Most games have you playing to beat your fellow players by completing a particular goal before them. But there are a few out there that focus on cooperating with other players to achieve a common goal.

I present to you a great example: http://team.forsvarsmakten.se/english/ [team.forsvarsmakten.se]

In this game, each of four players are split off into quadrants of the game area to complete a series of microgames independent of the microgames that the other players are playing. Successfully complete a microgame, and the neighboring player is awarded with added time. Fail, and the neighboring player loses time.

The object of the game is for all four players to continuously complete their microgames to keep the game running as long as they can. When a player runs out of time, they are eliminated from the game. From there, the other players run out of time soon after, ending the game more quickly.

Once in a while, the quadrants disappear from the screen and the players are presented with a cooperative microgame. Fail this challenge and the game ends, regardless of how much time you had beforehand. Afterward, the quadrants reappear, but you'll be in a different section from before, so keep your eyes peeled.

I'm sure there's other examples out there. Feel free to share them!

Well, I've not experienced much multiplayer gaming (mostly because I don't like the inter-player competetive type), but I really like Left 4 Dead. You're on a team of 4, and unless that team works together and communicates, shares resources, etc then your chances of surviving the level (or beating the versus team) drastically reduce. It's truly cooperative, especially when you get to higher levels like expert, or team verusus.

This game is fun, but I wish there was voice chat or someway to choose who you'd play with.

I never really cared for the team play aspect of Left 4 Dead. Sure, co-op is fun, but there wasn't really any reason they needed to force the 4 player co-op aspect of the game. I never really felt the other players were necessary to complete each stage and groups could still get through without really having any sort of organization or teamwork. It was basically just a first person shooter that you HAD to play with four people. Games like The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures had more teamwork aspects to it than Left 4 Dead.

Honestly, I'd like to see more games out there that do push teamplay, rather than just throw a bunch of people together in single player FPS stages.

Most of the Lego games have puzzles that require two characters. You can either swap between your two characters, or you can have someone else play with you. The second option tends to be the easier of them.

isukun
I never really cared for the team play aspect of Left 4 Dead. Sure, co-op is fun, but there wasn't really any reason they needed to force the 4 player co-op aspect of the game. I never really felt the other players were necessary to complete each stage and groups could still get through without really having any sort of organization or teamwork. It was basically just a first person shooter that you HAD to play with four people. Games like The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures had more teamwork aspects to it than Left 4 Dead.

I really have to disagree with this. Certainly you can get through a campaign level even on Advanced mode with just yourself and the bots, but try and do it on expert and you are boned. Expert is a REAL challenge (and any realism mode in l4d2 is a challenge too) and even a good team of people who play with each other a lot can have trouble completing a campaign.

You can also 'get through' a versus match without communicating with other people, but it's no fun. It only gets really fun when you are playing with people who will coordinate. Nothing is better than a successful ambush that just smashes the other team, or playing 'stupid survivor' against a bad team to just long enough so their eventual crushing defeat make them ragequit, or repelling a versus team's efforts so easily by being coordinated it feels like they're not even trying. And if you're playing against another coordinated versus team, things get really hard but also really fun.

I just won't even play the single-player version of L4D. I'll only play it on xbox live. (And then only with a set of people who I've played with a lot, playing on the same team as pubbies usually sucks.)

Certainly you can get through a campaign level even on Advanced mode with just yourself and the bots, but try and do it on expert and you are boned.

Not really. You just need some decent FPS skills. It's not really any harder than other single player games. Pretty much everything you've said applies to ANY single player game with team vs. and/or co-op modes. Of course you're going to do better if you're more coordinated, just like you do better if you're more coordinated in New Super Mario Brothers Wii. In both cases, though, the game isn't designed to offer any specific multiplayer challenges, it just throws multiple people into otherwise single player maps and stages. Honestly you haven't said anything which convinces me that the game NEEDS to REQUIRE people to play four player co-op.

isukun
Honestly you haven't said anything which convinces me that the game NEEDS to REQUIRE people to play four player co-op.

Because the AI stinks and will often just stand and watch you die.
It's not really required you have 4 players but it's so much more fun that way. I'd never replay the campaigns and things if I wasn't doing it with my dear friends~

In other words, since the game lacks content, they tacked on a four player co-op requirement to make it seem special when really you can say the same of any other game with co-op. With the way you guys talk about it, you may as well be describing Halo or . It doesn't really matter, they all play the same. The only difference is this one REQUIRES you to play in the multiplayer modes. Make it multiplayer exclusive and it doesn't matter that there is only about as much content there as your average arcade port.

