Real Horror Games Don't Need Co-op

[andersgeek]

Regarding VALVe, I'd also say they have figured out how adding co-op in a sequel to a single-player game should work: Make one SP and one co-op campaign. [Talking about Portal and Portal 2 here, obviously.]

Anyone who doesn't care about co-op gets their money's worth just playing the SP. Everyone who also plays the co-op gets a few additions to the game's universe. Win-win!

[Anyone who only plays co-op does something wrong, of course, but each to their own.]

 

[josemlopes]

Oh come on it's a concept that can work. Have you ever heard of the Hidden?

Its kind of how people thought that comic books movies didnt work. They didnt, untill they did.

Its all about doing it right and not fucking up.

Shit, you can even do multiplayer in horror (watch 6:00 to 6:40)

snip

Exactly, there is so much that can be done. The most important thing though should be picking the right friend to co-op with, wich is something that a lot of people dont seem to understand (its like taking a friend that doesnt shut up and is constantly messaging to a movie, of course it will suck but thats not the movie's fault)

Imagine getting in a corridor with multiple turns and doors and having a timer to find a particular item, the players will have to go through different rooms to find the item faster but after entering a room and loosing sight of the other player the rooms would change positions making hard for them to find each other again and get lost in a maze like scenario of repeating rooms (giving the illusion of being stuck in different dimensions).

It could be something cool to experience.

 

[Something Amyss]

The beauty of co op? It's OPTIONAL.

Sweetie, EVERYTHING about gaming is optional. That doesn't change the larger point.

Especially when one of the major criticisms here was that you were left out of actual story if you didn't play co-op.

In that instance, it kind of is taking away from person A.

 

[Azahul]

In my opinion, and I really respect Yathzee and love his Zero Punctuation serie, he is wrong about the WHOLE concept of horror genre. 1) Heavy Atmosphere, 2) Mutilated Death (decapitated, amputed or mauled), 3) Bloody or Ghostly Exposition (corpses or messages), 4) Unknown Threat/Inhumane Opposition (A serial killer or zombies are considered inhumane), 5) Unexpected Events, 6) Limited resource to fight back. "Survival" is just another word for "Don't die and it won't be easy."

Uh, no. Isolate, separate, and pursue really is all you need. The idea is that these elements should provide the atmosphere that you put at number 1. Atmosphere doesn't just spring from the ground full formed, it's constructed with the aforementioned elements. Put you somewhere where you can't go for help, separate you from your friends, and then set something after you. You don't need mutilated death, just look at Slender. You don't need blood or ghostly exposition. And while it helps if the threat is unknown or inhuman, that doesn't matter so long as the character (and, ideally, the player) is isolated and scared. Unexpected events and limited resources are pretty common, yeah, but the latter tends to come from the aforementioned "Isolation" step and the former is just a part of storytelling. Pretty much everything ever written has something unexpected happen at some point.

In essence, so long as the character is on his or her own, unable to get help, and is under some kind of mounting threat, you have all the elements you need for horror. You can construct a horror story from perfectly mundane situations, provided you do it right. A lot of your list sounds like prerequisites for a slasher flick, which is horror but most certainly not necessary for all horror.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

Silly Yahtzee.

There's no story in Aliens: Colonial Marines.

I'd say that I should be worried if he's an Aliens fan, since he'll probably be an even harsher Jim and shower poisonous spiders over some poor sap in Australia, but I think he's become so bitter and disfranchised with the whole video game industry that this'll just come off as one big "Meh."

 

[Lerola]

DS3 in not more an survival horror, is another conversion of EA for milking more money from a series...

 

[The Heik]

I think the problem is just that the co-op experience is in it's infancy. I look forward to a co-op horror experience designed to emphasize terror isolation and suspense.

Its all about doing it right and not fucking up.

Shit, you can even do multiplayer in horror (watch 6:00 to 6:40)

Exactly, there is so much that can be done. The most important thing though should be picking the right friend to co-op with, wich is something that a lot of people dont seem to understand (its like taking a friend that doesnt shut up and is constantly messaging to a movie, of course it will suck but thats not the movie's fault)

Under such definition, COOP isn't incompatible : OBSCURE game is the best example of HORROR COOP done right. SILENT HILL (2) which is Yathzee's favorite Horror game is all about finding your way, shooting weirdly sewed bodies, solving puzzles, with unexpected cutscenes. Why is it good? Solid story. Resident Evil that many still consider an horror game have all that too. Adding a 2nd player wouldn't change it except for the difficulty that would be balanced by the need to carefully manage the resources between two players and may make one of them unable to fight and need to run.

