What's the point in keeping co-op separate from main campaigns?

[DeliveryGodNoah_v1legacy]

So Watch Dogs 2 on PC came out earlier, and I was admittedly a bit excited to get my hands on it. So far, it runs a hell of a lot better than the first game did, it looks much nicer, and I like the characters far more even if it is a little pandering.

But I was mostly curious about its implementation of Co-op. Ever since the game was announced, Co-op and seamless multiplayer was a big deal to Ubisoft when marketing the game, that you can connect with anyone "seamlessly" and do just about anything together. "Missions" being the one that caught my attention the most. I thought, "Awesome! I can play through a 20+ hour story campaign with my brother and pretend we know anything about hacking at all!"

We were both very disappointed. The multiplayer is very much still "there", but co-op is designated to simply co-op specific missions only, and free roam.

Now, I do sort of get it. The campaign missions weren't necessarily hand tailored to more than one player, with the exception of the aforementioned co-op specific ones, but even still, if you took the time to implement fully compatible multiplayer anyway, would it really hurt to make it so you can experience the story together?

You can argue that it technically wouldn't be as polished as the co-op specific missions, but it's still another way to enjoy and play the game. I love co-op campaigns, even shitty ones.

Perhaps I've answered my own question, but I still feel like it should have otherwise been a feature. Cutscenes don't have to feature the second player, I know of many multiplayer games that have the co-op player completely absent from cutscenes (Dead Rising 2 for example) and still functions just as well.

 

[Saelune]

Well, it can be neat to have a co-op mode that is seperate and canon, that deals with the game different than a solo person would. I think some Splinter-Cell games did that, but Im not sure.

Though I liked what Dead Rising 3 did, which was have a guy who, if you play alone, seems kinda just there...but if you play co-op, he is the co-op guy. That was neat.

And Far Cry 4 also did that, with a guy who shows up and is like, "Hey, need help? Im your man!" who again, is a co-op partner who can canonically be placed in the game basically anytime.

 

[Frezzato]

Look up the Saints Row series if you haven't already. I've never played the first one, but I've gone through 2, 3 and 4 with my friend from beginning to end, and it was amazing, especially when we realized the other player simply takes over a placeholder character that was inserted into the single-player mode.

 

[sXeth]

Yeah, Ubisoft did the same thing in Far Cry 4, and it was weird there too. Co-op could only do specific side activities or free roam stuff. In Watch_Dogs 2 at least they can join in on any PvP stuff that occurs in your world too (though you can't do an active search to invade someone else and bring your buddy along, weirdly).

I could see if there was some tight balanced missions or cinematic stuff (Like the Cyber-driver joyride). But the missions really are kind of open-format, and having the co-op partner there wouldn't really strip much from them (based on my experience with Co-op randoms, it'd probably be harder because people either don't bother or are terrible at staying out of sight).

Speaking of invasions, Dark Souls 3 had bunch of weird spots too, where they just arbitrarily decided "Nope, no multiplayer here". That seemingly had no real logic to them, they weren't optional areas, or bosses, or some special loot section.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I think the reason some games opt for a separate co-op campaign is simply to make for a more easily immersive narrative experience. Whether one choose to play alone or with a friend(s), most narratives require a specific perspective from which any single player experiences them; I imagine it?s difficult to write a compelling, interactive narrative wherein multiple protagonists are all equal focal points. You either go Gears of War style where in co-op, a friend is little more than support in lieu of A.I., or you deprioritize protagonists? identity altogether (ala Borderlands) giving the perspective(s) of the narrative a modular quality wherein you can plug in any combination of one to four players for a series of point-to-point fetch quests. Both work just fine, just depends on the dev?s focus and intention.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Separating coop from SP is absolutely a valid thing and can and should vary by game. There are two reasons that I imagine will dictate whether or not they should be separate: mechanics and narrative. Addressing narrative first, if the story demands choice (like Mass Effect), the player is some sort of chosen-one/hero (Elder Scrolls), the story is a personal one (Splinter Cell: Conviction) or the like, having a second player there makes no story sense. An example from SWTOR.

