Indie More TB RPGs should have coop like DOS2

[cretin]

Someone on here posted something to the effect of "the idea of coop rpgs is like trying two people trying to read the same book at the same time" I wouldve agreed with that notion until I played divinity original sin 2 in coop with my friend. I had originally bought DOS2, played about 40 minutes of it and was so utterly disinterested i didnt touch it again for 2 years. I've now got 53 hours in it thanks to coop and still want to play more. It elevated the game markedly, and it works just fine thanks largely to clever implementation by Larian.

Obviously, one can very easily imagine the experience of an RPG being ruined by playing with a certain kind of player, and i wouldnt dare play this game with randoms or retards, but otherwise in my estimation it has captured the spirit of tabletop/pnp gaming. It was a hell of a lot of fun playing the rogue foil to my friend's goody two shoes mage, getting us into trouble as much as he tried to steer us around it.

 

[NJClaw]

I've nothing against games that are fun if played in coop with a friend, but that shouldn't be an excuse to have a shitty singleplayer experience.

You can't give the player the worst writing ever and expect everything to be fine only because he will laugh about it with a friend.

 

[Q]

I played both DOS with my wife on the hardest difficulties and it was really fun.

 

[JarlFrank]

Who the fuck cares about co-op.

Give me PvP modes instead so I can have challenging fights with my lads, instead of roflstomping the AI together.

 

[cretin]

I've nothing against games that are fun if played in coop with a friend, but that shouldn't be an excuse to have a shitty singleplayer experience.

You can't give the player the worst writing ever and expect everything to be fine only because he will laugh about it with a friend.

I really dont care about the quality of the writing in DOS2 or whether its shit singleplayer (it is); thats not the point here. The point here is that cooperative/multiplayer CAN work in RPGs, particularly turn based rpgs, something that has rarely been done just because RPGs are historically seen as a singleplayer genre, which given its origins in PnP gaming, is quite odd. But it is also a side effect of limitations from when high speed internet was not ubiquitous, these days it is trivial to get 2 or more people together for a game.

 

[Radech]

Completely agree, I've completed dos1 and dos2 two or three times in multiplayer, but the singleplayer never got me. Granted we played it more like a diablo clone than an rpg and I know a lot more about spell effect stacking, than lore or quests which we had a more utilitarian approach to (mainly yelling "loreguy do lorestuff" and "pyramid to me I found a fight" on teamspeak). I made sure to go barter on my char so I could "optimize" our loot(though our main expense were ress scrolls), not my fault they all went range and I was stuck with trying to make a fighter/rogue do all the tanking : P



I tried to get them into Icewind Dale/Neverwinter Nights but rtwp is just retarded for multiplayer and the whole, combo spells/barrels for big boom, was a big part of the draw for DOS. Turnbased mode also meant that we spent most of our time discussing how to cheese overlevelled encounters and then watching it all go brilliantly or hilariously wrong.

 

[JarlFrank]

I've nothing against games that are fun if played in coop with a friend, but that shouldn't be an excuse to have a shitty singleplayer experience.

You can't give the player the worst writing ever and expect everything to be fine only because he will laugh about it with a friend.

I really dont care about the quality of the writing in DOS2 or whether its shit singleplayer (it is); thats not the point here. The point here is that cooperative/multiplayer CAN work in RPGs, particularly turn based rpgs, something that has rarely been done just because RPGs are historically seen as a singleplayer genre, which given its origins in PnP gaming, is quite odd. But it is also a side effect of limitations from when high speed internet was not ubiquitous, these days it is trivial to get 2 or more people together for a game.

I like to play CRPGs alone and wouldn't want them focusing on the multiplayer experience, forcing me to find other people to enjoy them. When I want to play with others I go for tabletop D&D (which also works online thanks to roll20). When I buy a computer game I want a good single player experience. Multiplayer is just a bonus.

Maybe it's easy enough these days to connect with others for a game, but maybe nobody else is online at 3 AM on a Monday night when I have the cravings for some CRPG goodness. And maybe 20 years from now nobody would want to play that old-ass game with me even though I wanna go for it.

