Co-op horror

[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?