The great multplayer gaming discussion

[Shifty Geezer]

The lack of 4 player coop Halo 3 on one box was a disappointment, and I thought it worthwhile to raise the topic of cooperative gaming, particular for 4 or more players.

The big question is, why is it such a rarity? Is it because the technical cost is considered too high, and even though developers think about adding it they always decline? Can any developers comment on this? Or is it because gaming is still entrenched with a stereotypical market view of single players on their machine playing solo, or online? Why is it thought that people who play games don't want to play games with their friends and family? Is the idea that most people just don't care for console games, so you only get 1 or 2 in a household who'll play, and only need to support 2 players?

I also wonder if a lot of the appeal for Wii isn't in the controller but the fact it has been sold from day 1 as a social activity. Do the masses perceive XB and PS as solo entertainments, but see Wii as something to share with friends and family? Could the traditional consoles with their traditional controls actually attract a larger market by promoting the idea of social gaming?

In my case, social gaming is a huge part of the appeal of consoles. When buying a game, at least one eye is on the multiplayer aspect. I'm always keen to hear of 4 player coop gaming. The game Monster Madness wasn't highly reviewed, but it's something I want to check out just because it provides that rare experience. Justice League Heroes wasn't bought despite loving that sort of game because the four player coop wasn't in it, unlike Snowblind Studio's previous efforts, and instead I await eagerly and hopefully for another four-player fantasy title. LBP's appeal as something four mates can lark about with is extremely strong. Am I in the minority here? Are most people happy to play solo or online? Or is two player sufficient for enough situations that you don't miss three/four player coop? Or do you all wish there was more sharing of the game experience? Are any consoles appealing to you for just this reason? Is social gaming something developers should be giving more attention to, and is it enough just to go with online communities and not support 'real life' communities in multiplayer gaming?

 

[patsu]

I think the businesses will observe whether 4P co-op helps to sell consoles and software. It's not exactly clear cut at this point.

Moving forward, I hope they explore more online gaming mode instead of the usual Deathmatches, Capture the flag, Land/node grab, ...

Top among my interests are:

* For players to operate in-game bosses/characters vs other players (e.g., Flying Fox vs Nariko in the same scene as the game)

* Co-opetition a la LBP (e.g., Collaborative and competitive treasure hunt in Uncharted)

* Simple tools for creating and sharing user-generated content/mods or repurposed content (e.g., Taking a MP3/AAC song and transform it into a mini-shooter. I attended Apple's WWDC conference this year. One of the demoes used the intrinsic properties of an AAC song to animate/choreographed a cartoon characters' dance move within minutes. I wonder how well it works for gaming... like for generating the types, frequency and power of enemies in a shooter).

 

[AlNom]

I don't see any reason why they couldn't do it if they already made the game with four people in mind, especially when they already have two player co-op and also four player multiplayer splitscreen.

heh, my friend's got three brothers even. It's not so convenient... :|

But on a technical note, how is split-screen achieved? Does the framebuffer increase by a factor of x-players, or is resolution divided according to x-players? (all compared to the single player).

hm... and the geometry load would still increase by a factor x-players still regardless... no

edit: Found this in an interview... reading it just now
http://www.ps3blog.net/category/interviews/

Split screen is a difficult problem from a performance point of view and it is certainly more difficult from an engineering point of view than rendering 1920×1080. Both together, no doubt, requires a serious engineering effort but it’s not impossible.

As the PS3 hardware is better understood it will become easier. Rendering 1080 is more performance intensive than 720 simply because it has two and a quarter times as many pixels, which is not only more pixels to render but also more video memory and bandwidth is used for the bigger frame buffers. The general overhead of 1080 is the same for full screen and split screen, whether you are rendering a single viewport or 4 viewports the total number of pixels on the screen doesn’t change.

Independently of the resolution, split screen places a different set of demands on the graphics hardware and graphics engine. For each viewport the engine has to more or less reprocess the entire scene, this is a lot of additional work, and ultimately generates a lot of additional polygons for the graphics hardware to process.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Maybe they feel they can design a more complex and interesting single player experience. Each player you add is another variable you have to worry about. Like, if you have scripted sequences, how do you make sure all the players are in the right place when they're supposed to happen? So, you either make the single player experience cater to co-op, or you have two campaigns, which costs more money. I think, with Halo, the gameplay is actually really simplistic, so it's fairly easy. It might be pretty hard to get a good co-op experience out of game that has more scripting or NPC and world interaction.