In the SWTOR MMOG, players have story missions/class quests that usually take place in instanced areas. If two friends of the same class team up and both have the same story mission, the first player will enter the instance and the second will be presented with a choice: enter their own instance or join their friend's. Joining their friend they will be able to participate in fights but during cutscenes and conversations will be passive observers only. This works in an MMO but how would work as an offline solution? If two friends wished to play a coop RPG together, who should make decisions?

Mechanically, there are some very obvious issues. If a level is designed to be a challenge for 1 player, then what happens when a 2nd joins? In terms of combat, say there is one enemy at the start of a map and it takes two shots to kill them. Now with 1 player, they need to shoot them twice. When a second player joins, should they each get one shot? If one player kills the enemy, then there's nothing for the other player to do. Maybe you could double the enemy health so it takes four shots to kill. Or place a second, standard health enemy (one per player). There are issues with balancing, AI, the intended experience that *must* inform game design in early development to account for SP or coop.

A tightly scripted, finely balanced SP campaign would more often than not simply not work with a 2nd player. It's not easy to construct a story that two players can both have agency in. Further, unless some thought is given to "scaling" difficulty up for more players, having two players in a map designed for 1 would remove a great deal of challenge.

Having "seamless"/drop in/out coop can work in many games but for others, it may be better to separate them or, in many cases make a better SP focused campaign. It also raises the question of where development resources get spent, since unless the game has a very high budget, hours spent developing one feature are hours not spent developing the other. Some interesting models to consider:

- Divinity: Original Sin - Built from the start to have two protagonists, controlled by one or two players, the game caters for SP and coop out of the gate. Challenge, gameplay and mechanics all cater to playing both ways.
- Shadow Warrior 2 - Player models on screen are generic multiplayer models, but all players are Wang in cutscenes, tho only the host initiates and turns in quests. Mechanically, enemies scale in both HP and numbers based on number of players and difficulty settings.
- Splinter Cell: Conviction - An entirely separate 8-10 hour campaign with new mechanics especially for two players. Can only be played by two players.
- Dark Souls 1-3 - Players can, with considerable hassle and frequent difficulty, join a friend or other players, in groups of up to 4. The world doesn't change mechanically, so the net effect is that fights are generally easier. Boss fights in particular are radically different simply because the bosses can only usually focus on one player at a time, leaving the other free to attack.
- Borderlands 1-2 - Enemies scale in difficulty and numbers. The game allows two 2-person vehicles to exist. Anyone can hand in quests.

There are a lot of different ways of handling coop functionality in games and a lot of reasons for the different methods. They will vary by game and by story and consideration must be made for what experience is intended for the players early on. It isn't as simple as just allowing drop-in to an otherwise SP campaign.

 

[Recusant]

I think the reason some games opt for a separate co-op campaign is simply to make for a more easily immersive narrative experience. Whether one choose to play alone or with a friend(s), most narratives require a specific perspective from which any single player experiences them; I imagine it?s difficult to write a compelling, interactive narrative wherein multiple protagonists are all equal focal points. You either go Gears of War style where in co-op, a friend is little more than support in lieu of A.I., or you deprioritize protagonists? identity altogether (ala Borderlands) giving the perspective(s) of the narrative a modular quality wherein you can plug in any combination of one to four players for a series of point-to-point fetch quests. Both work just fine, just depends on the dev?s focus and intention.

Bingo. And that goes double when you're talking about creating an atmosphere; System Shock 2 wouldn't've worked nearly as well if it had been intended for multiplayer. Now, the multiplayer in that game was actually quite fun, but atmospherically, it was enormous different and lacked the punch of the single-player experience- and that's saying something, considering the campaign was exactly the same.

 

[DeliveryGodNoah_v1legacy]

I kinda have a feeling The Last of Us 2 could be a great Co-op experience if they choose to implement it as such. The first one could have been amazing to play that way. The single player could still have the companion AI for TLoU 2, but just think of how much more dynamic it would play out if the other person was real too.

The biggest challenge would be keeping the narrative flowing at key points, which would require that both players are at least readily consonant. It could be done, but would require elaborate checkpoint / waypoint systems along with some pretty in depth dialog branches. As long as they don't muck up the immersive aesthetics with hovering username icons and voice chat.