 |
 |
|
If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these Think Services sites:
 Game Career Guide (for student game developers.)
 Indie Games (for independent game players/developers.)
 Finger Gaming (news, reviews, and analysis on iPhone and iPod Touch games.)
 GamerBytes (for the latest console digital download news.)
 Worlds In Motion (discussing the business of online worlds.)
 Game Set Watch (the Group's alt.game weblog.) |
|
|
|
| |
Opinion: Left 4 Dead Vs. Gears Of War 2 - The Co-Op Showdown
by Michael Walbridge
|
|
| |
|
December 10, 2008
|
| |
[Columnist Michael Walbridge regularly examines gaming communities and subcultures, and here, he argues that Valve's Left 4 Dead represents bigger changes for co-op gaming than, say, Gears of War 2.]
Co-op gaming is older than most gamers; while examination of co-op gaming has always existed (Co-Optimus.com, for instance, is an entire site dedicated to co-op gaming), many recent releases have prompted players everywhere to think about the state of co-op and its capabilities.
In fact, one might argue that Epic's Gears of War 2 is the culmination of what co-op gaming always was, while Valve's Left 4 Dead and its unique game mechanics are truly a step toward the future.
Gears of War 2 followed a formula, and did it very well. It is a shooter complete with content, a campaign, and various multiplayer modes. One of these modes, horde mode, brings the players together in co-operation, a first for a title like Gears of War.
In Gears of War 2, co-op is doing what it has always done: adding even more value and longevity to the game, creating incentive not only for consumers to buy the game, but to keep it; also, the more players that keep the game, the fewer that have the option to buy used. From the side of production, there was always the incentive to provide co-op modes so that more people would purchase the game.
Turtle Rock and Valve, on the other hand, saw that co-op could have other uses; instead of making co-op an added feature, why not make significantly different design decisions based on co-op principles?
They are not necessarily the first to do this (Army of Two attempted to do the same thing), but they are the first to design a full-priced game around co-op while achieving impressive sales and, at the same time, omitting traditional content!
Most co-op to this point has simply been meeting the need for players to play together while not playing competitively. The players could thus experience the content together. Left 4 Dead does not have traditional content or competition (if Valve achievements are any measure), yet sold well and is still highly-played. Why?
It could almost be called an MMO in a box; you are out in the hostile world, monsters anywhere, and you don't know who you will have to engage these monsters with. Left 4 Dead can only be conquered if the players have the level of cooperation that a dungeon full of huge ogres and dragons requires.
And this time, it's zombies and shotguns with FPS mechanics instead, and with no subscription fee and leveling. Many of the trappings still apply, though.
As for content—well, there's that movie; the writings on the walls at the beginning of each level are interesting to read. But still, there's no ending, or cutscenes, or anything.
There is a game world here, but those who have cried desperately for appropriate "interactivity" have gotten it -— each time you run through this game, the experience is highly different. And it's not just the A.I. director placing every zombie randomly, either.
Because in Left 4 Dead, you will often need to play with random players, which is what would likely happen if a terrible disaster like a zombie infection were to occur. They may or may not cooperate, they may wish to lead or to follow, they may wish to go first or last, they may be gung-ho or too cowardly.
Even technology that creates "narrative dissonance" keeps the immersion complete; the question of whether or not the player has a mic or not is just as important as whether he will heal you with his sole first aid kit -- or whether he has the ability to use a pistol to pick off the hunter that has pounced you and is rending your flesh, far away from any other team mate.
Friends or strangers, every single time you play you are re-experiencing a disaster and the teamwork (or lack thereof) that it requires.
It seems that for some, Gears of War 2 is replacing Halo 3 as the new golf. Maybe it should be Left 4 Dead instead, since you learn about the other players much more quickly. Each time it's a new tale, pleasant or not.
|
| |
|
|
I've had one problem with it, though: if playing and cooperating with unknown people is such a big part of the game, shouldn't more attention be paid to how players are managed?
Yesterday I had the worst in-game experience I've had since I started playing Left 4 Dead. In a versus game, two guys decided they wouldn't play as survivors, they'd only play as infected (aka zombies). They would stand behind, delaying the team, or just kill themselves, making the survivor team too weak. Not only that spoiled the game for the survivor team, it spoiled for the other team as well, since they only had to play against two suvivors. No one could kick them from the game since they were half a team and only the team can vote for kicking team members. You can't even mark those guys as "people you don't want to play with ever again", or something like that.
So, I guess a co-op FPS game must have its community management part very well designed. You can't have people perma-banning everyone from their games, but you can't have people spoiling the game either.
The "megatrends in game design" article pointed out how co-op gaming is on a rise and the difficulties that come with it, but it seems that dealing with disruptive players may be more of a challenge than anticipated.
@Moreno and Gehri: I agree that the MMO comparsion is bad, considering the author described the game "as a MMO in a box". That is misleading, becasue the gameplay simluates more of an instance pack of adventures then an actual MMO. Even in gameplay, the idea of fighting as a team against AI is a completely different experience then competing against opposing players with completely different objectives, characters, and mechanics.
The latter is a great example of how co-op gaming can surpass the barriers of "traditional" content. If you think about it, everything included in the package seems shallow. A campaign mode and a versus mode, both made up of only 4 scenarios.
From an embedded narrative standpoint things get even "worse" because there's one introductory video and loading screens/credits that compare (and parody) the experience to a horror movie. But it strives from the emergent narrative created by the "Director AI" and the applauded co-op mechanic.
A small package capable of much entertainment based on the interaction between players and the marvel of what cooperation can achieve. Over and over.
How can you compare the co-op gameplay between Gears2 and Left 4 Dead, and not talk about the dynamics of the co-op mechanics/design? Specific examples would have been helpful.
I'm more surprised that you seem to have completely ignored The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords. This is a game designed around co-op without traditional content as well. Despite each player needing a GBA to play, the game sold very well.
Instead of analyzing the co-op design in Left 4 Dead, the article spends a lot of time exaggerating qualities inherent to just about all multiplayer games and, for that matter, all games:
"each time you run through this game, the experience is highly different"
Each time I play Gears multiplayer, the experience is different. And each time I play Super Mario Brothers, the experience is different, even if those differences seem slight.
Here's a link to an article detailing the different types of co-op mechanics/design.
http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2008/10/25/co-op-mechanics-and-desig
n.html
Here's some interesting examples of each.
http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2008/10/31/co-op-mechanics-and-desig
n-pt-2.html
And here's why the Four Swords is the best designed co-op game.
http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2008/11/2/co-op-mechanics-and-design
-pt-3.html