 

[RobertR1]

Simple, even on a 50inch screen I'm not going to share my space with 3 other people! Many feel that way. Even 2 player co op on the same screen is a bit much after some time.

In games where you the screen is split but you control multiple characters such as sports games, that's a great feature but for FPS anything more than 2 player split screen gets crowded.

Then the case of people wanting 4 player split screen co-op on the same screen is small so dev's don't cater to it.

 

[AlNom]

That's not a very good reason IMO... Why have 4 player splitscreen multiplayer if people hate being so cramped? Having the option is always nice...

Performance seems a more plausible reason and they didn't want to set the graphics back to the stone-age to do it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think the businesses will observe whether 4P co-op helps to sell consoles and software. It's not exactly clear cut at this point.

How will they measure that though, when there's not many contenders to observe? The game CON on PS2 sold very much on the strength of its cooperative gameplay AFAIK. Certainly in forums discussing the game, the game is played with family and Significant Others, with people reporting it's the only game SO will play. There's nothing magical to the gameplay other than being straight forward and a cooperative (and competitive) experience. Mario Kart was very popular too. FIFA and NFL are real social events. Then you have the glut of party games that have their following, which wouldn't get anywhere without cooperation. But how do you consider the impact of four player coop on FPSes, racers, and other genres, if no-one really tries?

I don't see any reason why they couldn't do it if they already made the game with four people in mind, especially when they already have two player co-op and also four player multiplayer splitscreen.

Where 4 player on screen adds graphical demand, this can be solved with simpler graphics. Crash Team Racing had much simpler graphics for four player. You can quarter you model densities, share textures so don't need to worry about those, and pixel shading will be the same as it's the same number of pixels. At a quarter of the resolution, in theory at least, you could get away with a notable reduction without seriously impacting the look of the game. And if that's a trade off, I think it's one gamers would like as long as it doesn't impact the single player experience.

Maybe they feel they can design a more complex and interesting single player experience.

That's probably the major issue. In a racing game, it's a doddle to add multiplayer with the same mechanic. You can substitute players for AI bots. In other games, the gameplay mechanic of the single player could be very different from multiplayer and really need a whole second game design. That said, these days we have quite a bit of AI support. In your FPS, you fight alongside allies. You could readily swap them out for human players. eg. GeOW had four characters. What's to stop the game supporting drop-in, drop-out players to select and control and of the marines? Lego SW and JLH have these AI replacement mechanics and its a very versatile system. Indeed, 2 player coop is quite widely supported. Designing for 2 or four players can't be that different, can it? If you have a design that relies on two players to work together and the next 2 players would seem a bit redundant, perhaps just upping the monster AI, HP and such would be enough balance to give everything something to do?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Then the case of people wanting 4 player split screen co-op on the same screen is small so dev's don't cater to it.

How do you know that? You may be right, but I've had no problem with quarter screen, going back to 320x256 resolution Amiga titles. We had quarter screen on Mario Kart and CTR and various clones. Now that people have big screens, there's the potential now for each of four players to get a whole last-gen SD screen of game to themselves, so if anything, now screenspace isn't an issue.

 

[AntShaw]

This is a good topic! Couple of things:

- Goldeneye: 4 player split screen done brilliantly. If N64 could do it???

- Halo 3 split screen: When running 2 player split screen co-op, the game already runs at a reduced resolution? I am not sure what, but its the only mode that gives me black bars. Only while playing split screen co-op do I get this. Maybe this goes into some technical issues on why they couldnt do 4 player split screen?

Personally, if it CAN be done, why shouldn't any game do it? Im with Shifty, screen real estate shouldn't be an excuse at this point.

