Soapbox #2: To co-op, or not to co-op…

Before I begin, allow me to give credit where it is due. Regular AnalogHype visitor otherZinc responded to Sunday Soapbox #1 and gave me the focal point for this installment of Sunday Soapbox. You could even say we “co-oped” this article in a sense. Now that I got that bad pun out of the way (yes there may be more) let us delve into the topic at hand. Video games have made a lot of progress in terms of what they offer to gamers. Developers are getting more creative using past games as a stepping stone to the future. Consoles are getting more and more powerful. However, all is not well in the gaming realm. With all the progress that has been made and the capabilities in front of us, we as gamers still do not get as much value in a game as we could. There are many examples of this. The one that has caught my (and otherZinc’s) attention is Cooperative gameplay. Dubbed “co-op” for short, this is a feature that is not as new as many people seem to think. From games like Contra and Double Dragon II and III, to titles like Metal Slug and The Avengers; co-op gaming has been around since old school systems that are archaic by today’s standards. I am talking back when people where arguing which system had more “bits”. This raises two intriguing questions that a lot of people seem to be over looking; “why is co-op neglected in games that it should be in” and “why is it so difficult for games now to incorporate it properly?”

Before I give my answer to these questions, let me give some examples that will add potency to my answer. Let us look at some titles that are on the horizon or have been recently released that do not support co-op and should. Realistically speaking, any game that provides the player with A.I. character assistance should support co-op. This point is even more valid in genres like FPSs (first-person shooters) and Sports games. Think about it; there is already a character model in the game. You are expected to work together with this entity to achieve your MO (Mission Objective) whatever it may be. It is critical to have your partner(s) be on the same level as you. How frustrating is it to play a Sports game and have a A.I. teammate not make the right cut to the basket in a basketball game? Or how about have a A.I. controlled receiver run the wrong route or lack the awareness to go for the football on a pass? Let’s say you are playing a FPS and supposedly have squad with you but you are the only person the enemy goes for? How about having a squad with you that does absolutely nothing to help you at all? They don’t kill anyone, heal/revive you, or even direct you to your goal or give you tips. They are there just to be there. Sounds stupid right? Well some of the most hyped up games this generation are guilty of this. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is a prime example. The funny thing is that Treyarch (the supposedly inferior company by the way) added co-op in Call of Duty 5: World at War and yet Modern Warfare 2 will not have it at all. That is a tad odd is it not? Killzone 2 would have been so much better with co-op. The presentation in the game makes it seem as if the game was made for it. Every time I look at footage of the game it is the first thing that comes to mind. Resistance 2 really confused me. I liked Resistance 1. Then enter Resistance 2. They remove the weapon wheel and co-op. Why? How does removing a way for players to play your game improve said game?

Fable 2 must be mentioned on this list too. All the promises they made about the co-op implementation just did not come into fruition at all. Actually, explaining what went wrong with Fable 2’s co-op will answer the second question from the introduction easily. With Fable 2, the people over at Lionhead Studios seemed to neglect making the co-op experience as well flushed out as the single player experience. Most games accomplish this by making an experience that in itself can be played solo or co-op. Problems arise when you tack one on after the other. Tacking on co-op with little thought to a single player games will not work well. The genre is also important. Like I said earlier, co-op is most practical in FPSs and Sports games. Though it is prevalent in RPGs, implementation in RPGs is much more difficult and requires a lot more time and effort. RPGs are heavily dependent on their stories and how the character and the character’s world interact. How can you hope to have successful co-op gameplay in an RPG if you tack it on after already formulating the game and flushing out the single player alone? Co-op in RPGs is something that has to be done from the start. It has to be all, part of the plan (sorry for the joker line, I could not resist). That is the only way to ensure the playing experience for the co-op is as fulfilling as the single player. Let us not forget one of the biggest disappointments this gaming generation: Too Human. This game was utter rubbish compared to what it was promised to be. Twas surely a waste of all those years of development time. I was stoked for this game. Then they quietly announced that the co-op had be cut from four players to two. This enraged me so much I canceled my pre-order. I played the game long after launch and found that it was nigh-mediocre at best.

Now let us look at some games that successfully incorporated co-op. Resident Evil 5 saw spectacular sales and reviews. The addition of co-op play made perfect and was breath of fresh air into the franchise. Then again, Capcom are no saints. They released a “versus” mode in the form of priced DLC which annoyed me (read Sunday Soapbox #1 to see why). Before Resident Evil 5, Crackdown was a successful, overlooked game that was fun, innovative, and supported co-op. Even Grand Theft Auto 4 had an online co-op mode. It is also ironic to me that both and the Gears of War series and Halo series have had co-op from the beginning and they are both hugely successful. Think about that for a minute. 2K Games recently released Borderlands (be on the look out for a review from yours truly by the end of the week). This title successfully mixes FPS gameplay with RPG elements. The most striking thing about this mixture is the fact that on top of it, players are given the ability for go online and play the game with up to 3 other human opponents. Thats right, four player co-op. It even supports two player split screen play (another rarity in today’s games). Simply supporting four player co-op is not all this game can boast. It is a high quality title all together. You can play this game solo and enjoy it. Playing with friends add a new dynamic to the game that can not be found any where else on consoles. I really have been impressed during my playing time. You can also add Army of Two and the recently released Operation Flashpoint to this list as well.

The funny thing is developers and fanboys “co-op” making excuses claiming that co-op can be bad for a game (I warned you there may be more bad puns). Can someone really give me a legit example of this? I mean seriously, it is utter bollocks. Like all features, tis the choice of the gamer playing the game to use it or not. You don’t have to play games co-op. It is an option for people who would rather work together with people instead of A.I. teammates. As far along as A.I. has come, it still has a long way to go. Actually, post deeper thought, no game to date has even rivaled the A.I. in Perfect Dark on the Nintendo 64. It had the perfect balance of difficulty and intellect. I am shocked that no game has reached, let alone surpassed this game in terms of A.I. yet. You have games that claim they have like Halo and such, but if they did why do they refuse to put bots in the game when people drop? Why do the not allow people to practice/play bots in multiplayer off/online? Hmm, perhaps a topic for another time.

Also, I am sick and tired of the graphics excuse. First off, when did graphics begin to take precedence over gameplay? If anything, their whole point is to help immerse gamers into the game itself, and ergo the gameplay. If archaic machines could handle co-op, modern systems should have no problem. I understand computer hardware so I know this for a fact. The previously mentioned Borderlands is an example of this and the game is multiplatform as well. It is a cop out honestly. It is sad that gamers are willing to accept that. I guess they figure if the game is part of the hype machine, they will over look anything. There is no reason at all Modern Warfare 2 should not have co-op. Do you want to know why it won’t? It is simple really. Infinity Ward would have to re-do the way they did the last Modern Warfare’s campaign. Having endless waves of enemies that spawn until you pass some arbitrary line won’t work well with two or more people. They also couldn’t have the A.I. simply focus on one person and fire at them even if they are hiding and haven’t been seen. They realize that the game will sell regardless so why bother. The sad thing is they are right. What is even worse is that I will catch flack for saying anything of a non-worship context about this game. Eh, I’m just being honest. What do you guys think? Have a subject matter you want Soapboxed. Leave a comment with a suggestion or pull an otherZinc manuever and Soapbox it yourself. Wait, I am quite sure the term “soapbox” can not be used as a verb. Eh, you get the picture. And with that, time for me to step down from this empty Zest box.