not necessarily make it so. Yes, other games are constantly sending and receiving information, but very very few of them send out as much information as would be needed for a Pikmin level online. It's not the packets being sent, it's the volume of them that is the issue.
Charlie Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 All I'm going on is my experience with these things. If Charlie managed to get it to work on a 56k modem, then ok, but I am doubting it based on my knowledge of how these things work. Just because he said it does not necessarily make it so. Yes, other games are constantly sending and receiving information, but very very few of them send out as much information as would be needed for a Pikmin level online. It's not the packets being sent, it's the volume of them that is the issue. Your knowledge of how these things work is obviously wrong. There is a massive online community that plays RTS games. Would there be one if they didn't work properly? There is absolutely no way that Pikmin uses more resources and needs to send more details than a large RTS game with thousands of units on the map at any one time.
Serebii Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Your knowledge of how these things work is obviously wrong. There is a massive online community that plays RTS games. Would there be one if they didn't work properly? There is absolutely no way that Pikmin uses more resources and needs to send more details than a large RTS game with thousands of units on the map at any one time. Well there are ways around it, such as by grouping things together and/or extrapolation which is used in many genres online including racers and FPs games, but that's not entirely feasible Pikmin in my view
Agent Gibbs Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Plus, Nintendo doesn't have much experience with online. Do you really want them to essentially ruin Pikmin 3 just because it "should" be online? not that i want to get involved in this argument as its getting heated and i like all you guys so i don't want to take sides....but sure they could do pikmin 3 online but as you say their lack of experience might mean its a terrible mess, but surely they should have tried otherwise how else would they gain experience? i'd rather them show a willing to change than say oh were shit and stuck in our ways....as isn't that the point nintendo are percieved as this prehistoric unchanging company resistant to change and i'm out because i just wanted to say that and not get dragged in keep it clean guys, no punches below the belt, no gouging, no biting *ding ding*
Rummy Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) As for NintendoLand, of course it is logical! What is not logical about me playing as Link on the big screen in my home, Kav Playing as Link on the big screen in his home, LostMario playing as Link on the big screen in his home and Blade playing as Link on the gamepad in his home and we're all enjoying it together online with a bit of voice chat? Because I can tell you now, we would have done that. But as it stands NONE of us are playing NintendoLand as none of us have people to play it with! With the gamepad's mic, speakers and camera you'd have thought it was an obvious thing to do, because it would have been so awesome Btw @Charlie, what's the name of the TA mod pack? I think I played with it too(so it definitely exists) but not until I was on an early broadband connection(admittedly that still would have been <2Mbit at the time). Actually, that reminds me - what about a game like Age of Empires II? Running 3-5 teams(me+2-4 others), with a population limit of 200 units(suppose operating average of 150 each) - all running through my 128kbit broadband connection, @Serebii? Never had any issues, and we played the crap out of that game. Edited August 22, 2013 by Rummy
Zechs Merquise Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 It's just the entire concept behind NintendoLand lends itself to local multiplayer. having it online would completely gut this. It's an example of "sure, it could be online, but that doesn't mean it should". I've also played many a game with many units online before. Take Halo Wars. Once the units start getting to be over 100 in number, the bloody thing has issues. Plus, Nintendo doesn't have much experience with online. Do you really want them to essentially ruin Pikmin 3 just because it "should" be online? Look, Pikmin is a cooperative and relatively sedate game. It's not like C&C. I remember doing Red Alert back in the day, we had hundreds of units, harvesters and a massive base each. It ran perfectly on a 56k modem. Pikmin is nowhere near as mental as C&C. All I want is Nintendo to move with the times. Pikmin 3 is awesome, but it would have been even better with an online mode - and it would have totally suited the game to have been able to play through the single player in co-op mode online. Nintendo need to stop living in the twilight zone. Gaming has moved on. The days of us all sitting together playing four player Goldeneye on the sofa and that being the pinnacle of gaming are long gone. Technology and connectivity are always changing and moving forward. Nintendo need to change and adapt to the environment around them - otherwise they'll end up being irrelevant.
Blade Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 keep it clean guys, no punches below the belt, no gouging, no biting *ding ding* No cyber bullying either!! Dont want people to get hurt now!
