Updated 13 hours ago

12814 products + 13864 members

From Gauntlet to Left 4 Dead - the history of co-op gaming

It's more fun to play together

January 17th | Tell us what you think [ 6 comments ]

neverwinter-nights

It only takes one bad player to spoil the party, as many Neverwinter Nights fans discovered

<>

Everything's better with friends: going to the pub, hearing difficult news and taking on the massed demons of hell – you name it.

This probably says something about us as a species that while most of our favourite games are all about playing with others, it's typically spent trying to tear each other apart with fists of fury, hot lead, magical spells and anything else that might make a pretty splash of gore that has one yelling 'Damn!' and the other giggling 'LOL'.

Co-op is a different beast; one with the power to draw us together across continents and let us pool our fictional resources in the name of more social glories. If a problem shared is a problem halved, a shared victory is all the more glorious. Yet getting to that point is an uphill climb, for players, for developers and for the armies of baddies tasked with giving you value for your money.

This was literally true in the case of the earliest co-op games, as found in arcades all round the country. One of the earliest, and definitely the most famous, was Gauntlet – the top-down maze game where players took on the role of Warrior, Wizard, Valkyrie or Elf and hurled weapons at an endless stream of monsters, and personally punched anyone unlucky enough to accidentally shoot the potions and food they were supposed to be collecting. You could play Gauntlet on your own, but only if you wanted to play the most pointless game since Strip Patience.

Co-op bloomed in several genres, especially shooters and beat-em-up games – both of the Street Fighter mould, and the simpler Final Fight variety. Before Street Fighter 2 and its ilk turned everyone onto the joys of competitive gaming, co-op was one of the best ways for arcades to get between two and four times the money per game. That was just for starters.

With arcade games typically tuned to somewhere close to impossible difficulty, having a friend to spread the pain was the only way for most players to see the later levels of games like The Simpsons (a truly fine scrolling beat-em-up for its time), Contra, and Smash TV… or F***ing Smash F***ing TV, as it quickly became known among self-censoring gamers. Even on Xbox Live Arcade, the pain of that particular game still lingers.

All this was going on in the late 80s and early 90s, when the average arcade cabinet at the time was light years ahead of anything in the home computer market. If you wanted to play arcade quality games, only the Neo Geo offered anything close – but with games costing hundreds of pounds, most were content with their Nintendos, Spectrums, and those PC things that have been popular lately.

Many games made the jump from arcade to home computer, but co-op typically got lost in transition. Either the game would became single player only, or players had to take it in turns. Sequels, such as Double Dragon II, might restore it.

More often, co-op would be built into a new game from the start, letting the developers work with the system's limitations. Bubble Bobble, Battletoads, and Streets of Rage are just three examples.

Games would often let you choose whether your attacks would harm the other player or not. Gamers could usually be relied on to say 'yes' to a bit of friendly fragging.

Cooking up co-op

The great irony for co-op games is that the same technology that gives computers the ability to create them is the reason we don't get to see very many games embrace multiplayer gaming in the first place.

 

Your comments (6) Click to add a new comment

sfoxe


January 20th

6. If gamers had to choose which gaming studios would survive, Valve and Blizzard would no doubt be in the top 5, due in no small part to their commitment to co-op gaming. It may not be high on EA's list of features, but its the holy grail of 'shared experiences' amongst gamers.

The old school beat-em-ups were where co-op really shone for me. Streets of Rage 2, whether on the original Megadrive (Genesis) or now on Xbox Live, is a perfect example. Castle Crashers continues that, however I'm looking forward to a Valve or Blizzard quality co-op beat-em-up, PC based, internet play.

Alert a moderator

txshurricane


January 19th

5. If you like co-op games, Co-Optimus.com has a growing, sortable database of co-op games. You can even sort by local or online. Co-Optimus.com hosts the official monthly Xbox Live Co-Op Nights and Games For Windows Co-Op Nights. Check us out!

Alert a moderator

evosero


January 19th

4. The unfortunate thing about co-op, is that while is is definitely experiencing a renaissance lately - with games such as Left 4 Dead, Army of Two, Gears of War 2, Saints Row 2, NHL 09 - there are fewer and fewer games in which you can play multiplayer locally.

Whereas a system like the Wii embraces local multiplayer, systems like Xbox and PS3 seem hell bent against it. I can play co-op with a friend as long as we're on separate systems and miles apart. But in the same room, it's a hassle just to temporarily sign on with my Xbox Live profile in addition to his, let alone find a game that has local co-op.

It's unfortunate because it seems to go against everything that was fun about multiplayer gaming - and especially co-op - in the first place, which was the social aspect of it.

Alert a moderator

a.n.other


January 19th

3. Interesting article. I think the games that fare the most well off are those with an in-game economy. Take World of Warcraft as an example... the TONS of <a href="http://wowgoldpig.com" title="wow gold">wow gold</a> needed to play the game keeps people hooked for years. There are already talks of the government wanting to start virtual commodity taxes as well, which should put Blizzard in a pickle.

Alert a moderator

jonc


January 19th

2. FTA: "System Shock 2 was much the same. Despite the amount of time Irrational spent trying to bash a fervently single-player game into a multiplayer experience, it simply wasn't fun."

You're wrong. System Shock 2's Co-op was never part of the core game design. Co-op support was added through a patch much later on. It's just amazing that even though it was an after-thought, it worked out quite well, and rivalled any co-op of the day, comparing Apples to Apples of course.

I wrote an article about this:

http://jonac.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/co-op-games-where-are-they/

What's surprising is that Bioshock didn't add the same level of co-op at all, heck...even through a patch! There are fundamental game design challenges which are going to be somewhat impossible to beat but look at how well Valve has implemented co-op in Left 4 Dead. Surely their co-op mechanism could be, without a doubt, implemented in any Story-rich game....even one such as Bioshock? The technology is there, the will...unfortunately..is not.

There's nothing stopping developers from doing this.

Alert a moderator

spiny


January 17th

1. Please please please. There's no such word as 'addicting', it's 'addictive'!

Alert a moderator

Tell us what you think

You need to Log in or register to post comments

By submitting this form you agree to our Terms of Use and so are legally responsible for anything you submit. DO NOT submit anything which may violate the Terms of Use or another person's rights including copyrighted or offensive materials.