Ozymandias has an interesting article about what he'd like to see in all co-op games in the future. It was inspired by a post by Penny Arcade's Tycho.
An excerpt from Ozymandias' blog:
Quote:
All co-op games should allow players to play cooperatively through the rich, single-player experience. Doing so through suspension of disbelief (ie, when cinematics refer to only a single player) is ok, though not ideal.
Players can join a co-op game in progress at any point within the game's story, regardless of their own, personal progress through the game.
Players who join into a co-op game in progress are awarded achievements for their accomplishments, even if they haven’t gotten lead-up achievements. For example, joining a game in progress and then killing the fourth boss gets you the “4th Boss” achievement.
A game that allows co-op online play should also support co-op play locally, either through LAN or split-screen (ideally both). An online subscription should not be required to play co-op locally on a LAN.
No, but you can get standardized features IN Co-Op games. I mean, part of the reason I created Co-Optimus is because gamers had a hard time
1) Finding Co-Op Games
2) Understanding what kind of co-op it even has.
Well why didn't you write the Bill of Rights.
Is there any solid middle ware for game devs to use when it comes to net code for online play? I thought MS had something like that but can't tell if the good games are using it or the shitty games aren't. GoW seemed to work fine so why can't the other U3 games get it right?
"My life requires busting faggoty assed bitches like yourself in the fucking face." -Zeal
"Real American gamers don't die after 5 days straight." -Vermy21
You're not going to get standardized co-op features like that across games. It would be great, but it's not going to happen.
While I'm sure you're just being argumentative, you're missing the point. This is a list of in-demand features for co-op games. As publishers tend to include features that sell titles, it behooves us to be vocal about the features we like.
For years I bitched about not having enough co-op games to play. When something like Hidden & Dangerous would come along, I'd lap that shit up like it was water and I was dieing of thirst. It seems that they've finally decided that co-op is a desired feature. There have been more co-op games released in the past 2 years than even I have the desire to play. While that's great, it's now time to refine the craft. They pay attention to what we say we want. They don't always believe us, but with enough time, being vocal about our wants and actually buying the games that have the features we want, results in more of what we want being produced.
concepts such as dual-trigger activities (two buttons must be pressed at same time to open door), helping traverse terrain (boost up/rappelling), and combat coordination (dual-sniping, distract guard while companion attacks from behind).
No, not the first one. Please.
I guess it's old fashioned but I just like straight-up "kill all the enemies in the room" style battles. Just increase the number of enemies proportional to the number of players and that's all I really care about.
As far as combat coordination is concerned, I might be nifty for players to take turns being a sniper who is way up on a tower, who also communicates directions to the team-mates below in lieu of radar. (I was originally thinking of this for team deathmatches, but I guess it'd make as much if not more sense in co-op). Stuff like that at least, where the players have different roles.
In a real big co-op game, you could even have support roles (e.g. medic), but at the point that you have that many people, why not take on a human team instead (or split up and fight each other)? That's why I've never really seen a need for co-op over 3 or 4 people; it seems silly IMO to fight bots when there are that many humans available.
I agree with all of the must-have stuff.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMan
I always love the phrasing developers use when talking about development costs rising, as if they are watching an astronomical event they have no influence over.
The most pathetic thing about this is that we actually need it in the first place. I mean What The Fuck? Is common sense really this lacking in development houses? Don't answer that.
The Required Features list should be tattooed onto every dev's forehead so they don't forget.
And agreed on "fuck the dual-trigger activities", that shit never works properly and there's just so many better ways to go about co-op. That said, I will make an exception for double keys on doomsday machines.
Also every co-op game needs a high five button, if only for the sheer childish glee of it.
If anyone is in any position to not only understand what the co-op game Bill of Rights should include, but also have the influence to ensure those Rights are implemented in further Microsoft co-op games, it's Ozymandias. Ozy knows the various gaming communities better than anyone. He knows what everyone wants.
Except Headcase - he obviously hates him for including dual-trigger events (which I happen to like - they appear frequently in City of Heroes).
Hopefully these concepts spread far and wide in the publishing world.
Very cool stuff. I remember bap talking about it the other day and to have someone with some pull get going on it, well, that's great. I'm still relatively new to co-op stuff but I totally agree with everything he has on that list. Not every game needs to be co-op but if you're going to do co-op, for the love of god, please implement the things he has on his list!
They don't always believe us, but with enough time, being vocal about our wants and actually buying the games that have the features we want, results in more of what we want being produced.
They don't always "believe us" because what we (more hardcore gamers) say we want is not always what sells, for one thing (50 Cent: Bulletproof is evidence of this in its sales).
It's a worthy goal, but I don't see it being successful, because gamers complain about things they would like but then proceed to vote with their dollars, often in contrast to their words.
EA is a fine example of this. People complain like crazy about EA, but still buy their stuff.
Having foundational features for a platform (hardware) made by one company is quite different from having a set of foundational features within co-op across software from dozens and dozens of companies.
They don't always "believe us" because what we (more hardcore gamers) say we want is not always what sells, for one thing (50 Cent: Bulletproof is evidence of this in its sales).
It's a worthy goal, but I don't see it being successful, because gamers complain about things they would like but then proceed to vote with their dollars, often in contrast to their words.
EA is a fine example of this. People complain like crazy about EA, but still buy their stuff.
50 Cent has nothing to do with it.
This is about the fundamental design of the thing, we're basically asking for a fucking ingame option menu where we can change the brightness of the screen and have the ability to turn off vibration, that's how fundamental we're talking.
...we're basically asking for a fucking ingame option menu where we can change the brightness of the screen and have the ability to turn off vibration, that's how fundamental we're talking.
I'm no programmer, but I'm sure if it were that simple, or if it was a feature that was popular enough to increase sales significantly against the costs of programming to include it, then it would already be ubiquitous.
And games like 50 Cent have everything to do with it, because what people SAY they want is not always supported by what they BUY; and what people BUY is what truly matters to these companies.
And I really don't see how implanting co-op properly would negatively impact sales. A 50 Cent game with proper co-op would not change the fact it's 50 Cent and people flock to his name
