Co-op horror

[Your Computer]

It's not a paradox. Being alone is only scary because we are so accustomed to not being alone. It's this inherent ambiguity between the two concepts (which are really one and the same, in different manifestations) that makes it so terrifying to have nobody else to help you. The co-op design the article proposes is far more powerful than starting out the game alone (if done correctly), because while the concept of having people to rely on is something everyone can relate to, it loses its impact somewhat because it is the default state.

Think of someone suddenly becoming blind or deaf well into their 30s. Can you imagine the despair and physical withdrawal of not having one of your basic senses anymore? People that are born blind don't go through that because they don't understand what sight is. It's the same deal with co-op horror although to a much lesser extent. This concept of giving the player a feeling of safety only to cruelly and very abruptly take it away is something that's incredibly prevalent in all of Frictional's games, most notably in the form of light and sound. Why is the co-op any different, just because it has a tendency not to work? If the players are mature, and the game is designed correctly, it has immense potential.

What's cooperation but working together in order to progress? Loneliness and helplessness is tossed out the window wherever cooperation is found. "Co-op horror", therefore, is an oxymoron and are mutually exclusive concepts. In order to have one you have to cease with the other. How would you balance these two things out, especially to the point of still being able to call it a "co-op horror" game? I would not be surprised to see either concept redefined to where it contradicts expectations. "If done correctly"--good luck with that.

[Bridge]

It's not a paradox. Being alone is only scary because we are so accustomed to not being alone. It's this inherent ambiguity between the two concepts (which are really one and the same, in different manifestations) that makes it so terrifying to have nobody else to help you. The co-op design the article proposes is far more powerful than starting out the game alone (if done correctly), because while the concept of having people to rely on is something everyone can relate to, it loses its impact somewhat because it is the default state.

Think of someone suddenly becoming blind or deaf well into their 30s. Can you imagine the despair and physical withdrawal of not having one of your basic senses anymore? People that are born blind don't go through that because they don't understand what sight is. It's the same deal with co-op horror although to a much lesser extent. This concept of giving the player a feeling of safety only to cruelly and very abruptly take it away is something that's incredibly prevalent in all of Frictional's games, most notably in the form of light and sound. Why is the co-op any different, just because it has a tendency not to work? If the players are mature, and the game is designed correctly, it has immense potential.

What's cooperation but working together in order to progress? Loneliness and helplessness is tossed out the window wherever cooperation is found. "Co-op horror", therefore, is an oxymoron and are mutually exclusive concepts. In order to have one you have to cease with the other. How would you balance these two things out, especially to the point of still being able to call it a "co-op horror" game? I would not be surprised to see either concept redefined to where it contradicts expectations. "If done correctly"--good luck with that.

This is leading into a semantic debate that I don't want to partake in. The point is: co-op - two or more persons playing the game simultaneously. Separating the players close to the beginning of the game is by no means the only way for this to work. With some clever design, you can even pull it off without separating the players at all. My entire point is that there is nothing wrong with the idea and it is dismissed for bullshit reasons.

Also, it seems like you did not read my last post or are taking a conscious stand against the ambivalence of light thing I was talking about. I just said that it cannot possibly be a contradiction because both concepts rely on each other to be effective. For example: Do you agree that a horror game that takes place entirely in well-lit areas has a fairly small chance of working? How about a game like Penumbra and Amnesia that balances light and darkness in an almost poetic way?

So - let me ask you: Are those games "kidding" themselves because they include light even though much of the scariness comes from being in the dark? If you honestly believe that, why are you even on this board? Instead of thinking in absolutes - either completely light or completely dark, think about the subtle interplay between the two concepts, which are essentially poles of one mutual concept. Co-op doesn't need to be an artificial game mode where two players are just progressing side-by-side, it is an excellent opportunity to tell a horror story in an unprecedented way. If you guys would abandon your prejudices for a minute, perhaps you'd see that.

