The big problem with co-op is scripted sequences. Thing like this move the story along without being full blow "cut-scenes" which usually take control away from a player.

Think of DeusEx and HalfLife, how many ties in that game did things seem better because of certain scripted events that happened as you went along. In co-op its very hard to have these because there is no guarentee that the players will all be togeather.

It seems almost inevitible that co-op games are bound to be "run-and-gun" (like Serious Sam or Halo) because of the in ability to really move a complex story along without restricting the players too much.
When designing a game you consistantly have to check to make sure your player is going to do or be able to do the things needed to move along in the game while keeping the story and fun elements in check. With co-op mulitply this by the number of expected players co-op-ing at one time.

I''m not saying it can''t be done. I''m just saying it would be extremely difficult, restrictive and time-consuming to do so. And with games being pushed into smaller and smaller development times it makes it just than much harder.

I can think of one game (off the top) that is an exception to this, Project Eden. It was a adventure/puzzle style game that used a group of people (either AI or co-op) to get through the game. It worked god in SP where you had full control over each of the 4 "characters" as you really had to think and work hard to figure out things. But in co-op it was extremely booring as you spent most of yor time waiting for other player do do their assigned tasks while you had already done yours.

quote: Original post by TheDelinquinaut
I can think of one game (off the top) that is an exception to this, Project Eden. It was a adventure/puzzle style game that used a group of people (either AI or co-op) to get through the game. It worked god in SP where you had full control over each of the 4 "characters" as you really had to think and work hard to figure out things. But in co-op it was extremely booring as you spent most of yor time waiting for other player do do their assigned tasks while you had already done yours.

Wow, your point gives me an idea. I actually loved Eden, but I played it single player on the PC and multiplayer on the PS2, where everyone was in one room, could see each other''s progress, and could puzzle solve all together. But I bet PC multiplayer was just each player, alone at his/her own machine.

Do you think being able to see each other''s screens at will, and voice over IP would help this?


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Funny thing about co-operative play is that it removes (or at least lowers) the incentive to be an a-hole to the rest of your players. Because there''s not much reason to put people down or kill them (because they''re important to your finishing the mission or winning the game), the environment fosters good gameplay and a more helpful atmosphere.

I too use Ghost Recon as an example; the coop game play generally features nicer people as opposed to hardcore clan players in the team/solo games.

For a fair share of people that equals a better gaming experience (for others, I''m sure they get more enjoyment out of the sheer competition and berating).

just an opinion.

Out of curiosity, how did coop work in Shock2? Could you move around the ship independently, to different decks? Could you communicate with each other without restrictions?

The problem as I see it with coop mode, in FPS games at least, is that they''re just the regular single player game with 2 people playing. As a result there''s usually neither a need nor incentive to cooperate. Playing Serious Sam coop is sort of fun but it gets tired pretty quickly when you realize you don''t actually need the other guy, he just sort of helps you finish quicker.

So there, my theory is that you need incentive/need for coop play to work. You need the players to make choices about how they''re going to work separately or apart, and have real consequences for those choices. Sid Meier once said "A game is a series of interesting choices" (heh ok just plugging my idea here).

Ok, an example. I''m loosely basing this off a scenario from the first Alien movie btw.

The players are on a ship that''s going to self-destruct in 10 minutes, and the ship is infested with dangerous creatures. They have 2 options: make it to an escape pod and evacuate the ship, or complete a series of tasks that will deactivate the self-destruct mechanism. Simply crossing the ship to the escape pod will take a significant amount of time, and the path is filled with hostile aliens. Deactivating the self-destruct mechanism will naturally also involve combat but the taks is also more complex - it requires moving through many parts of the ship, crawling through access tubes, passing through areas of dangerous radiation etc - it''s generally harder but the post-mission rewards are greater, more experience, better weapons, whatever. Which path do the players choose? Or do they split up, one player trying to end the self-destruct sequence while the other attempts to leave evacuation as an alternate route in case the first player isn''t successful? Of course splitting up also makes them more vulnerable to attack, and maybe one player encounters an obstacle he can''t overcome alone. Decision, decisions...

this is why i found Serious Sam 2 (as well as the original) a lot of fun! the only mode i ever played was co-op, and i have to admit it was a great experience! :D

---
shurcool
my project

Diablo (I and II) is a good example of cooperative multiplayer gaming, without the explicit choice of coop. Most of my experience with Diablo multiplayer is cooperative, not vs. gaming.

If my pessimism is unchecked let me know, but the problem with co-op as I understand it is that computer networks only allow you to sustain or break friendships - they don''t function as a useful base for building friendships. The reasons for this are twofold a) you can''t depend on someone who depends on a computer, they are by default "not there" for you (but for the computer, in other words) and b) you can''t do more with a computer network friendship than computer network things - the reason being that for it to be a success you have to have a motive strong enough to bridge the gap between computer and reality (online marriage is about the only working example I can think of). In most cases, computers are turned to for the very reason that real alternatives are absent... except that I love computer games because you can think about really abstract stuff in a really direct way.

Now, its easy to complain about it, solutions are more hard to come by. LAN parties are definately a good start, porting computer content to hard copy form as a way of generating gift relationships is good and as is doing the same as a way of generating environments supportive of interest based friendships . But how do you make these things a game? How is being at a computer shooting drones or whatever a starting point? Perhaps the answer is think-tanks that take problems like this and make the solution a livable reality. That would be what we were trying to do here... if we were committed to doing more than typing, right?

Gaming is whatever anyone wants it to be. Just because the games are cooperative doesn''t mean the game is attempting to be a replacement for real world friendships. It certainly isn''t the same as sitting down at a table and playing cards with friends, and it shouldn''t attempt to be.

But cooperative games have that extra/different dimension of knowing you''re not alone in your single player video game experience. Granted, it doesn''t always work out. I had a regular group that I played through LAN with, and two of them always ran off with each other and pretty much said NOTHING to the rest of us. They almost never waited for us as they were making progress, if the rest of us got killed, respawned and were running to catch up. Not exactly "cooperative".

Some games don''t always lend themselves all that well to coop, but they try to. XWing vs. TIE Fighter somehow always managed to separate us so much in a dogfight that we couldn''t effectively cover each other. But that was probably just poor tactics on our part.

I suggest you all go out and buy a dreamcast with phantasy star online v2 and play it online. the only multiplayer options are co-op, and it''s absolutely amazing.

failing that, get a game cube and wait for PS0 to come out on that as it''s got 4-player splitscreen coop play.

Never Winter Nights can be seen as a strong co-op game.

Wonder who played it, it''s not available here (europe) atm.

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-