 

[Scott_Arm]

How will they measure that though, when there's not many contenders to observe? The game CON on PS2 sold very much on the strength of its cooperative gameplay AFAIK. Certainly in forums discussing the game, the game is played with family and Significant Others, with people reporting it's the only game SO will play. There's nothing magical to the gameplay other than being straight forward and a cooperative (and competitive) experience. Mario Kart was very popular too. FIFA and NFL are real social events. Then you have the glut of party games that have their following, which wouldn't get anywhere without cooperation. But how do you consider the impact of four player coop on FPSes, racers, and other genres, if no-one really tries?
Where 4 player on screen adds graphical demand, this can be solved with simpler graphics. Crash Team Racing had much simpler graphics for four player. You can quarter you model densities, share textures so don't need to worry about those, and pixel shading will be the same as it's the same number of pixels. At a quarter of the resolution, in theory at least, you could get away with a notable reduction without seriously impacting the look of the game. And if that's a trade off, I think it's one gamers would like as long as it doesn't impact the single player experience.That's probably the major issue. In a racing game, it's a doddle to add multiplayer with the same mechanic. You can substitute players for AI bots. In other games, the gameplay mechanic of the single player could be very different from multiplayer and really need a whole second game design. That said, these days we have quite a bit of AI support. In your FPS, you fight alongside allies. You could readily swap them out for human players. eg. GeOW had four characters. What's to stop the game supporting drop-in, drop-out players to select and control and of the marines? Lego SW and JLH have these AI replacement mechanics and its a very versatile system. Indeed, 2 player coop is quite widely supported. Designing for 2 or four players can't be that different, can it? If you have a design that relies on two players to work together and the next 2 players would seem a bit redundant, perhaps just upping the monster AI, HP and such would be enough balance to give everything something to do?

Well, in the case of those swap in and out for AI games, I think it's an issue of how much fun the 2nd player will have. Are they going to be an equal contributor or a tag along to the "main" character.

One of the big issues is respawn and difficulty. Do you allow one player to respawn as long as the other is still alive? Is it game over if any player controlled character dies? Do you have the ability to 'heal' a downed teammate, to make the revives part of the gameplay? There's a lot of different ways to handle it for different games, but it's another issue of complexity that has to be user tested, which is more dollars spent.

And how do you deal with situations like the old falling bridge. You know, you're running across and it starts to collapse. How do you prevent one person from getting stuck on the wrong side? Do you teleport them across to "catch up"? Does all of this kind of stuff ruin the cinematic experience of the game?

All of these problems have solutions, but are they solutions that will detract from either the single or multi experience? You don't want either to feel lessened. If time and money were no object, we'd see tons of co-op games. I'd love to see more. I think most companies would rather just put out a really solid single player game than worry about co-op design issues.

 

[AlNom]

Where 4 player on screen adds graphical demand, this can be solved with simpler graphics. Crash Team Racing had much simpler graphics for four player. You can quarter you model densities, share textures so don't need to worry about those, and pixel shading will be the same as it's the same number of pixels. At a quarter of the resolution, in theory at least, you could get away with a notable reduction without seriously impacting the look of the game. And if that's a trade off, I think it's one gamers would like as long as it doesn't impact the single player experience.

With model complexity in question, maybe they didn't want or have the time to make the necessary adjustments. They either create a low low poly version or have some dynamic LOD, correct They'd have to reduce scene geometry by a pretty staggering amount though in order to accommodate the increased load there. That may be a pretty big issue with the scarab battles with all the human vehicles and such mucking about, not to mention the Flood levels (I would think).

 

[RobertR1]

How do you know that? You may be right, but I've had no problem with quarter screen, going back to 320x256 resolution Amiga titles. We had quarter screen on Mario Kart and CTR and various clones. Now that people have big screens, there's the potential now for each of four players to get a whole last-gen SD screen of game to themselves, so if anything, now screenspace isn't an issue.

So get a big screen HD setup only to dumb it down considerably? The historical references are invalid in the since that the core audience doesn't even know about most of it and certainly doesn't want to play super mario 3 graphics on their 360/PS3. Seriously, this is the first time I've heard of a request for 4player split screen co-op on the same screen.

Again, sports games in which you share the same screen and have co-op are great but if you expect 4 player split screen in FPS to be a standard feature, you'll be often left disappointed.

The trend is shifting to co-op over the net.

 

[Todd33]

That's not a very good reason IMO... Why have 4 player splitscreen multiplayer if people hate being so cramped? Having the option is always nice...

Performance seems a more plausible reason and they didn't want to set the graphics back to the stone-age to do it.

I remember playing Desert Storm 4 player split-screen, it was kind of hard to figure out what to shoot with 480i and a quarter screen, but fun. Warhawk supports 4 player split-screen, though I've never seen it live. I've tried two player and it works great, not graphics down grade that I could see.

It's a great option, but I'm all about co-op online.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Being a selfish consumer, I'd rather developers not waste time on features I'd be unlikely to ever use.

I have to think all feature sets become an effort(cost) vs reward consideration. If developers feel a very small part of the community is going to benefit from the experience and an even smaller part will factor that into their purchase decision you basically leave it out and focus on making the core gameplay experiences better. You also have to factor in the possible negatives of adding a feature if it has to be done so with sacrifices to quality, that could lead to negative talk about the feature and the game in general.

 

[patsu]

How will they measure that though, when there's not many contenders to observe? The game CON on PS2 sold very much on the strength of its cooperative gameplay AFAIK. Certainly in forums discussing the game, the game is played with family and Significant Others, with people reporting it's the only game SO will play. There's nothing magical to the gameplay other than being straight forward and a cooperative (and competitive) experience. Mario Kart was very popular too. FIFA and NFL are real social events. Then you have the glut of party games that have their following, which wouldn't get anywhere without cooperation. But how do you consider the impact of four player coop on FPSes, racers, and other genres, if no-one really tries?

They can survey gamers, observe proxy indicators (like sales of Haze), or do a small PSN game involving 4 people co-op. It will take time. As in all marketing activities, they are not foolproof.

Yes, I like Mario Kart too.

 

[2real4tv]

Isn't HAZE suppose to be 4 player split screen campaign where one can join a game seamlessly? If your playing online with someone and if that person leaves is it a problem for developers to give control back to cpu? because in H3 and GeOW it boots u off of campaign which is fustrating sometimes

 

[Acert93]

Wherever the adverts are, us who got to gether to play it just knew it was 4 player coop and were all expecting it to be on one machine.

Seeing as you aren't a fan of the genre (let alone the title) I can understand your ambivalence prior to your categorical flop of an experience, as well as being ignorant of the specific details of the game's contents.

What is surprising is no one bothered to read what the title supported. I guess I don't know what to think when someone complains about their experience with Warhawk because it didn't support 32 players on a single PS3 when the game is advertised to support 32 players online.

2 player coop is reasonably common, but not so social.

Is this the case? Anyone have numbers on the PS3/360/Wii games that sipport coop play?

Rummaging my cobwebs, I would say 2 player coop is actually pretty rare in next gen console games, notably FPS games.

2+ player in competitive formats is a little more common, but cooperative?

Anyone have a list?

If I was in charge, I'd have every game released on my console as requiring 4 player cooperative play as an option without exception!

Your best bet is to purchase a N64. Without online to dillute the options/variety, it had quite a few 4 player games on a single console. Most are competitive in nature, not cooperative, but I think you will find cooperative style games pretty rare, even rarer with 4 players on a single console.

People are already kevetching about graphics, I doubt most will sacrifice a major selling point to most consumers to offer the scalability to cater to a smaller demographic.

 

[AlNom]

Rummaging my cobwebs, I would say 2 player coop is actually pretty rare in next gen console games, notably FPS games.

2+ player in competitive formats is a little more common, but cooperative?

Anyone have a list?

How far back do you want to go?

Here's from my memory for first person shooters:

Xbox 360

Perfect Dark Zero
Gears of War
Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 1 & 2
Rainbow 6: Vegas

Xbox
Halo: CE & 2
Return to Castle Wolfenstein

The only other few co-op games I can think of off-hand on Xbox are...

Dungeons and Dragons (4 player all on one screen)
Lego Star Wars I & II
Star Wars Episode III
Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory

But yeah, out of my 30+ Xbox games, only these few are actually co-op. I wouldn't consider Unreal Championship just because you don't actually progress through a ladder with multiple players - it's just matches.

 

[groper]

GR:AW1 is not real coop.

 

[archangelmorph]

Don't forget Bouldur's Gate: DA & DA2..