[eliasfrost]

+1 to bridge, if only a developer would dare take the step, I think it would be worth it. Co-op doesn't necessarilly mean that the players are in the same room solving the same puzzles all the time, things are not that black and white. You can break the players up for a time and set them in uncomfortable positions during the time until they are reunited again, and like Bridge said, the scare factor will be greater because the contrast between safe and vulnerable is so distinct between the episodes.

This very concept is what makes for example, the cradle in Thief 3 so very more scary than any other game, because the contrast between normal and creepy becomes so apparent it's crawling under your skin. The same goes for the haunted house in Fallout 3 or the crying children in Half Life 2. I would go as far as to say that the most horrific moments do not come from horror games, but from creepy moments in non-horror games, but that is just my honest opinion.

People are far too up their opinion to even consider the possibility, and I think it's sad.

[Your Computer]

This is leading into a semantic debate that I don't want to partake in. The point is: co-op - two or more persons playing the game simultaneously. Separating the players close to the beginning of the game is by no means the only way for this to work. With some clever design, you can even pull it off without separating the players at all. My entire point is that there is nothing wrong with the idea and it is dismissed for bullshit reasons.

Also, it seems like you did not read my last post or are taking a conscious stand against the ambivalence of light thing I was talking about. I just said that it cannot possibly be a contradiction because both concepts rely on each other to be effective. For example: Do you agree that a horror game that takes place entirely in well-lit areas has a fairly small chance of working? How about a game like Penumbra and Amnesia that balances light and darkness in an almost poetic way?

So - let me ask you: Are those games "kidding" themselves because they include light even though much of the scariness comes from being in the dark? If you honestly believe that, why are you even on this board? Instead of thinking in absolutes - either completely light or completely dark, think about the subtle interplay between the two concepts, which are essentially poles of one mutual concept. Co-op doesn't need to be an artificial game mode where two players are just progressing side-by-side, it is an excellent opportunity to tell a horror story in an unprecedented way. If you guys would abandon your prejudices for a minute, perhaps you'd see that.

The analogies you gave in your previous post were merely examples of what i was saying. Even though you mention separating the players is not the only way to make this work, your examples still require separation. I didn't dismiss what you previously said, i just didn't see it as a counter argument to what i said. Nor do i see the example of light and darkness as a counter to what i said; at some point you're going to separate, because it needs to be done. My reasoning for why it needs to be done is because fear (i.e. horror) does not come from cooperation but the lack thereof (in the same way fear does not come from light but the lack thereof; and not from the senses but the lack thereof--following from your examples). The two concepts are mutually exclusive (whether it's light vs dark, co-op vs horror, with or without the senses, etc) and therefore have to be separated for one to exist. Hence "co-op horror" is an oxymoron.

The balance between co-op and horror will not come from mere theories on how it could work. Nor will it come from mere theories on how it should work. And if one were to rely on the testing phase of the game to provide insight on how to make it work, on finding a (near-)perfect balance, the project may show itself to be too much of a risk to even continue. Who cares about $1 billion if it requires publishing the game to get it, especially since there's no guarantee of satisfying the consumers that asked for it? "If done correctly," "if they can make it work," these are all things that are subjective to the consumer.

The likelihood of there being moments where cooperation instills fear is very small (e.g. tossing an ally to their doom to save your own life) to non-existent, since that may have the consequence of single-player progression. If you can progress on your own, then forget co-op. The other person would be playing more as a spectator as he watches everyone else progress except for him. Don't call it "co-op horror" if cooperation is merely "multi-player." Call it "multi-player horror." You could probably simply call it "horror", since multi-player allows for single-player progression.

Even considering a case where one of the players has to stay in one area while the other player goes to another area and they communicate through some "device," i doubt the horror can be experienced by both players. And any kind of horror experienced during this time cannot be life-threatening (as that will prevent progression). So a scream is heard through the device (assuming push-to-talk is not active), i could only expect it to be irrelevant to the person not experiencing the horror (mostly because the horror is not life-threatening and is not being experienced by the one waiting). If you allow for the scenario where only either-or will experience the horror in many cases, what does that say about "co-op horror"? If i am to accept the oxymoron and take in everything it could possibly offer, wouldn't "co-op horror" imply that everyone experiences the horror simultaneously? So then how would separation work? And if horror includes lack of cooperation, how do you instill horror simultaneously?

