I mean you make some good suggestions and I suppose I could be wrong, but I just don't see it ever working in a way that would make both players feel like they have equal effect on the world or story.
It would beyond a doubt be a huge undertaking, but running the possibilities through my mind present no problems—only innovation and a substantial amount of work.
Each to his own - but, God, I hope not.
Why would it present a problem for the player? Taking advantage of the COOP aspect wouldn't need to be mandatory; players could still easily play the game single-player. To account for the missing variable (a second player), the developers could just create a system of random decisions by the AI to fill any voids. This would also ensure significantly enhanced replayability, which would add to the game even in single player.
I certainly don't mind if someone wants to tackle the idea but I see too many pitfalls. And consider, for all the work that would be required to script reactivity to two players, you could have made a single-player game with four times as many options and paths.
You are correct, in that the amount of attention and work required to successfully introduce COOP functionality to an RPG game of the magnitude and depth of other competitive RPG titles, such as Risen, could be used to add significant amounts of additional single player content, but my argument is that it’s already been done. There's nothing innovative about massive worlds such as Gothic 3 (in terms of size and content), and in some instances, as was the case for many in Oblivion, a massive world actually serves to take away from the game due to a lack of balance between storyline direction, mission/quest diversity, and immersion.
My argument is this: just because COOP RPG has never been successfully utilized in the past, it doesn't mean it can't be done without reducing the integrity of any of its single player qualities or limiting its potential for greatness. So why not divert some attention to something truly innovative and new, and seize the opportunity to be among the first to ever accomplish such a feat?
What pitfalls do you see? Let's consider them with more discussion.
In practice, I see this as difficult. Are you going to force players to complete a complex storyline together? If my neighbor is too busy, what happens to that reactivity? When I'm talking to NPC "A", does he have to sit and wait? How much more dialogue scripting is required to offer both multiple options from the NPC and reactivity to the options I chose?
In COOP mode, the storyline would essentially be the same as single player, except with one exception: the second player would take control of the decision making process which is randomly (perhaps not entirely random, but you get the idea) performed by an intelligent AI system in single player. Talking to an NPC shouldn't pause the game. One player could talk to one NPC while the other talks to a different one or leaves the area entirely to go off questing on his or her own. There wouldn't need to be any waiting involved whatsoever.
Q1:How much more dialogue would be required?
A1:Only that supplied by the second player's character and slight alterations by NPC dialogue to acknowledge the right player. In programming, the application might look something like "[variablename], it's good to see you! Now, go fetch me a cup of tea before I teach you how to play chess."
Q2:Reactivity limitations?
A2:The amount of player to player interaction should be entirely based on the players! If player A wants to go hunt with player B (after they've officially crossed paths for the first time in the storyline), but player B doesn't want to, there shouldn't be anything forcing player B to go meet up with player A. The player to player mechanics should work very similar to your typical MMORPG. The main different in a COOP RPG would be a heavily story driven mechanic which allows for enhanced replayability by vastly increasing the nonlinearity of the game. The linearity should be dependent on the two primary variables, the players.
I just don't see a company taking the risk that a complex coop market exists (as opposed to an action game, or even doing a MMO instance.
If executed properly, the risk can be minimized or even completely eliminated. As previously stated, a COOP feature shouldn't diminish the quality of single player. Both possibilities can exist in perfect harmony. The only obstacle I can foresee is a willingness to invest the resources necessary in order to make it a reality.
On a side note, for the past three years or so I've managed a Steam community of about 75 people. It is a private community, or clan if you prefer, consisting of mostly close friends. Many of us play games together after work or classes everyday. We don't just play one game. We always look at what games are available for multiplayer and COOP. I strongly believe, in large part from exposure, that sharing a great gaming experience with a friend can only enhance it. We don't play just one game or even one genre.
