The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Why are so many multiplayer games competitive? You're either shooting each others' heads off, ramming one another into the wall of the Indie 500 or beating each other up in the latest 3D fighter... if only for the satisfaction of being able to moon at your opponent and ridicule his virtual skills... or lack of them- charming.
So, why don't more games have a co-operativer option in them. Instead of being working forever against each other, insetad you and friends would work together, in unison to acheive tasks in the game.
Allow me to give you an example:
In MGS2, there could be two characters that you and a friend would play. One would have to infiltrate a base one way and take out the power, thus allowing the other to gain access to some secret lab. Then you could meet up and shoot your way out of the level. Now, how fun would that be?
Not only that, but many one player games even site one of their selling points as allowing you to play more than one character. Perfect examples of this would be MDK (whose name is a pun- the name stands for Max, Doc and Kurt- the 3 game characters. The game itself is far from a murder death kill scenario!), and Space Station Silicon Valley.
But surely these games are missing the point. By making you constantly change character you lose your immersion in the game, and you relationship with the characters. But, more importantly, it loses a key chance to impliment a 2player cooperative mode...
Rather than play as one character, then another, then another, you would now play as just one character, with your friend playing as another. You would have to work simaltaneously to solve tasks, making the use of strategy and planning ever more important. You'd have more immersion in the game knowing that you're partner was actually a real person- not some computer character who always get's their task right! Finally, both characters could have levels where they teamed up for a full on royal rumble-esque scenario.
How much better does gameplay get?
Sonic
PS: "Pong" and "Tetris" are NOT valid answer!
So, why don't more games have a co-operativer option in them. Instead of being working forever against each other, insetad you and friends would work together, in unison to acheive tasks in the game.
Allow me to give you an example:
In MGS2, there could be two characters that you and a friend would play. One would have to infiltrate a base one way and take out the power, thus allowing the other to gain access to some secret lab. Then you could meet up and shoot your way out of the level. Now, how fun would that be?
Not only that, but many one player games even site one of their selling points as allowing you to play more than one character. Perfect examples of this would be MDK (whose name is a pun- the name stands for Max, Doc and Kurt- the 3 game characters. The game itself is far from a murder death kill scenario!), and Space Station Silicon Valley.
But surely these games are missing the point. By making you constantly change character you lose your immersion in the game, and you relationship with the characters. But, more importantly, it loses a key chance to impliment a 2player cooperative mode...
Rather than play as one character, then another, then another, you would now play as just one character, with your friend playing as another. You would have to work simaltaneously to solve tasks, making the use of strategy and planning ever more important. You'd have more immersion in the game knowing that you're partner was actually a real person- not some computer character who always get's their task right! Finally, both characters could have levels where they teamed up for a full on royal rumble-esque scenario.
How much better does gameplay get?
Sonic
PS: "Pong" and "Tetris" are NOT valid answer!
Page:
Anyone played Aerofighters 2? I think it was on the SNES. Anyway, it had some quality 2 player play.
YOur basic 2D scrolling shooter, control one plane each. Game can be played one player and two player. Thats the most important thing if games do go this route. THey have to be made so you can play them on your own and in a co-operative mode. Would a co-opertive only game get as good praise? And what would you do when you are on your own?
YOur basic 2D scrolling shooter, control one plane each. Game can be played one player and two player. Thats the most important thing if games do go this route. THey have to be made so you can play them on your own and in a co-operative mode. Would a co-opertive only game get as good praise? And what would you do when you are on your own?
Oh, it won't paste. Bloody Windows charset encoding. Bah, I can't be bothered to encode it properly, just assume it was a work of genius.
*Starts attacking MS Word*
*Starts attacking MS Word*
Sigh...
Here was mine. Although the whoel thing was supposed to be about competetiveness, it turned out only the last paragraph was more than a bit relevant:
------------------------------
Yesterday I spent the night at my Ninty friend
Here was mine. Although the whoel thing was supposed to be about competetiveness, it turned out only the last paragraph was more than a bit relevant:
------------------------------
Yesterday I spent the night at my Ninty friend
I think that is because it is an interesting idea that seems to go ignored in the industry by a lot of the developers, games like these were great to play and there should be more of them.
errrr... So turbo won GAD for a topic like this, Ali posted a topic on this that no one saw, and now I've made a topic on it!
Small world!
Sonic
Small world!
Sonic
I posted something very similar about 5 days ago but the topic got no replies.
So here it is
I noticed something the other day, multiplayer modes have changed a bit in games since when I started to play games. Yeah the graphics and gameplay have all improved but certain aspects have totally changed. There are less and less games which allow two players to play together in the game. Most of todays multiplayers put player one against player two in a seperate game mode, not in the main game.
I presume that developers think we all have no friends, I do and I am sure the rest of you do to.
Games like Streets of rage allowed you to play the main game with one of your friends, the last game I played like this was Time Crisis and I realised that as far as I can tell the number of games like this have been reduced by quite a lot.
But I do expect more games to once again, once of course technology allows them to go to the next level, be released. Maybe something along the lines of connecting 2 consoles by a link cable or through on-line connection. Both players could load up a copy of the same game and both play the main game, while playing it both players can interact and play the same game as part of a team.
