What single player games you would like to play in co-op?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Now, before you start blathering "It's already a great single player game! We don't need multiplayer!" this thread is purely hypothetical, and assumes that either a mod or official patch has made any games in this thread perfectly balanced for co-op (so that, for example, in a game with heavy RPG elements one player sneaking and one player talking will be treated by the game as exactly that, but if the sneaking player instead is in the same general area with the player who talks their way in, they will both be considered to have talked their way in). So unlike real life cases where multiplayer is shoved into a single player game, it actually doesn't take time or resources from single player. As for my choices...

Dungeons of Dredmor
A fun, comedic turn-based rougelike dungeon crawler game. It's actually surprisingly easy to get into. That said, the skill trees you can have are limited, and I wouldn't mind not only being able to get around that but play with a friend now and again.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution/Mankind Divided/whatever the next Deus Ex prequel is
The Deus Ex prequels kinda remind me of EYE: Divine Cybermancy, they obviously can't have taken place in the Deus Ex universe, and nobody really acts all that human, the entire "AUGMENTATIONS!" story just does not make sense, and the technology is WAY to advanced to take place before Deus Ex, and there's some awkward mechanics that look good but mechanically are, well, awkward. But the gameplay is generally quite fun and I wouldn't mind having said fun with a friend some time.

Mass Effect would do great as a co-op adventure I think, especially now when there are 2 Ryders. The one thing I liked about The Old Republic was how the conversation system worked with multiple players.

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:
The one thing I liked about The Old Republic was how the conversation system worked with multiple players.

For all the things wrong with The Old Republic, that is something I wish would catch on, a system to allow coop story interaction. I think more RPG's or story heavy games should try a coop story function.

I was looking around and in a lot of cases I see people dismiss coop play as "oh it will ruin the experience of a story because all you will do is make jokes." I wish there were more attempts at a story heavy coop game, the right players would gravitate toward that game and enjoy the ability to try and work in a story where both players can make their choice and one has to live with the other's outcome.

Stalker would be one of my top games on that list. So many times I've played Misery for CoP and thought how awesome it would be if some of my gaming friends were right there in the game with me.

I could also see Dishonored as being potentially interesting in coop. Not only having to work together in a fight, but also having to coordinate in stealth. (And of course, not being the pain in the ass that Payday 2 often ended up being...)

Uncharted 4. I was disappointed to learn that both it and the Nathan Drake Collection wouldn't have coop.

I mean, there are times when you would think they designed the level for coop, but nope nope, single-player all the way.

An Elder Scrolls game. I want to play it with my brother. Just 2 player co-op, nothing crazy.

Bob_McMillan:
Uncharted 4. I was disappointed to learn that both it and the Nathan Drake Collection wouldn't have coop.

I mean, there are times when you would think they designed the level for coop, but nope nope, single-player all the way.

Be sure to tune in next week for more of When Story Trumps Gameplay!

Pretty much any rpg that would also involve the second player as part of the story and not just ignore them, looking at you Fable

Saelune:
An Elder Scrolls game. I want to play it with my brother. Just 2 player co-op, nothing crazy.

Always this for me about Bethesda's recent games. The 2 player part, not playing it with your brother I don't know your brother. Even if they did it in a Fable method where not everything carries over to your other character and it just enables you to enter their world and travel along with them - wouldn't it be great?

hanselthecaretaker:
Be sure to tune in next week for more of When Story Trumps Gameplay!

That's an old debate, isn't it? A story based game without gameplay is just a movie - and if gameplay part sucks, it's a slog to get through it.

Basically all of them. The story of Link and Linkle fucking around in Hyrule would be hilarious, especially given how possible it is that they'd have a good chance of rarely running into each other.

Metal Gear, or some kind of similar stealth-focused game in co-op. The guards in those games improved over time, but were still vastly inferior to the reality in order to give a single agent breathing room and allow them to use multiple approaches... and cardboard box.

That wouldn't be necessary if you had multiple player-controlled agents, and maybe give them different classes too. I remember in the old Commandos games, there were different agents who could snipe, use explosives, throw and mimic voices, convincingly play dead, climb walls or disguise themselves. The problem was that all of them except the 'tank' character were incredibly fragile and a single death would give you mission failure, plus you had to micromanage everyone top-down RTS style, which was difficult on large maps.