Spoiler below!

I don't see why people are so against taking some time for semantics. If one does not understand what is being discussed, why seek a discussion?

[Ghieri]

So then how would separation work?

Exactly, what's the point of co-op if the players get separated anyways? This kind of beats the purpose of it.

Co-op involves, by definition, stronger support. Not only physical, but emotional as well. The reassurance of a friend who has your back eases tension, not creates it. Even if they are separated, the knowledge that there is a friend suffering with you would be enough. Basically, you have a mechanic that HINDERS the result that you want. Even if you COULD do it, this leaves you having to make extra work just to break even in the level of horror in other areas. There is literally no reason to make a horror game co-op other than to say you have co-op. That's when you breach into gimmick territory.

[Bridge]

I don't see why people are so against taking some time for semantics. If one does not understand what is being discussed, why seek a discussion?

I'll tell you why: Because debates concerning the semantics of things always end up like this one. Your entire post is trying to invalidate my ideas based on my choice of words, when it is abundantly clear what I am trying to say. For example:

The two concepts are mutually exclusive (whether it's light vs dark, co-op vs horror, with or without the senses, etc) and therefore have to be separated for one to exist. Hence "co-op horror" is an oxymoron.

Bullshit they are. I already explained in great detail how I believe them to part of the same underlying concept. If you don't believe that, fine, but don't tell me I'm wrong because you are right. Do you honestly believe that a game where you are in complete darkness the entire time would be scary or even interesting? After a while, in fact very quickly, it would become stagnant and colorless. Whatever tension it can build up will dissipate eventually. Honestly, I can't believe you are actually so ignorant as to not see how the two concepts form a bigger picture.

Don't call it "co-op horror" if cooperation is merely "multi-player." Call it "multi-player horror." You could probably simply call it "horror", since multi-player allows for single-player progression.

And this is why people do not like semantic debates. It makes no difference what you call it, it's the idea that's being communicated that matters. Honestly, you are just proving me and Naked? No right by saying something as closed-minded as that. Why don't you let go of your preconceptions regarding co-op and consider the idea?

Apart from that, your skepticism is justified, and your opposition against the vague language I was using is also valid. I don't have a clue how to perfectly balance these elements in a practical way, but I'm not a game designer. We could discuss specific ideas for hours though, and someone with the means to do it could do it. It's not impossible.

Co-op involves, by definition, stronger support. Not only physical, but emotional as well. The reassurance of a friend who has your back eases tension, not creates it. Even if they are separated, the knowledge that there is a friend suffering with you would be enough. Basically, you have a mechanic that HINDERS the result that you want. Even if you COULD do it, this leaves you having to make extra work just to break even in the level of horror in other areas. There is literally no reason to make a horror game co-op other than to say you have co-op. That's when you breach into gimmick territory.

Guys, are you sure you read my posts? This is exactly what I've been saying the entire thread. It doesn't hinder, it reinforces. You need to constantly release the tension for there to be tension. Don't you get it?

[Macgyverthehero]

I for one would love to try a co-op horror game.
I've seen many videos of people playing Slender together. It's still scary, but also a lot of fun. And if you don't like it, don't play it! It should always be optional. There should of course always be a one-player mode too.

You should take a look at Survivors beta, or Slendertubbies. Both games have co-op play and it still is quite scary when you have some friends.

[eliasfrost]

Your Comouter's only means to debate is to invalidate the involved use of words instead of bringing up valid points and it's getting really annoying.

[Ghieri]

You need to constantly release the tension for there to be tension.

That makes no sense to me. If you are constantly releasing the tension, then there is no tension. That's like poking a hole in a balloon and saying that hole needs to be there or the balloon won't inflate.

[MyRedNeptune]

You need to constantly release the tension for there to be tension.

That makes no sense to me. If you are constantly releasing the tension, then there is no tension. That's like poking a hole in a balloon and saying that hole needs to be there or the balloon won't inflate.

It does make sense. It's a way to avoid desensitization.