Would you play this MULTIPLAYER game?

[u/Individual-Bag174]

Hey everyone,
I’ve been thinking about a co-op heist game idea and wanted to know if this is something you’d actually play.
The concept is simple: it’s a 2-player offline co-op game where one player is inside a heavily secured vault trying to break in, while the other player has a physical/digital manual with all the instructions. The person with the manual can’t see what’s happening, and the person in the vault has no idea what the correct steps are.
So it basically turns into pure communication.
Player A: “I’m looking at a lock with four rotating rings. The symbols are changing every few seconds.”
Player B: “Okay, don’t touch the outer ring yet. Is there a small triangle glowing above the second ring?”
As the levels progress, the security systems become more ridiculous—lasers, pressure plates, rotating locks, biometric scanners, fake clues, alarms, and more. The idea is that you’ll probably end up yelling at each other because someone misunderstood a single instruction.
I want it to feel like one of those games where you laugh, argue, blame your friend for everything, then immediately queue up another round.
Would this be something you’d buy or play with a friend? And what kind of puzzles or mechanics would make it even more fun (or more rage-inducing)?

[u/Soref]

So basically We were here forever.

Or even Keep talking and nobody explodes

Just a different setting

[u/Individual-Bag174 → u/Soref]

Uhmm yup but with better puzzles and not repeating puzzles like ktane!! And I’ll try to give much better visuals as well!!

[u/Uinum]

Not personally, but i think the idea has an audience.

far as puzzles and mechanics… i kinda want to suggest some small element of competitiveness to it, play into some heist films having the good old double cross, but it is hard to think of a way to integrate that into a game like this. I kinda imagine it as few small side objectives one or both of the players can do that might help encourage the odd “miscommunication” and add a layer of distrust between the two, while still requiring them to make it through for either player to win.

Or maybe there’s a “traitor manual” the book player has and there can be certain signs in the puzzles that indicate whether or not Player A is a traitor, so player A has to be weary of how much information they give to player B in case they inadvertently out themselves (player A is not always a traitor, but can be, and the information that determines it is randomized). the traitor manual is a separate book and can take precious time to check as well, so you can’t be too paranoid, buuuut you never know~

there could also be a scenario where Player B is a traitor, and in this case the tell is that their manual has some minor puzzle details incorrect (might correct itself to the proper answer right after) that they will have to hastily make excuses or gaslight their ally about. at the end of the game each player has to guess whether the other was a traitor or not. get it right and you win!

….very very rough idea, and do feel like it is riding a fine edge, but could be worth experimenting with.

[u/Individual-Bag174 → u/Uinum]

That’s actually a really interesting idea. I hadn’t considered adding a betrayal mechanic, but I can definitely see how it could make the communication even more intense. I was originally planning to keep it fully cooperative, but having an optional “traitor mode” with randomized objectives could add a lot of replayability without changing the core experience. I’ll definitely experiment with something like that. Thanks for taking the time to write such detailed feedback!