Serebii Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) not that i want to get involved in this argument as its getting heated and i like all you guys so i don't want to take sides....but sure they could do pikmin 3 online but as you say their lack of experience might mean its a terrible mess, but surely they should have tried otherwise how else would they gain experience? i'd rather them show a willing to change than say oh were shit and stuck in our ways....as isn't that the point nintendo are percieved as this prehistoric unchanging company resistant to change and i'm out because i just wanted to say that and not get dragged in keep it clean guys, no punches below the belt, no gouging, no biting *ding ding* I'd rather them do experiments inhouse (like they did with Zelda which resulted in them deciding to release Wind Waker HD rather than ruin a great game with a shoddy mode. What people forget is that Nintendo want their games to be 100% perfect. If they can't get a feature working properly to their full vision, then it shouldn't be included. This is why I like Nintendo, they don't shoehorn things in because they "should". They craft their games to perfection. Look, Pikmin is a cooperative and relatively sedate game. It's not like C&C. I remember doing Red Alert back in the day, we had hundreds of units, harvesters and a massive base each. It ran perfectly on a 56k modem. Pikmin is nowhere near as mental as C&C. All I want is Nintendo to move with the times. Pikmin 3 is awesome, but it would have been even better with an online mode - and it would have totally suited the game to have been able to play through the single player in co-op mode online. Nintendo need to stop living in the twilight zone. Gaming has moved on. The days of us all sitting together playing four player Goldeneye on the sofa and that being the pinnacle of gaming are long gone. Technology and connectivity are always changing and moving forward. Nintendo need to change and adapt to the environment around them - otherwise they'll end up being irrelevant. I agree that Pikmin 3 online would be awesome, but even with the technology of today, they can't do it in a way that creates a perfect experience for all people. Why would an online mode be alright if it's gimped for some people? Edited August 22, 2013 by Serebii Automerged Doublepost
Charlie Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 With the gamepad's mic, speakers and camera you'd have thought it was an obvious thing to do, because it would have been so awesome Btw @Charlie, what's the name of the TA mod pack? I think I played with it too(so it definitely exists) but not until I was on an early broadband connection(admittedly that still would have been <2Mbit at the time). Very quick research: The original game was Total Annihilation, there were official addons called 'Core Contingency' and 'Battle Tactics'. The original had a 250 unit limit that was set in the 3.1 patch (most common and I think most up to date official version). A quick Google shows that to change the unit limit all you had to do was create a new file named 'totala.ini' and write one line in it specifying the unit limit you wanted. Link. Another mod that we had to use, because we only had one disc between us, was the NOCD Music patch. We had to switch discs or something when booting the game up to get it to work, this patch let both players have music on even without the CD in.
Hero-of-Time Posted August 22, 2013 Author Posted August 22, 2013 I'd rather them do experiments inhouse (like they did with Zelda which resulted in them deciding to release Wind Waker HD rather than ruin a great game with a shoddy mode. What people forget is that Nintendo want their games to be 100% perfect. If they can't get a feature working properly to their full vision, then it shouldn't be included. This is why I like Nintendo, they don't shoehorn things in because they "should". They craft their games to perfection. Metroid Prime 2 multiplayer mode says hi.
Mokong Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 It's just the entire concept behind NintendoLand lends itself to local multiplayer. having it online would completely gut this. It's an example of "sure, it could be online, but that doesn't mean it should". True the concept of the use of teh gamepad to display differing information to one player over the otehr 4 does lend itself to local play.... but it that doesn't mean it doesn't lend itself to online play either. To further Zechs example. Take Mario Chase. 5 players, online. 1 playing as mario, 4 others as Toad with voice chat.... the overall concept of "Mario's view is different and the Toads have to communicate to corner Mario" is still the same. The same can be said for every other multiplayer game in NintendoLand. Yes NintendoLand works great as a local multiplayer game, nobody is saying that it doesn't. I think anyone who has played it with a group of friends/family will all agree a great time can be had. The issue as others have mentioned is that how often do you actually have others in the house with you that want to play. Wouldn't it be nice for at those times instead of sitting your own thinking "oh wish I had someone here to help me on this Metroid game" you could just go to an online mode and play with your friends that way too. I got the gold stars on all the games in NintendoLand (except the Octopus dance), the 3 games that can't be played single player (Mario Chase, Luigis Ghost Mansion, Animal Crossing Sweet Day) all require that you play the game 30 times to get the Star Player award.... how many people here got the award on all 3 of those games actually playing each one 30 times with friends locally? Or like me did you make up the difference after Christmas (I had family down for Xmas, we had some good sessions on NintendoLand but we didn't come close to playing 30 times on each of those games over a 2 day period they were here) by just playing those 3 games on your own with the gamepad and a wiimote beside you trying to blitz through the games as fast as you could. If there was an online mode I would have enjoyed that experience much more rather than it be a lonesome grind. This is where Nintendo seem to falter. I commend them on their efforts to want to try to invigorate local multiplayer gaming, but their ignorance in assuming everyone has 2+ friends/family in their house regularly to play games is astonding. If you do then fair play but the majority of gamers likely don't My own house, me my wife and my 2 year old son. My wife will play from time to time but it's more like a once in a blue moon. My son... he's 2 He does want to play of course but he doesn't exactly understand yet what he's actually doing. My sister and her 3 year old son visit say once every 2-3 weeks. My sister not much into playing. Her son yeah he'll play he understands it better than my 2 year old but he's still not gonna offer much competition to me in the VS games or much help to me in the co-op games. If I had the option to play online with N-E'ers I'd be playing multiplayer NintendoLand alot more than just dusting off the disc to show it off like a demo to people who've not played the Wii U the odd occasion we do have such a guest.
