Perhaps what you're seeing is co-op moving house to places like Global agenda and Firefall, where it becomes the (or at least a) central theme. It works better that way, because it always seems to feel a bit tacked-on if gameplay isn't designed around it. The trouble is that if you take what is essentially a single-player game and allow players to co-op, the whole dynamic of the game changes; Players' focus moves away from the game's story to the other player/s as they work to maximize their effectiveness as a team. This can be surprisingly challenging (at least in part because most players are woefully undisciplined, no matter how fervently they believe they're a highly-trained warrior), and having played through the game solo already won't exactly help keep their attention focussed elsewhere.

Designing multi-player games is very different from designing single-player storylines (See what I did there?), so if you're looking for multi-player, single-player games are probably the wrong place to look. That doesn't mean that more couldn't be done in the hybrid multi-player storyline area, but co-op mode really has to be tailored to a multi-player experience, which often results in something that looks more like an MMO, and after all, since AI is a factor, wouldn't you and your buddy rather team up against the great unwashed than face the same old bunch of brainless NPC mobs?

Perhaps what you're seeing is co-op moving house to places like Global agenda and Firefall, where it becomes the (or at least a) central theme. It works better that way, because it always seems to feel a bit tacked-on if gameplay isn't designed around it. The trouble is that if you take what is essentially a single-player game and allow players to co-op, the whole dynamic of the game changes; Players' focus moves away from the game's story to the other player/s as they work to maximize their effectiveness as a team. This can be surprisingly challenging (at least in part because most players are woefully undisciplined, no matter how fervently they believe they're a highly-trained warrior), and having played through the game solo already won't exactly help keep their attention focussed elsewhere.

Designing multi-player games is very different from designing single-player storylines (See what I did there?), so if you're looking for multi-player, single-player games are probably the wrong place to look. That doesn't mean that more couldn't be done in the hybrid multi-player storyline area, but co-op mode really has to be tailored to a multi-player experience, which often results in something that looks more like an MMO, and after all, since AI is a factor, wouldn't you and your buddy rather team up against the great unwashed than face the same old bunch of brainless NPC mobs?

I suppose you are right. I think there is a balance and that it is possible to have a Co-Op game that is more story line driven. At least I hope being that is one of the main focuses on our first game. You have a good point that most Co-Op players are undisciplined and will act dumb at times. It isnt really something I had thought about. Why cant we all just be Highly-Trained Warriors that never mess up!

My buddies and I still get together for lan parties every once and a while. We still love playing co-op games like Rainbow 6. The older ones used to allow up to 8 player co-op, which was great (since we usually had 6-8 people). Modern incarnations have reduced it down to 4 players max. So we are pretty much forced to play death matches of some kind (until people start dropping out).

One game that stands out a little is Left 4 Dead (and 2) which allow for 4 player human co-op vs the zombie hoard with up to 4 human players playing as zombies too. This is definitely adds to the difficulty (though usually ends badly for the humans),

I think this is a commentary on how people play games solo versus in a group. When playing a solo game, the player steps into a character and stays in that character to get the full immersion of the story. When more players are added, the character becomes less defined by the game and more by who the player is and their real world personalities. Left 4 Dead is a good example of this since it does not matter, gameplay-wise, which survivor you play since they are all functionally identical. The character comes out in the lines they say which are largely uncontrolled by the player. Conversely, the Team Fortress series has many classes which are functionally different, but have no depth of character since there is no personal story attached to anyone in any given scenario.

I see the difficulty with developing Co-Op Story-Driven games is getting multiple people to willingly take on unique characters with defining characteristics. Generally, there will be some real-world bickering (I wanna be the mage! You were the mage last time!) and likely some out-of-character gameplay that can ruin the story and immersion. Add in the fact that ALL players are to be treated as main characters to the story, and you get added frustration when differing skill levels cause disadvantages in the gameplay. (Now you are 1 man down because of "noob" OR "elite gamer" is doing all the work and nobody else really gets to "play".)

So I don't see Co-op going away, but naturally settling into a shallow character, squad-based tactics style games where the players largely define themselves. I'd LIKE to see a story game where 2 players play vastly different and defined roles. Resident Evil 4(?) came close there, but even then, the characters were almost functionally the same. It was a good try.

Hasn't it always been pretty far between games with good co-op experiences?

I don't really think there is much of a decline, co-op is just hard to do well, for reasons mentioned above.

Some recent titles come to mind, Trine and Dungeon Defenders for example.

And DotA and all the other MOBAs are both co-op and competitive at the same time.

I like co-op a lot better then competitive multiplayer, I hope game designers continue to go the extra mile to make their games enjoyable in co-op

I like co-op a lot better then competitive multiplayer, I hope game designers continue to go the extra mile to make their games enjoyable in co-op

I couldn't agree more I feel like as long as there is some kind of market for it they will continue. One can only pray at least....

My buddies and I still get together for lan parties every once and a while. We still love playing co-op games like Rainbow 6. The older ones used to allow up to 8 player co-op, which was great (since we usually had 6-8 people). Modern incarnations have reduced it down to 4 players max. So we are pretty much forced to play death matches of some kind (until people start dropping out).

One game that stands out a little is Left 4 Dead (and 2) which allow for 4 player human co-op vs the zombie hoard with up to 4 human players playing as zombies too. This is definitely adds to the difficulty (though usually ends badly for the humans),

I agree with this. The only problem I have is that games like those are very shallow and have no real depth to them. yes they are fun but merely because there is enough enjoyment to last and distract from true lack of story line.

I think this is a commentary on how people play games solo versus in a group. When playing a solo game, the player steps into a character and stays in that character to get the full immersion of the story. When more players are added, the character becomes less defined by the game and more by who the player is and their real world personalities. Left 4 Dead is a good example of this since it does not matter, gameplay-wise, which survivor you play since they are all functionally identical. The character comes out in the lines they say which are largely uncontrolled by the player. Conversely, the Team Fortress series has many classes which are functionally different, but have no depth of character since there is no personal story attached to anyone in any given scenario.

I see the difficulty with developing Co-Op Story-Driven games is getting multiple people to willingly take on unique characters with defining characteristics. Generally, there will be some real-world bickering (I wanna be the mage! You were the mage last time!) and likely some out-of-character gameplay that can ruin the story and immersion. Add in the fact that ALL players are to be treated as main characters to the story, and you get added frustration when differing skill levels cause disadvantages in the gameplay. (Now you are 1 man down because of "noob" OR "elite gamer" is doing all the work and nobody else really gets to "play".)

So I don't see Co-op going away, but naturally settling into a shallow character, squad-based tactics style games where the players largely define themselves. I'd LIKE to see a story game where 2 players play vastly different and defined roles. Resident Evil 4(?) came close there, but even then, the characters were almost functionally the same. It was a good try.

Do you think a game that did have in depth Co-Op experience would have a market. Or would it get pushed under the rug because it isnt GTA or COD? I just wonder how much there actually is an appeal to Those types of games.

Do you think a game that did have in depth Co-Op experience would have a market. Or would it get pushed under the rug because it isnt GTA or COD? I just wonder how much there actually is an appeal to Those types of games.

That's the real $1M question there and the underlying concern of this thread. It would take an actual marketing study to answer it definitively, but my hypothesis is that companies believe that the more competitive a game is, the more it will sell. This leads to a sports-like mentality where the game is developed to be replayed with just a thin veneer of optional storyline as a setting. Many games can be played in succession with little interference from a plot or character motivation urging the player to action. CoD is pretty much a sport now. The setting is near irrelevant. GTA is a playground. Again, the setting is irrelevant. It could be just about anywhere. The last big blockbuster game is going to be GTA: Fallout: Blackops.

The problem with a good story is that it eventually comes to a definite conclusion. I have some favorite books and movies which I have experienced several times, but those times are not back-to-back. Often times, there are years between readings/viewings. Some games fall in that category as well. They just don't have immediate replay-ability. That's not to say that a good story won't sell. Look at The Last of Us and The Walking Dead titles. I hear they are doing well. They just aren't co-op titles. I'm going to have to think on how to make a good in-depth co-op experience. I don't have an answer for that yet.

Do players that like story-driven co-op also like the co-op experiences possible in Minecraft or Halo3:Forge?

Thinking about this, as others have said, part of it is that when you play co-op, especially with friends, not many people play, "In character", you end up playing as yourselves, and chatting away and bringing in all sorts of out of character knowledge and experience into the game. In some ways, Journey manages to do a game with a story, as it completely limits the communication allowed between players.

Though games still tend to be designed for singleplayer first, and don't seem to attribute actions to one player or the other, but to a group as a whole. Which can be a bit frustrating. I recall the Neverwinter Nights series, where I would be busy shopping with an NPC, only to get status messages like, "Your actions have modified your alignment towards evil (3 points)", randomly, because another one of my party members was off causing trouble.