I am sorry but at some point you have to make dissections on what is important to the game and co-op is one of the least important thing in a game like Dragon Age. If you want co-op RPGs then you should be looking at games like Diablo or Sacred where the focus is more on fast paced combat action. Those games work because the story is not central to the experience and there fore it makes no difference if you co-op with one person one day and another the next day, but with a game like Dragon Age where the story told is said to be tailored to the player what happens when the players keep getting swapped all the time?

Bioware would either have to make the second player nothing more than a bit player following the "main" player as he/she goes through the game (who wants to do that?) or change the story so that neither are too closely intertwined with it (which I would say is taking something from the story).

The problem with that idea is that of balance. What happens if the players are of different levels, at different stages of the game, have made different decisions? It is not a simple matter of swapping your single player NPCs for another player. I mean would you want to jump into your friends game and play as one of his npcs, which you have had no hand in building and at the end of the session have nothing to show for it (it is his gameworld after all)? How much freedom should a person visiting your world have over it? Should he be able to take independent action or make decisions that could ruin or change your gameworld?

So you are left with a couple of options,

1) Create a world where the action of the gamer does not really change the world (like MMOs and action RPGs)

2) Make it so that a multi-player game can only continue with all the members present (which means you are at the mercy of all your friends timetable)

3) Each gamer creates his own world which he can play single player and have friends pop in to play as one of his npc temporarily (which could end up being unsatisfactory for the main player or the "visitor" because one is having a stranger play with his "toys" and the other knows he will get very little reward from spending time in this world)

4) Create a single player game focused on telling a story with your main character playing a major role.

They opted for option 4 and I have to say they made the right choice. Games like tabletop D&D work because you have the reliability of friends who are willing to set the time to meet and play (Option 2), and that kind of thing is going to be hard to manage for a computer game (especially when you can have people in different timezones). As for D&D books that is an odd argument to make. By that reasoning could not Dragon Age still be considered Co-Op since your character is still adventuring with companions, it is just that they are all controlled by one person much in the same way that all the characters in a book are controlled by the author.

Philmon

The only developers limited to those few options are being held down by their own lack of imagination.

You severely underestimate today's technology if you think that is all that's possible.

Ok, sorry. Computer rpg's should not have coop involving humans. It will detract from the interactivity with the enviroment and the story simply because there's more people involved in calling the shots. Everyone will have to follow the same path for coop to work or there will be little to no choice to be had in the first place.

The rise of the mp gamer has caused the decline of games where choice and influence over the world is involved because it's nigh impossible to create a game where people choose different paths yet still cooperate towards the common goal but that's understandable. People want to make money, so they cater to their audience. However, don't be so naive as to think the way things are now, are the way they have always been.

No crpg has ever included coop the way tabletop DnD did because there's a vast difference between a human gamemaster and an AI gamermaster.

Filthybastrd

I am confused as to why you think computer RPG's should have a separate exception that limits their options...? As a system, computers are the most flexible and customizable (which makes up for their occasional epic failings, in my opinion). Really, they have exceptions that make them the favoured system to host the game I am envisioning.

But anyway...

Just because it has not been done before doesn't make it impossible.

Why can there not be, for instance, a co-op game where each of the players control their own story-arc within the overall thread of the main story?

It's hard to explain how I think this could all work here, I'd have to write a gods-damned essay on it, but the basics are easy enough to grasp.

Each of the players' story arcs crosses over continuously in different ways. If, through choices in the game, my friend chooses to be a "good-guy" and I choose to be a "bad-guy" as the main story progresses, why can't we actually fight against each other in different scenarios?

Alternatively, if we both decide to be "good-guys" we would probably spend most of the time playing side by side... or perhaps not. What if the main story line causes us to make a decision... should we split up to try and save two different towns (for example), or should we stick together and decide which town is more important?

If we choose to split up, each of us would be faced with yet more choices that not only affect my character, the town and NPCs in it, but also alter the outcome of the main story line.

It's not impossible to fathom, it's just quite difficult to design.

It would have to be a very different type of game, where friends are playing in the same game at the same time, but not necessarily in the same area at the same time. Something with the permanence of an MMO (but no where near the number of players of course), mixed with the flexible and changing world of a common, single-player RPG.

And within that happy medium a spectacular game awaits.

( PS: I'm not attacking anyone personally, Filthybastrd, so please don't take offense, think I'm picking on you, or otherwise being a troll. I can respect people who have different playing preferences... But I just had to point out that just because great co-op is hard to design, it should not be thrown out completely. That kind of thinking is to blame for the glut of half-assed, poorly developed, and completely forgettable games in recent years. )

Coop would make me not buy this game. Sure add it to racing, shooters, "horror", action, adventure but leave the bloody rpg's alone!

It does sacrifice the story.

Filthybastrd

You may or may not realize that the veritable birth of today's video game RPG's was the Dungeons & Dragons table top game. Even with the most rudimentary understanding of how D&D works you can figure out that it was all about playing with (or against) friends (aka multiplayer).

Going even further back, the inspiration for D&D drew heavily on previous works of fiction, mostly in the form of fantasy novels... These novels almost exclusively involved the protagonist co-operating with at least one companion (more often a group) to complete their given quest.

With that being said I can now move on to my point, which is to correct a common misconception (portrayed in the above quoted statement); NO ONE IS "ADDING" CO-OP TO RPG'S. CO-OP HAS BEEN STEADILY PHASED OUT OF THEM. CO-OP IS HOW THEY BEGAN, AND IS, CLASSICALLY, HOW THEY SHOULD BE.

Now, if you don't like co-op, that's FINE. It doesn't make you any less of a person or bear any kind of penalty or "badness". As I said before, it's a different play-style, and I can always respect that. There will continue to be single player RPG's made, and I am glad for that, because there are people who enjoy them.

I just can't abide when people say RPG's should not have co-op "because it makes them bad" or "takes away from the story". RPG games, almost without exception, throw a myriad of NPC's at you to join your party. You ARE co-operating with them. You ARE playing co-op... except with an NPC, and not a friend.

What is needed is some visionary developer to create a game that seamlessly incorporates your actual friends into your group as if they were meant to be there, like the easily scripted, controlled, and comparably dull NPC.

Difficult? Very much so. Impossible? Absolutely not. Worth the time? Only if you like making a lot of money and building an amazing reputation, not to mention an incredible game.

The rise of the casual gamer has caused the rise in single-player games, and that's understandable. People want to make money, so they cater to their audience. However, don't be so naive as to think the way things are now, are the way they have always been.

If you think you have to sacrifice in-depth story to have good co-op, then you've only played co-op games made by average, or sub-average, developers.

Some people love co-op, some people would rather play by themselves, it's just a difference in opinion. Neither side is right because there is no right or wrong here, just a different reason for enjoying a game.

However, a smart developer adds good, functional co-op to a game as an option, thus allowing both parties (solo-players and group-players) to purchase and enjoy their game.

That being said, based purely on a marketing standpoint, Bioware has misstepped in their decision to not have co-op.

And again, if you are going to toss out the opinion that you cannot, in anyway, have co-op and engaging game-play with an in-depth story... you have an utter lack of imagination, and that is why none of you are world-renowned game designers.

PS: Try to back up your "facts". Simply stating this game "needs co-op" or this game is "better off without co-op", without any kind of explanation or logical proof just makes you look like a braying jackass... and it also starts this banal exercise of half-hearted flaming.

I hear so much crap about Vista but along with this new computer I got Vista...and I've not had a single problem with it...playing Oblivion even higher then max settings (with mods), WoW runs perfect, FEAR, Dark Messiah runs amazing, and every other game on my shelf that I've bothered to install has worked with 0 problems.
The only small trouble I had with STALKER was that I had to update my graphics card driver (GEFORCE 8800 GTS) and that took 5 minutes with the automatic updater.

I guess I'm just lucky huh?

ZOMG UPDATEZ:
getting rifles with scopes makes the game even more fun!
That is all.

[QUOTE="PsychiKleftis"]

Been playing it for about 5 hours straight, and I definitely like it. The graphics are just fine (playing with everything maxed), I wouldn't even call them dated. Great atmospheric effects, think cool lightening and things like that. Great sound effects. The AI so far actually seems pretty believable...the human enemies are pretty good at flanking you unexpectedly and the weaker kind of animals definately favour flight over fight if you tag them a couple times. If you're looking for an open-ended FPS game I think this is it. I'm 100% happy with my purchase so far.
The complaints that I've seen have been largely that the game is actually too hard and I've had to remind more then a few of them they need to use the iron-sights (right click by default) to get any kind of ranged accuracy. This is NOT a run and gun game, you definately need to proceed through hostile areas carefully and try to get the drop on your enemies.

Oh, and just a personal note I really like how there are many different kinds of weapons, like automatics, pistols, shotguns, etc...most FPS games it's like...here's THE pistol, here's THE shotgun, here's THE machinegun kind of thing and it's kind of bland.

If all that sounds good to you, go pick it up ;)

Nerfing

I don't understand what you're trying to say to me...something about how I call the game straight? What...? I PLAYED the game for 5 hours straight...now it's actually more like 8...

Anyway. I wanted to reply to about 5 posts so I'll just sum up my reactions:
The AI does not shoot you through solid walls. They may shoot you through wood or cloth if they think you are there. This is called realism. They are trying to kill you.
If you get radiation poisoning you have to CURE IT. It simply does not just go away. This too, is called realism.
The AI is quite impressive and challenging. Your human advesaries attack and fall back behind cover, charge when you're shooting at someone else, and just generally try to outflank you. If you're constantly dying in this game then you REALLY need to go back to playing a simple run-and-gun type game (don't get me wrong, those are fun too). You must have an understanding of the simple concept of avoiding bullets using cover, firing back with controlled bursts, and flanking groups of enemies.
Also, to reinforce what I mentioned before the graphics are NOT outdated. The effects are some of the best I've seen in any game...from the gentle breeze that rustles the grass and creates small tornadoes of leaves in courtyards to a roaring wind that rips through the trees kicking up dust to lightening storms at night illuminating a battlefield that briefly betrays an enemies location...this game displays it's very long production time.

Personally I'm very happy with a challenging FPS game instead of the kind that I can rip through on the hardest difficulty in 6 hours the first time through.
So basically it comes down to: Can your computer run it, and, is a game this challenging something you want to play?

Been playing it for about 5 hours straight, and I definitely like it. The graphics are just fine (playing with everything maxed), I wouldn't even call them dated. Great atmospheric effects, think cool lightening and things like that. Great sound effects. The AI so far actually seems pretty believable...the human enemies are pretty good at flanking you unexpectedly and the weaker kind of animals definately favour flight over fight if you tag them a couple times. If you're looking for an open-ended FPS game I think this is it. I'm 100% happy with my purchase so far.
The complaints that I've seen have been largely that the game is actually too hard and I've had to remind more then a few of them they need to use the iron-sights (right click by default) to get any kind of ranged accuracy. This is NOT a run and gun game, you definately need to proceed through hostile areas carefully and try to get the drop on your enemies.

Oh, and just a personal note I really like how there are many different kinds of weapons, like automatics, pistols, shotguns, etc...most FPS games it's like...here's THE pistol, here's THE shotgun, here's THE machinegun kind of thing and it's kind of bland.

If all that sounds good to you, go pick it up ;)