WHAT THE FUCK!

WHAT THE FUCK!
How is it even possible that the genre "3D coop open world RPG" still diesn't FUCKING EXIST.
This is such a ridiculous gap in the market that I can't believe it.
When you try to find this stuff you get suggestions that are:
- MMOs
- FUCKING action RPGs
- party top-down RPGs (for example Baldurs Gate, this is the closest you can get)
- 2D top down pixelart indieshit
- dedicated linear coop campaigns (Two Worlds II)
etc.
It's unbelievable. I just want to walk around with one friend in a fantasy world and do some RPG stuff. That's all I fucking want.
There have been multiplayer mod (attempts) for the last three TES games and the industry still doesn't seem to get it.
It can't be that hard to make a game of Risen's standards with a fucking 2 (two) player coop.
I looked up if there were any multiplayer mods for this game and read some guy saying that would be stupid, people should just play WoW, like wtf WoW is something totally different...

I'm literally crying here. Fuck this industry

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qsymcEJdU70
youtube.com/watch?v=ndHMDfdpaxA
youtube.com/watch?v=efvUa_o8034
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>What is a large chunk of the Ps2 library
>What is every CRPG

OP I get your point but you're an idiot.

I said that cRPGs are not what I'm looking for.
yes, technically they are 3D coop open world RPGs but I thought it would come across that I'm referring to the stereotypical western RPG i.e. Witcher, TES etc.

Because its stupid, RPG's focus on story and immersion.
You and your little butt buddy goofing around together would ruin all of that, the same retards who wanted coop in horror games and completely ruined the horror genre.

Coop does not make everything better.

It's actually pretty technically challenging

Because your co-op partner plays a fighter and skips all dialogue.

fuck off you neo Sup Forums retard

not everything needs to be multiplayer

you'll learn this eventually once you get older and just want to spend some time alone which you'll never be able to do anymore

non-linear RPGs focus far more on immersion and freedom than story, and immersion works perfectly fine in coop.
When you've played through an RPG a multiplayer would be absolutely perfect. Saying the developers should focus on X is a stupid excuse.
Also saying the develope

This.

Open-world games are already very taxing on hardware if you want a render-distance beyond 10 meters. Adding another player means either a wider camera, or split-screen - both requiring much more to render.

Does Fable 2 count.

I always wondered about this myself, since i hate mmos for many reasons and i simply get bored of action rpgs where you always just run a pretty linear path and obliterate hordes of monsters, dont get me wrong they are pretty fun but hardly give u any freedom as an rpg.
Im looking forward to Outward but since its indie i dont have high hopes.

why won't you play tabletop games?
also
>if you didn't do all-dwarf team with bros in icewind dale you don't know shit about life

I remember playing this game sub 30fps just so I could get 720p

>having friends

its not hard they simply don't want to because your demographic is so small that it is not worth it

Could you please let me dream you sick fuck

>crpg

DUDE DICE LMAO

I'm glad the dice era is dead but on the other hand it's sad because nobody makes long and complicated RPGs anymore so now you're left with people giving dice genre games as suggestions as if they were even good before they became dated

>3D coop open world RPG

So MMOs??? You're fucking retarded, OP.

Well there seems to be a really high demand for a multiplayer mod for the current TES so i don't see how the demographic is that small

"RPG" means action game with loot now.

>massive
this word changes anything you idiot.
Don't tell me you can't see a difference between mmos and singleplayer RPGs except for the playercount

everything*

It would be difficult to sync physics for two players in a persistent world. What happens if one player keeps playing and then another player joins back later?

How's Risen anyway? It's generally liked here

Because the moment you bring in online features, you require the devs to add in proper netcode and a lot of singleplayer only devs don't know how to do that which is why a lot of online modes are done by a third party.

There's always a huge demand for online features. The issue is its not always cost efficient to add it in and make sure it works properly.

Two Worlds 2

Meh, you aren't wrong, but he's actually right too, a game like Dragon's Dogma should have had the coop option.

They aren't created for technical and cost reasons.

It is very complex to create a coop rpg open world game, and while it is plausible you then have to consider the extra cost in dev time and whether that would be worth it considering it probably wouldn't garner more sales as it's largely a gimmick.

Chill out op there's a ridiculous amount of vidya in the world, and contrary to what Sup Forums would like you to beleive a lot of it is pretty good. Just keep looking in different places and you'll eventually find what your looking for.
[Spoiler]Not quite my game but GTAV seems to be what your looking for[Spoiler]

There's a mod for Gothic II, Gothic multiplayer.

How's Skyrim MP?

That's like saying MMORPGs can't have story and immersion.

>What is online

>What is online
Even more technically challenging to pull off - how the hell would you synchronize player interactions with the world and characters, as well as handle quests and loot, without just using shallow MMO mechanics?

technically, this doesn't seem hard at all compared to shooters for me.
from a gameplay standpoint it shouldn't be too difficult too. Every player just has his own inventory and questlog. An item that soemone else picked is just not there for you. An NPC that is away in a dungeon with a player for a quest is simply not accessible.
If you don't design your multiplayer for more than a couple of playersthis isn#t an issue.