Fuck that shit, make a good single player experience first and foremost, tack on a multiplayer mode if you want to but if it's to the detriment of the SP campaign, the game would be better off without it.

 

[BarbequeMasta]

Coop is one of the major reasons to how shitty DOS1/2 are as single player games(besides Larian simply sucking), so no thank you.
A game should decide to be COOP or singleplayer focused and do it good.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

I don't mind if you want to have co-op in RPG.

But don't do the Single Player half-assed like DOS did. In trying to have narrative that works for all players the storytelling in SP suffers.

 

[Anonona]

While D:OS 1 did suffer from having two main characters and stupid mechanics like the "rock, paper, scissor" mini-game which hurt the single player experience, I don't see how the same can be said about D:OS 2. I'll even say that in certain respects D:OS2 is better played alone, as it allows you an easier time controlling your party. The only exception will be that by playing alone you miss the PvP aspect of the campaign (the arena fights and certain plot moments). Hell, you can solo the game with a single character using the Lone Wolf trait and some good building. I think D:OS 2 issues are actually unrelated to the multiplayer aspect itself. Change the writing, the itemization and the armor system and those will fix the worst aspects of the game, regardless of being multiplayer or not.

Give me PvP modes instead so I can have challenging fights with my lads, instead of roflstomping the AI together.

D:OS 2 has a PvP mode and you can (and probably will have to) fight against your party on the main Campaign.

 

[Salvo]

I played both DOS with my wife on the hardest difficulties and it was really fun.

I also played DOS with your wife

 

[Quillon]

I wouldn't have minded DOS games having co-op if it didn't leak into single player, that we have to make dialogue choices for companions. They should be their own persons at least in dialogue ffs. We'll see this in BG3 also, it is just unforgivable laziness/carelessness imo.

 

[Excommunicator]

The resources required for a good Co-op system are significant and in no way do they overlap with the resources required to deliver a good singleplayer experience - good locations, encounters, quests, etc.

So it's a no from me

 

[Silly Germans]

Wasn't there an option so you couldn't pick the answers of your companions ?

 

[Anonona]

Wasn't there an option so you couldn't pick the answers of your companions ?

I think in D:OS 2 at least there are multiple options where companions intercede by their own volition, and you have to option to let them speak. They make their own choices and this advance their missions, sometimes they can fuck you or help you. For example, in act 1 Sebille the elf will murder an NPC that plays a certain role in one quest there, so you have to seek another solution, or the Dwarf will convince other dwarf to help you out at multiple times. This only happens if they are picked as companions. If you are playing as them, then you get to play those interactions yourself, but are able to make other choices. I may be remembering wrong how it worked, but I think that was it.

 

[Quillon]

Wasn't there an option so you couldn't pick the answers of your companions ?

I think in D:OS 2 at least there are multiple options where companions intercede by their own volition, and you have to option to let them speak. They make their own choices and this advance their missions, sometimes they can fuck you or help you. For example, in act 1 Sebille the elf will murder an NPC that plays a certain role in one quest there, so you have to seek another solution, or the Dwarf will convince other dwarf to help you out at multiple times. This only happens if they are picked as companions. If you are playing as them, then you get to play those interactions yourself, but are able to make other choices. I may be remembering wrong how it worked, but I think that was it.

Nope, they go in convos themselves but they don't choose anything, you have to. f.i. I was clearing the beach with 4 man party and I noticed only 3 of us was in the fight while the 4th initiated and stuck in convo down the beach waiting for me to choose what to say.

 

[Anonona]

Nope, they go in convos themselves but they don't choose anything, you have to. f.i. I was clearing the beach with 4 man party and I noticed only 3 of us was in the fight while the 4th initiated and stuck in convo down the beach waiting for me to choose what to say.

I was talking about certain moments in the game where the companions ask you to let them speak, which are usually important moments of their personal quests. You can also speak with them an improve your relation with the characters. Being able to use the companion in regular conversations was indeed made for Coop, but it also has a nice side-effect or letting you make any party member the "face" of the party, so you can made your own character whatever you want. They also have unique dialogue options and comment on situations just like regular companions. But I can see what you are saying, it can cheapen the feeling of role playing your own character in a way.