The Co-op Gaming Bill of Rights

[datter]

Worth a read (http://ozymandias.com/archive/2008/03/13/the-co-op-gaming-bill-of-rights.aspx), and a discussion if a similar one hasn't been had already. It's certainly nice to see more of a focus being made on co-op gaming these days.


Happened to read Penny Arcade today and was rather taken by a quote of Tycho's: Army of Two is forward thinking in that your equipment and cash persist, no matter where you are playing or who you are playing with. Where it is less forward thinking is that you can't join a friend's game unless you have already beaten the level they have selected. In many games, but especially in co-op, people are going to be traveling through the game at their own pace, and players should be enabled in their efforts to play this cooperative game cooperatively however they like. It's as though we need to create a kind of Co-op Bill Of Rights, so delineate in clear terms what we consider bedrock in terms of functionality. In essence, we'd like the games to cooperate with us.
In particular I was particularly stuck by the comment about defining what a gamer considers bedrock functionality for co-op gaming. This sort of thinking is very similar to some of the thinking we do with the industry around platform features, and it got my co-worker Krotus and I chatting about what features might be considered as being the basic "bar" for a co-op title. The industry has come a long way in just a few years, and we wanted to see what we might come up with that we'd like to see in future titles. A little bit of whiteboarding later we came up the list below... and would love your thoughts on it!

I should note that any thoughts posted here aren't any sort of official Microsoft communication or commitment. Just because we might all have some good ideas on what a co-op game should look like doesn't mean the industry will necessarily follow them. That said, there are also a lot of great designers and producers out there looking for ideas - something here might just spark a thought they can run with... so have at it! A first stab is below - looking forward to your feedback, and I'll commit to publishing a "final" draft here once everyone's chewed on it a bit (final being relative since these sorts of things evolve over time).


Required Features All Future Co-op Games Should Have In Our Humble Opinion:

(the rest on ozymandias.com... click (http://ozymandias.com/archive/2008/03/13/the-co-op-gaming-bill-of-rights.aspx))

[Alan Au]

Ugh. I'm soooo sick of dual-switch doors and other blatant contrivances designed to "justify" the co-op experience.

However, the notion of "co-op done right" is somewhat interesting. For one thing, players need to be able to play together despite differences in level. The suspension of disbelief thing is underrated re: cutscenes and explaining the presence of the second player. I mean, it's pretty silly when the game tries to claim that you're the protagonist's twin who happens to wear a slightly different outfit.

- Alan

[ravenight]

Yeah, requiring two players to push buttons at the same time to advance is stupid, but it would be cool to have some games with significant co-op interactivity (like the idea of one player "drawing fire" or just generally distracting opponents while the other - or each of the others - does something useful) and plot, as opposed to MMOs. And not just on consoles, either - there'd be plenty of market for this on PCs too, I think.

[datter]

I think I dislike that "drawing fire" thing if it's designed in to the game, though I say I think because I've not actually experienced it ala Army of 2 or what have you. It just sounds sort of cheap somehow, as the point of co-op should be a good experience that unfolds for two players not a pre-written set of things that need to be done in order to advance. In other words I think the "drawing fire" type mechanic reminds me a lot of the requirements for two players to push buttons at the same time as ravenight mentioned. The sheer fact that a "drawing fire" thing is written into a game just puts me off a bit because to my mind that sort of thing should be something that occurs during gameplay rather than a gameplay feature that's pushed in and of itself.

SWAT4 for the PC has my favorite co-op. A friend and I play pretty regularly with us vs the AI, and although it's not terribly smart AI, it's passable and the co-op experience is rock solid. There's no laid out game mechanics saying if my friend runs across the hallway he'll draw fire and increase my ability to shoot bad guys. There's no pre-set portions of a given map that require two of us to complete. It's just a map full of bad guys and hostages, which the two of us have to deal with.

Our room clearing method typical has us stacking up outside, opening and one tossing a flashbang. Moments later the other rushes in and goes left or right, followed by the first going straight. Using Skype (!) for voice comms for this is awesome and there's no corny "co-op mechanic" involved.

I was going somewhere with this, but sadly there are two loudmouthed people in the office here who will NOT shut up and I have lost my train of thought. So there you are.

Wish I had a flashbang RIGHT NOW.

[skyride]

Still a shortage of good splitscreen co-op games that you can play online. There's a few big ones that allow it like Gears and Halo 3 but I can't play some of my favourites like COD4 and Vegas. This really sucks when you have a bunch of friends over and are forced to play local games only since some of the most enjoyable console gaming is online.

