|
Recently playing through Day 1 Studios' FEAR 3, I saw a basic form of a concept that I've been playing around in my head for some time. I've played plenty of co-op games which all follow the same rule: "all for one and one for all." However, I've yet to see a game where players are working together... except they aren't.
This is where this concept of an "anti co-op" game comes to play. Where two or more players are working together at the same time they are completely opposed to each other. Now it's important to make the distinction that this is not about competitive games, as they are about two sides attempting to win over the other. "An uneasy alliance" is a saying that goes here.
Before I go further, it's important to talk about FEAR 3's system as it plays into this discussion. In the co-op mode, each player has a list of challenges that they can achieve during the level. The challenges are categorized into different groups based on what has to be done. Such as performing certain # of head shots or finding collectibles. At the end of the level, the game stores how many challenges were completed and which category they belong to for each player. While both players are working together to beat the level, they are also competing for the most points which are earned via the challenges. After the final level, the game tallies up who "wins" based on how they came out in each category. The winner gets to view the ending where their character comes out on top.
The two issues that Fear 3 has with my concept, is that it only deals with long term effects and the gameplay is not affected by it. For this idea to work, I have several elements in mind.
1. Asymmetrical Characters: Both players should be different from each other in terms of abilities and objectives to complete. One reason is that they should have to help each other, even if it is for a short while. Each player should be trying to focus on their goals while trying to complete the overall goal for the level. This is one area that FEAR 3 sort of worked. One player controls Point Man who has bullet time abilities, while the other controls Fettel who can possess enemies.
2. Players Are Affecting Gameplay: In my mind, there are two areas of gameplay that the players should be able to alter: paths through the level and which levels to go through. The problem with FEAR 3 is that by only letting the players alter the ending, it doesn't give any short term control to the players. By allowing the winner to affect the gameplay, it raises the stakes for trying to complete their agenda. I could picture the plot changing based on who wins each level and could bounce back and forth between each player.
3. Both Players Have to Survive: This one is important. If the players could kill one another or not care about the other player, then the game won't be any different than a competitive game. The concept is that the players should be working together for a common goal, at the same time that they are stabbing each other in the back.
4. Separate and Together: Tasks in the level will be split between ones that the players can go off and do on their own and ones where they will be forced to work together. Boss fights will always require the players to team up to take them down, with each player given a different task during the fight.
Now I would love to say that I have a 30 page design document finished for this idea, but I don't. Currently I have concept in my head for this but it still needs to be refined more. Co-op games have been getting a lot of steam these days thanks to the popularity of titles like Left 4 Dead or even League of Legends. However, we haven't seen too many games stretch the concept of working together. With the only other game besides FEAR 3, was Kane and Lynch 2's heist mode, but lack of positive reviews meant that not a lot of people tried it out.
It's always interesting to think up new game mechanics, and what better way to play with your friends, then with some good old fashioned back stabbing?
Josh Bycer
|
I would think the best instance behind this would be a sort of iterated prisoner's dilemma. That is, with two people each has the opportunity to cooperate or sell out the other player. The value of rewards is then scaled like this from lowest to highest:
1. Partner sells you out, but you try to cooperate
2. Both sell out each other
3. Both cooperate
4. You sell your partner out, but he tries to cooperate
Here, betraying your partner is always more beneficial than cooperating with them no matter what they do, but it is not as beneficial if you both cooperate. As a result, for good players cooperating will become the standard and betraying could be used as a way to punish the other player for other actions in the game. Likewise, with voice chat you could try to convince the other player to cooperate and then betray them for even greater rewards. The iteration allows for players to get back at each other and compete over a longer period of time.
The PD would really only works if the cost of being betrayed in minimal, otherwise people won't want to continue playing together. Ultimately I don't think it is worth it.
http://damiansommer.tumblr.com/post/5608540175/game-a-friendship-in-4-colours
To talk about it is to spoil it.
1. Asymmetrical Characters: This depends. Different goals themself do not make aymetrical characters. You should not mentaly cross out all ideas that work with symetrical characters with different goals.
2. Players Are Affecting Gameplay: You write about how players affect the story. It's kinda native to a multiplayer game that every player affects the gameplay of their partners through his interactions. Could you think of some additional gameplay elements that could be affected then the story / the ending?
3. Both Players Have to Survive: You should offer more reasons why players shouldn't die or clarify what you exactly mean. Killing each other does not autmaticly result in " a competitive game" and dieing does not automaticly mean killing each other, it could also be "killing to protect another player" or "sacrificing himself for the group" or "faking his own death to disguise his true goals", etc.
4. Separate and Together: That sounds intresting, but ask yourself "why do i want to seperate players now?" rather then just assuming that seperation would be a cool thing to have in general. If people play together (in coop or anti-coop the same) they want to interact with each other as much as possible. So seperation works against your core gameplay. It does not mean you should not add this element, but you should rather add it for a reason.
