Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Co-Op has started to vanish


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
26 replies to this topic

#1 EthanRev6   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 204

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 22 February 2014 - 05:59 PM

Hey guys,

 

      I feel like game companies now days are starting to focus less and less on a good Co-Op game. Is it possible to have a captivating story line and Co-Op multiplayer? Or do you sacrifice being able to make a character/player bond for Multiple players. Is a game like borderlands the way to go? Simple artwork and story line but enjoyable enough to entertain or a captivating Co-Op adventure with Rpg elements?

 

 

                           Thanks -Ethan Leslie

 

 

www.Rev6Studios.com


"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him"


Sponsor:

#2 Zervoxe   Members   -  Reputation: 559

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 22 February 2014 - 07:29 PM

Personally I see a few Co-Op games, but most of them tend to make bad decisions on how to make the story work while either playing alone or playing with someone.

 

in some cases they find a quite good balance between Co-Op and Single player being on the same story but this usually is rare to find. Either they make Co-Op to intrusive or they split the Co-Op too much that you barely notice that you are playing with another person. There is also the fact of single player where the AI might be "dumb as bread" and is completely useless or doesn't even partake in lets say 'boss' fights in a meaningful way.

 

There is one workaround which would make it work flawlessly and that is having two separate storylines one made for multiple people and one made for one person although this would probably increase development time quite noticably and thus not valued from a company's perspective.

 

Another issue in some Co-Op games is the Co-Op campaign where the story, rarely give the same immersion as a single player story would, even more noticed is tendencies to being too simple or overly complex making you feel like, "ahh, god I have to help my friend ontop of this ledge again to make him open the door for me" every other 5 minutes.



#3 EthanRev6   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 204

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 22 February 2014 - 09:39 PM

Personally I see a few Co-Op games, but most of them tend to make bad decisions on how to make the story work while either playing alone or playing with someone.

 

in some cases they find a quite good balance between Co-Op and Single player being on the same story but this usually is rare to find. Either they make Co-Op to intrusive or they split the Co-Op too much that you barely notice that you are playing with another person. There is also the fact of single player where the AI might be "dumb as bread" and is completely useless or doesn't even partake in lets say 'boss' fights in a meaningful way.

 

There is one workaround which would make it work flawlessly and that is having two separate storylines one made for multiple people and one made for one person although this would probably increase development time quite noticably and thus not valued from a company's perspective.

 

Another issue in some Co-Op games is the Co-Op campaign where the story, rarely give the same immersion as a single player story would, even more noticed is tendencies to being too simple or overly complex making you feel like, "ahh, god I have to help my friend ontop of this ledge again to make him open the door for me" every other 5 minutes.

I couldn't agree more.There have been few games that I can recall that have had Great Co-Op experiences. Most of the time you are playing as just an entity and have no real impact on the game. Did you try Beyond Two Souls "Co-Op" Mode?


"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him"


#4 wodinoneeye   Members   -  Reputation: 879

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 23 February 2014 - 03:16 AM

The Co-Op they did in Far Cry 3 wasnt too bad (I was thoroughly sick of the 'running crack monkey with ADD' gimmicky fantasy gameplay of the multiplayer pickup games  for FC3 and the CoD Modern War games).   Unfortunately the multi scenario campaign was still too short and Repeatitus set in after playing the same first scenario for the 40th time.

 

The Co-Op is even going out of the MMORPGs simply because of pickup team players falling too short of what necessary for competant play in anything interesting  (come to think of it their whole games have gone that way too).  People just dont have time any more (or the game isnt as captivating as they were when the concept was new)

 

Multiplayer dynamics make for more interesting action. But filling in the inevitable  team 'gaps' with 'smart' NPCs still is far from being achieved (and if players keep paying for the current pablum, no game company is going to take the risk/expense of significant improvements in that area)

 

 

---

 

 

 

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him"

AND THEN BEFORE HIM STOOD A CAT IN POWER ARMOR WITH A SWORD MADE OF LIGHT WHO ROARED "YOU SHALL NOT PASS."


Edited by wodinoneeye, 23 February 2014 - 03:21 AM.

