The lack of multiplayer in RPGs

[Jasper Jeffs]

Yeah I know some RPGs are single player for a reason, but I can't help but feel that a lot of single player RPGs would function better if they were playable online in small persistent worlds of 100+ players, obviously the single player game would still exist also. Take Skyrim for instance, there's no multiplayer whatsoever and yet the game lends itself so well to the implementation of it. I wouldn't want an MMO Skyrim, but something like San Andreas Multiplayer, where one server typically hosts a few hundred people and property like houses, cars and businesses can be bought by players as well as robbed by other players/factions and protected by the police.

How would that work with Skyrim? Maybe players could work as jobs that exist in the single player, jobs could vary from that of a woodcutter/miner to an Imperial/Stormcloak or maybe even a member of a player ran secret society such as the Dark Brootherhood. Bounties could be given to players that break the law and collected by hunters. Gear could be sold/traded to other human players/player owned shops. Players could invest in businesses and buy houses/farms/villages across the map. Dungeons could be ran together. The Imperials/Stormcloaks could actually invade each other, and so on. Bethesda games in general always fall flat on the persistent world front for me; everything is always too static, it could be so much more dynamic and their games could be so much more (imo) if the world was actually shared by players.

I've never seen any developers attempt at implementing small online worlds like that, some games really lend themselves to it. Would you prefer it if Skyrim was playable online like this?

 

[Vault101]

eh....I would rather not

it seems they all want to be MMO's...

better to put the focus where it matters

 

[SajuukKhar]

Skyrim DOESN'T lend itself to multiplayer at all.

Think about it, what happens when you take an AI companion anywere with you to fight something?

they always end up charging in nd blocking your ability to attack.

Now imagine that with 5 people, now 10 people, now 100 people.

It would be god-awful.

The gameplay mechanics of the Es series in a multiplayer setting is quite possibly one of the worst things that could ever happen.

 

[manaman]

The largest multiplayer video games in existence are all RPGs. So.. yeah.

As for your standard epic fantasy RPGs, well there is a reason multiplayer doesn't translate well. The expansive storylines have to focus on one player character. Few games have been able to integrate it like Neverwinter Nights, most turned into simple action games with RPG elements.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Online co-op won't work in an actual RPG. Imagine Mass Effect co-op in the main game, only 1 player can be Commander Shepard, and what Shepard says is what goes. What are the other 3 players going to be doing for half the game (which is the role-playing, the dialog choices and decisions)? The online RPGs that work are the ones that aren't really RPGs, which are combat focused like MMOs.

I shudder at the thought of Bethesda writing netcode.

 

[him over there]

I would imagine it would end up as more a Monster Hunter style thing or at least far similar to a JRPG. Every character needs to have an equal say so it doesn't lend itself well to choices.

 

[Jasper Jeffs]

Online co-op won't work in an actual RPG. Imagine Mass Effect co-op in the main game, only 1 player can be Commander Shepard, and what Shepard says is what goes. What are the other 3 players going to be doing for half the game (which is the role-playing, the dialog choices and decisions)? The online RPGs that work are the ones that aren't really RPGs, which are combat focused like MMOs.

I shudder at the thought of Bethesda writing netcode.

Well yeah I said some RPGs are single player for a reason. I'm aiming more at sandbox MMOs like Skyrim.

The largest multiplayer video games in existence are all RPGs. So.. yeah.

As for your standard epic fantasy RPGs, well there is a reason multiplayer doesn't translate well. The expansive storylines have to focus on one player character. Few games have been able to integrate it like Neverwinter Nights, most turned into simple action games with RPG elements.

A storyline like that would be saved for the single player though, the online wouldn't have one, it'd just be a sandbox where you're whatever and can do whatever.

 

[manaman]

Online co-op won't work in an actual RPG. Imagine Mass Effect co-op in the main game, only 1 player can be Commander Shepard, and what Shepard says is what goes. What are the other 3 players going to be doing for half the game (which is the role-playing, the dialog choices and decisions)? The online RPGs that work are the ones that aren't really RPGs, which are combat focused like MMOs.

I shudder at the thought of Bethesda writing netcode.

Well yeah I said some RPGs are single player for a reason. I'm aiming more at sandbox MMOs like Skyrim.

The largest multiplayer video games in existence are all RPGs. So.. yeah.

As for your standard epic fantasy RPGs, well there is a reason multiplayer doesn't translate well. The expansive storylines have to focus on one player character. Few games have been able to integrate it like Neverwinter Nights, most turned into simple action games with RPG elements.

A storyline like that would be saved for the single player though, the online wouldn't have one, it'd just be a sandbox where you're whatever and can do whatever.

A sandbox multiplayer really wouldn't be anything more than an MMO. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I can't really think of any other way that would happen.

 

[AwkwardTurtle]

The largest multiplayer video games in existence are all RPGs. So.. yeah.

As for your standard epic fantasy RPGs, well there is a reason multiplayer doesn't translate well. The expansive storylines have to focus on one player character. Few games have been able to integrate it like Neverwinter Nights, most turned into simple action games with RPG elements.

A storyline like that would be saved for the single player though, the online wouldn't have one, it'd just be a sandbox where you're whatever and can do whatever.