1. Asymmetrical Characters: The asymmetry concept opens a lot of room for variance. You could base the asymmetry simply upon diverging goals (same abilities and equipment but secret goals, like getting a specific artifact), or upon different innate abilities and/or equipment. In my opinion, equipment is more interesting than the rest, since it opens up inventory management issues, such as trading tools with other players or dropping stuff to pick up something else, for example.
2. Players Are Affecting Gameplay: In response to Nikita, I guess gameplay could be affected in-level in several ways. For example, a player could pick up some priceless treasure while inadvertently triggering a trap (changing the level layout and/or introducing a new challenge), could attract a group of hostile characters simply by making too much noise or by inadvertently pointing at them with a flashlight, or could open up an alternative path by placing explosives on a weak wall or climbing over obstacles using a grappling hook.
3. Both Players Have to Survive: I agree that players should stay alive through most of the campaign in order to foster camaraderie despite probably having conflicting goals. In my adventure game concept, I was thinking about having two separate "acts" to a level: getting to the treasure and then getting out of the place as fast as possible. During the first act, challenges would be simple to moderate in difficulty, so players would have to make many mistakes in order to get killed; once the second act kicks in, however, an onslaught of challenges would tip the scales towards risky choices, sacrifices and backstabbing (perhaps getting partners killed to steal their loot, or bargaining a necessary tool for their treasure, for example). Having more players means the team can get more loot out of the place (perhaps they keep 50% of what they bring out, and share the rest with their team), and is more likely to have the needed inventory space to keep additional tools and weapons as well.
4. Separate and Together: I agree with Nikita that, in order to make players realize they need each other, you should keep them together most of the time, only splitting up for a short while (and a good reason); that way, you'll make players realize they need each other (despite probably having diverging or conflicting goals).
I heard about Kane and Lynch's heist mode from a friend a while ago but, other than that, I've never played any games that offered this kind of gameplay. All in all, it's a nice high concept, and one that I believe could be particularly suited to videogames (since player interaction is a good component to add to this trust-betrayal relationship). Thanks for posting this!
How you describe it is pretty close to Kane and Lynch 2's mode. You have the actual heist where everyone has to work together to reach the loot, then the escape where you can back-stab your partners while dealing with the police.
My thought was, is there a way to do this right, without having the game split between two different modes? A thought I had with the goals, was that completing goals earns the respective player points. These points are essentially currency for controlling the level, you'll never see how many points your partner has or what their goals are worth. The point values are randomized each time.During important decisions, the players have to spend enough points if they want their way to be chosen which affects the level and story.
I've toyed around with the concept of secret goals that would award players points or money, but using said goals to influence the game's flow is a very nice concept I hadn't thought of.
However, balancing the anti-cooperative and cooperative parts of the game (which I don't mean as separate acts) appears to be quite complicated, as it's always a tug-of-war between the individual and the team's desires and goals. Give too many individual rewards and players might get each other killed too soon, resulting in increased difficulty (which, depending on your concept, could even be a desirable thing); on the other hand, give too few and there'll be little to no incentive to stray from the "all for one and one for all" mindset.
Your opponents can only find out what your secret goals are by using a power to spy on you. For my idea I was thinking that both players can see each other's goals. But without knowing what the values are, they won't know for sure how much they are really helping out their partner if they decide to cooperate.
A way to discourage endless griefing would be to remove negative effects for not completing objectives, or perhaps making some objectives that, upon completion, reward some or all players in the party with loot and/or equipment (or the ability to take it away from somebody else!). While full-party rewards would probably swing the pendulum too far towards an "always help each other" mentality, partial rewards (say, "you and a player of your choice each gets +1 health") would further the metagame of player alliances and backstabbing.
Allowing players to keep bonuses and use them later (perhaps with a short "expiration date" to avoid needless stockpiling) could also be interesting. Something like "invincibility for 5 seconds" could be used to save yourself or a teammate from imminent death, for example, and would be further politics' relevance even more.
Wow, there were even more interesting mechanics that stemmed from this base concept than I had realized! Thanks a lot for sharing your ideas.
I think it would be worth your time to look at competitive games that offer the ability to work cooperatively.
A good game is Neptune's Pride. The game is 100% about forming alliances and backstabbing, or at least making sure you are ahead of your ally while keeping him strong enough to help you against your adversaries.
I think looking at examples of gameplay that allows opponents to naturally start working cooperatively could give you some good insight. From there you could probably distill some mechanics to 'force' that game play style.
But the interesting part is that it doesn't need to be 'forced'. If the game allows that play style, and its advantageous, then players will do it.
In a way the goal is to promote 'bad sportsmanship' and that is interesting. Ever play a multiplayer game of FIFA? The players are always trying to work cooperatively while at the same time screwing over their teammates and steal all the goals for themselves.
However once you've opened access to a room with treasure it is now a battle to see who can get to first. So while everyone works together to navigate through traps and vanquish enemies, once the level is complete it will be the greedy player who collected the most treasure who comes out on top.
What I can't think of are alternatives to greed as the anti-cooperative element that drives the game, since other concepts like differing personal goals or moral codes are more likely to be settled by talking rather than acting on most circumstances...