Hero-of-Time Posted August 22, 2013 Author Posted August 22, 2013 It's just the entire concept behind NintendoLand lends itself to local multiplayer. having it online would completely gut this. It's an example of "sure, it could be online, but that doesn't mean it should". It's about limiting options of the users. They need to realise that there are gamers out there that aren't 12 years old and can't get people together. Nobody is saying get rid of local multiplayer, what we are saying is offer options for those who can't experience it. EDIT: Or what Mokong said.
Rummy Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Ahhh this isn't quite what I thought @Charlie. We had some community mod pack that actually added a massive butt-ton of extra/new units on top of the originals in addition to upping the unit limit. Never got as much into it as I had been Age of Empries though. /offtopic sorry
Zechs Merquise Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 I agree that Pikmin 3 online would be awesome, but even with the technology of today, they can't do it in a way that creates a perfect experience for all people. Why would an online mode be alright if it's gimped for some people? Online is always going to have issues with ANY game. But by your logic there should be no online in COD because lag exists! Nothing that requires an internet connection is ever going to be perfect 100% of the time. Even this forum is sometimes slow to load. If you develop a game (or any product for that matter) on the basis that if it's not 100% perfect for 100% of the people 100% of the time you're never going to get anywhere. I've had hundreds and hundreds of hours of fun on games like COD, Monster Hunter, MoH and Mario Kart on my Wii. I've also had hours of frustration and irritation on those same games due to network issues. But does that mean it would have been better if those games never had online modes? Of course it doesn't! So what if a few people with shitty connections had issues playing Pikmin 3 online? Does that mean that the thousands of other people with good connections should miss out?
Agent Gibbs Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 I don't believe this 100% perfect nintendo thing because of Paper Mario Sticker Star! if thats perfect i'm out, out of gaming forever :p all this talk of Command and Conquer makes me want to play it all again....think i bought red alert 2 and C&C4 in the steam sale.....this does not bode well for me completing pikmin if a better RTS is available
Charlie Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Ahhh this isn't quite what I thought @Charlie. We had some community mod pack that actually added a massive butt-ton of extra/new units on top of the originals in addition to upping the unit limit. Never got as much into it as I had been Age of Empries though. /offtopic sorry TAUIP. Came across it in my research. I had it but didn't like it tbh, far too many units and in the community I played with no one used it.
Mokong Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) Yes, other games are constantly sending and receiving information, but very very few of them send out as much information as would be needed for a Pikmin level online. It's not the packets being sent, it's the volume of them that is the issue. As others have been saying Pikmin would be a fairly relaxed co-op expereince in comparison to more traditional war sim RTS's. Exactly what and how much info do you think you need to be sent over the line if Pikmin 3 had an online co-op mode. Just trying to take a very simplistic example and look what might need to be transmitted in a Pikmin game. Again I don't play any Pikmin games but basing this on vids I've seen. When you encounter a monster you order the Pikmin to attack, they do, they kill it, they pick up any dropped items and then return to Captian Olimar. Now if there were multiple players what info needs to be synced and sent over the line? The attack command/info would need to be sent so players 2-4 will know and see player 1's Pikmin attacking. And same goes for attack commands of all other players. The monster HP info would have to be synced across all 4 players, position of the monster and postion of the captians. When the monster is defeated item drop info would need to be sent and sync and with players Pikmin pick up those items. The Pikmin returning to their captains with or without items could likely just be extrapolated by each local machine. So do you expect there to be that much more info going back and forth than the RTS examples others have given previously? In terms of speed of action I'd class Smash Bros. as being a faster paced game that would really put stress on an online mode yet that had online (which I'm sure could be used as an example of an online Nintendo game that that does not offer a PERFECT expereince for 100% of players... and yet Nintendo still kept it and will still have it in the next Smash games) Now as I said I don't have any hands on experiece with a Pikmin game so if that example is wrong I'm sure I'll be corrected. But to me lactency would appear to be a bigger issue in a game like Smash than a game like Pikmin (or yes even Mario 3D World) yet Smash is the one that has online..... The question so is why did Nintendo not include an Online mode in Pikmin 3.... was it that they felt they couldn't do it right, or was it that they are just being a bit stuborn and decided to just not include it. As for Nintendo not having enough experince in making online games..... Mario Kart, Mario Strikers, Smash Bros, Metroid Prime Hunters, Pokemon (wow that's all I can think.... surprised it such a short list... what did I miss?), they've got expereince, if that experience is not enough that is their own fault or they could hire on new staff that would have the expereince they need Edited August 22, 2013 by Mokong
Fierce_LiNk Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 See, that's exactly what I'm talking about when I saw compromise. The fact that Nintendoland "works better locally" means that we don't even get an online mode. What about putting all of the options in and letting the gamer decide for themselves which is better?
Kav Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 ...Great, a personal insult just because I don't agree with you. Guess I should come to expect that from here. Sorry Serebii, it wasn't meant to offend. Was just being cheeky.
Recommended Posts