My friends and I bounce back and forth between many games, including Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Warcraft III, Starcraft II, Kane & Lynch 2, Dead Rising 2, Empire: Total War, Killing Floor, Resident Evil, and even some MMOs. Of all these examples, none are RPG games with a single player feel or depth of storyline. Is this because it is impossible? Or is it merely because, like everyone who doubted the Wright brothers before their successful flight on December 17th, 1903, no one
believes it is possible?
Wouldn't your proposal work against the coop aspect? When I play a game coop I want to play and interact with my friends, not split apart and possibly join up later in the game.
Once you meet in the game for the first time, whether two players choose to share in their journey should be entirely up to them (perhaps with a few story driven exceptions, but not to such an extent as to forcefully eliminate the potential for a strong player to player interactive progression).
Since devs primarily write to the focus group and the overwhelming majority of players play solo this isn't likely to happen anytime soon. It might be a good idea in a MMOG, especially for one that requires party play, but devs don't like spending resources where they don't think they are going to be used.
I've been a gamer for about 20 years (27 years old now). I've played and beaten 100s of games and have founded and lead various gaming communities ranging from MMORPGs including EverQuest, EverQuest 2, 9 Dragons, and 2 Moons, to regular multiplayer games including MOHAA, BF2, and BC2. And now I manage a Steam community which encompasses a vast number of games with unlimited potential. If there is anything I've learned from all of this, it's that players enjoy sharing fun experiences. What makes them fun is irrelevant. The point of this discussion, however, is an unrealized foundation for a new kind of fun; a fun inspired by the basic understanding that people are inherently social beings. As with any successful game, success or failure depends on maintaining a certain balance which enhances the overall quality without compromising any specific key aspects.
A true Gothic/Risen sequel with full cooperative play, would be like a dream come true for me.
For any fan with the ability to dream freely, without the confines of being unable to see beyond firsthand experience, the feeling would be mutual.
That said, I know most traditional CRPG fans are solo players, and the most common argument against cooperative play, is that the feature would inevitably take away from the game - because it requires development resources.
The whole basis for my argument is that taking away from the game is not an inevitability, or prerequisite to COOP gameplay potential. In a sense, AI has always served to fill a void that was never realized. The AI behaves in a way based in part on single player decision making, and on another part by linear storyline mechanics. Adding a second player would, if done successfully, only serve to replace the linearity of a single player storyline experience. Thus a truly nonlinear (or at least, to an exponential degree of magnitude) potential would be possible. For example, if upon player A's first meeting of player B, player B decides to kill player A, it's game over for player A. Don't like it? Choose your COOP partner more carefully? Sound unfair? How is it different than being killed by an AI monster in a single player game? There is no difference from player A's perspective, but from player B's perspective, the game continues and (presumably), he or she derives tremendous satisfaction from defeating his or her player counterpart and ultimately proceeds as if it were a single player game (with AI filling any voids left behind by player A's inability to impact the storyline). Is it complicated? Sure. Impossible? Far from it.
Yes coop RPG with narration isn't a new thing, NWN isn't really a new thing. Perhaps it got its success less than from having coop than from allowing user made campaigns, but it's still Coop RPG with Narration since a long time.
NWN is a fine game, to be sure, but it is very different from games like Oblivion, Gothic, Risen, Fallout, Dragon Age, Mafia II, Thief, etc… NWN is a very linear game by comparison. The sense of immersion is hardly comparable. The AI is extremely limited. And there is virtually no "player-story-player" interaction from what I can recall. I believe a game like Risen 2, without sacrificing any of the most appreciated qualities witnessed in Risen, with COOP would be a tremendous success. It would essentially set a new standard for RPG games, having an impact similar to the success of the original Gothic and with the publicity of Gothic 2 or Oblivion. There is no stronger or more persuasive advertisement than word of mouth. And let's face it, if Piranha Bytes introduced COOP in Risen 2, who wouldn't try convincing all of their friends to buy it? At that point, recommending a game to a friend becomes no longer an altruistic endeavor, but rather one which might result in an enjoyment that can be shared simultaneously.