I would make it so while you are rewarded for completing missions without casualties, you can still win with just one agent left alive so long as you complete the objective. I enjoyed the cooperative modes in Perfect Dark and Timesplitters, but this would be more stealth-focused.

Mount and Blade Warband.

Hopefully we'll have some kind of co-op in Bannerlord.

I'd like to see Co-Op show up as an option in most open-world games, like the recent Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and Far Cry titles. I think it'd do a lot to increase that games' lifespans and replayability for myself and my friends.

Also, it would have been nice if the most recent Dead Rising game had true Co-Op. Despite all of Dead Rising 3's many faults, having a full-fledged and fairly polished Co-Op campaign was a blast to play. The friend that I played DR3 with was super excited to play another one, until he got the news that there wouldn't be a full Co-Op campaign.

Also, I think there's room for some interesting things to be done with Co-Op survival/horror. I know Dead Space 3 veered wildly away from the Horror genre into the Action genre, even more than DS2 did... but there were a couple sections in the game that we really liked a lot. Chief among those sections were the Co-Op exclusive ones where the two players saw different things. Like there was one zone where one player saw a fairly typical environment, while the other one saw rooms full of creepy toy soldiers and children's toys. One of us would start opening fire at something, while the other would be like, "There's nothing there, man..." The game was a sub-par sequel, but it did leave me wishing there were some good polished Co-Op horror games.

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:
The one thing I liked about The Old Republic was how the conversation system worked with multiple players.

Prime_Hunter_H01:
For all the things wrong with The Old Republic, that is something I wish would catch on, a system to allow coop story interaction. I think more RPG's or story heavy games should try a coop story function.

This was honestly my favorite aspect of the game, and to date, it's probably the most fun I've ever had with a Co-Op game - and I play a lot of Co-Op games, sometimes even ones I'd otherwise have no interest in just because they have Co-Op.

The last time I played the game it was with two close friends, one of them playing a pure light side Jedi Knight tank and the other a pure light side Jedi Consular healer. I was playing a pure dark side Gunnery Trooper, and I was mostly just there to blow stuff up with a cannon and pretend that I'm playing Renegade Femshep (female Trooper is voiced by Jennifer Hale). It was a goddamn blast listening to their reactions every time I won the speech roll at a critical moment. I won so few of the regular speech rolls that you always saw my character standing around in the back, looking terribly bored with every situation, and just itching to turn something into a smoking crater. Then a Light/Dark choice would pop up, indicating for us that the Trooper was tired of standing around, since I seemed to win almost all of those. Repair the engineering section of the Esseles that's like... two rooms away... and save a bunch of Engineers' lives? Eh, that takes too long, just space the bastards. Try to talk down a hostage taker? Eh, that takes too long, why not just waltz in and shoot the SOB right in the face? "OH MY GOD! YOU JUST SHOT THAT GUY!" they would say. "Problem solved," I'd say.

Every time I won a dark side roll, we imagined the two Jedi in the background constantly facepalming, and asking each other why they're even traveling with this colossal douche. It was glorious.

Tuesday Night Fever:

This was honestly my favorite aspect of the game, and to date, it's probably the most fun I've ever had with a Co-Op game - and I play a lot of Co-Op games, sometimes even ones I'd otherwise have no interest in just because they have Co-Op.

The last time I played the game it was with two close friends, one of them playing a pure light side Jedi Knight tank and the other a pure light side Jedi Consular healer. I was playing a pure dark side Gunnery Trooper, and I was mostly just there to blow stuff up with a cannon and pretend that I'm playing Renegade Femshep (female Trooper is voiced by Jennifer Hale). It was a goddamn blast listening to their reactions every time I won the speech roll at a critical moment. I won so few of the regular speech rolls that you always saw my character standing around in the back, looking terribly bored with every situation, and just itching to turn something into a smoking crater. Then a Light/Dark choice would pop up, indicating for us that the Trooper was tired of standing around, since I seemed to win almost all of those. Repair the engineering section of the Esseles that's like... two rooms away... and save a bunch of Engineers' lives? Eh, that takes too long, just space the bastards. Try to talk down a hostage taker? Eh, that takes too long, why not just waltz in and shoot the SOB right in the face? "OH MY GOD! YOU JUST SHOT THAT GUY!" they would say. "Problem solved," I'd say.

