“Is it Co-op or is just two players?

This was an excellent question that I was recently asked about a game I was trying to convince someone to play with me. Its the kind of question that really puts things into perspective.

With companies seeming to make a push away from the single player only direction, I think this a question we'll start to see a lot more of.

At one stage in the industry any game that allowed two players to ally together against the badguys and complete the campaign was a considered a co-op play.

Moving forward in the industry I think we need to rethink what co-op play really means.

And I think we should start asking questions of any game that claims to have it.

The first and probably most important question...

Is the second player character necessary?

In a lot of games the 2^nd player really isn't necessary to complete the game campaign. Many times a game will feature a campaign mode that is geared specifically for a single player, and the addition if a 2^nd player doesn't change the campaign in any significant way. Sometimes because the game is being played by two players the enemy count will go up. But realistically this is just an increase in difficulty level simply to balance against the extra firepower that you call a team mate.

Does the 2^nd player character even matter in the narrative?

This question can often go right along with the first and is probably the most important question for the person who will take on the role of “Player 2.” from that persons perspective the question really asks. “Will I be acknowledged?” there are a great many games that only acknowledge the existence of the 1^st player, leaving player 2 out of the cut-scenes, or with no speaking parts, with no specific reason to even around and it can sometimes conflict with the narrative all together.

Luigi saves the day, but Mario gets the princess...why? Because luigi like many 2^nd player options is a phantom character who really doesn't even exist.

It can even get to the point where it becomes frustration.

The person taking the role of Player 1, can be really off is game, score very little, be a constant liability, and even a burden to the team, leaving the person in the role of Player 2 do ALL of the work.

However upon completion of the mission. Player 1 is the person who receives the merit, while player two receives....absolutely nothing.

Do the players really need each other?

Beyond providing covering fire, and possibly reviving each other, are the players codependent on one another in order to achieve success? Something as simple as navigating the environment can usually answer this question. If you literally cannot advance further in the environment without co-operating with each other than you've probably got a real co-op game on your hands.

This can go beyond getting through the environment, and extend to things like providing resources for each one another, or lending unique skills if players varied skillsets.

so on another note...

I'm going back to basics with the project before I start to really lose sight of what I'm trying to do with it, and in going back to that I'm going to be focusing most of my attention on the gameplay rather than the artwork for a while.

It was really nice to see the project starting take form artistically, but I really need to makes sure that the game itself provides the experience that I need it to first. So moving forward you'll probably see a lot of really bland looking models and textures.

I'm getting ready to launch an website dedicated to the project. If you want to keep tabs on the project, the new site should be a great way to do so. I'm planning to have interactive play sessions that you can take part in via the web.