I'd like to point out that your examples of good asynchronous multiplayer were entirely cooperative. Even the supervillain one. You're not really attacking their base, as much as you're acting as one of those "To Catch a Thief" security consultants pointing out weaknesses they can then improve upon.Yahtzee Croshaw said:Drop The High Scores
"Asynchronous multiplayer" can mean so much more than "I'm da bes."
Read Full Article
Nothing like having a 3 letter abbreviation for your name, at least in those days. And yes, when I punched LEN onto a table filled with MCAs or EJMs, it made me feel better than getting the high score table itself did.as a kid I'd always put 'BEN' and feel inordinately satisfied with myself
This one's tricky. "Pick from a variety of layouts" would make them very samey - dead ends would be ignored by to a seasoned player - but it would negate the risk of people just walling off the goal or making crackhead-insane mazes that require foreknowledge of the route to beat in any reasonable timeframe. I don't know if there's a good balance to this problem.Then, as a side mission, you're randomly given other players' bases to raid with your gang of goons. The other player doesn't lose anything from this, but they get some kind of bonus for each of the intruders' goons their security measures manage to block or disable.
Yep. Rephrased, it goes something like this:I Have No Idea said:
It's a bit of a run-on but it makes perfect sense.I Have No Idea said:
I thought the same thing, though I attribute it more toward you really can't interact in any over way than assisting each other. If you could talk with each other that whole illusion would just be broken.hermes200 said:Although not asynchronous, your example reminds me of Journey. Its amazing how much intimate an experience feels when the interaction doesn't include "shoot in the face".