Every time I won a dark side roll, we imagined the two Jedi in the background constantly facepalming, and asking each other why they're even travelling with this colossal douche. It was glorious.

This. Any game with these kinds of dialogue choices should always include co-op roll options. What amazed me (besides how often I'd have 3 out of 4 of the party roll Light while the 1 Dark guy won the roll), was that in 2 years of playing I never once had anyone get upset in chat about other player's rolls, or start out the Flashpoint by demanding all players roll the side they want. Considering the usual temperament of MMORPG player bases in matters of virtual dice rolls (more commonly for loot), that's a minor miracle.

The one I remember getting the most Dark rolls on was the option of unleashing war hounds in the Colicoid War Game on the 'opposing team'. No one could resist the sight of the other team getting torn apart... just imagine if they were other actual players.

Bob_McMillan:
Uncharted 4. I was disappointed to learn that both it and the Nathan Drake Collection wouldn't have coop.

I mean, there are times when you would think they designed the level for coop, but nope nope, single-player all the way.

Well, Uncharted 3 has a co-op campaign, but that's on the side.

They already have co-op mechanics, but after going through Bloodborne with a friend recently, I really wish the Souls games had proper start-to-finish co-op capability. It was really fun tearing through the game with a buddy.

I think nearly any modern shooter would be fun with co-op. DOOM and Titanfall 2 were already great fun but could have been even more fun with a friend. Especially DOOM. There were some bits of TF2 that might not have worked very well but DOOM would have been nearly perfect. Bulletstorm would have been excellent with co-op as well, especially since the player character is rarely alone anyway. Most games thats tick you with AI companions for most of their run would be a good fit for co-op.

I'd probably adore a co-op spectacle fighter, like God of War or Bayonetta or something. To my knowledge the closest we've ever gotten is Mortal Kombat Shaolin Monks.

WhiteFangofWhoa:
snip

I think it worked because you still got rewarded based on your choice even if you did not win the roll. A perfect light or dark side run could not be ruined by the win of your opposite side party member. I never got far enough to know if the story line affected loot.

For the first instance of this kind of system I am glad they figured out that the only loss should be your preferred story path. Since it is a story element I'm pretty sure that most players who cared enjoyed the unknown element.

Johnny Novgorod:

Bob_McMillan:
Uncharted 4. I was disappointed to learn that both it and the Nathan Drake Collection wouldn't have coop.

I mean, there are times when you would think they designed the level for coop, but nope nope, single-player all the way.

Well, Uncharted 3 has a co-op campaign, but that's on the side.

I know, thats why I said Uncharted Collection. I was fine with no multiplayer, but no coop? From the footage I've seen, it seems like a significant portion of the game was cut out.

Uncharted 4 eventually brought the horde mode thing, but its not the same.

If there is one game that would've worked perfectly with Coop in every way just from the gameplay and design, that game is Star Wars Republic Commando.

Tuesday Night Fever:

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:
The one thing I liked about The Old Republic was how the conversation system worked with multiple players.

Prime_Hunter_H01:
For all the things wrong with The Old Republic, that is something I wish would catch on, a system to allow coop story interaction. I think more RPG's or story heavy games should try a coop story function.

This was honestly my favorite aspect of the game, and to date, it's probably the most fun I've ever had with a Co-Op game - and I play a lot of Co-Op games, sometimes even ones I'd otherwise have no interest in just because they have Co-Op.

Glad to see I'm not alone in this, I honestly never see people talk about it even though it's a fantastic system to use if developers finally decide to bring coop in to their RPG games.

There's so many mods attempting to mods co op into the Elder Scrolls and Fallout games, and yet they never work properly or never finish. And I can't blame them. They don't exactly have a lot to work with.

I think the closest was this one for Skyrim: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/67038/? But the last update for that was September.

The Far Cry games BEG for proper co op. I fucking hate their seperate co op mission garbage.

