(Click here to check out Part I)
There are three basic categories of multiplayer:
Competitive - playing against each other
Cooperative - playing with each other, common goals
Cohabitive - playing with each other, non-common goals
Personally I don't feel there has been a whole lot of freshness in competitive multiplayer. We are still dealing with classic one-on-one fighting games, free-for-all FPS games and free-for-all racing games. They can be fun, and the ubiquity of online has given a nice jolt to this format, but the other two areas are much more interesting.
We are beginning to see a lot of great uses of cooperative multiplayer, with more and more games being built around that concept (e.g. Resident Evil 5). This is a very welcome change, and most gamers agree. There is just something about working with another person to achieve a goal that makes it that much more satisfying.
That being said I think co-op games have a long ways to go. The co-op games we see are typically watered down. The designers put certain aspects of the games on dials, and they are just cranked up as more people are added to the game. Too Human adds more enemies to a level as more people join the game. Many games don't go any further than that.
What was the last game you played where you accomplished tasks that truly required multiple people to play the game? I'm not sure I've EVER played something like that.
Now let's discuss cohabitive games. There aren't many of these out there... yet. Essentially I see this form of multiplayer catering mainly to the emerging "casual" game market. Animal Crossing was probably one of the earliest forms of this genre. Although multiple people wouldn't be playing at the same time, they would inhabit the same virtual space, and would go about their own tasks, interacting with others in the town at their leisure. A more sophisticated form of this would be something like Sony's Home and Second Life.
I think multiplayer is an extremely valuable tool in the game designer's arsenal, as long as it is used wisely. Technology has enabled our definition of multiplayer to expand beyond head to head competition, and we've barely scratched the surface of cooperative and cohabitive games.
Here are the questions:
-Have you ever played a cooperative game that truly required multiple players to accomplish a task?
-How could elements of cohabitive design be applied to more "hardcore" types of games?
Posts
Would you consider the MMO genre to be a full mingling of those tropes? Now more than ever MMO's are starting to build a lot of content around the solo or more casual player with the option to quickly drop in/out of cooperative setup (PvE) or competitive (PvP). WoW is a great example (even though I'm not really a fan of it at this point) of bringing in the casual player and giving them the option to cooperate/compete or ignore everyone else.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your other question, I don't think that there is a great example, as developers know that there is a need with your core audience to have a single player experience. That said, two games that I have mentioned before would be a better game without the 'tacked on' single player experience: 4 Swords Adventures and Crystal Chronicles. Neither of those games is enjoyable AT ALL with a single player and had specific functions built in to even allow a single player to move forward with the game (Controlling all 4 Links, getting the moogle helper to carry the chalice).
I do consider MMOs to be an example of all 3. I don't pretend to be an expert on MMOs as I don't really play them, but from what I know I would consider MMOs to be strongest in cooperative gaming, as displayed by guilds. PvP is also obviously a great example of competitive multiplayer. MMOs touch on cohabitive a bit, but it's clear the emphasis is not on that. In a cohabitive game I would expect to be able to go through my own Mario or Zelda type game, and then see and interact with other people going through their own adventure. I could go up and talk to them and ask for advice on how to do something in the particular level we are on. Or maybe I'd see somebody doing something cool that I hadn't thought of. Those are my initial thoughts on how cohabitive elements could be applied to more mainstream games.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree on your second point. I wish developers would stick to their guns when they decide to take on a unique multiplayer effort like 4 Swords or Crystal Chronicles. Surely they didn't sell any copies of those games because somebody wanted to play through it by themselves, right?
MMO's are a really good example of all three, as Mark mentioned. In WoW I find that you can do solo play, running into other players now and then. You can also team up for the same goals, although it isn't always needed. But there are times where it is, like in raids for example. There is content in WoW that needs 25 people working together to achieve a goal. And they absolutely have to work together. Players have even created add-ons that allow voice chat and other tools to allow for easier communication between people to allow for a better experience working as a team.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to bring it up again, Army of Two was a good example. That game was pure crap single player, but you play it with a friend, it was a blast. It was designed for a two player experence. You have to help each other up walls, provide covering fire, that sort of thing.
Another great example of great co-op gameplay is in Left 4 Dead. You have four players working together for a common goal. You can play it single player, but it is nowhere near as fun. I bought that game strictly for multiplayer. You have to stay as a group, and its one of the few multiplayer games I still use a headset for. Talking to each other is a must. If one player runs off from the group, he's gonna die. There is no question.
Lastly, competitive multiplayer isn't always stale. FPS's (?) at least are trying to come up with fun new game modes, and games like Call of Duty and Gears of War throw this out there to keep things interesting.
In response to Matt, L4D takes the cake as far as cooperative multiplayer for shooters. The reliance on your team in so many different scenarios (healing, saving you from certain immobilizing zombies, etc) is just astounding. If you have it on PC, I'd gladly play with you any time. Steam ID is the same as my Twitter account!
ReplyDeleteYeah I'm not saying competitive is always stale, I know there have been new game modes here and there that are truly unique. For me though I'm much more interested in the opportunities of the other two forms.
ReplyDeleteAlso I'm not a big MMO fan, but I can see how they are a great example of all 3. Do you think the only way to encapsulate all 3 forms is with an MMO? Or do you think something else could be made to encapsulate all of them? One thing I liked about Phantasy Star Online was you weren't daunted with interacting with everybody on the server, you would get carved off into a smaller chunk to interact. I like that model a lot, I'd like to see it used more.
From what I've played I agree about your L4D comments. You do really have to rely on your teammates, It's probably one of the most truly co-op games out there.
MMO's take your example of slicing people off. WoW uses instences, dungeons spawned soley for your group. This way, you are away from the general population, but the multiplayer aspect is broken down like Phantasy Stare Online's gameplay.
ReplyDeleteGlad I found this blog, yay Twitter.
ReplyDeleteAnyway while I think cohabitive multiplayer is great, I'd like to hear some theoretical reasons as to why it encourages people to play the game over cooperative or competitive play.
I used to be a WoW-hardcore kind of guy until last year and I find them to be an especially interesting intersection of all 3 types of gameplay, possibly the only format in which all 3 can coexist. WoW that way is essentially 3 games in one, the PvP, PvE, and World PvP/PvE.
To keep it short, one reason I can think of for cohabitive play to encourage newcomers is the feeling of being a part of something much larger than yourself. When you log onto a server that has thousands of people playing and aren't focused on you, its like joining a large organization - the player feels like they have to prove themselves within the environment, the game really doesn't have to push much to engage.
At that point all the game has to do is have the right combination of mechanics and immersive design to completely engage the player.