Poll: Pick me up, Man!

[internetzealot1]

Cooperative gameplay has been on the rise in shooters lately. Whether they let friends experience the campaign together, or give them specially crafted scenarios to fight through, most shooters today seem to have some kind of mode that lets a player bring a buddy along to fight against enemy NPCs. Typically, when playing co-op, player death is delt with differently than when playing solo. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the merits of one of these alternate approaches: revival(and yes, I understand that the player is not technically dead).

How does being able to revive a teammate affect the gameplay of a shooter? How does it affect the strategies and tactics employed by players to complete their objective? Negatively, in my opinion.

Giving players the ability to simply pick up their allies after taking too much damage robs a game of any need for good tactics. Flanking from opposite sides? What if your ally gets shot? You both should've stayed together so you could revive each other. Splitting up to cover strategic points? What if you're ally gets taken down? You both should've camped the same room so you could pick each other up. Creative tactical decisions are stifled by the overbearing fact that, no matter what you do, you are better off sticking together.

Also, the ability to revive drains intensity and excitement from gameplay. Does the outcome of that shotgun battle with three Locust really matter if your friend is a few steps and a button tap away from getting you back into the game? Are you going to play as carefully knowing that if you get hit, all you have to do is crawl behind a rock and wait for your ally to come lay down next to you and hold a button down?

In Gear of War 2's Horde mode, the best method was always to get all five people to camp out behind a big wall. Sure each player could only be revived a limited number of times per wave, but it took a while to reach that limit. In Modern Warefare 2's Spec Ops, players who stayed within crawling distance of each other were virtually garunteed to avoid failure. Hell, did anyone else notice that the Spec Ops levels where one player got control of a chopper turret or an AC-130 were actually harder than levels where he played as another infantryman? That's because your partner couldn't pick you up from a helicopter. When a standard footsoldier turns out to be preferable to an attack aircraft, something has to be wrong.

Anyway, that's my opinion. Tell me how you feel about the subject.

(Note: I don't consider Left 4 Dead to fall into this genre. I know at least one person was thinking of that.)

 

[Sleekgiant]

I rather get tired of doing the retard roundup and reviving all of my downed teammates while dodging fire from all directions. At least with a game like Army of Two, your teammate could cover you so they get points for that.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Like quickly regenerating health and the ability to quicksave, it ruins the atmosphere by greatly reducing any penalty for shoddy performance.

Not that medkits are any better.

 

[OmegaXzors]

I see your point but 'no,' comes to mind. There is nothing more frustrating than having to start a 30-minute sequence over again because someone gets shot. The point of video games are to be fun. It also scores points for close friends to feel closer when they do successfully take down something while helping each other along the way.

In Multi-Player, it's nearly essential with only some gray areas surrounding the idea. It can turn the tide of a battle which should be in favor of anyone's book. A game where "team one will win because they did this" isn't fun. At all.

 

[SonicKoala]

I don't see anything wrong with it - when I think of the revive system, Spec Ops in Modern Warfare 2 comes to mind; me and my buddy beat all of them on Veteran, but if that revival system wasn't there, it would have been mind-numbingly frustrating. One can use tactics all they want, but when it's 2 on 15 or something similar, accidents are bound to happen. You still have to be somewhat strategic, as it's only good so long as one person stays alive.

 

[Salakayin]

(Note: I don't consider Left 4 Dead to fall into this genre. I know at least one person was thinking of that.)

You would be correct in that notion, for that is what came to my mind. I'm pleased that you took the effort to exclude them from this, as how the game works currently makes sense in employing the system they have and works well.

In terms of your other points that pertain to the issue, your analysis makes complete sense and is well thought out.

 

[HontooNoNeko]

*Snip*

I agree completely this has also bugged me for quite some time its no longer a fight for survival as much as it is bidding time until the next cutscene.

Perfect dark used a different Co-op revival strategy and I think it turned out well. each player starts at full health(uses health bars) and when one player dies they can choose to revive but they take half of the current health of the team mate. This makes the game a more intense experience knowing one mistake could cut your chance of survival in half but it also was horrible when you have inexperienced player that well... a bullet magnet.

I would like to see health bars make a come back though.

 

[The Heik]

Cooperative gameplay has been on the rise in shooters lately. Whether they let friends experience the campaign together, or give them specially crafted scenarios to fight through, most shooters today seem to have some kind of mode that lets a player bring a buddy along to fight against enemy NPCs. Typically, when playing co-op, player death is delt with differently than when playing solo. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the merits of one of these alternate approaches: revival(and yes, I understand that the player is not technically dead).

How does being able to revive a teammate affect the gameplay of a shooter? How does it affect the strategies and tactics employed by players to complete their objective? Negatively, in my opinion.

