theres TESO upcomming didnt you know? why need coop ?
where people are at different instances all the time,just like playing skyrim now with 2 computers and watching each others monitors,hey you are there me too,but i cant see you ,me neither ,well cool lets roll.
They are single player RPGs, with you as the hero and both games excel at that. Why add some co-op or multiplayer aspect to spoil it? Look at Tomb Raider 2013 - it's a cool single player game with a crappy multiplayer tacked on to please the suits at Square Enix.
I agree that if the game is developed from group up to support co-op, it doesn't need to sacrifise anything (or at least much) to support the co-op. It can still be an amazing single player game.
But if every game was designed that way, wouldn't we lose a huge amount of diversity? Wouldn't we lose Skyrim's mods and Witcher's story with choises that really matter in favor of something more suitable for co-op? We could, and would, still get amazing games. But wouldn't those amazing games be like WoW and its 20 clones that currently dominate the MMO market?
I'm taking this quote as it asks a question that I can relatively easily expand on. Not to address the person directly.
If every game was designed to support co-op.
People keep asking what it is that we would be willing to sacrifice or saying that we would lose aspects of the game in order to see that element achieved. In a general sense that is true, if you try to take any game as it is and implement co-op, it will often be at the expense of something else.
However, that doesn't have to be the case and any long term RPG gamer should know that.
Notably I can reference Neverwinter Nights here. A game more people than not should be familiar with and the technical capacity of it as a title. It was scalable and it was moddable to a quite wide degree, all within a framework that supported the potential of minitaure persistent world and regular traffic of players.
Now, you might say that's different. And in part you are right because it's a game that wasn't driven by physics based action or had a taxing amount of data defining the gameworld's assets.
However we can turn around and reference the flipside genre that has an exceptionally heavy use of gameworld physics. The Battlefield series for one as a shooter is a 64 player fragfest of vehicles, bullets, bombs, and exploding buildings.
Or you can think about Red Faction Guerilla and it's sequel. IT had a physics engine that supported the modeling of realtime building physics and destruction, and sported an online component to the engine where such aspects were retained in play.
Maybe we can reach back to yet another classic title. Half Life 2 and it's associated titles Deathmatch and G-Mod. Those are both games with a ton of physics emulations that are built into a multiplayer system. And that game is nine years old.
The performance and capacity for the engine to support a physics based world with the level of detail Skyrim exhibits is perfectly capable of being done. Modern machines are perfectly capable of supporting it, and can even step past that capacity without breaking themselves.
So lets think for a moment and consider what functionally would you need to change about Skyrim?
Well if you don't want two Dhova running about shouting at everything, you do what Fable did and turn the visiting player into a mercenary. Effectively they are the sentient version of the companions you could already get in the game. Swap shouts out for a small set of reusable skills based around magic or just give the secondary player a passive enhancement to all their other traits as long as they are a mercenary and you have a workaround that doesn't compromise what the game is on a physically functioning level nor a narrative one.
This is different from simply taking Skyrim 'as it is' because you aren't trying to shoehorn things into the system, but being smart enough to find how the system can be built out to provide complimentary traits.
You don't need to sacrifice story, you don't need to sacrifice performance, you don't need to sacrificevariety, you don't need to sacrifice choice.
Under the suggested method on the Skyrim example, you are literally changing nothing about how you would experience the game in it's current incarnation if you chose to go at it as a single player title. The only thing that changed was the ability to let a player opt in as a hired hand akin to the player dragging along an NPC like Lydia, only ostensibly you have a human that you can tolerate at the helm.
So to shorthand my opinion, I would prefer to see co-op in such a title, as that's something that I've honestly desired for a good long while. A co-operative Elder Scrolls game, a Mount&Blade game with a multiplayer campaign, and/or KUF 2 to finally get released.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
these 2 games arent designed for that ...and thank god .
something like that would also bring a dumbing down of the gamemechanics in order to please
a minority.
Why do some of you think the game needs to be dumped down for co-op?
Sure there are allot of more singleplayer games with co-op campaigns besides the regular singleplayer campaign, yet there are plenty of games with full co-op modes that arn't dumping anything down compared to the full singleplayer experiance. Co-Op Games for PC
So yeah I would love those RPG's to have full co-op modes as that's the closest you get to the feel you already love for those games. A MMORPG however needs to be something completely different but within it's familiar setting/feature's but go far beyond that what a singleplayer game already offers.
I can see why some games may not have multi player modes as the cost to host servers for online matches may be costly. More games should have at the very least LAN or allow players to host their own servers. A lot of great games would not be harmed by adding co op into the mix.
I think so. I always feel bored when I'm playing alone, but I like the game much. What a dilemma, eh. So I play them a little, but I don't have anyone to talk with about the game and figuring out what to do together.
Single player (no Co-Op) games will no longer scratch my wallet. With all the piracy and stuff, developers better add Co-Op feature.
Ok you where first with this topic, sorry for that i just made a topic in general about same subject Skyrim and Witcher same reason why no CO-OP hehe.
TWO WORLDS(huge open world ala morrowind only bigger and more diverse) had kind of co-op or sort of multiplayer you had play sections of solo map to open them and slowly making the whole game world avaible you could make partys in a closed town or trade/chat and make partys then play together in smaller portion of real map untill you open up whole map was kind neat having this option.
But i want a Skyrim for 2 players and explore hunt together i would pay 100 bucks for game like that if it have quaility graphics and gameplay offcorse.