The same method of any other multiplayer? It's not challenging to check what quests players are on and provide that or do a join-based system on what mission they're both on, allowing some leniency between what they've finished and what lobbies are open.

Unique item drops per client is even fine. That's what D3 does IIRC.

I've actually noticed the same lack of these games as you have, OP. I looked for what felt like forever and received the same wrong recommendations you did. The sad truth of it is that the anons citing technical difficulties are right. Such a thing is just too hard to pull off well, and since it would likely be PC exclusive it wouldn't earn enough in sales to justify all the extra work

Some ways to help I think would be to limit the distance between players on the over-world, or by not letting players who aren't the "party leader" decide quests and make choices, which starts to defeat the purpose of what you're looking to create.

Are you fucking retarded? Please refrain from fucking posting about shit you know nothing about. Having 2 characters interact in a single world isn't taxing, you humongous fucking retard.

DaS MP is super popular. Your argument isn't valid.

No you are the retard.

Having two cameras means you essentially have to render everything twice. The graphics are going to be about 60% as good as one camera.

>3D
most MMORPGs
>coop
most MMORPGs
>open world
most MMORPGS
>RPG
MMORPGs

Your description sounds pretty terrible, because the genre you are asking for is basically WOW. You need to be a bit more specific if you want suggestions for something different, because right now you are asking "I want a WOW-like game" and then get upset when people suggest WOW-like games.

Yeah, and DaS isn't an rpg and the multiplayer is very limited.

All people wanted was coop skyrim, they gave us elder scrolls online instead.
How can one company be so stupid?

NWN, OP.

You missed its golden age, though it's still played fairly heavily online.

Avoid NWN2 it's really bad on a technical and design level, but the MotB single player campaign is fun storywise.

>coop

How would you make a meaningful story? You're basically asking for an MMO.

Does NWN still work online? I thought the death of Gamespy put an end to it?

He's clearly saying "I want to be able to play a game like Skyrim or The Witcher with another person"

How fucking hard is that to understand?

What?
A story doesn't always have to be about the main character being "the chosen one".
A lot of RPGs allow you to have companions, literally replace the AI companion with a real player and boom, you have a coop rpg.

All i want is nwn with prettier graphics. Keep mod support and the DM client and the module system. Is that so much to ASK for? Swordcoast legends doesnt count. It was shit and made in >unity.
Nwn2 was meh.

>two cameras
No one had been talking about two cameras, retard. OP was talking about 2 separate clients. Now, before you embarrass yourself even further, quickly, neck yourself.

It does. Geht the nwn client extension. It adds new master servers and fixes some bugs. All you habe to do is choose a nickname in multiplayer and put whatever into the password field.

He actually specifically described the game as non-MMO

Or can you not read?

So you want to play Elder Scrolls Online or some button mashing open world MMO like Black Desert

The fact that people can't seem to understand what OP is describing despite his very specific list is absurd. This whole thread has been people suggesting games that fall into his "close but not what I want" list.

>So you want an MMO
>No he said no MMOs
>Ok so how about these MMOs

kys

There's that one co-op open world RPG that was released like 4 times and was kind of garbage but kind of not.

>He's clearly saying "I want to be able to play a game like Skyrim or The Witcher with another person"
Ah, well that is clearly easier to answer.

The first reason is that doing so would be incredibly resource-intensive. There is a reason that WOW had such blocky and ugly models for the longest time, even when other games were getting more complex and better looking. It takes time to transmit data over the internet, and so the less data needing to transmit and simpler the combat, the easier it is all to do. Having a complex interaction with weapon swings and timing and character models is a lot more difficulty than just displaying a swing animation and running a hit-program to determine damage, which is why these online games did the latter. It's also why Skyrim and Witcher aren't online games: they would need to be "dumbed down" in combat to function within reason for an online interaction. Otherwise, lag or simple internet speeds would de-sync the game on each players' end, causing it to either become terribly buggy or just not display properly.

As for couch multiplayer, the reason that hasn't happened should be obvious. If you have a behind-the-shoulder view, then that can only apply to one character at a time. Such a game could run split-screen, I suppose, but split-screen has been massively unpopular these days because "everyone" wants visuals on their full-screen HD TVs rather than dividing that up into smaller segments.

I'll leave it up to you to decide if the "everyone" means the consumers or just the game developers.

I remember Fable 2 having multiplayer but I think you were restricted to the same screen, so it kind of made the camera top down. And it was dull.

>As for couch multiplayer, the reason that hasn't happened should be obvious. If you have a behind-the-shoulder view, then that can only apply to one character at a time.
What?

It had online co-op.

>You
>MMO

Why are you replying if you aren't going to read?

Are you fucking retarded?

After looking up Outward, the game mentioned by this user It looks like its precisely the game that OP is looking for, but it also looks like it'll be shit. But if 6 Canadians can make it, then it isn't impossible. Maybe if it does well enough a dev with a bigger team and more experience will look to make a similar game.

Battle time mod for mount and blade warband

>OP was talking about 2 separate clients
No, OP just asked for open-world co-op, there was no mention of online.