Besides, the topic isn't about what's fun, but games which promote cooperative gameplay. The only thing promoting cooperative gameplay in Left4Dead are the people with the initiative to play that way. The game itself doesn't really offer any incentive and certainly doesn't require the separate players to cooperate.

isukun
The only difference is this one REQUIRES you to play in the multiplayer modes.

EDIT: Oh wait okay.

But the general idea is that co-op with friends is *fun*.
I guess you don't have any to play it with?

Also,

Smiiiiiiile.

Actually, I do, which is why Left4Dead is kind of a lost cause. I would rather play games with my friends than strangers online. Since most of my friends aren't as into gaming as I am, when we want to play something co-op, they usually have to come over here. So yes, playing games with your friends is fun. Too bad developers like Valve don't agree. Gaming used to be a social activity, you can't expect all of your friends to pick up $200-$400 gaming systems and $60 games just so you have someone to play with, though.

And maybe you'd do better to try reading my posts rather than acting like an ass. Since you've already said the exact same thing in your last post and I already responded to it, there isn't much point in doing so again.

Fair enough, but that would probably take up a ridiculous amount of RAM, also make the screen too small to see. And I was only repeating myself because you didn't seem to get the idea that the co-op is supposed to be fun, not manditory.
(Oh no don't call me an ass again for that, it would hurt my feelings)

Though I have had a similar problem with Four Swords on the GBA, I didn't have any friends that were in to gaming, so I have actually never played it. But I have played four swords adventures with my two brothers

Hmm...other co-op games...
I can only think of classic games, nothing recent. =(
Worms Armageddon, Perfect Dark, and my friend recommend Gauntlet Legends as an awesome 4 player co-op, which we will begin playing as soon as we find a good ROM.

If you have a Wii or old Gamecube, you might be able to find Dark Legacy pretty cheap.

isukun
In other words, since the game lacks content, they tacked on a four player co-op requirement to make it seem special when really you can say the same of any other game with co-op. With the way you guys talk about it, you may as well be describing Halo or .

I've never really played other games like Halo or multiplayer shooters. I just know that by myself left 4 dead is super boring, but multiplayer is some of the most fun I've had (with the right people). I wasn't saying that you NEED 4 people to play the game, just that it actually adds a huge amount of enjoyment and challenge. I really consider L4D to be multiplayer games that you can also happen to play on your own, not a single player game with multiplayer tacked on.

Otherwise, I dunno. :] I've given various types of multiplayer modes in games a shot, I can't think of most of them right now. None of them have stuck like l4d has. I still play 1 or 2 at least once a week.

I like how, "I, personally, don't like to play with strangers online" somehow translates to, "Valve are lazy, untalented hacks who are ripping off their fanbase."

skoolmunkee

isukun
In other words, since the game lacks content, they tacked on a four player co-op requirement to make it seem special when really you can say the same of any other game with co-op. With the way you guys talk about it, you may as well be describing Halo or .

I've never really played other games like Halo or multiplayer shooters. I just know that by myself left 4 dead is super boring, but multiplayer is some of the most fun I've had (with the right people). I wasn't saying that you NEED 4 people to play the game, just that it actually adds a huge amount of enjoyment and challenge. I really consider L4D to be multiplayer games that you can also happen to play on your own, not a single player game with multiplayer tacked on.

Otherwise, I dunno. :] I've given various types of multiplayer modes in games a shot, I can't think of most of them right now. None of them have stuck like l4d has. I still play 1 or 2 at least once a week.

I've played Halo 2 and 3 with both online and offline multiplayer. Online was ruined for me by the public players (what with me having a vagina that apparently gives my avatar a massive target on their forehead), and offline my friends and I got bored with shooting each other and just started playing around with the physics in the game (and discovered that throwing vehicles into grav lifts and watching them bob up and down is really hypnotic. It becomes hilarious when a person decides to try to get back on said vehicle, gets hit by it, dies, and their corpse bobs up and down with the vehicle they were trying to get on).

