I'm part of a development company that specializes (or plans to specialize) in developing Win32/MacOS cooperative games. Singleplayer tutorial/practice modes, with 2+ player cooperative modes across a LAN. The idea is to recapture the fun of coop games such as Halo to where I feel it belongs, the PC. Alot of these games are perfectly suited for consoles, but won't see one. Few games offer more than competitive deathmatch play. Has anyone seen/played a notable cooperative title they'd like to see? Note that these are hack/slash games. There are puzzles, "boss" fights, full-blown scripting/storylines, and gameplay options that can't be (effectively) presented in singleplayer games. I'd like to hear opinions about just about anything pertaining to what you'd like to see. Settings (game #1 is a swords/ninja/samurai game set in feudal japan), number of players, story/campaign length, saves/continunity, character development, closed/open games, etc. The reason is because my most memorable gaming experiences were at the hands of games like Serious Sam and System Shock 2 - games that suck when you play alone. Many of us tend to have someone around to "game" with - what's the best "max"? 4? 6? 8? 10-16? Having a multiplayer game that you can complete in 5-8 hours is just awesome to me. Could (should) there be more? What about "epic" RPGs? I've yet to hear of a 25hr+ game with 2 characters who DO something (other than fight: like in Secret of Mana) and play a solid role in the story, have separate roles, split up, (collect NPCs/parties?), and possibly even clash midgame! More importantly, what pitfalls should I avoid?

There are a number of old games i loved that i wished were multiplayer, such as Ultima Underworld, and yes, even System Shock. But multiplayer for singleplayer games has never really been implemented that well unless you consider the advent of MMORPG/MMOFPS's that have croped up, but even then the story's within those games aren't the most captivating, there good yes, but don't involve the player in more than an optional interest.

I would have loved to have a friend playing with me in Ultima Underworld, so we could go out and scavenge for food, split up to find items and rely on each other to survive in the dungeons of the Abyss, sharing our last torch and our meager supplies. Or conversely, working against each other in our attempts to explore the depths of the caverns.

I hear system shock 2 eventually got a multiplayer patch, but that game was never designed to balance or incorporate such an addition, and Deus Ex was a total multiplayer disaster when its patch came out.

When I make my first million you guys'll get a substantial amount of angel capital. [smile]

For starters I'd build proficiency on games with simple mechanics. I'd perfect the formula of enemies, challenges, powerups and and resources for one player and also develop a system for seeing how it scales (how many healthpacks should there be, how much ammo... I don't think it's just double since you're cooperating).

Halo and Return to Castle Wolfenstein were great multiplayer experiences on console. I'd study those careful, particularly with regard to respawning and getting back into the action quickly.

I'd focus on making episodes as well, even when you finally get around to the RPG: Episodes that can be played in about an hour would be the goal because I think that's about the maximum for a deathmatch game without a level switch.

You'll need good ways of signaling one another if the map is open. Mutually dependent objectives are a must. Don't be afraid to occassionally separate players then regroup them. Offer options for "player hit" for players who want to hit each other because these people will enjoy playing more tactically. Make players interdependent, as well, as this will foster teamwork and satisfaction when saving your buddy's backside.

Above all, have a compelling universe to play in and make the art, items, enemies and characters match it to a tee. One problem that a lot of multiplayer games I've seen have is that you could slap different graphics on them and not be able to tell the difference in gameplay. Multiplayer is fun, but I think multiplayer with a reason is even more fun, and that reason comes from a compelling universe (not necessarily story, btw, which is I think gets skipped in multiplayer).

I'm actually trying to start off with gameplay mechanics, before all else - even features. Given the starting game universe (in this case, feudal japan) Upto 4 players can battle it out in plain fields, and in indoor levels. I'm giving thought to "team dynamics" and strategy - pertaining to puzzles and combat. I'm not trying to take it too far, but I expect there to be a little bit of a "D'oh!" factor when the players fail in major boss fights and timed battles.

I've noticed one of the major assets I can produce are unique characters with unique abilites that *truely* augment the entire team - yet aren't good enough to go "solo" for very long. Scaled resources are hard - I'm trying to do away with alot of it by incorporating different things in the game.

Death in multiplayer is number one also. I'd like to try having "KO'd" players, as opposed to dead ones. (With the exception of boss fights/certain areas) having the entire party knocked out would lead to a severe loss in terms of supplies, (time?), and of course: progress.

As a programmer, I tend to get that Peter Molenaeux (sp?) syndrome where I build a sim/environment, feature list, then forget to write a game. This is the other way around - and hence has an arcadey feel to it, but is still lush/serious. (Then again, I'm using Torque also. I dislike using a custom engine unless it's 100% necessary.)

Of course, puzzle-based design is a bit of a new thing for me. And so is concept art - which I need to recruit...

"The reason is because my most memorable gaming experiences were at the hands of games like Serious Sam and System Shock 2 - games that suck when you play alone"

I think System shock 2 is reversed: a game that sucks when you play it multiplayer.

I think something really important about co-op games is that they must be fun and playable with only one player. For example, Halo is alot of fun single player. I played the campaign for a few days alone, and so did my friend. We then played co-op on Legendary mode, and it was TONS of fun. We played so much co-op that way. Since we werent alwyas together to play, we would play alone quite a bit, too. As we got better playing alone, we got better with co-op because we knew how to back eachother up, and use strategies. When playing solo, everytime I got stuck on sopmething, I'd be thinking subconsiously how much easier it would be if i had a team mate backing me up. That lead to creating strategies for the battle.