I'm quoting all three of you because I feel that you all need to be reminded of what co-op does to games. You see, horror is about making a person feel weak. They do this by using disturbing and uncomfortable events and themes, by taking away our means to combat them, and/or isolating us from any form of help or relief (among other things).

Co-op skull-fucks those concepts because human by their nature are social creatures. The more of us there are, the stronger we are because we can now communicate and co-ordinate to combat obstacles that arise, whether by physically lending a hand or by simple emotional support.

So when you add another player into a horror game, you remove those fear inducing aspects because there is someone else out there who is experiencing those same things, who can help you through them, and who can empathize with your feelings and support your psyche through the event.

Heck, the part of the Hidden video that josemlopes bid us watch shows exactly why Co-op horror doesn't work, as not even 5 seconds after the jump scare pops out and activates the player's fight-or-flight instinct (which could equally be done by your pet unexpectedly jumping into your lap in broad daylight), they're laughing. LAUGHING! A singleplayer horror game would have the player freaking out for at least 20 seconds as they scramble to find some form of comfort and safety, yet in the video the adrenaline starts to wear off almost immediately because those things are already there.

And the real kicker is that even the techniques that you mentioned about isolating the players from each other and mix-matching sensory inputs, the player will still be together, whether via online communication or even being in the same room. They will never be truly isolated from each other psychologically or physically, so they will never truly feel weakened. The only way to do so would be to directly sever any means of communication whatsoever between the players, and all that does is make a co-op game into a single player game that just so happens to have another player in the same game world, because the second player is utterly redundant to any feeling of horror that the game is trying to establish. Incidentally this is why even with a "right" friend for horror that the co-op is wasted, because why play with a friend if you're NOT going to interact with them?

And if you guys don't believe me, watch a horror movie (that you know can scare you) alone. Then watch it with another person with you. Even if that person is completely silent and unmoving throughout the entire epxerience (effectively acting like they're not there at all) the film will noticeably lose much of this horror capability simply because you will (consciously or unconsciously) know that there is someone else there who is sharing in the experience. Instead of every little creak and noise being the possible footsteps of some unseen monstrosity out to get you, one's brain will more likely attribute it to the other person/people there, as they are a known factor that is infinitely more likely to be the cause.

In short, real horror is not a group sport. Any attempts at it are never going to come close to the scares that one will experience when truly alone because the very basis of how horror affects us best is predicated on the removal of the things that comfort us, and even the most insufferable, obnoxious person on Earth is universally more preferable than the horrors of the unknown.

 

[Narcogen]

"Because I know what I always do when I'm playing a game with someone and a cutscene starts - I immediately turn to my colleague and chat about something. "

You don't do that in movie theaters, right? I get your point, but during a cutscene that would seem to be a fair comparison. I like coop modes because I like sharing the complete game experience-- game play and background story-- with another person without relegating that other person to being a spectator. Why rob them of half of that experience just because you've played the game before. What if they haven't?

 

[warrenEBB]

we should all take it upon ourselves to play co-op deadspace3 with strangers, and try to scare them.
"Hey buddy, I'm staring at you while I take my various articles of clothing off."
"what?"
"what."

 

[themilo504]

I agree that co up and survival horror don?t mix I disagree with you when it comes to co up and story people watch movies in the living room without everybody constantly talking to each other so why should that be any different for games?

I also disagree that video games should consider written novel their closest peers that honor goes to tv shows mostly because there a visual medium but one that has much more time to tell its story then a movie.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Dead Space 3's Co-op mode goes against what survival horror is really about.

I would suggest an additional, if I may;

Real horror games don't need guns.

Is not horror partly not knowing whether or not you will survive? Unless it's one of those cheaply scripted encounters where a critter will leap out of a shadow point blank at you, a gun means your survival is all but guaranteed. I believe there are two good ways to ensure sufficient atmosphere in horror games;

1- No music.
2- Make the player believe their automatic survival isn't set in stone.

 

[The Deadpool]

The beauty of co op? It's OPTIONAL.

Sweetie, EVERYTHING about gaming is optional. That doesn't change the larger point.

Especially when one of the major criticisms here was that you were left out of actual story if you didn't play co-op.