[steve]

Yeah, requiring two players to push buttons at the same time to advance is stupid, but it would be cool to have some games with significant co-op interactivity (like the idea of one player "drawing fire" or just generally distracting opponents while the other - or each of the others - does something useful) and plot, as opposed to MMOs. And not just on consoles, either - there'd be plenty of market for this on PCs too, I think.
The "two players push a button" isn't just used to justify co-op; it's to keep people in the same area---and to move them to the next one at the same time---so co-op play is even possible.

[Nengjanggo]

I think I dislike that "drawing fire" thing if it's designed in to the game, though I say I think because I've not actually experienced it ala Army of 2 or what have you. It just sounds sort of cheap somehow, as the point of co-op should be a good experience that unfolds for two players not a pre-written set of things that need to be done in order to advance...

I'm not sure that I get your point here. To use a flashbang, there has to be a prewritten aspect of the game code that makes flashbangs work the way they do. In the same way, to use drawing fire, there has to be a prewritten part of the game that allows the AI to concentrate on the most obvious target. So I don't see the difference.

Is what you are saying is that you would not like it if the game were written so that the ONLY way to advance is for one person to draw fire? In that case I agree with you; I dislike it when shooting games to have that sort of puzzle where there's an arbitrary solution that you just have to figure out, rather than multiple viable approaches. It's part of why I don't like boss monsters very much.

To use Army of Two as an example, being a game which makes the drawing fire mechanic very obvious, mostly you do not have to draw fire while your partner advances. You can both shoot and advance at the same time and the game still works. However, there are certain bosses who can only be hurt from behind, and in those cases you have no choice but to have one person distract him while the other sneaks around. This bothered me less than it normally does because at least the game had an explanation (the guys are heavily armored), but there was one boss with a mini gun at the end of a dock where eventually I had to just run right by him to flank him because there was no cover to use to sneak. That broke my immersion pretty badly.

[datter]

I'm not sure that I get your point here. To use a flashbang, there has to be a prewritten aspect of the game code that makes flashbangs work the way they do. In the same way, to use drawing fire, there has to be a prewritten part of the game that allows the AI to concentrate on the most obvious target. So I don't see the difference.

Is what you are saying is that you would not like it if the game were written so that the ONLY way to advance is for one person to draw fire? In that case I agree with you; I dislike it when shooting games to have that sort of puzzle where there's an arbitrary solution that you just have to figure out, rather than multiple viable approaches. It's part of why I don't like boss monsters very much.

To use Army of Two as an example, being a game which makes the drawing fire mechanic very obvious, mostly you do not have to draw fire while your partner advances. You can both shoot and advance at the same time and the game still works. However, there are certain bosses who can only be hurt from behind, and in those cases you have no choice but to have one person distract him while the other sneaks around. This bothered me less than it normally does because at least the game had an explanation (the guys are heavily armored), but there was one boss with a mini gun at the end of a dock where eventually I had to just run right by him to flank him because there was no cover to use to sneak. That broke my immersion pretty badly.

You've said it all better than I could have, considering those two loud-mouths in my office are STILL talking and I am having a hard time thinking over them. :)

... but yes, that's my point. Using drawing fire as an example, I have no issue with it if it just happens and works during a game even if the game touts it as a "thing". What I dislike when it's such a big thing, it becomes a mandatory part of the experience. Using a single player example, Brothers In Arms comes to mind in that they talked a lot about the great flanking options in it all the time... but when I played it I found that not only was flanking a neat part of the game, I found it was a mandatory experience. Some Germans would be hiding behind a wooden fence for instance, and I could CLEARLY seem them through the fence but from 50 feet away it was impossible to kill them. On looking around a bit I found a flanking area I could use, and sure enough when I went that way I could kill the bad guys. In that circumstance the flanking wasn't a neat option, it was something I was channeled into doing whether I wanted to or not. Dislike that.

All of this in relation to coop is that I dislike co-op that touts itself as a selling feature. Good co-op should be seamless and transparent, not "look at our nifty drawing fire system!! USE IT!!! YOU CAN"T NOT USE IT!!!".

That's crap.

Hey, those two dudes finally shut up. Sweet.

[Aeon221]

I recently rented Halo 3 with my brother, and we were pretty happy with the experience (the last couple of levels were pretty bland, and the driving finale was sooo boring). I'd like it if all co-op was designed using that frame.

We did do some stuff that probably wasn't specifically planned for (for example, I'd take a forward position with a sniper rifle and he'd use my view to aim a vehicle machinegun at targets), but the game was robust enough to allow for that kind of play.

Here are what I'd consider the rock bottom minimum for calling a game co-op

1) Split screen play is fully supported
2) Levels can be unlocked in either mode and accessed from a menu
3) More equipment and enemies placed, but not absurd amounts
4) If vehicles are involved, include two person vehicles where both players have a meaningful role (driver and gunner work)
5) Friendly fire should be on, so that I can shoot him when he's being a pissant.