Another thing, as a FPS, it cant be a run and gun. Doom3 would suck co-op. The game NEEDS to incorporate strategy. Thats why Halo co-op was so much fun. The players were FORCED to come up with strategy in order to survive; especially on Legendary mode.


Also, having optional things for co-op would be nice. Sort of liek Side Quests that you can only do with two players. Think like that game 'Three Vikings' by Blizzard. Although one player could play and just switch characters, it would have been alot of fun with three actual players.

thats just a few things i was thinking about, but I gotta go. maybe if this thread lives longer, I'll add more input.
-Garret

It can be difficult to design games that simply scale into multiplayer or coop, especially more than 2 players. Halo seemed to strike a balance. (SS2 wasn't meant for it, and needed the scaled resources BADLY.)

Serious Sam scaled well no matter what - there was plenty to shoot at. But I agree that run/gun is bad. Strategy games that keep the players on their toes as well as each other's throats are best. I personally, want to try to develop enemies/gameplay that *requires* strategy and teamwork.

For example, the first title - (to be named) is recieving a melee-based combat system as well as the (occasional) use of "magic", that the players must matchup against ranged weapons - not arrows, but guns. Big guns.

Thankfully for the players, these aren't normal swords! A central theme of the game is that embracing your sword, as opposed to a pistol, is the key to true power. Each of the 4 unique swords in the game bestows the player with abnormal abilities while being used and while sheathed.

This may seem like nothing special, but to me it's great because actual combat uses this to an extreme. Disarms are a big factor, even the strongest of the 4 players can be overpowered - and lose his sword (albeit temporairly.) Enemies who have your sword can wield YOUR power - and that's when your problem becomes everybody's problem.

Of course, if your buddies hang close, and augment each other - that won't happen....often. Large monsters and bosses can pick up/toss players, even knock them unconscious. Also, each sword is remarkably different, players can swap weapons ("throw me your sword!"), double up, and execute "group combos" to dispatch enemies quickly and efficiently.

Lets not even discuss the puzzles - some of my level design just can't work without at least 2 players, is this bad? Should I spare the puzzles/group-oriented enemies for "more of them"?

Quote:

Original post by zarthragSerious Sam scaled well no matter what - there was plenty to shoot at. But I agree that run/gun is bad. Strategy games that keep the players on their toes as well as each other's throats are best.

I completely disagree. Seriouse Sam 2 co-op is some of the funnest gaming i've every played. Halo co-op and even Quake 1 co-op fit into the same category as being awsome! If the players are fighting each other then its NOT co-op because there is no copoeration - it becomes deathmatch. Its probably got alot todo with what games your into in single player because I playe Quake 3 regularly as well as Tribes (ie. a few times a week online), so I love the fast paced action of FPS which probably makes me like the co-op versions. Although there is definatly a difference between run'n'gun and boaring. Seriouse Sam was definatly run and gun but was definatly not boaring (for me anyway) how I do agree that Doom3 co-op wouldn't have been that great. Still as long as players are working together rather than "at each other throats" i think its a good concept.

Most co-op games though are just single player games where you play through with more than one person rather than them actually being co-op games to start with. I definatly like the idea of a co-op game where you can work together (ie. group combo's with special swords) - to me that sounds great. The thing you've gota do is to make sure people feel like they acomplished more because they're in a group ... if you can make the players believe they would've died if their friends hadn't been there then your onto a winner and the screams/yells of victory will be heard halfway down the next block :D

[Edited by - kaysik on November 10, 2004 10:09:42 PM]

Well said, I meant "at each other's throats" in a different sense - in that the players should constantly be trying to keep each other in line because of the amount of (inter)dependance necessary to survive. Bad choice of words, I guess.

Which points out that there should be enough enemies to overrun a single (skilled) player, but 2-3 (or more) can dispatch easily enough. Unprogrammable factors like fatigue should handle the rest. Not that I'm reccomending repetative gameplay - SS2 was repetitive, but had alot of suprise and anticipation to accompany it - each swarm of screeching harpies, screaming bombers, and stampeding bulls makes me tense.

But neither halo nor serious sam had a lot of depth to me. Lots of mayhem/panic, but no depth. Halo's locales were structured (to an extent), but serious sam was a simple 3hr tour. What we're trying to do is produce a more thought provoking and meaningful experience. I'd like the players to panic and try new things in larger battles against even bigger/more complex enemies, in new situations.

For example:

One of the first temples in the game (read: dungeon containing the first powerful sword) is the prison of a pretty dangerous enemy. On the way into the temple the players (may) notice lots of strange battlements, pinch points, and odd tunnels. Upon (inadvertently) releasing the demon(s), the players must stop them from getting out into the wild (it'll take them all).

I'm trying to avoid restarts here: So any that get out don't mean game over - it means a much harder game. The once mostly-harmless demons are now neigh unstoppable killers who require the players to use ALL THREE (or four, or six) of the special swords in order to slow - let alone kill. Something that will haunt the players for awhile yet.

Other battles will build-up similarly - but may result in a "restart" in case of a failure. (Which will, and should, be done using an in-game explaination/punishment) Others, simply a harder (or markedly different) boss-fight.

That sounds like a good way of doing it, making the game more difficult for the past mistakes of the player(s). But its also a good way to spice up gameplay if things get a little to easy, as well as potentially impact the overall storyline the game takes, and what they may need to do to beat the game. (certain goals may change depending on such a failure, and may then become more difficult, requiring even more quests)

Sort of like, More failures = longer, more difficult gameplay. You could even throw in a few quests where it would be easier for the players later on if they failed rather than succeeded, but with potential moral implications.