Yeah...I would have to be inclined to agree with manaman in terms of the whole multiplayer turning into an action game with RPG elements. If you removed the storyline from most RPGs that are only single-player all you would often be left with would be the general mechanics of fighting and developing characters (in terms of stats) that the game has to offer. There wouldn't be much "Role-playing" other than just going around probably killing things or not killing things.

It's just a weird thought...

Unless a game is designed from the ground-up to be fun to be played with other people it usually wouldn't work. Borderlands would be an example of an RPG-esque game, an action game with RPG elements if you will, that is designed to be fun when played with multiple players. The story is present, but isn't overbearingly important to any single player and the mechanics alone are enough to generate entertainment. Mass Effect is a game that, from the start, had been designed to be enjoyed as a single player game. Here the story is emphasized and there are choices that a single player makes during gameplay. I can honestly say that Mass Effect (for the xbox 360 at least) had pretty bad combat mechanics and without the intrigue generated by the story I would not have played the game all the way through.

It's simply up to what the developers are going from the very start.

 

[Zhukov]

Uhh... last I checked there was an entire genre of multiplayer RPGs.

They call them MMORPGs. There's quite a lot of them out there.

 

[Prosis]

EDIT: Misread the initial post.

I don't think it'd work. People would jump around servers too often for any sense of continuity. If they "lock" the server, you'd lose people over the course of a few months, leaving a lot of the positions vacant.
You really can't go mini-MMO.

I think the closest thing you're hoping for is one of the better run Minecraft servers, where they create an economy, job and class system. That's really the only case I can see where it is pulled off with any degree of success.

Or you could have something like Spore, where the actions of one player affects all players to an extent. No idea what it would do in an RPG sense though.

 

[Towowo2]

You know a multiplayer RPG isn't always an MMORPG, While I would never really want an MMOized Skyrim, I'd be okay with bringing maybe a friend into it. It'd be much more personable than an instance of 100 people.

 

[skywolfblue]

There are, they're called MMOs.

single player RPGs would function better if they were playable online in small persistent worlds of 100+ players

Ever played an MMO on a dead/low population server? RPGs have an open world, one that takes a LOT of active people to populate.

Small scale arena/battlegrounds maybe, but those don't have any story or leveling or "RPGing". So they're not really fitted to the classic reasons a person would buy a single-player RPG for. I doubt "Getting Ganked by Rogues in Arena" is what someone had in mind if they were to buy something like "Skyrim".

 

[Smooth Operator]

Only those with shitty story and atmosphere would benefit from it, and then multiplayer is actually the least of their worries (Skyrim being the prime example).

Meanwhile you got just about a million MMORPGs kicking around, all purposefully made for multiplayer, there is even a fucking Skyrim MMO coming.
I'm not sure if you are just one of those dreamers who blindly believes MP and zombies make everything better...

 

[Kae]

You mean like in the old days?
I mean Baldur's Gate did have Multi-Player, though I never played it, I imagine it could work very well, specially in Dragon's Dogma, that thing already kinda looks like Monster Hunter so I figure that would have awesome multiplayer, it's a shame that it apparently won't have one.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I've never seen any developers attempt at implementing small online worlds like that, some games really lend themselves to it. Would you prefer it if Skyrim was playable online like this?

Skyrim, no, not really. The story and game mechanics don't lend themselves that well to multiplayer.

In terms of story, being the Dovahkiin becomes proportionately less cool the more dragonborne join the game. The persistence that works well in an MMO (though most MMOs nowadays only persistence is an auction house and/or one or two controlled zones) in Skyrim would mean that main quests are already finished when a player logs on again.

In terms of mechanics, trading is unnecessary as any player can get (or forge) any (worthwhile) item. Further, modding means that players may have altered their world while another has not. Performing missions in one area usually depend on something being a particular way when the player arrives/returns but other players can alter this fact. Not to mention that the game client will struggle to keep up with more than one player. I do like the idea that the imperial/stormcloak rebellion could be headed up by opposing players...that would be something.

Further, there are plenty of online/persistent worlds already. Please leave Skyrim and our other single-player games alone. I want the best experience for myself, to shape the world my way and at my pace and I don't want to wait for other players for that. I'm looking forward to Saint's Row 3 coop, possibly tonight. That will be interesting and will reserve judgement on how good it is till I've tried it.

 

[KINGBeerZ]

why is it that everyone here seems to assume that the only type of multiplayer is online, I have played some RPG's that are great with same console multiplayer, like Tales of Vesperia, or Eternal Sonata. I find games where you can play with a friend like this way more enjoyable than going online with 100 strangers.
On that note i do think that Skyrim maight be interesting if they implemented two player same console co-op, or something like that but it really isn't suited for MMO style gameplay.
I would be interested however if they made Dragon Age same console multiplayer, I just reackon that would be really fun.

 

[Simonoly]

Personally I'd like to see more games using multiplayer systems similar to those seen in Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma, wherein there's connectivity between other players, but it's less direct and designed to integrate into the single player experience. But, saying that, there were a few moments when I was playing Skyrim with my friends sat watching me, where I really did wish they could hop into my world and start looting some dungeons.

Although not really a multiplayer feature, one thing I would have loved to have seen in Skyrim (which is actually a nice feature in Diablo 3) is the ability to view my friends' progress in their game. Being able to see what race they are and how they are kitting out their character with armour, spells etc would be a great little feature. It could basically work like a slightly more sophisticated leader board.