The great multplayer gaming discussion
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
It's not that surprising - people rarely pay attention ot the small-print! Guy with the XB360 bought the game understanding it was coop on a single machine, and I had heard of coop and never thought to check. It's worth pointing out that the game wasn't bought based on the advertising of MS or the blurb on the back of the pack. It was bought based on general talk and media attention, where particulars were obviously overlooked. 32 player Warhawk would be different as no-one expects more than 4 player on one box. Whereas 4 player coop on one box does happen, indeed being support by Haze IIRC.
Not common relative to total titles, but certainly common enough that if all you want are 2 player coop games, you've got plenty to choose from, including genres that 4 player won't go near.
That's my big question though. How do we know it's a smaller demographic? Who's actually measured the interest in multiplayer coop, especially in markets that existing solo gaming doesn't reach? eg. If a game can sell 1 million units to traditional gamers with a solo campaign, do we know for sure that if it wasn't designed to support four players, it wouldn't sell a lot more? Would LBP be generating as much interest if it only supported one or two players? How can we know how well the investment in four player would pay off, or fail? It's hardly ever implemented, which means the market for coop is basically unapproached. There might be millions of people who don't game now who would if gaming was much more social. That's a large premise that Wii is built on. However, if they perceive consoles as something you have to do on your own, perhaps these untouched masses, if they exist, are just ignoring the industry?
My gut response to that assertion is that it's true. But then I start wondering if anyone made and marketed a coop only machine, how well would it do? And besides, the choice isn't one or the other, but both together.
It's allocation of development resources, you don't automagically get 4player coop, you have to put effort into making it. So there is always choice as to whether or not to allocate enough resources for a feature or leave it out and concentrate those resources on other aspects.
Do you want to do an inventory? I think we'd have to distinguish between:
2 player splitscreen games
4 player splitscreen games
2 player games same screen
4 player games same screen
2 player coop splitscreen
2 player coop online
4 player coop splitscreen
4 player coop splitscreen online
Though I wouldn't even be quite sure how to rate Warhawk for instance, which has no campaign mode, does allow you to play 4 player splitscreen offline however, as well as 4 player splitscreen online. I think when you do, you generally end up on the same team, though I'm not sure that's a rule and/or anything you can influence. I haven't been able to test it out (not enough controllers), but I did try 2 player splitscreen offline and it works quite well. And I've seen 4 players from one PS3 in online games do very well occasionally.
Perhaps a splitup in properties is better:
- number of players
- splitscreen or same screen
- coop or competitive (cf the old single player vs multiplayer division)
- offline / online
- campaign or non-campaign (or career vs non-career)
Etc. Then we can classify/describe the multiplayer aspects of games like Halo 2, Halo 3, Gears of War, Resistance, PGR2/3/4, Warhawk, Warcraft, Haze, and so on.
What about 2-player offline multiplayer (coop or competitive) vs single player?
I don't think they look at "4 player co-op" and go "Yay" or "Nay". One can easily mitigate the need for 4 physical players using PSN/XBL.
The question is what kind of games map well. There are a lot of 4 player games. Some party games can be played with even more people.
The survey has to include the game concept in question. The problem is most (all ?) of these additive 4-player games -- like Mahjong -- require a private screen for each players. So sharing the same screen would be pointless.
The question is what kind of games map well. There are a lot of 4 player games. Some party games can be played with even more people.
The survey has to include the game concept in question. The problem is most (all ?) of these additive 4-player games -- like Mahjong -- require a private screen for each players. So sharing the same screen would be pointless.
Before we go and question the reasonings, is there any way to know if devs actually even think 4 player coop? Do they wonder whether to do a coop game or not, or do they just go straight into solo and 2 player out of habit?
Are none of the board's devs going to comment? Do you consider four-player coop, or have you never even given it a passing thought?
archangelmorph
Veteran
Well just to make a point, sports games have been doing upto 4 player co-op/competitive for a while now..
I think it comes down to demographics.
Younger gamers may get together in person so they would like the multiplayer action on a single console.
But older gamers don't have the luxury to get together to play games because of familial and job responsibilities. So online is a better option for them.
Certainly game companies must have demographic data. Online gaming overall is a small part of overall gaming so we'll see which way developers and publishers go.
So far, they're fairly conservative, doing online modes mostly for the usual genres -- FPS, racing, MMORPG.
EA is just starting to do what they call "team online" games where you have more than 2 human-controlled players in sports games, requiring more than 2 consoles to be connected. They introduced that with NHL 08 this year and supposedly FIFA will support up to 10 human players (presumably from more than 2 connected consoles).
It's the non-traditional online genres which could use multiplayer online support. Games like HS or Uncharted or AC (some ideas we threw around in that thread). Hopefully LBP supports multiple consoles.
Younger gamers may get together in person so they would like the multiplayer action on a single console.
But older gamers don't have the luxury to get together to play games because of familial and job responsibilities. So online is a better option for them.
Certainly game companies must have demographic data. Online gaming overall is a small part of overall gaming so we'll see which way developers and publishers go.
So far, they're fairly conservative, doing online modes mostly for the usual genres -- FPS, racing, MMORPG.
EA is just starting to do what they call "team online" games where you have more than 2 human-controlled players in sports games, requiring more than 2 consoles to be connected. They introduced that with NHL 08 this year and supposedly FIFA will support up to 10 human players (presumably from more than 2 connected consoles).
It's the non-traditional online genres which could use multiplayer online support. Games like HS or Uncharted or AC (some ideas we threw around in that thread). Hopefully LBP supports multiple consoles.