Left 4 Dead, though, is enjoyable by myself, but it's ten times more fun with someone else. I don't mind the whole "two players offline" bit since it means that the screen won't be divided into squares that are too small to be of any use in a game that requires you to line up a suddenly tiny crosshair on moving targets. Surprisingly fast moving targets. It's not even a problem when I have more than one friend over; we just trade up in the safe rooms so that no one's a controller hog. And for the record, when I try to play L4D 1 or 2 as a completely solo game, the Director almost always throws a hunter, smoker or jockey at me right out of nowhere. Even if I'm just with the bots.

Not a lot of games are made for co-op, though. Most "multiplayer" games really are just solo games with a generic "Goldeneye" multiplayer mode tacked on because some people really do think that a game is lesser in value without it (even though I can list many games with no multiplayer whatsoever that were great just the way they were). I guess Lord of the Rings: Return of the King wasn't too bad for co-op. It wasn't necessary, but it was kinda nice to round up a friend to play if you really didn't want to have to deal with the AI (even if it did lead to some odd situations in a game with a very defined story; Frodo helping Sam to rescue himself from Cirith Ungol anyone?) I've heard that Zelda: Four Swords is pretty good, but I haven't played it.

Hopefully more co-op games will come out. I prefer working through campaigns and whatnot with a friend or two to just running around shooting each other up.

I like how, "I, personally, don't like to play with strangers online" somehow translates to, "Valve are lazy, untalented hacks who are ripping off their fanbase."

More like "Valve released a fraction of a game at full price" translates to "Valve are lazy, untalented hacks who are ripping off their fanbase." They take forecer with each Half Life expansion, but can churn out a Left4Dead title in a few months. That should tell you something about how much effort goes into these games. I just happen to be someone who thinks it shows.

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, that game had excellent 2 player coop with dedicated cooperative moves that required teamwork to perform.

Conviction has a lot of that in the coop story, requiring 2 players to complete that particular mission set. It needs teamwork and it needs good communication, especially on the Realistic setting.

isukun
They take forecer with each Half Life expansion, but can churn out a Left4Dead title in a few months.

I really want episode 3. :( Why isn't it out yet?

In both L4D and L4D2 I actually played through each of the campaigns single-player on my first try. I didn't want to seem like a doofus when I finally started playing online. I actually did enjoy it single-player, but like skoolmunkee was saying, the fun grows exponentially when played with friends.

By the way, the new campaign for L4D2 hits this week. I'm excited, because we'll apparently be bumping into the survivors from the first game. One of them won't survive!

I'm also still playing Team Fortress 2. I think it's a good example of a game in which you can try to be a lone wolf and not team up, but the winning team is usually the one that functions best as a team.

And I know everyone likes to whine about it, but I had a total blast playing Resident Evil 5 with my brother.

Product Placement

isukun
They take forecer with each Half Life expansion, but can churn out a Left4Dead title in a few months.

I really want episode 3. :( Why isn't it out yet?

They could be too busy with other projects, they might have abandoned it, or there's that small possibility that they're building an entirely new engine for it. That's just what I think, anyway.

I'd say L4D franchise, but it's already been said and explained in excruciating detail. A game that, regardless of whether it can be beaten on single or not, becomes a lot more fun and teamwork oriented once you're with friends. It has moments like a downed player getting helped up by another player while the remaining two pick off the oncoming zombies or saving eachother from the grasps of special infected via quick trigger skills or planned distractions. Doesn't seem like tacked on multiplayer to me....

I also liked RE5. Yeah, I know, I know, it sucks compared to RE4, but I personally love the fact that without proper teamwork and awareness, not only does one person die, it's game over. It's probably one of our favorite games to play when my friends come over. It forces both players to pay attention to eachother.

Doesn't seem like tacked on multiplayer to me....

Then you don't play a lot of first person shooters. Most shooters these days that have multiplayer modes play exactly like that in multiplayer. There is more of an emphasis on teamplay in Halo's team vs. modes. Even Hawk's example of Team Fortress 2 is better due to the different classes allowing players to take on different roles on the team.

People still seem to be getting hung up on the "fun factor" argument, too, when that wasn't the initial question. Social gaming is more fun, nobody is arguing against that. Just because a game allows for co-op, though, that doesn't mean it has a "focus on cooperating with other players". Many co-op games just allow for multiple people to play through a game that's designed as a single player experience. They may tack on a revive function and bump up the health and damage for the enemies, but apart from that, the game is identical to what you would get playing it by yourself. And that is exactly what games like Left4Dead present you with. The game is simply not structured like it was designed from the ground up with teamplay in mind. The level design, layouts, scenarios, enemies, and characters are all designed like they were meant for a single player game.