I mean...any open world game I can think of I'd love some co op for. Grand Theft Auto 5 (GTA Online is trash), Far Cry, Test Drive Unlimited 2, Metal Gear Solid 5.

How goddamn sweet would it have been if Snake could have taken a soldier from Mother Base with your friend controlling them in co op and doing the missions together?! It's a massive missed opportunity, and with the lack of story the game had anyway, I don't think it would have made a significant impact on how the game played out.

STALKER series, especially with the CoC mod.

Some Co-Op only scenarios skulking through an underground warren or large tenement having to keep your buddies in communication and watching your back to even have a ghost of a chance of surviving armies of bandits/mutants, YES PLEASE.

Fallout:
I'd LOVE to see something like an online Fallout game where you protect your settlement/vault.

Something where you go out, often with parties, to either attack or defend places.
Even allow for mostly AI being dicks or bases where you can go and destroy them for lots of level based loot.

Tuesday Night Fever:
I'd like to see Co-Op show up as an option in most open-world games, like the recent Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and Far Cry titles. I think it'd do a lot to increase that games' lifespans and replayability for myself and my friends.

Fallout 3/NV/4 and Morrowind->Skyrim SE all offer mod support (on PC and current gen at least) that vastly increase replayability. I would rather have them be single player and moddable than coop. While coop could be fun, if only to share an adventure with a friend, the reason TES/FO games are as good as they are is because they are created around a single player, and thus can react to their actions in certain ways. Being able to mod them also adds immense replayabilty and immersion, and I would rather they remained this way and coop adventuring be done elsewhere.

Dying Light, while not moddable to the same extent as TES games, was moddable to a degree. It's config files could be altered and further, shared with one's friend, such that provided both players are using the same modded files, they could still play online together. I did just this and we got a kick from both the game and the changes we made to it. I don't know how feasible that would be with TES games tho. Beyond models/textures which aren't an issue, mods allow us to do everything from changing values (spell damage, arrow range, cast time, weapon weight, etc) up to adding in entirely new quests, areas, items and characters which simply won't exist without the same mods in both clients.

I appreciate that when we're having fun with Skyrim and would also like to do coop, it's easy to wonder why we cannot combine the two. But I would rather an immersive SP Skyrim with mods than a coop version without...see Elder Scrolls Online for the coop, online version. Gear is limited, zones are limited, money is limited, the world is completely static with nothing to interact with or steal, enemies respawn in front of you, other players line up to get the "Unique Daedric Sword" quest item while you watch.

Tuesday Night Fever:
Also, I think there's room for some interesting things to be done with Co-Op survival/horror.

I would disagree very strongly here. "Survival" games with resources, hunting, base building, etc, okay, but "survival horror", no thank you. Having another player along will utterly ruin any atmosphere, surprises and tension a game might try to create. Survival Horror is about creating tension and fear through the environment, isolating the player and make checking around every corner a heart-pounding affair, not knowing where danger might be lurking. Having a friend along, springing traps in front of you, teabagging dead zombies and doing whatever friends do in coop takes away from the immersion.

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:
Mass Effect would do great as a co-op adventure I think, especially now when there are 2 Ryders. The one thing I liked about The Old Republic was how the conversation system worked with multiple players.

What would the second player do while the main one spent time wandering around the Nexus talking to people.

Seems to me that it would be ripe for griefing, with the second player messing up quests on purpose.

KingsGambit:
Fallout 3/NV/4 and Morrowind->Skyrim SE all offer mod support (on PC and current gen at least) that vastly increase replayability. I would rather have them be single player and moddable than coop. While coop could be fun, if only to share an adventure with a friend, the reason TES/FO games are as good as they are is because they are created around a single player, and thus can react to their actions in certain ways. Being able to mod them also adds immense replayabilty and immersion, and I would rather they remained this way and coop adventuring be done elsewhere.

Dying Light, while not moddable to the same extent as TES games, was moddable to a degree. It's config files could be altered and further, shared with one's friend, such that provided both players are using the same modded files, they could still play online together. I did just this and we got a kick from both the game and the changes we made to it. I don't know how feasible that would be with TES games tho. Beyond models/textures which aren't an issue, mods allow us to do everything from changing values (spell damage, arrow range, cast time, weapon weight, etc) up to adding in entirely new quests, areas, items and characters which simply won't exist without the same mods in both clients.

I appreciate that when we're having fun with Skyrim and would also like to do coop, it's easy to wonder why we cannot combine the two. But I would rather an immersive SP Skyrim with mods than a coop version without...see Elder Scrolls Online for the coop, online version. Gear is limited, zones are limited, money is limited, the world is completely static with nothing to interact with or steal, enemies respawn in front of you, other players line up to get the "Unique Daedric Sword" quest item while you watch.

Co-Op and Modding aren't mutually exclusive. There actually is a team out there working on a mod that'll bring Co-Op to Fallout: New Vegas, though I'm not sure what their progress looks like - haven't checked back in a while. Some games, like you mentioned, do allow multiple players to team up as long as they have the same mods, and just because you would prefer the modded solo experience doesn't mean everyone would, and no one's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to play...

Also, MMORPGs are a completely different beast, generally, from regular open-world RPGs. SW:TOR gets away with it a bit more than most (though it still has a lot of their garbage tropes), but Elder Scrolls Online is about as bog-standard of an MMORPG as you can get. Trying to claim that it is the true Co-Op TES experience is a little absurd.

I would disagree very strongly here. "Survival" games with resources, hunting, base building, etc, okay, but "survival horror", no thank you. Having another player along will utterly ruin any atmosphere, surprises and tension a game might try to create. Survival Horror is about creating tension and fear through the environment, isolating the player and make checking around every corner a heart-pounding affair, not knowing where danger might be lurking. Having a friend along, springing traps in front of you, teabagging dead zombies and doing whatever friends do in coop takes away from the immersion.

Once again, no one would be forcing you to play it if it were an option - though that would give Survival/Horror some new meaning. Until the day when Survival/Horror games can actually be scary, and not be riddled with bugs and glitches that do all the work for you in creating humorous situations - survival/horror, to me, will never be anything close to immersive "heart-pounding" affairs.

Besides, if you're playing with the kind of Co-Op players that are going to run around teabagging things or griefing... maybe find a better Co-Op partner? Or one that's not twelve? 'Cause that's a shitty experience regardless of genre.

Tuesday Night Fever:
Co-Op and Modding aren't mutually exclusive.

They pretty much are, that is entirely the point. Two players existing in one world *must* have the same base or it just isn't possible. Textures/models are fine because they're client-side visuals; it's perfectly fine to have players see different things or to see things differently. But enemy health, weapon damage/range, spell cast times, these things need to be identical or there will be problems. That is why most coop games are not moddable and why online games are the way they are; a server handles all the values and clients all get the same treatment.

Some games are both moddable and coop, but only to a minor degree. Dying Light worked by only allowing players with identical config files to coop. Saints Row 3 only allowed minor things too and the client was given the hosts values. It simply cannot work with a game like Skyrim or Fallout, certainly not as they currently exist. And I'm glad for it because, as I said, TES games are immersive SP worlds that simply couldn't work the same way in terms of story, gameplay or modding if coop was a factor. Yahtzee's Age of Conan review years ago made an interesting observation here, where he found it bemusing being the "Special One" in a game with dozens of other "Special Ones" running around doing the same thing as him.

Tuesday Night Fever:
Once again, no one would be forcing you to play it if it were an option

Please don't use this "no one is forcing you" argument in any context. It doesn't belong in any actual discussion, on any subject, ever.

Tuesday Night Fever:
though that would give Survival/Horror some new meaning.

Okay, what is Survival SLASH Horror? Is it one or the other? Survival games are a thing, survival horror is a thing, but I have no idea what Survival/Horror means. If you mean the Minecraft/Ark/Starbound/Don't Starve survival games, fine, but they aren't particularly horrific. If you mean "survival horror" games, like Alien: Isolation, Resident Evil 7, FEAR, Silent Hill type affairs, then as I said already, I completely disagree. A second player would utterly ruin the experience, completely precluding the tension and atmosphere these games depend on to immerse the player. And you know how I know this is true? Because Alien: Isolation, Resident Evil 7, Outlast and other survival horror games are all made as single player experiences.

