Co-op horror

[Your Computer]

Also, why the fuck are you bringing marketing into this? Haven't you heard? The mainstream isn't interested in change, or quality. If you consider yourself a proud member of it, begone, we have no reason to be talking. Or is it because the article figuratively mentioned a billion dollars? Because I don't give a shit how potentially profitable this idea is, and I don't want to talk about anything related to marketing. It's not a part of this discussion.

"A co-op horror set-up that actually has a good chance of succeeding." "I am interesting in discussing it, and why it is not a viable development in the horror genre."

I suppose i'm trying to put out the idea of if it is capable of succeeding in more than just the minds of dreamers; although, what i said is not limited to marketing.

You're the one who's only partially using it. I acknowledge the subtle grey area that exists between co-op and single-player. You look at it as a shallow form of entertainment that needs to be kept in a pigeonhole forever, because it can only ever have one definition to you. So you tell me who's using the word fully here.

Let me put this in the most polite way I can: There is no such thing as one isolated end of the spectrum dominating. All art (yeah, art, not a fucking product) is a result of some kind of interplay between these two ends of the spectrum and everything in between. I can name you a thousand examples of this from movies, music, literature, poetry, you name it. In fact, it's perhaps the most fundamental part of all art.

Can you honestly not see why I inferred from your statements that you think a game should be either completely dark or light? From your narrow-minded definition of co-op, of course. You don't seem to understand that "partial co-op" is co-op, just like darkness is light. It's the antithesis of light, an inseparable part of it. Darkness is scary because we are used to being in light. Obviously, cats, owls and bats are not afraid of the dark. It's a human fear that stems from the fact that we rely on it. Physically as well as mentally. The contrast between light and darkness is scary, just as a modulation from a major key to a minor key is infinitely more tragic (if done correctly) than a piece of music that is in a minor key the entire piece.

So, it's not a matter of having someone with you in the game or not. It's a question of having someone with you in the game and then not.

Also, I have already said I do not know how to perfectly balance it, so stop bringing that point up. It doesn't mean that the idea is impossible.

You're right, i wouldn't expect to find myself mixing words and then claim i am using a single word fully. I wouldn't call "partial co-op," "partial co-op;" i'd simply call it "co-op." Yeah, i wouldn't call "single-player", "co-op;" nor would i call "multi-player", "single-player;" etc.

Yeah, i could see why light or darkness is merely an illusion of one central thing that is neither light nor dark, but not how it relates to my original point. My original point, before it got dragged out and away all the way to here, was that the article did not provide an example of co-op but still called it "co-op horror"--"co-op without the co-op;" it is kidding itself calling it "co-op."

Like i've said before, i did not see any contradiction in your examples from what i've been saying (nor how you thought they were in contradiction). Co-op allows for the ability for your partner to be there one moment but not the next. However, your partner being there one moment but not the next does not necessarily allow for co-op: which is the example given in the article. You've asked me if i even read what you wrote, shall i do the same now?

I will do more than stop bringing up past points: i will simply cease to respond here, if you still can't see what i meant with my original point, before there is no longer a moment for clarification. For i get the feeling if i continue to respond here, you'd only receive sarcasm from me.