The sad thing is EA actually had online 3 vs 3 (all seperate PCs) in NHL2004 and earlier versions. There was a crack that you could use to host 6 vs 6, so full teams including goalies. I played it all the time and it was probably the best online gaming I've ever done. There were five guys from all across Canada that I was playing with. The netcode could be pretty bad, at times, but if you had a good connection going that day, you'd have a full 60 minute game of hockey bliss.
And then came NHL2005, where they did a crappy port and crippled the PC online experience to match the horrible 1 vs 1 offered on the console online. So now they're slowly catching up to their online regression.
I'm not sure why they dropped it just as online was becoming a big deal and broadband was starting to pick up some serious steam. I suppose they felt it was a very niche feature, and probably had the stats to back it up.
I think the market for cooperative gaming with explode much faster than the competitive online has. For some reason they've pushed competitive gaming first, but I'd say it's more of a niche market. Maybe it's just easier to implement.
In the old days of consoles, everything was two player, and playing games with your friends was the real fun. As games became more cinematic, the focus shifted to one player, and gaming became more of an introverted experience, especially with the rise of the first person shooter. Hopefully things will swing back the other way, and we can all start enjoying our games together again.
ha ha ha, I never noticed the typo. To think, I've been posting about the wrong topic all this time.
This is a thing I always liked about consoles, the concept of social gaming. It's a basic feature for me. I like to play sports games with a friend.
Years ago social gaming was a very different affair. If you didn't have a friend to play coop or some sports game, or a LAN network in a Internet cafe you were pretty much screwed.
I was born in a very small village so when I was little I used to play alone almost everyday after coming home from school. I tended to pretend I was a warrior, or a cowboy, or some heroe or any of the thousand things that kids pretend to be.
Playing videogames alone I saved the world (few days ago to take a case in point), I killed the bad guys, I had the knowledge and the strenght... the major difference being that everyone that I had to play with, all my friends as well as my enemies were made up by the developers.
There was no one to beat, there was no actual person to compete with, there was no real individual to share with, especially if you had a PC without internet connection or you didn't own a console (I thought consoles sucked and now I love them above all other devices).
Consoles are more accessible to people than PCs.
PCs always seemed to be made to play alone, especially after their "golden era", that kind of gaming was associated with a particular period of time when PCs ruled this industry (1996-2002 or so?) and the image of one individual using his keyboard/mouse combo, no controllers anywhere in sight, playing FPSs like a god, Rambo everyone, perfect micromanagement in RTSs and so on.
I am a big fan of split screen games but there are a few problems with this.
Sometimes, you don't have the space (my case) or a TV big enough for everyone to see clearly (not a problem for me nowadays), even with beer googles on ;-) or, sadly, the necessary amount of friends.
Also at times you don't have enough controllers and if you do, most probably, some are eating dust on the dark realms of your gaming place.
The future tends more towards social gaming via classic MP modes, coop, etc, over the internet than split screen I guess but vertical split screen should be a compulsory feature for most games, specially arcade or sim racers.
Years ago social gaming was a very different affair. If you didn't have a friend to play coop or some sports game, or a LAN network in a Internet cafe you were pretty much screwed.
I was born in a very small village so when I was little I used to play alone almost everyday after coming home from school. I tended to pretend I was a warrior, or a cowboy, or some heroe or any of the thousand things that kids pretend to be.
Playing videogames alone I saved the world (few days ago to take a case in point), I killed the bad guys, I had the knowledge and the strenght... the major difference being that everyone that I had to play with, all my friends as well as my enemies were made up by the developers.
There was no one to beat, there was no actual person to compete with, there was no real individual to share with, especially if you had a PC without internet connection or you didn't own a console (I thought consoles sucked and now I love them above all other devices).
Consoles are more accessible to people than PCs.
PCs always seemed to be made to play alone, especially after their "golden era", that kind of gaming was associated with a particular period of time when PCs ruled this industry (1996-2002 or so?) and the image of one individual using his keyboard/mouse combo, no controllers anywhere in sight, playing FPSs like a god, Rambo everyone, perfect micromanagement in RTSs and so on.
I am a big fan of split screen games but there are a few problems with this.
Sometimes, you don't have the space (my case) or a TV big enough for everyone to see clearly (not a problem for me nowadays), even with beer googles on ;-) or, sadly, the necessary amount of friends.
Also at times you don't have enough controllers and if you do, most probably, some are eating dust on the dark realms of your gaming place.
The future tends more towards social gaming via classic MP modes, coop, etc, over the internet than split screen I guess but vertical split screen should be a compulsory feature for most games, specially arcade or sim racers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gaming started as a social experience. You went to the arcade to play games. It was like going out, in a way. Even at home, a lot of games for the Atari etc had two player support. Same with NES and SNES. It was only later when they started pushing cinematic style games, with 3D graphics and cutscenes that gaming started to move further over to single player experiences. PC, of course, lacking that community feeling from not being in your living room or rec room, did not have the same amount of multiplayer games. Somehow that moved over to the consoles as they became more advanced, but I'm happy to see more games are started to take gaming back to its social roots.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-of3qKuOIPk
This video shows how succesful and interesting coop -via split screen, especially vertical- mode can be. (warning) These aren't average players, though, they are enormously gifted gamers, the video is so "active" because of that.
Scott_Arm, very interesting point.
Cheers
This video shows how succesful and interesting coop -via split screen, especially vertical- mode can be. (warning) These aren't average players, though, they are enormously gifted gamers, the video is so "active" because of that.
Scott_Arm, very interesting point.
Cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
