The world of cooperative gaming is evolving so rapidly, I think it's catching some people off guard. In only half a decade we've gone from famine to feast in terms of co-op offerings in games. Not only that, we've seen co-op games evolve and change in how they put players together. For a genre that started with two people in front of an arcade cabinet, it has surely come a long way. But as happy as it makes fans of this type of gameplay, the fact that co-op is being put in front of single player is rubbing some people the wrong way.
It took all of five minutes to realize Lost Planet 2 wasn't for me. In that same time frame, I recognized Capcom's development team approached the sequel with a similar philosophy to Resident Evil 5, a game I spent hours trying to enjoy before ultimately giving up, realizing it was a game designed for someone else. By someone else, of course, I mean someone else playing with me. Lost Planet 2 and Resident Evil 5 are adventures meant for co-op, both a response to co-op dominance in Western games, but has Capcom taken the wrong lesson, a simple matter of miscommunication, or both?
If you read our review of Lost Planet 2, you'd know we agree with Patrick - Lost Planet 2 is a game that you need to play with friends to fully enjoy. Like Resident Evil 5 before it, Capcom took the approach of designing the game from the ground up for two or more players, after all - that's why there's always three teammates with you. How many times have we seen a trailer for a game that shows a squad of soldiers, only to find out there's no co-op in the game. It simply doesn't make sense to us - so why should the reverse be true?
The problem Patrick has, is he feels lied to. In a world where single player used to be the de facto, it's now becoming an afterthought, something fans of co-op know all too well. Both Resident Evil 4 and Lost Planet were strong single player games, so picking up the sequels, one would think these would also be strong single player experiences - but that wasn't necessarily the case. So why would these franchises deviate from the path?
The simple answer is Jun Takeuchi, the producer on both titles from Capcom. Here's what he had to say:
"The number one item for the players’ wish list was co-op play. So I discussed the possibility of incorporating it with the team, and came up with a new gameplay style. As a result, the Campaign mode, which started as a straight forward single-play, has changed into the different gameplay that would evolve by the players. And I think this was a part of evolution that LP2 has achieved too."
Sheva and Chris were best buds. The croc? He just wanted to play alone.
Patrick's article really is quite interesting, because in a way, it echoes the complete opposite of the tone of Co-Optimus's community. The most famous instance I think comes with an example Patrick is using to defend his position, and it involves Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Readers of this site will remember when community manager Robert Bowling gave the reasoning for lack of campaign co-op in the game. The main reason was that it broke the single player game, it ruined the cinematic experience, and simply didn't fit with what they were trying to do.
What I said in that article covering it still holds true today...
Now I like Infinity Ward, I really do, and they make an amazingly immersive single player experience in the Call of Duty games; but perhaps they just can't craft that into something two players can enjoy? It's not like it can't be done, with titles like Halo 3, Gears of War, and Resident Evil 5 showcasing an awesome co-op experience through the game's single player.
I would have liked to see them take the "leave it as an option" route though - something Treyarch did with Call of Duty: World at War. Was it ideal in the game? No, not at all. Was it fun? Hell yeah it was.
Whatever your thoughts are on that subject, it'll be interesting to see how co-op continues to evolve game design in the next couple of years. Developers are coming up with unique and interesting ways to solve "that" problem, and with passing time it can only get better.
We constantly hear clamoring for split screen play, for online play, for split screen with online, drop-in/drop-out and so on. People want every feature imaginable in their co-op experience, and to get those, you may have to sacrifice something else. While traditionally we saw co-op being the sacrifice for single player features, perhaps times are changing. In a world that was and still is dominated by these solo affairs, it's tough to accept that our single player and multiplayer experiences may be melding together.
I remember reading an article years ago, at the advent of online services on consoles, that stated there will come a day when AI in a game is not needed, because every role in the game can be filled with an actual player. We'll all be constantly connected through the Internet and can enjoy the game in a different way. Mind you, this was a good 6 or 7 years ago, right before Xbox Live launched. Why I think we're a long ways off from something like that, I think we're beginning to see how parts of the game are being replaced by human players.
Army of Two was a title designed from the ground up for Co-Op Play.
I really think that perhaps, this intermediary step between that is part of the problem. Most people have a problem playing single player in co-op games when their AI partner is dumber than a fish on a wall. The AI simply doesn't behave like a human would, they don't do their job, and for the most part, players need to compensate. It makes their experience that much more difficult because they are "babysitting." But if you realistically think about it, thinking back to a game like Modern Warfare 2, are there not AI guys with you at all times? So how is that any different?
Games like MW2 do a good job of hiding what the AI is actually doing behind scripted events. While it may seem like your squad mates are doing a good job covering you, those guys they just "shot" - they were going to die regardless. They didn't cover you at all, and the next time you replay that section, it'll happen the exact same way. Perhaps this is why a series like Halo has always done so well in co-op AND single player, because it mixes and matches these two styles of play together.
In Halo 3 you can play the entire game by yourself, at times being joined by AI guys who do behave realistically in terms of their actions with the game world. They also make mistakes, and these mistakes give them a human like trait that is intangible. But Halo 3 also allows you bring in other players to help you - and sure - it doesn't make sense in terms of the story. But it's still an epic experience, and each person is on their respective couch enjoying it equally. They get the same cinematic presentation, they get the same sense of satisfaction, and they get to enjoy that with a friend.
So was Capcom wrong in their design decision for Lost Planet 2 and Resident Evil 5? Probably not. They took the risk of listening to feedback and now they'll see if the reward pays off. Of course you're going to piss off people like Patrick Klepeck of G4TV along the way - it happens. But any revolution is going to be difficult at first, and perhaps the Co-Op Revolution that we're seeing now is best described by Penny-Arcade's recent news post about Lost Planet 2.
This is a game that needs to be batted back up into the air, reintroduced to the discussion. I've had experiences in Lost Planet 2 that put it very near the top of this year's releases...
...and hearing that a co-op game is best played in co-op ain't exactly front page material. "We" have "said" for years that we want meaningful co-op experiences, but when they're delivered to us, they must give an impeccable single-player performance as well?
It has grand ideas, and longs to show you them. No, it's not perfect. How could it be? This is how the future happens, sometimes; it comes in fits and starts.
Jerry "Tycho" Holkins - PennyArcade