Giving players the ability to simply pick up their allies after taking too much damage robs a game of any need for good tactics. Flanking from opposite sides? What if your ally gets shot? You both should've stayed together so you could revive each other. Splitting up to cover strategic points? What if you're ally gets taken down? You both should've camped the same room so you could pick each other up. Creative tactical decisions are stifled by the overbearing fact that, no matter what you do, you are better off sticking together.

Also, the ability to revive drains intensity and excitement from gameplay. Does the outcome of that shotgun battle with three Locust really matter if your friend is a few steps and a button tap away from getting you back into the game? Are you going to play as carefully knowing that if you get hit, all you have to do is crawl behind a rock and wait for your ally to come lay down next to you and hold a button down?

In Gear of War 2's Horde mode, the best method was always to get all five people to camp out behind a big wall. Sure each player could only be revived a limited number of times per wave, but it took a while to reach that limit. In Modern Warefare 2's Spec Ops, players who stayed within crawling distance of each other were virtually garunteed to avoid failure. Hell, did anyone else notice that the Spec Ops levels where one player got control of a chopper turret or an AC-130 were actually harder than levels where he played as another infantryman? That's because your partner couldn't pick you up from a helicopter. When a standard footsoldier turns out to be preferable to an attack aircraft, something has to be wrong.

Anyway, that's my opinion. Tell me how you feel about the subject.

(Note: I don't consider Left 4 Dead to fall into this genre. I know at least one person was thinking of that.)

It's been good and bad, but generally for co-op games it's a good way to ensure game flow and prevent someone from waiting while the other got to the next checkpoint alone or have the mission restart because of one mistake.

 

[whycantibelinus]

The only game I feel has done it decently is Gears of War, I don't know why but it kind of irritates me in any other game.

 

[Kagim]

Well from your examples i see it like this.

With the ability to save your partner you can do different tactics as long as you know how to find your partner and get them back up if they die. You have a wide range of options since one of you being killed isn't a death sentence. Also realize that if your buddy dies in an open area your probably not going to be able to revive them in time.

Without it you have no choice but to stick together. If one of you dies your starting that level all over again. You have less options and are less likely to experiment with tactics because failure is a guaranteed restart. Generally leading to people just grouping as close as possible.

I'll use RE5 as an example. Even without healing items you can instantly revive your partner to 1/4 health. Staying together in that game generally equals death. Me and my buddy had to route, distract and split up in order to get through the tougher fights. Many times he would take the high ground and snipe while i went toe to toe, well out of revive range, to take out the toughies. Most of the time during hard battles i played the bait while he ran around trying to get shit together, especially during the dock fight on the last boss.

If my death meant we instantly lost it would have taken out those intense parts where one of us died and the other had to run as fast as possible to save me before the timer ran out. So many times during hard battles that unison sigh of relief as we see that "reviving partner" clip just before i bled out. The battle became so intense as we were both working on 1/4 life, no healing items, and starving on ammo just enough to get through the fight. Being able to revive didn't make the game less intense or the fights easier it made them more difficult.

I have only played a bit of Gears(it was single player, I later sold my 360 in favor of my PS3. Personal opinion for me which i liked more, at any rate i don't know, nor will i ever know much about it.) so i cant say anything about it. Maybe it did make that game suck, but if RE5 did it that way the game would have just be frustrating.

In Games like Resistance 2's multiplayer(The only part of that game worth playing)medics were vital to that game. While anyone could res a dead player only medics could do it in a timely manner. As well healing players would make them invincible some enemies would specifically targeted us medics. If that game had no way to revive dead players many of the boss fights would have had to be toned down in order to survive.

 

[KitAlexHarrison]

Various games pull this off, to varying levels of success. For example, in Borderlands (one of my favourite games) the downed player is able to fight and will revive anyway if he kills an enemy while down. Compare this to Killzone 2, where you highlight a downed teammate, press Circle...and your character pulls out what can only be described as a quasi-Fallout ray gun and shoots the teammate back to life!

Battlefield: Bad Company averts such problems by having Redford, Haggard and Sweetwater give up their vulnerability in exchange for you having it all...while Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare will give you an endless supply of generic marines (no kidding: if you turn around and go back through and outside the TV station in that level before finishing the level, you will find around 10 Marines standing patiently in a line to join the fight!

 

[Kagim]

Compare this to Killzone 2, where you highlight a downed teammate, press Circle...and your character pulls out what can only be described as a quasi-Fallout ray gun and shoots the teammate back to life!

I just wish they could find that damn gun after i got shot in the face.

"Thanks for the save Sev! Oh what? You got stabbed to death saving me? Tough shit man, i'm not going to use the magical fixer up gun to save your ass."

Thanks Rico.... Your such a pal... Ass...