Tuesday Night Fever:
Until the day when Survival/Horror games can actually be scary

I've played amazing horror games that have sent chills down my spine. If you have never played a good one, then it seems rather unfortunate. There are some great examples, including the ones I've already mentioned above and every one of them would have been worse with a second player involved.

votemarvel:

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:
Mass Effect would do great as a co-op adventure I think, especially now when there are 2 Ryders. The one thing I liked about The Old Republic was how the conversation system worked with multiple players.

What would the second player do while the main one spent time wandering around the Nexus talking to people.

Seems to me that it would be ripe for griefing, with the second player messing up quests on purpose.

Either both would be there to be able to activate quests or not, both could run around nexus collecting quests for both players.

Why would your friend grief you? Get better friends if that's worrying you. I'm not saying make COOP mandatory, it's completely optional but at the same time it shouldn't feel like an afterthought which it usually does in COOP games. I want games to give both players equally big parts in the story.

Dragons Dogma. It had to have been intended to be co-op at some point, cause there's whole skills that only would ever work with human partners (the AI doesn't even try and use launching abilities for instance). Don't know if they cut it out because they couldn't make it work or someone honestly thought the pawn junk was better, but it was definitely lacking for it.

KingsGambit:
They pretty much are, that is entirely the point. Two players existing in one world *must* have the same base or it just isn't possible. Textures/models are fine because they're client-side visuals; it's perfectly fine to have players see different things or to see things differently. But enemy health, weapon damage/range, spell cast times, these things need to be identical or there will be problems. That is why most coop games are not moddable and why online games are the way they are; a server handles all the values and clients all get the same treatment.

Some games are both moddable and coop, but only to a minor degree.

Nah, son, they can go very well together if the system is well thought out for it. There are even many examples of it.
The best one being Garrys Mod, you can have so many shit on each player side, and yet the multiplayer doesnt suffer from it. Same with Arma, GTA IV, GTA San Andreas, Battlefield 2 and the list goes on.

Its not hard to think of how to make it work, basicly the host creates the server with the stuff that the server needs, then the player joining downloads all the content needed, all of it directly provided by the server.

Plus, if the game is well thought out, enabling and disabling mods can be really easy with a good managing system.

OT: I would love a Hitman with co-op, of course playing with random guys online would be absolute shit, but with a friend it could be so much fun. All that planning and shitstorm when things go wrong. Also fun would be having an alternative where it would be "slightly" competitive, each player gets a random look (so that the other doesnt know right away and have to see through the disguises and behaviours) and have to kill the target the fastest while avoiding penalties. It wouldnt be exactly competitive in the traditional sense since the core of it wouldnt be to kill eachother.

Seth Carter:
Dragons Dogma. It had to have been intended to be co-op at some point, cause there's whole skills that only would ever work with human partners (the AI doesn't even try and use launching abilities for instance). Don't know if they cut it out because they couldn't make it work or someone honestly thought the pawn junk was better, but it was definitely lacking for it.

This too, Dragon's Dogma has so much going on for co-op. The AI just cant keep up and the combat really begs for them to use their abilities and items in ways that they cant use.

So, I don't mean a busskill here, but does noone realize how much fallout and elder scrolls would have to be changed to allow for drop in co op much less full co op. Both series have items and perks that slow time for pete's sake and you are practically op in them already. Like balance would change the series and I rather die at this point then see fallout diluted further to be farcry with convos. Live action stat based rpgs are fucking tough to make co op and often lose what makes them special when they do get it. I always like fallout for what it could do in a single player experience anyway :I

josemlopes:
Its not hard to think of how to make it work, basicly the host creates the server with the stuff that the server needs, then the player joining downloads all the content needed, all of it directly provided by the server.