Okay, I think I finally understand what you're trying say, but I'm not sure I agree with it yet. You're saying L4D is a single player game with three player slots added... and those three slots, whether filled by real people or the CPU, are just extra people tagging along on a one-player adventure.

To a certain extent you have a point. For long stretches of the game, additional players serve as little more than helpers to thin the horde of zombies, like an extra Ninja Turtle in one of the TMNT arcade games.

To me, L4D feels like a four-player game, and Valve included AI so that those slots can be filled if you can't gather enough real people, because having the extra players was THAT important. There are certain game design choices they made that lead me to believe teamwork was the focus.

- Many of the special infected zombies leave a player completely helpless. If a Hunter, Smoker, Jockey, or Charger get ahold of you, you WILL die without the help of another player.
- Each campaign has set events in which survivors must fend off zombies in places where there are too many entrances for a single player to guard. It was intended that players would coordinate who goes where.
- Mounted miniguns work under the idea that its user is stationary and nearly helpless, but protected by a partner.
- The Tank was not designed to be defeated by one person. In the easier skill levels you might be able to pull it off, but the Tank's ability to easily incapacitate you makes it inadvisable.

isukun
Then you don't play a lot of first person shooters.

I already said I didn't. :]

isukun
People still seem to be getting hung up on the "fun factor" argument, too, when that wasn't the initial question. Social gaming is more fun, nobody is arguing against that. Just because a game allows for co-op, though, that doesn't mean it has a "focus on cooperating with other players".

That's your interpretation of the initial question. but what he said was,

JSCervini
Most games have you playing to beat your fellow players by completing a particular goal before them. But there are a few out there that focus on cooperating with other players to achieve a common goal.

And I was using L4D as an example of cooperating (not competing with) your co-players. (Except I guess in versus, but there's still a lot of cooperation there on your own team.)

It wasn't about being the Perfect Online Gaming Experience and being Thoroughly Original and Different To Other First Person Shooters. It was about cooperating instead of competing. Which is what L4D is.

The Gravekeeper

Product Placement

isukun
They take forecer with each Half Life expansion, but can churn out a Left4Dead title in a few months.

I really want episode 3. :( Why isn't it out yet?

They could be too busy with other projects, they might have abandoned it, or there's that small possibility that they're building an entirely new engine for it. That's just what I think, anyway.

Apparently they're working on Portal 2 at the moment (scheduled for Christmas 2010) and all they said about episode 3 is that they want to include a horror element (and something about creating realistic finger movements so that they can include sign languages).

Still no date for episode 3. Creating a new graphics engine for it seems a bit extreme though. I would wait to do that until it's time to make Half life 3 (which they said they would do, once this trilogy is done). Personally I must say that the whole episodic thing was a bid of a failure. The whole idea of creating episodic titles was to speed up the releases. Also, the way they titled them was a bit silly, what with there being Half life 2, followed by Half life 2 - episode 1 and so on. Either name the episodes Half life 3 or call the first HL2, episode 1.

*Staying on topic*

Anyone tried Army of Two?

Well they made TF2 as well ofcrouse,.Hawk mentioned it.
That's a great cooperative shooter.

I always like playing-in a helping role rather than going off and trying to be the big hero... Mainly because that's too much effort. In the games I've played it's usually only stupid kids that try and be the hero or extremely good adults. In the first case your team really NEEDS a good support player or you're all buggered.
In the second case, it's best to stay out of the person's way and help as much as you can.

When there's no crack players or stupid kids being the hero, then it's up to you. That's only good though if YOU have good people in support of you. With good people cooperating, playing support, you become a god! Without cooperation, TF2 can become a boring, slogging drudge.
Cooperation is a fun multiplier. :)

I used to like that aspect of Battlefield 2. With 32 players against 32 players, all coordinated in common goals against each other, that was magic. You'd be in a little group of 6 or 4 or something, all supporting each other, going after some objective, and most of the other people would be doing the same thing... apart from the dicks in the aircraft shooting and bombing the crap out of everyone -_-
That was fun to do as well, but not as cool as actually being part pf the fight.

I played battlefield 1942 back in high school.

Words can't begin to describe the awesomeness.

Thanks for reminding me of those times Oz.