The future of online co-op

rickonker

rickonker

CAGiversary!
I'm a huge fan of co-op, and it seems like almost everybody else likes co-op too, but most games still don't have a good co-op mode. Online co-op is especially great because you can't have people over all the time.

The most fun I had last gen was probably playing 4 player co-op on XBL in Rainbow Six 3. Now with Halo 3 confirmed to have it too, I'm hoping upcoming shooters will feel the pressure to include it. It's like with vehicles in the first Halo. Sure there were games like Tribes before Halo, but it was the vehicles in Halo that put pressure on Epic and others to include vehicles in their games (even if this wasn't the best idea).

If you remember when Riddick came out, it was a great game but the main criticism was it didn't have online multiplayer. Hopefully we'll get to a point where if a shooter doesn't have online co-op it will stick out the same way.
 
One thing you have to remember though, is that most gamers don't go online in any way. I forgot the exact percentage, but it's true.

On top of that, co-op is difficult to implement well. Sure, they can just throw in co-op, but in order to do it well you have to have good enemy AI that can track multiple targets. You also have to have some amazing netcode to handle all the stuff that the AI does.

That said, I really want to see co-op, of any sort, in a lot more games. Especially split screen co-op.
 
And you have to avoid the pitfalls of mods like Sven Co-op, where amateurs just crank up the hp and damage of the enemies, or Alien Swarm, where the penalties for dying and static map layouts favor those who have memorized the maps.

Half of the appeal of co-op though is working with a teammate you know. Online co-op, unlike online DM, takes away a lot that is good in co-op.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']And you have to avoid the pitfalls of mods like Sven Co-op, where amateurs just crank up the hp and damage of the enemies, or Alien Swarm, where the penalties for dying and static map layouts favor those who have memorized the maps.

Half of the appeal of co-op though is working with a teammate you know. Online co-op, unlike online DM, takes away a lot that is good in co-op.[/QUOTE]
But there's no reason you can't play co-op online with someone you know, I do this all the time. In some ways it's better than split screen.
 
[quote name='Vanigan']One thing you have to remember though, is that most gamers don't go online in any way. I forgot the exact percentage, but it's true.

On top of that, co-op is difficult to implement well. Sure, they can just throw in co-op, but in order to do it well you have to have good enemy AI that can track multiple targets. You also have to have some amazing netcode to handle all the stuff that the AI does.

That said, I really want to see co-op, of any sort, in a lot more games. Especially split screen co-op.[/quote]If I could play Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear online co-op 7 years ago, I don't see why it's not standard by this time.
 
I only play thru the story mode of FPS games if theres online coop.

I played thru Gears with my friend, and RS Vegas with 3 of my friends and we cant wait for Halo 3 to do the same. I find playing FPS games by myself to be soo boring.
 
I am definitely for co-op. I much prefer co-op on one console, as it does make it much easier to actually cooperate. For the most part, I don't even touch a FPS unless it has some sort of offline co-op. I'm not much of a fan of the genre, but this feature definitely adds a lot of fun to it.

What I would also see in games is things like the SOP system in Metal Gear Online. I only have read a little bit about it, but it adds little things like the ability to see your teammates' silhouette whever they are, or the ability to see where they are aiming (which can help a lot when you are trying to point something out to a teammate, or something).
 
A really good Game that is coming out for the 360 that features co-op, im not sure about Online though, is Army of Two. It looks like an awesome game and makes me happy to ahve the 360=)
 
[quote name='Xrazor']A really good Game that is coming out for the 360 that features co-op, im not sure about Online though, is Army of Two. It looks like an awesome game and makes me happy to ahve the 360=)[/QUOTE]

Yes. This game looks like it could be really fun, as it is sorta developed with co-op as the focus, rather than a tacked on side feature.
 
I think the problem with online co-op is the effort/reward mix.

As someone else mentioned, co-op works much better when you know the person. Most people who play online do not play with people they know regularly, so the market for this is thin. Sure, you can play with strangers, but it isn't as fun. So, how large is the market for this?

Sure, I would love to see it in more games, but with so much that you already need to add into the average game (online multi, single player, etc), you only have so much in the budget. For a game like Halo 3, that is a guaranteed blockbuster, sure, you can add it. But, for a new franchise, that would be a huge gamble.
 
i just want to play a resident evil game like that . imagine a game like re 4 or 5 with online co-op. working as a team or working against each other.
 
[quote name='lordxixor101']
As someone else mentioned, co-op works much better when you know the person. Most people who play online do not play with people they know regularly, so the market for this is thin. Sure, you can play with strangers, but it isn't as fun. So, how large is the market for this?
[/quote]

I dont know about you, but 90% of the time I play online coop, or any sort of online, its with my friends. My friends and I plan our game purchases together, we all got RS Vegas because we could all play it together. and next month, were all getting Halo 3 for the same reasons. I pretty much bought my 360 so I could play games with my real life friends.

Where in the past, it was one friend playing Wii, and another playing PS2, and another doing whatever, now with Xbox Live, we tend to play together alot more than we ever have in the past.
 
