Seems like a strange question in a way but I do believe they do hate putting it in games and not just because it requires extra work on their part. As a consumer Co-Op is great. It greatly increases the value of a game to some and minorly to others. The issue is SO many developers either don't do Co-Op or IF they do they seem to do everything they can to screw it up so it sucks. So here I have compiled a list of how they screw it up and will end this little blog of mine with the over all answer.
The Number one way developers ruin Co-Op is more or less a tie for me. Since I can't choose, the first one I'll use is Vertical Split-Screen. Where the screens are side by side instead of one on-top the other. I'm not quite sure WHO first thought of vertical split screen but he/she needs to be shot. While I'm sure there must be SOMEONE out there that prefers vertical split to horizontal split, what it comes down to is options. Some games, though it's rare, give you the option to choose vertical or horizontal split. That's fine with me. The bottom line though is Vertical is grossly inefficient for most games especially shooters. Vertical split screen is like reverse wide screen, it drastically cuts your visual range from the side to side field and this is by far the most important thing to Shooters is visual range. Vertical split screen should be an option or outlawed. I don't care which. But making a game vertical split screen just kills the Co-Op buzz for me, it's just a far less enjoyable experience when you and your buddy are both sitting there getting shot or damaged by some unseen enemy because your character has NO side vision at all. Also side by side seems to be a little harder to draw a mental line with, where exactly your screen ends and the next begins is a little harder to tell then with a horizontal split. Why? Because you're used to being able to see left and right, not just forward. Players are used to tilting up and down to look. So with horizontal split there's little confusion to where your screen ends and the next begins. With vertical split you're used to being able to see so much more to your sides and your eyes just aren't used to having such a short visual range.
The number two on my list, or the tie for first is On-Line Co-Op. There is no bigger kill joy than seeing an awesome game that is Co-op, just to get it in your hands to see it's on-line only. I guess game companies just don't care about this gerenal state of the world economy. Not everyone can afford a console and/or a paid subscription just to play on-line. The most recent dissapointment in this list is Crackdown 2. While companies seem to believe we all have unlimited funds, the truth is we dont. Of my group of friends I'm the only one that owns any console at all, so if I want to play Co-Op with my friends it can ONLY be Local. Making Co-Op online only does have it's ups, reducing stress on the console allows for better overall performance of a game and if you don't mind playing with random people online and rolling the dice to see if you find a decent person to play with on-line it's possible to play co-op without having any friends. But overall many games that would be mind blowing end up being just ok because you can't play locally. Co-Op can be fun with a stranger online, but generally you either can't find a match OR you get stuck with some jack @$$ who either has NO clue how to play or thinks it's fun to kill you and/or just generally ruin the experience for you in some way, shape or form. Longevity is also cut short for Online only co-op. Too Human is a great example. Personally I really enjoy Too Human. I would have LOVED that game Co-Op. But it was online Co-Op only. Finding games for it online was always hard, but now that it's a old title it's impossible. If it were local co-op I could have a buddy come to my place to play and I would still be enjoying that game. But since it was online only it's no longer in my collection, I beat it to pieces single player and had no where left to go with the game and therefore go rid of it.
The Third on my list is hybrid split screen, games like Lost Planet 2. Where there is a split screen mode, it's not technically horizontal or vertical but one things for sure, it sucks. I've seen different attempts at non-typical split screens. Lost Planet 2 being probably the worst of the bunch. But I'm sure some developer somewhere will come up with an even worse concept. There isn't much to say about this one since there is no General Hybrid split screen type, every instance of these is unique to the game developer. While some are ok and more tolerable than vertical split, it comes back down to Horizontal still being the best of the bunch.
The fourth way to ruin Co-Op is side kick or "hindered" co-op. Fable 2s (local Co-Op) Is the perfect and exact example. Also Mario Galaxy is a good show of "Why Bother?" Co-Op Design. Games where you can have a second player but the second player has a reduced and less influential status in the game. Instead of player 1 and 2 having the same abilities and damage output, the 2nd player is forced to play as some sort of reduced version of the first player. While this type of Co-Op is rather rare, it still exists and it still sucks up Co-Op.
The fifth and final one is for shared screen Co-Op games. While Shared screen co-op for games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance is a perfectly fine and good way to do co-op for games of that type. Some developers have a tendency to zoom the camera in WAY too far, there by suffocating both players. Again Fable 2s Local Co-Op is just the perfect example of how to put local Co-Op into a game and completely ruin it to the point where it's just a waste of code.
So then WHY do developers do these things? Well sometimes I wonder if it's just to punish the consumer for wanting it. Some type of spiteful action on the developers end , but this is absurd... I hope. Game companies aren't run by gamers and enthusiasts anymore, so the days of developers trying to make the best damn experience possible is over. Now it's based off of output compared to input and profitability. The reason some companies screw up Local Co-Op is generally just poor design on the companies part or due to some type of time constraint where doing it right would take longer. Of course I'm a strong believe of if you aren't going to do it right just don't do it. As for On-line only co-op the answer is, wait for it... MONEY. Yes money. Not surprised? No I wouldn't think so. They do online only so they can sell more copies. Why make a game local Co-op when you can make it online co-op only and sell TWO copies? Yes it's true. Of course there is the claim that running a game in co-op is too much stress for a single console to handle and two are required. While this is an acceptable answer to a point, there are some games out there that just are obviously trying to squeeze every penny out of consumers. Which is too bad, because there are games out there that I have bought ONLY because they were Local Co-Op. While companies like to believe they are making better money by doing this under handed thing of making co-op online only, I believe they would sell better were they to make the game local Co-Op and Online. I have purchased quite a few titles for their Co-Op values alone, games like Dynasty Warrior and Dark Kingdom, while these titles are rather medicore on their own the element Co-Op put them from boring to worth buying because of how fun it is to have partner. Games that would otherwise be bland and unworth playing are a blast with a second player, but if the Co-op isn't local then what's the point? Online play is just so susceptible to so many variables. With local Co-Op you know you're going to have fun as long as the games good.
To finish this thought process I say this, to one and all. Mainly to developers but anyone listening. If anyone is listening. You want to make a good Co-Op folks? You wanna know exactly how to make a GREAT co-Op experience that will give you a major chance to increase sales? Look to Halo, Left 4 Dead, Gears of War and Borderlands. They by FAR have the best Co-Op designs possible. While Borderlands does fail by using a vertical split instead of a horizontal split, it's at least local and the second player is able to do everything the first player can. What it comes down to is Halo, Gears of War and Left 4 Dead. ALL developers in the world, when you go to make a shooter of the first or third person flavors and add Co-Op look to Halo 3, Gears of War and Left 4 Dead. Examine them, study them, copy them, love them, worhship them. Great Local Play with optional Online Co-Op. All of them are horizontal split screen so both players have the optimal field of vision for play. Finally both players have the same control and influence to the game world. Neither player has 'reduced' capabilities compared to the other.
So, to condense. Co-Op for virtually all games should be Horizontal or 'stacked' split screen, no player should have a reduced or negatively altered status (i.e - Do less damage, have less customizing options or have less than the other player in any way. Again look to Fable 2s local Co-Op to see exactly what NOT to do to the second or any other player.). That's basically it. Those two things should be adhered to for all Co-Op designs. Past that it's up to the developer how to make the actual experience work.
So theres a run down for Co-Op. How they screw it up, Why they do what they do and how to fix it to give gamers the best possible experience possible and start selling some truly worthy titles. Following those two simple guidelines of Horizontal Split screen Co-Op and Making sure both players are equals and both have the same abilities will add quality and serious longevity to games.
Log in to comment