Look at this screenshot. If you were playing as the not-Geralt character, what would you be seeing on the screen? That's right, you'd be seeing a heck of a lot less, because the camera is stuck behind Geralt's shoulder and so 2P needs to wander off ahead, not being able to see anything from their perspective and not even in control of the camera to rotate to a better position.

And heaven forbid that you might be the 3P who is wandering around somewhere behind Geralt, who isn't even on screen.

>b-but you can just pull the camera back to see everyone!
Then you have the party top-down RPG that OP was complaining about as well. In other words, OP doesn't know what he wants, and it just bitching that some magical do-everything contradiction doesn't exist.

Little wonder that nobody cares what OP thinks.

a typical 3rd person camera angle won't work for two players without splitscreen

You're trying to pretend as if he's talking about splitscreen-less splitscreen, and even couch coop games don't often do that. They either split the screen or zoom out the camera.

Please stop pretending to be functionally inept.

In other words, see

Coop usually means online coop now, nobody plays pc splitscreen anymore

reddit

how is ESO not a 3d coop open world RPG?

How is Xenosaga not a 3d coop open world rpg?

How is Two Worlds 2 not a 3d coop open world rpg?

Gonna have to explain this shit first, I don't know what your fucking standards are

youtube.com/watch?v=qsymcEJdU70

OpenMW multiplayer looks promising.

ESO? Elder Scrolls Online? If so, it's an MMO and thus not "immersive" or "persistent" like you'd expect from the game OP is looking for

Don't know Xenosaga

Two Worlds 1 and 2 multiplayer is not open world.

Then go back to my original statement here about the problems surrounding a highly complex combat system and internet lag.

I just said that zooming out the camera is something OP doesn't want, so of course you bring up that you can zoom out the camera. Of course.

Split screen would be better, but as I already pointed out, somebody is vehemently against the idea of split screen on their HD TVs for whatever reason. Also against the idea of couch multiplayer.

Why would you NOT have it split-screen, though? I mean, hell, LEGO games and LBP are the only things I can think of off the top of my head that did the shared-screen thing, and even the recent LEGO games have a shared screen when the players are close together which splits into two screens dynamically based on the players' locations relevant to each other.

I don't think any developer would for a second consider having an exclusively shared screen over a split-screen for an open world co-op game. How split-screen affects graphical fidelity is up for debate and I won't get into it since I lack the knowledge.

Divinity Original Sin

To add onto this, OP is basically looking for a co-op Skyrim or The Witcher 3. Just take those same games and add a second player character to it, and you'll have what he's describing

divinity OS

>OP lists party top-down RPGs as something he's not looking for
>people suggest Divinity OS

Good job

modern devs hate splitscreen

It's not out yet but consider checking out Of Kings and Men to see if that may be what you're looking for.

There are already online games with deep combat and without problematic latency, specifically the Souls series, although not the best example for decent netcode. Another would've been Rise of Incarnates (though not an RPG).

Splitscreen is shitty because it splits the screen. We're specifically talking about online because not everybody has buddies at their house 24/7, so the camera point is moot.

It's called an MMO your dickwizard.

>ctrl f Divinity
>ctrl f divOS
>0 results
Fucking really? It's a solid 2 player RPG. For istance you can actually argue with the other player in game over choices, if there's a controversy over the course of action to be taken, you'll resolve it via a RPS-like mechanic

I'll agree it's a bit tedious in the beginning, you should give it a try though

The phone posting has to be real.

many online games have combat without watering it down to mmo skills such as gta online and chivalry

You are retarded and can't even use ctrl f.

Didn't read, just came here to say risen is really shit don't play it

Seek help user, you may have brain damage. We're worried about you.

Here, rpg, 3rd person view, coop, everything you need.

It's shit.

This thread is possibly the worst case of "DIDN'T READ LOL" i've seen in a while.

well the closest thing i can think of is dragons dogma online, its an mmo yeah but the combat is still action based and not the standard boring MMO style combat and it doesnt have the whole place is filled with people things that MMOs usually do, it's either you solo (or with pawns) or 4 players in an area exploring, killing shit, doing and sharing quests, looting etc.

I know.

fuck off, I loved it

OP here
youtube.com/watch?v=ndHMDfdpaxA
This is a promising game. It will be Open World, actually looks really good (the video is outdated) and is supposed to have multiplayer.
Unfortunately it's early access and multiplayer will take years until it's there.

looks like hot shit m8, this is unacceptable in 2016+, if this is what you want then you have shit taste, i've played risen and i liked it but i dont want to play a clunky mess.

>game doesn't implement netcode from the get go
>We'll have multiplayer later!

It won't have multiplayer. Learned this shit from State of Decay. It's just what they tell you until later down the line when they say "Well we tried to do multiplayer, but our engine couldn't support it. Maybe for the sequel if enough of you retards buy our game!"

>tfw no Jedis Online
Still playing Battlefront II on Gameranger.

I said that video is outdated
youtube.com/watch?v=efvUa_o8034
It looks really fucking solid. a little bland but sharp and interesting enough.
yea. Tto be honest, I don't think this will ever properly happen too