In that instance, it kind of is taking away from person A.

a) You should probably read the REST of the post.

b) Sort of but not really... A solo player missed the story of the NPC. You get to view Isaac's story in its entirety since he is the single player character.

 

[Something Amyss]

a) You should probably read the REST of the post.

I did. I even referenced parts I didn't quote. If you had actually read my post, this would have been evident.

Accusing me of not reading your whole post when it's evident you didn't read the entirety of mine (or at least understand it)?


Additionally, it's kind of ridiculous to argue it's okay to relegate character development of an NPC to co-op. That sounds more like an excuse for bad storytelling than an adequate justification for calling single player complete unto itself.

See? Once again I addressed your whole post even though I quoted only a portion of it. I normally would have quoted "B," but thought this would make a solid example of exactly how one can read and even respond to the whole body without quoting it directly.

Though the last one should have been a decent example, too.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

That A:CM anecdote made me realize just how fun it would be to play video games and bullshit with Yahtzee. If he can make that game fun...it's all fair game.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yea... I don't know what goes on in Borderlands unless I play alone. All I know of the story is go and kill shit and cash in reward.

As for the Share button... can I get a cheaper controller without the share button on it? Thanks Sony.

 

[snave]

I think survival horror could be done incredibly effectively in a co-op game. Note that I'm not saying an entire co-op game with a survival horror focus would work. Rather, I believe a single stage, much like Ravenholm in Half Life 2, or that ice bit with the skulls and the shrieky things in Yahtzee's Poacher, could be quite effective and memorable. The trick would be to not bend the formula.

Imagine this:
1. The game offers fantastic in-built VOIP features as well as smooth textual chat to dissuade use of external communications such as Skype. There would be in-built support for the volume of players to rise and fall based on distance between you.
2. At some point in the game, the players are isolated. Lights go off, horror tropes are intentionally cheesy to encourage players to start taking the piss.
3. The players are silently split apart before dim lights return.
4. Now, in addition to the volume fade relative to distance, communicating players will experience large chunks of text in textual chat getting replaced by dots and both dropouts and pitch distortions in VOIP, the severity of each again varying as a function of distance between players. You begin placed barely within audible range of one another.
5. Shadows dart down corridors. You ask over VOIP if thats your friend. The moment the response comes, huge chunks of it drop out making it impossible to understand. One player is given a jump scare. Yes, jump scares are cheap, but the goal of this isn't to spook the player who receives the jump scare itself but rather to spook the other player via his/her friend's reactions.
6. Further jump scares are all non-scripted, and based around genuinely being surprised by a stealthy enemy AI.
7. The stage is designed so that players get closer and further from one another a few times, even seeing eahc other across a gap or window at one point.
8. When the survival horror stage finally ends, all the communications distortions naturally taper off in the same way they did as the players' locations converged during the segment. Due to this, both players are left uncertain for some time whether the survival horror section is entirely over. VOIP and textual glitches will also periodically return during the following stage to further encourage uncertainty and residual tension.

 

[The Deadpool]

I did. I even referenced parts I didn't quote. If you had actually read my post, this would have been evident.

I didn't say "read MORE" I said "read the REST." As in, all of it. As in, the part where I agreed that having co op specific story points wasn't the best idea. As in, THIS part:

2) Co op unique story sucks. I know, I know, it was the second player's story, but it still sucks that it can't be experienced in single player. Maybe having a new game plus where you play as the OTHER guy would have fixed that right quick.

In the original post.

Also, the only thing ironic about that song is that Alanis spends three and a half minutes listing things that AREN'T IRONIC...

As for Dead Space 3 in particular... While not the most elegant solution (I think a single player mode where you play as the OTHER PC would have kept the attempt at replay value without alienating the single player crowd) the plot doesn't really lose much from the co op story... They were pretty light on story to begin with.

 

[Mad World]

Somewhat related, but I think that we need more games with some sort of "Counter-Operative" mode (much like what the original Perfect Dark had). If implemented well, it can be a ton of fun.

 

[Right Hook]

Really looking forward to a PS4 Share button rant now.

 

[head desk tricycle]

The closest medium to video games is, obviously, games. Of course, there are some differences between the two: the first video game ever was called a "[television] amusement device," which is just scary accurate. If you place the emphasis on "storytelling" in "storytelling medium" maybe it would be novels, given that you accept video games as a storytelling medium. I guess that would make board games a storytelling medium, given that some of them come with flavor text that frames the game mechanics.