--------------------------------------------Ratings are Opinion, not Fact

#5 wodinoneeye   Members   -  Reputation: 879

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 23 February 2014 - 03:26 AM

By Victorian times it was competing companies (politics and commercial manipulations)  if not nations (which would be resolved by war/military positioning)

 

You might have original inhabitants who either have to be overpowered or bribed (or both) as a added element for 'costs' and possible events that shake things up  (opportunities for other players)


--------------------------------------------Ratings are Opinion, not Fact

#6 powerneg   Members   -  Reputation: 1463

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 23 February 2014 - 12:34 PM

There is no good reason to have Co-op for most games.

It's usually a combination of all the restriction of single player and multi player combined, for little to no extra added value.

 

The market are both solo-players and multi-players, if serving to the latter group there is no good reason to limit this to "X" players

(where X is often 2, sometimes 4, when getting to 8 it starts being a real multiplayer game)

From a player-perspective; a player wants to play with his friends, they 're not always online/available at the same time, sometimes there's only one or even no friends available, sometimes 10 want to play with you.

So from a design-perspective a games should be for many many players where players can team up with their own friends or strangers.

(or substitute with Bot-players/AI's )



#7 SuperG   Members   -  Reputation: 568

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 23 February 2014 - 01:12 PM

There is good reason for Co-op but the story must be coop related.

 

A chuck Norris or Rambo one man army action story doesn't work well. Some uses like QTE are disastrous. cut scene rather not. But handy for breaks. But doing squad based mission as story's. You are a team in SP with AI teammates. In coop with players with empty slot filled with AI.

Ghost Recon Advanced Warrior. We played GRAW 1 & 2 on 3 PC in a row each PPU powered :) I got this Black hawk down movie experience. Very Cool. It made the 3th guest gamer a Xbox360 console game buy a PC.  Operation Flashpoint 2 Red River. Same thing. except the cut scene NPC / actor was very irritating.

 

Co-op works with team based story's or plots. The problem is AI if the story demands a team even for solo play. This is a very complex problem. As a AI designer you design your AI with specific gameplay in mind. But gamers are unpredictable play as it often not meant to be played. Like hanging back get the flow out of the game. Starting a spawn wave notice. Or rushes like Rambo so aren't moving as team. get shot in the back. Hinder visa versa. Or find exploit to do things the AI can't adapt to. And often the AI get the blame. But its large the player who play it as the designer had in mind. Good AI should also address strange behavior of gamers. But also the game flow could adopt to the gamers so to the AI. Problem this is to much for a game with tight deadlines so often not done. So to me the AI works fine a bit limited. But I know I need to take a regular action flow and move the AI as team. Real gamers. well we start OFP2RR and the pure COD guy was fast to action and dead. So I said this is not COD move as team.

 

It would be nice if the story scales well up from solo to team you then need not to use such advance AI.



#8 ferrous   Members   -  Reputation: 2146

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 23 February 2014 - 06:54 PM

This seems subjective, do you have any data on co-op disappearing?  Borderlands 2 and Wargame Airland Battle both had co-op, and are recent releases.

 

And Red Dragon, the Wargame sequel, will have expanded co-op.  Diablo 3 is getting an expansion, and is essentially a co-op game, etc.


Edited by ferrous, 23 February 2014 - 06:59 PM.


#9 EthanRev6   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 204

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:37 AM

There is no good reason to have Co-op for most games.

It's usually a combination of all the restriction of single player and multi player combined, for little to no extra added value.

 

The market are both solo-players and multi-players, if serving to the latter group there is no good reason to limit this to "X" players

(where X is often 2, sometimes 4, when getting to 8 it starts being a real multiplayer game)

From a player-perspective; a player wants to play with his friends, they 're not always online/available at the same time, sometimes there's only one or even no friends available, sometimes 10 want to play with you.

So from a design-perspective a games should be for many many players where players can team up with their own friends or strangers.

(or substitute with Bot-players/AI's )

You have a very valid point and I suppose bigger game companies wont make a game if they don't feel it will sell. Unfortunately most gamers now days only like run and gun shooters or games like flappy bird -_-. I suppose if the demand were there than more companies would do it. Or if one company actually produced a Co-Op driven game maybe the market would change

 

There is good reason for Co-op but the story must be coop related.

 

A chuck Norris or Rambo one man army action story doesn't work well. Some uses like QTE are disastrous. cut scene rather not. But handy for breaks. But doing squad based mission as story's. You are a team in SP with AI teammates. In coop with players with empty slot filled with AI.