You suggest I'm mistaken and then prove my exact point. I'll give an example that will sum the entire thing up in a nutshell: Skyrim player A owns Dragonborn DLC and goes to Solstheim. Player B does not own the DLC. How can player B join player A if he does not have the island in his client? And that is with the official DLC as an example, and TESV has tens of thousands of player created mods adding new zones, weapons, armours, quests, audio, NPCs, spells and more, not to mention even just making alterations to vanilla values and mechanics. Short of having an identical game client, coop will be highly fraught. Not to mention that there is no place in the story or writing for a second Dragonborn...in fact, it would utterly undermine the player, who's found to be Skyrim's only hope against Alduin, except for his smoking hot SevenBase also-Dragonborn friend standing next to him.

The Skyrim game and story could not stand to have a second player, and would in fact be significantly worse for trying to do so. GTAV is a perfect example of adding in more players to this sort of game, since it is a sandbox game with both a SP and Online mode. In SP, you can make billions of dollars, mod the hell out of it with Iron Man suits and floating homes, you can complete a story driven campaign at your pace and some things change around the map as you progress. In MP, making money is hugely restricted, any mods/cheats are bannable offences, the map never changes at all and there is little to no story or character development. Look at Elder Scrolls Online to see precisely what Skyrim would be like with more than one player in it.

Skyrim/Fallout would be worse with another player by design. If it supported coop out of the door, the story would inevitably have to be less epic/personal by dint of having to accommodate either two/multiple "Special Ones" or none at all. As for challenge, either it would have to have some scaling thing (like Borderlands 2), or simply be easier (like Dark Souls). Mods couldn't work to the extent they do. One player cannot both be the centre of a vibrant, reactionary world customised to their liking as well as the driving force behind an epic and/or personal story, and stand next to another player.

Divinity: Original Sin wrote in two protagonists specifically as part of the story. It's somewhat moddable, but not to the extent of Bethesda games. Baldur's Gate II/NWN, old-BW games were both extensively moddable and told epic stories, tho client-players played no role in the story, only in combat/exploration. There is joy to be had in playing coop with friends, no question there, but some games are simply better left as SP.

KingsGambit:

josemlopes:
Its not hard to think of how to make it work, basicly the host creates the server with the stuff that the server needs, then the player joining downloads all the content needed, all of it directly provided by the server.

You suggest I'm mistaken and then prove my exact point. I'll give an example that will sum the entire thing up in a nutshell: Skyrim player A owns Dragonborn DLC and goes to Solstheim. Player B does not own the DLC. How can player B join player A if he does not have the island in his client?

Most of coop games have DLC content and that in no way limits the coop, I dont know if you noticed but if the game has multiplayer DLC then you probably already have it installed even if you didnt bought it to enable compatibility between players. Take Battlefield for example, whenever a DLC came out with new weapons everyone had to download it even if they didnt own it.

And then in your example you get how it was with Borderlands and plenty of other games, if one of the players doesnt own it then he doesnt play it, simple as that, they can still access the rest of the game and the player that does own it can bring stuff from the DLC since both have it installed.

But that doesnt have anything to do with mods, games with coop work with DLC, its not an unproved concept, its not like saying that Mount and Blade doesnt work in coop, now that is an unproved concept that so far no one really managed a solution.

For your other part of the post, regarding actual mods, just look at Garrys Mod and how it handles its mods. That works just fine.

And for the rest about story in Skyrim... well... like someone said before "When Story Trumps Gameplay!", they could make the story more open for two heroes or simply have the coop as an option for people that arent bothered by having two Dragonborns (in Skyrim example).

Halo 3 let you play with 4 players, one would even use a character that would be somewhere completely different in the story, when a cutscene showed up only Master Chief existed. Same with Saints Row where only the player character appears in cutscenes. Some people just wanna have fun and dont care if it makes sense in the story.

But yeah, my original post was more about coop and modding, and how they werent that exclusive, the story part is more subjective and I can see how it can be a big no-no for some people. Me personally I prefer to have options so I would be cool with a coop option. I could still play solo whenever I wanted.

Five Nights at Freddy's. I guess it wouldn't be co-op though because what I have in mind is you have one player acting as the night-watch person and the other acting as a malevolent spirit controlling the animatronics.

Again if you don't care about story, why play fallout or elder scrolls. These are lore rich universes. Not lol random throwaway story nothing really matters. Story is what makes them special. When people say who cares bout them in these games, I can't help but roll my eyes at them "About 99 percent of the player base"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here