A lot of games that have multiplayer mode either have a play with or play against a friend (or more than one friend) but there never seems to be the option for both. I guess it depends on the genre of game, First person shooters and games like resident evil would be good with both but a fighting game would only really use the versus multiplayer option. Smackdown 2 allowed you and a friend to go through the season mode as a tag team but the new game has scrapped this idea which let the new game down in my view, sports games may not benefit as much as other genres from this idea but some genres will benefit is a big way.
Imagine resident evil in two player, you could both go about playing the game, each having different roles,puzzles and story to follow (this is why linking 2 consoles would be better) and both stories could cross paths and join together to get the complete story, you could have to fight the bigger monsters together as they would be too hard to fight on your own.
I think there is a lot of potential in this type of multiplayer, potential to make games better in terms of multiplayer mode. With on-line gaming I think the idea could be improved more, maybe larger multiplayers which put many characters in the main game mode with each player having their own role to play in the game.
When I think this through I can see that there are lots of restrictions in place on developers and it will probably be some time before technology allows this to take off in a suitable way. But I think this is the way multiplayers should be, similar in a way to the idea used in games like Streets of rage, Golden axe, and various games that appeared on the amiga like Mercs. Hopefully it is an idea that dosn't get overlooked and when technology supports it, gets used in games to make them great for single and multiplayer modes.
So here it is
I noticed something the other day, multiplayer modes have changed a bit in games since when I started to play games. Yeah the graphics and gameplay have all improved but certain aspects have totally changed. There are less and less games which allow two players to play together in the game. Most of todays multiplayers put player one against player two in a seperate game mode, not in the main game.
I presume that developers think we all have no friends, I do and I am sure the rest of you do to.
Games like Streets of rage allowed you to play the main game with one of your friends, the last game I played like this was Time Crisis and I realised that as far as I can tell the number of games like this have been reduced by quite a lot.
But I do expect more games to once again, once of course technology allows them to go to the next level, be released. Maybe something along the lines of connecting 2 consoles by a link cable or through on-line connection. Both players could load up a copy of the same game and both play the main game, while playing it both players can interact and play the same game as part of a team.
A lot of games that have multiplayer mode either have a play with or play against a friend (or more than one friend) but there never seems to be the option for both. I guess it depends on the genre of game, First person shooters and games like resident evil would be good with both but a fighting game would only really use the versus multiplayer option. Smackdown 2 allowed you and a friend to go through the season mode as a tag team but the new game has scrapped this idea which let the new game down in my view, sports games may not benefit as much as other genres from this idea but some genres will benefit is a big way.
Imagine resident evil in two player, you could both go about playing the game, each having different roles,puzzles and story to follow (this is why linking 2 consoles would be better) and both stories could cross paths and join together to get the complete story, you could have to fight the bigger monsters together as they would be too hard to fight on your own.
I think there is a lot of potential in this type of multiplayer, potential to make games better in terms of multiplayer mode. With on-line gaming I think the idea could be improved more, maybe larger multiplayers which put many characters in the main game mode with each player having their own role to play in the game.
When I think this through I can see that there are lots of restrictions in place on developers and it will probably be some time before technology allows this to take off in a suitable way. But I think this is the way multiplayers should be, similar in a way to the idea used in games like Streets of rage, Golden axe, and various games that appeared on the amiga like Mercs. Hopefully it is an idea that dosn't get overlooked and when technology supports it, gets used in games to make them great for single and multiplayer modes.
And would probably result in both players kicking the hell out of each other.
Slower games like Broken Sword and Myst are natural co-operative games. Anyone can join in and try to solve the puzzles, even if only one person is actually in control.
Slower games like Broken Sword and Myst are natural co-operative games. Anyone can join in and try to solve the puzzles, even if only one person is actually in control.
Joe Dark wrote:
> Well you can be one the same sides in football, wrestling and most First Person
> Shooters have Co oprative modes
Yes, but these are basically the one player levels, but with 2 players doing them. How about levels where you had two characters doidn 2 different tasks in order to halp each pther out.
Like, for example, in MDK you (in one player mode) continually change from character to character, helping one character out and then becoming that character and so on. How about if 2 people were playing- one as each character- and thus the gameplay would be continuous. Not only would there be no stopping and starting, but you would relate to the one character you were playing far more.
Oh, and Joe dark. You could use 2 controllers in Goldeneye- with one player moving, and one shooting. But it was pants to try!
Sonic
> Well you can be one the same sides in football, wrestling and most First Person
> Shooters have Co oprative modes
Yes, but these are basically the one player levels, but with 2 players doing them. How about levels where you had two characters doidn 2 different tasks in order to halp each pther out.
Like, for example, in MDK you (in one player mode) continually change from character to character, helping one character out and then becoming that character and so on. How about if 2 people were playing- one as each character- and thus the gameplay would be continuous. Not only would there be no stopping and starting, but you would relate to the one character you were playing far more.
Oh, and Joe dark. You could use 2 controllers in Goldeneye- with one player moving, and one shooting. But it was pants to try!
Sonic
Now that would be confusing
What about 2 players controlling one character - one player could move the character around and the other player could say, shoot?
Page: