Handcuffing the player - Forcing cooperative game-play and why it is wrong.

Recently with games like Magicka and Kane and Lynch 2, I'm noticing a trend that I do not like: games that are forcing co-op in place of single player balance. Now while these two titles are the only ones I've seen so far I feel that we need to nip this problem in the bud before it becomes wide spread. Consider this a game design intervention entry.

Games that have multi-player components have been more popular than just single player games. The ability to play with your friends greatly extends the life of any game whether it is co-op or competition. The problem is when designers force multi-player at the expense of single-player balance. In my opinion it is worse to have a horrible single- player component with a decent multi-player instead of just having a balanced single-player and no multi-player.

To begin with here is a description of the problem, games that are designed for both single and multi player at the same time. The issue is that if the player is doing the same exact thing for both modes then the game has to be imbalanced in one of them.

For example in Magicka (which I'm going to do an analysis on) later stages involve battles with enemies who can easily kill you in a few shots and the player being swarmed. Now in multi-player you can revive other players as many times as needed but when you are playing single you don't have that ability. Every battle in the game is designed around having other players providing back up. While the co-op is fun, it makes the single player on later levels a disgustingly frustrating time.

Kane and Lynch 2 is similar with how the AI is balanced towards multi-player. Enemies will not attack the AI partner which ruins most of the tactics you can use. While playing co-op that is not an issue as the AI works. I finally got a friend to play co-op with me in KnL2 and we enjoyed it.

In my opinion the single player component of the game should be the baseline for balance. The reasoning is that by using it that way you can see how all elements interact with each other and use that to make alterations in multi-player. For example if one player handles a challenge a certain way, how can we change that when we have two or more people? Or altering weapon balance if one weapon is grossly overpowered in single player, it can be toned down for multi player.

If you go the opposite way then the game becomes impossible to balance. In other words it's like building a second floor on your house before finishing the first. Making changes to multi-player before seeing their affects on single-player can ruin the balance even more.

Now I know that some people are going to counter my argument with Left 4 Dead, as it is a game that has both a single and multi player component but to get the real experience you have to play it with other people. The reason in my opinion why it works compared to the other games mentioned in this entry is that single-player still has co-op in a sense.

During single-player you are assisted by AI partners, granted you're not going to beat a campaign on expert realism with them, they still allow one person to experience the campaign. In games like Kane and Lynch 2 and Magicka there are no concessions made to single-player, you’re expected to do the job of a group by yourself.

When co-op is done right it can elevate a game to greatness, case in point we have Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light. This was a surprise for me and the game made my best of list of 2010 and the reason is that the developers nailed the co-op game-play without comprising the single-player.

Here's how they did it, first they determined the core abilities of Lara in single-player. She can jump, shoot, dodge, use a grappling hook, place grenades and lastly use a spear to create footholds in walls. With those abilities the designers balanced all the fights and puzzles around that specific set of moves.

When they moved to multi-player they made two important design changes. First they split Lara's move set between the two characters. In multi-player Lara loses the spear ability and that is given to player two, along with being able to jump, shoot, dodge and place grenades.

Because of this decision it allowed the designers to make change #2. They altered all the puzzles and challenges in the game not only for two players but also taking allowance of the fact that the two moves revolving movement: grappling hook and spears can now be used independently of each other. This changes the dynamic of co-op dramatically as both players need to figure out not only where to use their skills at but also how to combine them effectively.

A friend and I spent three days going through the game and we enjoyed it. Having a buddy allowed us to communicate and work together to figure out puzzles. There were some sections that I couldn't figure out that he did and vice versa. Having to combine our abilities was great even when it led to us killing each other (by accident of course).It was a great experience when we got stuck at a few sections and had to slow down and talk through a section. Bouncing ideas off of each other and basically being a team to succeed.

This is one of the best examples of co-op game-play I've seen since Left 4 Dead. Making the 2nd player less of a second gun and more of a partner is the way to go. Guardian of Light also had an unintended bonus of making me really, really excited for Portal 2. Valve understands co-op and they have already announced that Portal 2 will feature two separate campaigns for single and multi-player.

A great game should not solely punish or reward the player for playing one of the available play modes. With the rise of co-op game-play thanks to games like Left 4 Dead among others the challenge of developing single and multi player components is on the rise. Hopefully designers will learn from the mistakes of Magicka and Kane and Lynch 2 and work on delivering quality content across all sections of their games.

Josh.