That is pathetic - selling game items  :cheerygrin:

There should NOT be an option to move your character from game to game and sell things and each game should have limited member access to prevent such things.
Also - if character import/export from game to game is possible it should be without any items except the basics (they can be lost during the teleport or at sea or something).

Multiplayer gaming should be about collaboration and team work (kind of like pre-modem games, which enabled to players to play together were).

But the empasis should be on great single-player game, with, maybe, optional future multi-player support.

The limb idea reminds me a little of "Die by the Sword"
or the movie "Monty Python and The Holy Grail"    :hero:  
Maybe your idea can be implemented using total-body scales like:
pain, blood loss and broken bones %,
in addition to specific limb scales: attached (yes/no), movability% (broken%), pain%, infection%, where 100% = need to remove limb or to risk death.

My favorite combat mode in QFG was in QFG5 - choice of weapons,
fighting with keyboard so that each key present a different move (but using the mouse as an alternative control gives very limited movement to those that use it),
however I think there should be more moves - ability to kick and to hit sideways with elbows even when holding a sword, to spin while on ground to knock an enemy over,
all this in order to enable fighting against multiple enemies at once using keyboard with both hands (to combine moving, attacks, defences and magic/throwing things).

A good option could be to use the q...e to z...c keys (for limb movements) in combination with the numpad (for moving around in field) in order to get more control over movements + other keys for throwing things/casting.

Personally I disliked the combat mode in QFG3 the most and think the strategy in QFG4 took the fun out of fighting. What I really hate is fighting in turns (one move at a time).

One game that I think had great fights was "One Must Fall: 2097", except for the keycombos that are annoying.

My point exactly, but make it a bit more interesting and/or humorous.

[Reply to lazygamer:]
The multiplayer idea itself wasn't mine, however I think it would be great to see a good multiplayer RPG - games I have seen were mostly one band walking together, passing items between them and doing everything together - not very interesting. Also if one player played more than one character the battles were always boring - either in turns or trying to set a strategy for the others characters, which usually were not dynamic enough to work well (the strategies were to simple to last for long). Even in the final battle in QFG5 (which by the way had a good battle system - different moves using keyboard, changing weapons during battle, ...) the battle was hard to coordinate - passing weapons and potions to everyone at the start of the battle became a tough race against time with the purpose of completion in time to defeat the dragon without anyone dying.

I believe that a good RPG is as drawing as a good movie, but enables the player to complete the mission in various ways and according to his/her own thinking style (like in QFG and in opposed to KQ and the others).

My idea was to keep the single-player charm, but allow playing with friends - giving each missions that change the plot and meeting now and then to work on goal that can not be completed alone (like group battles or missions that one character class could not handle alone or that have to been done simultaneously by more than one person).

Yes, that would require more work - more complex plots, smarter enemy (so they can decide who to attack), more software design and programming, but the outcome would be worth it - it could bring RPG quests back into mainstream (where games have budgets).

If your response is "easier said than done", then I am willing to stand behind my words and participate in the development, as a programmer or at least in the design of the code and to offer whatever I can to the plot.

By the way, I think a hybrid 2.5D game, like QFG5, with 3D battles would be best for this - group battles in 2D combat could cause one player to block a part of the other's view of himself or his foes.

[Reply to Corsair5:]
Of course the game should be limited to a party no larger than 5 (unless the other players play villains).

[Edit by Swift] Please make use of the edit button instead of double-posting. Thanks.
[Edit] Didn't realise I did double post - just meant to reply, not to be repetitive.

If you are so certain my idea is no good,
I'd be happy to hear your idea on how to implement the multiplayer aspect.

Thanks.

The players paths should join now and then and also contain joint missions and battles on those occasions.

If the players were together all the time it could just ruin it for some of them (i.e. one player hogging all the action).

My idea is to give each player the best of a single player games,
yet enable interaction, common goals and joint missions using the outcomes of the single missions.

You could picture it as a quest party separating into smaller parties or singles,
working alone and then reuniting again and again - allowing group scenes and single scenes in the same game.

A fighter could takeover the house of a villain he killed ,
a paladin could get invited to stay at a rich guys winter home while taking care of things for him,
a wizard could make home in a magically hidden chamber in a temple
a thief could either "borrow" someones home while he is away or charm a woman into letting him stay with her .

That would take care of the ownership issue - since most heroes don't really want to settle down anytime soon - home-ownership isn't really them :hero: .
Also, that would save the hero a lot of money and instead of another "thing to buy" the house would become the award for completing a sub-plot mission.

If the game world is large enough,
the story line can cause the players (the characters) to spilt up into different (geographically remote) paths, without option to return,
in the hope of meeting at the end of their paths,
if each player manages to find his/her way through their path.

There should be more available paths, of course, than the number of players.

Also, the outcomes of path completions should be independent of each other,
so that if a player fails or quits, the other(s) can continue in the game without him/her,
but their tasks should be harder due to it.