Originally posted by kevjards not for me..the whole reason i play games like the witcher is to get away from everyone..this week alone i've loggin in nearly 50 hrs on divine divinity..and i,m loving the piece and quiet.
Thats why i also play solo games but a co-op for 2 players is always nice option if a friend wanne come along your adventures i realy dont see problem here.
I think so. I always feel bored when I'm playing alone, but I like the game much. What a dilemma, eh. So I play them a little, but I don't have anyone to talk with about the game and figuring out what to do together.
Single player (no Co-Op) games will no longer scratch my wallet. With all the piracy and stuff, developers better add Co-Op feature.
They should most deffienently have co-op.
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
Comments
where people are at different instances all the time,just like playing skyrim now with 2 computers and watching each others monitors,hey you are there me too,but i cant see you ,me neither ,well cool lets roll.
Let's internet
No.
Reasons:
a) It would tempt companies for more always-online DRM
b) It would divert ressources from the single player game content and quality.
So, no.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
No because they are both single player RPGs except for Witcher 2 rocked. Why would you want to kill it?
You want a co-op game play Saint's Row, had a blast with co-op on that game.
No.
They are single player RPGs, with you as the hero and both games excel at that. Why add some co-op or multiplayer aspect to spoil it? Look at Tomb Raider 2013 - it's a cool single player game with a crappy multiplayer tacked on to please the suits at Square Enix.
I'm taking this quote as it asks a question that I can relatively easily expand on. Not to address the person directly.
If every game was designed to support co-op.
People keep asking what it is that we would be willing to sacrifice or saying that we would lose aspects of the game in order to see that element achieved. In a general sense that is true, if you try to take any game as it is and implement co-op, it will often be at the expense of something else.
However, that doesn't have to be the case and any long term RPG gamer should know that.
Notably I can reference Neverwinter Nights here. A game more people than not should be familiar with and the technical capacity of it as a title. It was scalable and it was moddable to a quite wide degree, all within a framework that supported the potential of minitaure persistent world and regular traffic of players.
Now, you might say that's different. And in part you are right because it's a game that wasn't driven by physics based action or had a taxing amount of data defining the gameworld's assets.
However we can turn around and reference the flipside genre that has an exceptionally heavy use of gameworld physics. The Battlefield series for one as a shooter is a 64 player fragfest of vehicles, bullets, bombs, and exploding buildings.
Or you can think about Red Faction Guerilla and it's sequel. IT had a physics engine that supported the modeling of realtime building physics and destruction, and sported an online component to the engine where such aspects were retained in play.
Maybe we can reach back to yet another classic title. Half Life 2 and it's associated titles Deathmatch and G-Mod. Those are both games with a ton of physics emulations that are built into a multiplayer system. And that game is nine years old.
The performance and capacity for the engine to support a physics based world with the level of detail Skyrim exhibits is perfectly capable of being done. Modern machines are perfectly capable of supporting it, and can even step past that capacity without breaking themselves.
So lets think for a moment and consider what functionally would you need to change about Skyrim?
Well if you don't want two Dhova running about shouting at everything, you do what Fable did and turn the visiting player into a mercenary. Effectively they are the sentient version of the companions you could already get in the game. Swap shouts out for a small set of reusable skills based around magic or just give the secondary player a passive enhancement to all their other traits as long as they are a mercenary and you have a workaround that doesn't compromise what the game is on a physically functioning level nor a narrative one.
This is different from simply taking Skyrim 'as it is' because you aren't trying to shoehorn things into the system, but being smart enough to find how the system can be built out to provide complimentary traits.
You don't need to sacrifice story, you don't need to sacrifice performance, you don't need to sacrificevariety, you don't need to sacrifice choice.
Under the suggested method on the Skyrim example, you are literally changing nothing about how you would experience the game in it's current incarnation if you chose to go at it as a single player title. The only thing that changed was the ability to let a player opt in as a hired hand akin to the player dragging along an NPC like Lydia, only ostensibly you have a human that you can tolerate at the helm.
So to shorthand my opinion, I would prefer to see co-op in such a title, as that's something that I've honestly desired for a good long while. A co-operative Elder Scrolls game, a Mount&Blade game with a multiplayer campaign, and/or KUF 2 to finally get released.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Why do some of you think the game needs to be dumped down for co-op?
Sure there are allot of more singleplayer games with co-op campaigns besides the regular singleplayer campaign, yet there are plenty of games with full co-op modes that arn't dumping anything down compared to the full singleplayer experiance. Co-Op Games for PC
So yeah I would love those RPG's to have full co-op modes as that's the closest you get to the feel you already love for those games. A MMORPG however needs to be something completely different but within it's familiar setting/feature's but go far beyond that what a singleplayer game already offers.
Youtube
Twitter
Facebook
Ok you where first with this topic, sorry for that i just made a topic in general about same subject Skyrim and Witcher same reason why no CO-OP hehe.
TWO WORLDS(huge open world ala morrowind only bigger and more diverse) had kind of co-op or sort of multiplayer you had play sections of solo map to open them and slowly making the whole game world avaible you could make partys in a closed town or trade/chat and make partys then play together in smaller portion of real map untill you open up whole map was kind neat having this option.
But i want a Skyrim for 2 players and explore hunt together i would pay 100 bucks for game like that if it have quaility graphics and gameplay offcorse.
Thats why i also play solo games but a co-op for 2 players is always nice option if a friend wanne come along your adventures i realy dont see problem here.
They should most deffienently have co-op.