Couch co-op gives way to internet teamplay
by Conrad Quilty-Harper 
{ Jul 10th 2006 at 8:30AM }
Co-op mode in video games is often a very popular feature, probably because of the added intensity of competing with A.I. in partnership with a friend. Games like Halo and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory become entirely different (and better) games when played in co-operative mode. Of course, the early innovator was Contra, which, without a co-op mode, would have been just another side scrolling shooter. With the greats of the co-op gaming genre in mind, Vic over at Bits & bytes & pixels & sprites has written up a feature calling for a next-generation renaissance in co-operative games.Couch co-op has never been an assured feature with games, especially recently. Since 2000, developers on the PC platform have clearly ignored the co-op mode in favor of dedicated multiplayer modes with big name first person shooters like Half-Life 2, Doom 3 and Quake 4 skipping on the mode. Games with teamplay orientated multiplayer modes like Counter-Strike and Call of Duty have picked up the fundamentals of co-op based games and thanks to their easy accessibility over the internet, have become wildly popular as a result (especially in comparison to the limit of 2-4 players in a usual co-op game).
There will always be developers that include couch co-op modes in their games (Bungie, Blizzard and Ubisoft come to mind), but there's unlikely to be a massive resurgence in the number of couch co-op games mainly due to an internet based takeover of team based gameplay.
[Thanks, Daniel Zuccarelli]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
T-Bag @ Jul 10th 2006 8:52AM
co-op>online
Branewalker @ Jul 10th 2006 9:00AM
The internet is great, and it has potential to expand the field of multiplayer gaming, but it is just another means to give that to the player. I don't believe in-person multiplayer will ever be *replaced* by internet play.
As for the article, it's ok, but the point was belabored a bit and the reasoning was shallow. That said, here's my take on it: multiplayer versus modes are player-created experiences. They revolve entirely around what the players add to them. And, while that is great, it doesn't demonstrate the kind of almost literary experience that can be done in a single-player environment. However, there is really absolutely no reason a story-centric experience couldn't be created for 2, 3, 4, or even more players.
The problem with co-op is that it requires more than one person, and if a game is designed specifically for it, the single-player mode usually suffers (because AI is BAD at cooperating with humans unless there is some form of command interface to order bots areound).
So, Coop is best when small (in terms of complimenting a single-player experience). I do love playing with friends, and I don't like when mis-matched skill levels ruin the fun because the only multiplayer experience is competitive.
As usual, though, developers are instructed best with money, or the withholding thereof.
--Branewalker
that guy @ Jul 10th 2006 9:08AM
I second that T-Bag.
Perfect Dark Zero was in many ways crap, but the co-op was awesome.
Getting a team of eight guys together to play some co-op GRAW is unbeatable.
I'm surprised more companies don't see this. I'd love to see a next-gen game that is based specifically and exclusively around co-op play.
Ted D. Moncrief @ Jul 10th 2006 9:21AM
Blizzard was mentioned as having couch co-op... but I can't think of which game(s).
T-Bag @ Jul 10th 2006 9:26AM
@ Moncrief,
I think they were talking about the Diablo series.
jc @ Jul 10th 2006 9:27AM
In many ways, GRAW is great for co-op multiplayer. I like how they allow two people from the same X360 to play online and the side by side splitscreen (instead of the top and bottom) is ideal for my HD widescreen TV.
I would also like to see Baldur's Gate make it to the next gen. My gf and I still fire up the PS2 to play Baldur's Gate and Champions of Norrath. Personally I would like to retire my tired old PS2...
Come on game companies, give us some more multiplayer fun. I understand that you think more people playing on one copy of a game means less sales... but I suggest you look at the social implications and how promoting your customers to have friends can be a good thing.
The ZeroCorpse @ Jul 10th 2006 9:36AM
Contra? That came a little late in the game.
Try "Castles of Doctor Creep" (1984) for the Commodore 64, "Quest For The Rings" (1981) for the Odyssey2, "Gauntlet" (1985) in arcades, and "Demon Attack" (1982) for the Atari 2600, among others. There was co-op long before Contra hit arcades in 1987, or before anybody noticed it on the NES in 1988.
I'd hardly call Contra an innovator. It's just one of the most popular co-op games out there because of NES culture.
Pacey @ Jul 10th 2006 9:37AM
The Tiger Woods series is one that I still think is better in Co-Op than online.
My friends and I all had coppies of multiple years in college and we all had PS2's online, but we still all gathered at someones house when we played... which was almost every day
Felix Andrews @ Jul 10th 2006 9:52AM
I will always maintain that sofa-based multiplayer, in any form, is far superior an experience than any Internet form of multiplay.
It's all in the humanity, see? When someone cracks off a sublime headshot, you want to turn to that player, grin broadly and congratulate them/give them a dead leg. Such things aren't possible with online play, and as far as I'm concerned, the experience suffers as a result.
Don Vee @ Jul 10th 2006 10:14AM
Couch based cooperative and multiplayer play will be one of the areas in which the Wii will succeed. Four people sitting on (or standing up next to) a couch swinging and flailing they're arms all about will be, well, just plain fun. The whole family will want to get involved, gathering around for a game of, say, Super Smash Brothers Brawl.
MosquitoControl @ Jul 10th 2006 11:40AM
Couch-based co-op is the only thing that keeps me playing consoles. And it's the reason my loyalty remains with Nintendo.
We've logged thousands upon thousands of hours in Smash Brothers, and significant time with Monkey Ball and Mario Kart.
Perfect Dark 0, for two-player, is one of the best out there, though. Yeah, the game was flawed. But it's co-op was very well implemented. While it was annoying that player 2 didn't seem to keep his weapons between levels, adding simple things such as arrows showing you where your partner was made trips back to Halo 2 co-op feel archaic.
I wish Bungie (and more likely Microsoft) would finally realize that playing 4 player split-screen with bots is much, much more satisfying than dealing with online games while split screen. I'd imagine Halo 3 will have bots. Halo 2 probably didn't to sell Live. Halo 3 will have other features to push Live, I'd expect bots would therefore be a given.
Hopefully.
Slashbunny @ Jul 10th 2006 2:14PM
Serious Sam Coop and Sven Coop (for HL1) = fun!
Bamboo @ Jul 10th 2006 7:27PM
I was so looking foward to co-op in GRAW for pc, but they totally screwed it up. For instance, if the team leader dies, game over for everyone. It sucks.
The one I am looking foward to is Crysis, from Crytek. Putting some hurt on the North Koreans in the jungle with friends will be awesome.
Wasyl @ Jul 11th 2006 11:46AM
Any console game that has co-op is a winner for me. I especially like games that can do it without splitting the screen up into a section for each player's view. The latest co-op game I enjoyed was Super Mario Strikers, I can't even think of a recent one before that.
Austin @ Jul 11th 2006 1:32PM
Double Dragon anyone?