Living, breathing, thinking, games...

• 29Aug 07

  Cooperative vs. Competitive Gaming

  Stand together, or apart?

  In 1993, id Software released a revolutionary game called Doom. Apart from its immersive visuals, relatively fresh point-of-view, and seriously graphic violence, one of the most impressive elements of the game was the addition of networked multiplayer.

  Indeed, this game is where the term "Deathmatch" originated; coined by John Romero who, at the time, was working with John Carmack to produce Doom. However, for me personally, this was not where the multiplayer aspect of the game truly shined. It was the ability to play the game with my brothers cooperatively. Sure, shoving rockets down each others' throats was fun, but there was nothing like assaulting the Shores of Hell with three other bad-ass space marines at your side.

  However, in the early days of network gaming, we had a hard time getting computers to link up. Whether it was our own inexperience, lack of knowledge, poor equipment, or what-have-you, the fact of the matter was it became an ordeal to try to get our PCs to play together.

  As time went on, more and more games adopted the Deathmatch schematic while neglecting to add a cooperative option. For a while, it seemed like the only option for gamers was to go head-to-head, not hand-in-hand. Then came Team Deathmatch. From the sprawling, sci-fi inspired game play of Tribes, to the highly difficult but highly acclaimed Counter-Strike, team-based combat seemed to usher in a whole new era of multiplayer. This seemed combine the elements of both cooperative and competitive multiplayer, however at it's core it was still competitive. After all, your enemies were other players. Also, there's always been the urge to compete with your own squad mates.

  On the flip side, a few games really stood out as great options for cooperative gaming. Diablo offered players a chance to delve through the dank, hellish corridors beneath a cursed church in search of the devil himself. The Baldur's Gate series also offered the ability to play through the campaign with your friends, making it a great way to spend some time gaming with a friend.

  Then came the Massively Multiplayer epidemic. Hundreds of players all cooperating together to increase the power of their characters. However, these games were originally plagued with PlayerKillers, or PKers. These were players who did nothing but wait for unwitting newbies to wander into their area and gank them. It was these players who originally turned me off to MMO's and caused me to cancel my Ultima Online subscription.

  Halo offered a great cooperative mode that keptmy friends and I busy for many long days. Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance was another good one, as well as Hunter: The Reckoning. Neverwinter Nights came with the awesome ability to create your own campaigns for your buddies to play. While the gameplay wasn't the best, the ability to quickly and relatively easily create your own adventures made it one of the best games for multiplayer.

  While the occasional cooperative gem pops its head up, it seems that throughout the years gamers have embraced more competitive gaming as opposed to cooperative. One thing I got excited about was the recent two-player addition to the Grand Theft Auto series. However, this was poorly conceived and offered very little play-value.

  Similarly, the game Crackdown got me all excited about free-roaming cooperative play. I was quite dismayed to learn that this multiplayer option was only available over XBL. My brother and I aren't about to buy another HDTV, another copy of the game, and another Xbox 360 (especially after the one we have died on us twice now). Very disappointing.

  Then, there was Shadowrun. When I first heard they were making a Shadowrun game, I was overjoyed. Shadowrun is my all-time favorite Pen and Paper Role-Playing Game. However, when I learned that it was going to be online, competitive only, I wanted to strangle both Microsoft and Fasa. This, to me, was the worst direction they could take the game. A lot of people were mad that it wasn't going to be a RPG. That didn't bother me. It was the fact that a purely cooperative game (as the P&P game was) was being turned into a tea-bag fest. In fact, I even read somewhere that there is an XBL Achievement only attainable by tea-bagging a fallen enemy.

  Recently, I took a trip to my local GameStop in search of some games for my brother and me to play on the 360. I asked my buddy behind the counter to point me the direction of two-player games for the X-Box. After a moment of deliberation, he pointed to a shiny box on the bottom shelf.

  "Gears of War?" he asked with a large grin.

  "We beat it already. Twice." I answered, shrugging a bit.

  "You know you can play it two-player online, right?" he responded.

  "Yeah, but Gears of War online sucks." I said, shaking my head and continuing to scan the racks of games.

  "Why's that?" said the clerk, quizzically.

  "We're not really into competitive games." I replied.

  "What?!" he was clearly surprised, "Why not?!"

  I explained to him that there were just too many cheaters. Then, after they kill you, they squat on your head and scream obscenities into their mics. He laughed and nodded, and in reference to cheaters he offered the "if you can't beat them, join them," tactic.

  Granted, there are no "cheats" for GoW. However, one of my friends has pointed out a few "exploits." When I told him that taking advantage of flaws in the game system was cheating, he retorted with "Nuh-uh! You can do them, so how is that cheating?" I didn't really have an answer for him, but I still felt like exploiting the game to gain an advantage over someone who doesn't exploit it was cheating.

  After twenty minutes of searching, I ended up taking home Rainbow Six: Vegas. I got to give it to this game. The co-op mode is spectacular. I don't think my brother and I have had so much fun in a long time. While at first I was adverse to the idea of no campaign mode, I quickly embraced the ability to play any map in any order I wish.

  I'm pleased to hear that a number of games are in development that are offering split-screen cooperative play, including Army of Two. I saw that Halo 3 is shipping with four-player cooperative mode, but I haven't seen anything indicating whether this option will be available only over Xbox Live or if you'll be able to do so in split-screen mode.

  So, here's the point of my article. What do you enjoy most? Competing with other players for glory and bragging rights, or working together for mutual benefit and enjoyment? Also, why do you think gamers are so much more interested in competing with each other and cooperating with each other? Is it just the nature of a gamer? Do gamers just enjoy making each other feel less adept at playing the game?

  • Posted Aug 29, 2007 11:15 am GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 2 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts