next »

[dspencer]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately: what makes for good cooperative gameplay? I've drawn some of my own conclusions but I'm really curious about what other people might say.

For me, it tends to be unmirrored skills (each person has some of their own skills which no one else has) and interactive abilities (skills that require cooperation between parties to use)

[shig]

Metal Slug and Gunstar Heroes were awesome in co-op and didn't have any of that.

[AuthenticKaizen]

you might want to check out this site which is purely about co-op games.
http://www.co-optimus.com/


also
http://www.pixelprospector.com/indev/tag/2-player-co-op/

[Hayato]

In some cases, cooperative skills just tend to get annoying. Army of two is a good example of annoying co-op mechanics. If I had a nickel for every time I swore uncontrollably after being forced to go back to back, I'd have about 10 dollars.

[J. R. Hill]

Unmirrored skills are ok if the game is focused on solving puzzles or strategy, but if it's just beat-em-up or something then I don't think it's really necessary.  Even so, it can still definitely be fun if it's done right.

Co-op becomes less fun when someone is forced to do something they don't want to do (e.g. carry the crystal chalice in CC)

[noah!]

Metal Slug and Gunstar Heroes were awesome in co-op and didn't have any of that.

Yeah, but Gunstar Heroes was just a flat-out awesome game, even without the co-op. Sharing a victory high-five with a good friend is just icing on the cake. (Not sure about Metal Slug; but from what I've heard about it I've put it on my to-play list)

[shig]

That's true. Metal Slug fits that description, too.

[RyanT]

What I like in cooperative games is having to count on your partner(s). Simply going through the game, without reliance, as if it was a single player game, is no fun.

[SirNiko]

Co-op in Jet Force Gemini consisted of a little helper drone that hovered over your shoulder. If a second player grabbed the controls, they could make the drone fire at enemies. It was helpful, and nothing was lost if you didn't have them there to help.

Tails in Sonic 2 was another good example.

Four Swords Adventures was fun when you got everything set up, although the competitive elements sometimes led to a stalemate. You needed a bow to solve the next puzzle, but nobody was willing to give up their boomerang to get it. An online version of Four Swords would be tremendously awesome.

I need to get one of the CC games. It's a shame I don't have anyone local that would be likely to play it with me.

-SirNiko

[Cevo70]

Yes there is something cool when each member of the co-op brings something a little unique to the table.  Gauntlet comes to mind - or TMNT, Golden Axe.   Each player is mostly even, but has slight pros/cons.

But if it goes too far and certain players/types/skills are REQUIRED, then I find it annoying.  It feels restrictive.

[Hayato]

Tails in Sonic 2 was another good example.
-SirNiko

I think tails in Sonic 3 was the better version. In that game, tails had the ability to carry sonic while flying. A partner that made certain areas accessible didn't change gameplay in any real way, but added a new element, and different ways to play the same level. It was a great touch.

[nihilocrat]

Co-op becomes less fun when someone is forced to do something they don't want to do (e.g. carry the crystal chalice in CC)

Forcing someone to "take one for the team" might sound interesting, but it's almost never a good idea. If you have a mechanic like that, give that player something unique and interesting to do, never make it feel like a burden.

Left 4 Dead does co-op pretty well, it has some really cool things:
- Reward players for not leaving someone behind (reviving "dead" teammates)
- Subtly force players to work together (health packs can only be used on other players)

I'm actually toying with the idea of prototyping a co-op beat-em-up, so I'm really interested in what works well.

[gimymblert]

FFCC magic system was blast. Ti use magic, you have to held the magic button and a target appear after a certain time, by combining target you access new magic. Effect change according to the kind of magic which was mix AND timing (like 1s after the first had release is magic). As you can combine up to 4 magic imagine all the mix and the sync that you must have.

Beside that each player had a screen with personal information about the map (one with only enemy position, one with map layout, one with item position and one with enemy stats) they have to share. They also had a secret mission that give them a score at the end to a level and decide in which order they can loot the final rewards (things like not taking magic, or taking all the money, not using physical damage or having the most time with the chalice).

[J. R. Hill]

I'm actually toying with the idea of prototyping a co-op beat-em-up, so I'm really interested in what works well.

One thing that co-op beat-em-ups usually lack is a large character roster or customizable characters.  With the exception of the Dynasty Warriors franchise, beat-em-ups rarely get more than 4 choices.

I think it's also fun to have customizable movesets (like River City Ransom)

[Akari]

I'd say Rainbow Six Vegas 2 was worthly playing only for the co-op play. Me and my friend started it straight with the highest difficulty and played it through in about three evenings and had an absolute blast doing so. I had played the first Vegas as a single player before that, and it had quite quickly bored me. But as a co-op, oh man, it was great.

In summary, just the fact that you can work together with your friend who's sitting next to you is awesome. I just wish PC games splitscreen too (hell, with FPSes and such, the second player could always use a controller), not only console games...

[darthlupi]

I would say the already mentioned Rainbow Six series and River City Ransom were great because you could not only save each other, but you could also hurt each other if you made a mistake. 

You truly had to COMMUNICATE with each other in order to avoid joint disaster or amazing success that was celebrated with high fives for all.

The chosen mechanic is not as important as the polish of the game mechanic.  If game play is smooth, and you are not constantly in each others way, the game could be amazing.  To me that helps a ton with COOP.

I was mildly disappointed with Mario Wii's coop because you were more or less in each other's way CONSTANTLY.

[dspencer]

Actually being constantly in each others way, almost unavoidably, is what made new mario's coop mode fun for me. I think its cause, like you said, it is extremely polished - and the game was clearly set up to make you end up jumping all over one another.

[darthlupi]

Haha, it may have been because I played through the whole game with my wife, and she was pretty evil to me if I bounced her in to a pit.

No body put's baby into a flaming death pit.

----

Now, competing was so much fun!  Especially trying to kill each other on the Skeleton roller coaster thing!

[rob]

(health packs can only be used on other players)

If that's true I've been playing it wrong.

I do think L4D is the epitome of epic co-op, though, and there really needs to be more games where the game is virtually unplayable alone.

[droqen]

I share In Tandem, a sorta incomplete cooperative game that I made, with asymmetric abilities.

I think that it really depends on what kind of experience you want. If the main draw is simply to play a game with friends, a lot of the time complex differentiation of abilities isn't necessary -- you just need some way for people to interact (like in Little Big Planet you can smack people around, in Gunstar Heroes you can accidentally throw each other around, or use it to your advantage, you can help each other when for example being grabbed by enemies etc).

But I love the asymmetric! I think maybe it would be best, however, to create asymmetry that doesn't enforce co-operation -- rather, make certain things a bit easier for certain players' abilities, or combinations thereof, as well as include a fun level of interaction between them.