Gears was by far the best online or in-person co-op I have ever experienced. I tried going back and playing games like PDZ and Halo 2 with my friends but they didn't even compare.
 
[quote name='lokizz']i just want to play a resident evil game like that . imagine a game like re 4 or 5 with online co-op. working as a team or working against each other.[/QUOTE]

Aren't you pretty much describing RE: Outbreak? (Haven't played it, but it sounds like what you are describing).
 
[quote name='Puffa469']I dont know about you, but 90% of the time I play online coop, or any sort of online, its with my friends. My friends and I plan our game purchases together, we all got RS Vegas because we could all play it together. and next month, were all getting Halo 3 for the same reasons. I pretty much bought my 360 so I could play games with my real life friends.

Where in the past, it was one friend playing Wii, and another playing PS2, and another doing whatever, now with Xbox Live, we tend to play together alot more than we ever have in the past.[/quote]Hell, with the Wii online you don't have any choice but to play with friends. :lol: Though in all seriousness I don't how Battalion Wars will handle online co-op, it will be there, and I'm rather happy.
 
[quote name='dpatel']Aren't you pretty much describing RE: Outbreak? (Haven't played it, but it sounds like what you are describing).[/quote]


yeah but it was using the early re game mechanics which can be hard to use if you havent played them in a while. even though i still want to try both of those myself even though from whats been posted here one of those games no longer has online play. theres alot fo games that could do well with co-op. the gta series, tenchu, metal gear.
 
[quote name='lokizz']yeah but it was using the early re game mechanics which can be hard to use if you havent played them in a while.[/QUOTE]

Ah ok. I see what you're saying. Well, I think the game sold like crap, so I'm not so sure the developers will be eager to do it again for the new engine. It would be pretty cool though.

[quote name='lokizz']theres alot fo games that could do well with co-op. the gta series, tenchu, metal gear.[/QUOTE]

Yea, I would like co-op in those games. Any sort of co-op wouldn't hurt. I remember there being talks of DMC4 possibly having online co-op. I'm hoping they are still considering it, as that would really kick ass.
 
I remember playing Raven Shield in LAN co-op (PC), very much fun =)


without going off-topic, what are good online co-op games? I have PC, Wii and PS3 (I realize that greatly limits my options, but thought I'd ask anyway)
 
I think there's a gap out there for online co-op platformers. Not shoot 'em up types, like Contra or Gunstar, or beat 'em ups but general cartoony, jump n' pounce platformers.

Capcom's brand of platformer would be well suited to this. Just 2P or more running around, collecting coins, completing stages. For the Wii, something with the mechanics of Maximo but a little bit sunnier (such as one of those Disney platformers for SNES, like Mickey's Magical whatsit) would sell, I think, especially if it had both local and online co-op. There's talk that SMG will allow a second player to collect stars for 1UPs, but that's not real co-op. Anyhow, it wouldn't need to be a huge title, just something simple that could be ported to multiple consoles for mega-profit.

I think the OP is right that co-op is something that's frequently neglected even though it's typically played to death if present in a game. Contributing in this space to note that co-op isn't just FPS.
 
It's because developers are stuck in a rut of acting like they know what they're talking about when they clearly don't. Decisions in the game development world are not based on reason or facts, but blind supposition and personal opinion that get transformed into fact. This is the logical result of the industry not taking game design seriously, and instead attributes veteran status to those who merely survive the grind long enough to perpetuate it further.

I've had this conversation with devs several times, and it never fails: physics, netcode, teleporters, walls, etc. Ask most developers about co-op, and i guarantee you'll get a bunch of reasons against it that are at best extremely contradictory. At worst, pure bullshit. Pure bullshit.


edit:
To put some perspective on this, the last discussion i had on this involved a developer talking about the bandwidth costs of co-op, citing a hypothetical example of 16 players.
 
[quote name='Jon Rose']I've had this conversation with devs several times, and it never fails: physics, netcode, teleporters, walls, etc. Ask most developers about co-op, and i guarantee you'll get a bunch of reasons against it that are at best extremely contradictory.[/QUOTE]
Judging from the games out there, that's hardly surprising.

And in my earlier post, I forgot to mention Lego Star Wars. That's the kind of simple co-op experience there needs to be more of. I don't know if Lego Star Wars qualifies as a "Platformer," but it's close enough. Take that fun co-op experience and include it in a few more solid platformers. I don't know what the development cost of that is, but with co-op as rare as it is, I'd imagine it would pay off if you do it right.
 
[quote name='dothog']I think there's a gap out there for online co-op platformers. Not shoot 'em up types, like Contra or Gunstar, or beat 'em ups but general cartoony, jump n' pounce platformers.

Capcom's brand of platformer would be well suited to this. Just 2P or more running around, collecting coins, completing stages. For the Wii, something with the mechanics of Maximo but a little bit sunnier (such as one of those Disney platformers for SNES, like Mickey's Magical whatsit) would sell, I think, especially if it had both local and online co-op. There's talk that SMG will allow a second player to collect stars for 1UPs, but that's not real co-op. Anyhow, it wouldn't need to be a huge title, just something simple that could be ported to multiple consoles for mega-profit.

I think the OP is right that co-op is something that's frequently neglected even though it's typically played to death if present in a game. Contributing in this space to note that co-op isn't just FPS.[/quote]


the ratchet and clank and jak series could definelty do with coo-op. especially since each game consists of a hero with a partener.itd be fun to be able to use each individually in a game working separately or as a team depending on the situation but id wonder though if doing so would effect the overal game. youd either have to go all out with it or just do little bits and pieces so someone who doesnt have someone to play co-op with wouldnt feel like they werent gettign the full experience or as rewarding of a gaming experience as someone who does have a co-op partner.

all forms of online or co-op play should be availabe to games so you could do split screen co=op, online co-op or do a kind of lan setup. but seeing as how i know jack about game development i dont know how this would be possible or if including all those options would drive up the games price.
 
Developers know just about fuckall about dev costs for features, so everyone's on even ground there.


Lego Star Wars is a fun example, because nearly every instance i've heard of people playing that co-op was a parent playing through with their child. The fundamental, most basic argument in favor of co-op is that no one really gives a shit about how polished it is according to whatever bizarre parameters devs like to cook up in their perpetually hypothetical stews of excuses.

Really, you have that game as a big example; if co-op in the Lego Star Wars games were specifically given as much thought as the pure single-player experience, i've yet to hear about it. Another big example is System Shock 2's co-op, which is best described as a total hack job. Yet, that's almost always used as an example of why co-op is good; i can personally attest to having played through it more times because of co-op than i would have had it not been present. In fact, every time i've played it in co-op mode, it's been with people who, like me, had already completed the game on their own.

Still, you'll get any number of lame excuses about how hard it is to add it in, and these are all based on the ridiculous assumption that co-op can only be implemented as it was in SS2 -- as an afterthought hackjob. Every argument about how it'd be more expensive to implement on top of the single-player game is concretely rooted in the assumption that you cannot possibly plan for it from the beginning. It's literally as stupid as developers complaining that it's harder to add adversarial multiplayer to a game that was not initially designed to support DeathMatch or whatever.


I'm beginning to ramble, but here's the basic hurdles that are currently cited:

Physics - It would be very expensive bandwith-wise to sync up physics objects between multiple players. This, theoretically, is absolutely true. The real-world catch is that no one has actually figured out what to do with great amounts of physics objects in the first place. In single-player games, masses of physics objects are relegated to two roles: dropping shit on the player's head; and making a big, unnavigable mess for him to walk around. Neither of which are very benificial to the overall gameplay experience. If these were handled purely client-side in co-op, they would ultimately amount to two different sets of geometry the players would wish were not in his fucking way.

The funny thing is, the best example of large-scale physics benefitting gameplay are in purely multiplayer games like Toblo ( http://toblo.csnation.net/ ) and Neoforts ( http://www.neoforts.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=29 ).

Christ. I could go on and on about this. But the ultimate issue is of players flat out not giving a shit about how expensive it supposedly is to implement. The issue is simply of players saying they want it enough.
 
The picture of the industry I get from Jon Rose's posts is very interesting to me. It seems like there aren't very many really skilled developers trying to tackle these kinds of problems, and most of them just wait around for the consoles to get more powerful. Maybe someone like John Carmack is the exception that proves the rule. I guess this is kind of OT, but if co-op is tough to implement then this does explain why it's not done more.
 
[quote name='magiic']I still wish Dead Rising had co-op, that would of been cool.[/QUOTE]
That would be incredible. It's a guaranteed way to make undead slaying even more enjoyable. You could have head lopping contests. You could beat on Player 2 with a zombie's arm. The possibilities!
 
[quote name='dothog']That would be incredible. It's a guaranteed way to make undead slaying even more enjoyable. You could have head lopping contests. You could beat on Player 2 with a zombie's arm. The possibilities![/quote]


that alone would tempt me into getting an xbox especially since dead rising is supposed to be an xbox exclusive. wish theyd go ahead and make a co-0p /multiplayer zombie game based on the dead series( dawn , night and day).one of these days i'll finally get to fight off bikers and zombies in the monroville mall.
 
I don't think developers are waiting for anything as far as hardware is concerned. As far as explanations for the lack of co-op goes, there really just aren't any. They can claim difficulty, yet build entire engines for each game. They can say that only a fringe group is pushing for it, yet only a hardcore minority are constantly buying hardware upgrades for the ongoing graphics arms race. The only real hurdle seems to be that people automatically assume that there is a reason. It seems like developers deliberately keep a barrier between them and the gaming community specifically so they can't be called out on stuff like this.

You know, there was a Half-Life mod called Brain Bread that's both zombie-filled and a fair example of a game being enhanced by the ability to play it while shooting the breeze with a friend. There's something relaxing about tossing propane tanks into a crowd of zombies at a mall and shooting it with a winchester.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top