Ghost Recon Advanced Warrior. We played GRAW 1 & 2 on 3 PC in a row each PPU powered smile.png I got this Black hawk down movie experience. Very Cool. It made the 3th guest gamer a Xbox360 console game buy a PC.  Operation Flashpoint 2 Red River. Same thing. except the cut scene NPC / actor was very irritating.

 

Co-op works with team based story's or plots. The problem is AI if the story demands a team even for solo play. This is a very complex problem. As a AI designer you design your AI with specific gameplay in mind. But gamers are unpredictable play as it often not meant to be played. Like hanging back get the flow out of the game. Starting a spawn wave notice. Or rushes like Rambo so aren't moving as team. get shot in the back. Hinder visa versa. Or find exploit to do things the AI can't adapt to. And often the AI get the blame. But its large the player who play it as the designer had in mind. Good AI should also address strange behavior of gamers. But also the game flow could adopt to the gamers so to the AI. Problem this is to much for a game with tight deadlines so often not done. So to me the AI works fine a bit limited. But I know I need to take a regular action flow and move the AI as team. Real gamers. well we start OFP2RR and the pure COD guy was fast to action and dead. So I said this is not COD move as team.

 

It would be nice if the story scales well up from solo to team you then need not to use such advance AI.

Could you do a storyline that was single player driven based off each character and you are only offered certain missions if that character were playing with you in a Co-Op game. Essentially Taking out the horrible AI that Co-Op games are usually faced with? If not that could there be a way to make an AI system that somewhat learned based off a players actions. Say you are playing with a bot Co-Op person, well based on what you did last mission it knows you are most likely going to do the same things and kind of adapts? Haha I suppose that is getting rather closer to actually AI isn't it? Sigh Wishful thinking at it's best.

 

This seems subjective, do you have any data on co-op disappearing?  Borderlands 2 and Wargame Airland Battle both had co-op, and are recent releases.

 

And Red Dragon, the Wargame sequel, will have expanded co-op.  Diablo 3 is getting an expansion, and is essentially a co-op game, etc.

It absolutely is Subjective. Borderlands and diablo 3 are Co-Op games but the storyline is rather dry and doesnt really change if you play it single player or Co-Op. It was a broad generalization however I feel like bigger companies are just focused on money now days and don't want to appeal to Co-Op fans because it isn't as profitable. I could be wrong. but a truly captivating Co-Op game that ran smoothly just hasn't happened. If it has it has been years since it did. 


"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him"


#10 EthanRev6   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 204

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:38 AM


"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him"
AND THEN BEFORE HIM STOOD A CAT IN POWER ARMOR WITH A SWORD MADE OF LIGHT WHO ROARED "YOU SHALL NOT PASS."

 

Love It, haha It is the "logo/moto" of the game company I just started.


"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him"


#11 LittleVikings   Members   -  Reputation: 311

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:59 AM

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?


Edited by LittleVikings, 24 February 2014 - 06:00 AM.


#12 EthanRev6   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 204

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 24 February 2014 - 06:06 AM

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!


"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him"


#13 Rattrap   Members   -  Reputation: 1793

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 24 February 2014 - 07:30 AM

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),



#14 Meatsack   Members   -  Reputation: 1023

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 24 February 2014 - 09:01 AM

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.


Writer, Game Maker, Day-Dreamer...  Check out all the wonderful things I've thought up at Meatsack's Workshop!

Check out the Current Ranking of Super Gunball DEMO on IndieDB!


#15 Olof Hedman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2955

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 24 February 2014 - 09:23 AM

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 smile.png


Edited by Olof Hedman, 24 February 2014 - 09:26 AM.


#16 EthanRev6   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 204

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 24 February 2014 - 06:02 PM


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....


"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him"


#17 EthanRev6   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 204

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 24 February 2014 - 06:07 PM

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.


"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him"


#18 Meatsack   Members   -  Reputation: 1023

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 25 February 2014 - 09:04 AM


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.


Writer, Game Maker, Day-Dreamer...  Check out all the wonderful things I've thought up at Meatsack's Workshop!

Check out the Current Ranking of Super Gunball DEMO on IndieDB!


#19 jms bc   Members   -  Reputation: 445

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 February 2014 - 01:04 PM

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


The Four Horsemen of Happiness have left.


#20 ferrous   Members   -  Reputation: 2146

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 25 February 2014 - 02:29 PM

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.






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS