Hypothetical - Multiplayer Horror

[Apjjm]

I am not sold on the idea that multiplayer horror doesn't work - there needs to be far more attempts and failures for this conclusion to be considered yet. I think multiplayer horror is something that is something that could certainly work, and perhaps if executed well be just as terrifying as any single player game. Just as Amnesia is a single player experience - there could be a game constructed as a solely multiplayer or co-operative horrorshow. As the saying goes: you can't have your cake and eat it - multiplayer horror would likely have to tackle some very different problems than single player making the two pretty much mutually exclusive. Below are just a few such problems off the top of my head:

1. Should players be able to communicate? Deciding no here does make it far easier for the presence of another person to be overcome by the scary stuff in the game - But that obviously assumes that people won't still try to communicate (e.g. arranging props, jumping around by objectives...). No communication could be effective in a non-cooperative environment (E.g. survival at all costs - from both enemies and other players) but that still doesn't prevent people from communicating outside the game. My guess is some kind of limited form of communication between parties (not as direct as chat, but perhaps some in world communication, which would be very dependent on the setting and game) could be used.
   
2. Making Players scared of other players - or at least don't let people feel as safe together. This is especially true if the players know each other outside of the game world.
   
3. How many players should be in your world?
   
4. What is there to prevent players who have played before from ruining the experience for others?
   
5. Latency breaking immersion Not really much that can be done about this aside from LAN play only sadly - so i guess we can just make do here.
   

We can tackle these issues though. Again, off the top of my head below is one idea which tackles the above problems (so i'm certain there are hundreds of novel ways waiting to be thought up - hopefully making some good games). Whether or not this quick idea would actually be scary given the correct atmosphere i guess would require testing and refinement, but it sounds reasonable enough on paper:

Individual Levels Co-op approach

Spoiler below!

In a nutshell
This idea has some elements in common with l4d ("stories", group of survivors) but takes a rather different approach to using the elements. From amnesia the idea borrows the No weapons idea (Though perhaps making weapons extremely limited and likely to draw unwanted attention would also be feasible).

Game world
Consider the game universe to be composed of a large collection of (shortish) stories. Players can choose a story to play from some form tile list in the menu. After starting players join a holding area at the start of the story where they can communicate using chat with other players (This is effectively a lobby, but in the game world). When enough players have entered the holding area (or the players wish to begin) then players may begin the story.

Communication
No chat or voice communication outside of the waiting area. Communication past this point can only be achieved through limited in-game, most likely stigmergic, means.

Co-op focused, but teammates are expendable assets
In each "story" the group are survivors who can choose to group up or go off alone or into sub-groups. Surviving in smaller groups may be encouraged by the game through some kind of reward system. Furthermore, Splitting up will be encouraged by the level design, typically required to solve puzzles.

Some puzzles may present the option to members of the group to sacrifice other members for faster progression or avoidance of a particularly nasty looking area (E.g. a member may have to enter some drained pipes to reach a room with a control panel, but after reaching the panel water can be turned on again straight away, dooming the player to the monsters. Doing this would speed up progression for the group, as perhaps the water needs to be turned on as well as the control panel activated for progression.

Build up the pressure, whittle down the players
Monsters in a co-op environment can be far more brutal and dangerous. Obviously a good variety is necessary - some monsters or hazards can act as a deterrent whereas others could actively hunt people down - sometimes the only way to survive an onslaught is to not be the slowest guy to run away, or the first to be found hiding. As the group size reduces, so does the chance of individual peril: stragglers could be focused by monsters, and they can get more aggressive as the group size reduces.

Group joining
When a group of players is critically reduced (perhaps to a 2 or 3 member group) they face a choice - Do they try and progress further? do they wait for another group to come by?

The latter behavior could be supported by the game by merging game universes under certain conditions - E.g. when two stories are close in progression and both have few players then the game could merge the worlds and allow the groups to find each other (but most likely scare the crap out of each other first).

Handling death and victory
As each story could be independent (though perhaps multi-part stories could work too) the game can simply prevent players from playing a story they have just played for a fixed period of time - there are plenty of other stories into which the player can just jump in.

Victory could be encouraged by awarding players a "survival score" at the end of each campaign, this could depend on group size (smaller = better) and completion time, and provide diminished returns for replaying stories. This seems a little contrived and perhaps it isn't needed?

Handling repetition
User created stories / environments. The game could provide a good collection of initial stories, however, having a huge collection of user stories to choose from would keep variety up. Additionally, levels could have some random elements and procedural content in them. Levels could also maintain left-over markings, bodies, moved props from other players.

A note on world merging
One in-game way of handling world merging was shown in corpse party - this game introduced characters and allowed people to meet up through "parallel spaces" merging. The environment in this game would be a really good example of setting for a potential story. It also shows that it is certainly possible to explain away this feature in terms of the game story and setting.

[TheBlastPassage]

I would also agree that successfully making a multiplayer horror game would be a challenge. If you give the players any sense of cooperation, then it comforts the players and can ruin the horror value. If you have one player that has already beat the game, they will just know where to go and what to do and can't really pretend not to know what to do or when a scare will occur.

But Apjjm puts it best

[plutomaniac]

Guys this thing will never work as intended and it comes down to basic human instincts. And not only humans. There is a reason why people, wolves, dogs, birds etc...(animals) form groups. Not only are they stronger but most importantly they feel safe. Sometimes, this feeling is all that is needed to do things that you previously would have never imagined doing. That's why aggressive dogs are so unpredictable when they form a small group. That worm feeling of being safe is what effectively ruins horror.

An also good example of this is movies. When would you feel safer? When a dude (and not the protagonist that never dies) descends all by himself in a dark sewer where a monster lurks or when a squad of heavily armed swat units does? Personally, when I see the protagonist going there I know that I will be scared but I also know that the guy won't be killed so in reality, I feel safe.

When it comes to gaming, if multiplayer horror rises as a game style you will see that most people will play with their friends and instead of being scared they will go all the way to find the monsters just to scream and laugh as they are being chased and of course video/audio recorded. Sometimes, this also applies to "skype let's plays" were people are constantly distructed by their talking or screaming friends resulting in a ruined immersion.

[Zaffre]

I think it could work but not in the conventional sense. What I'm thinking is along the lines of Journey. You know they are there but you can't see them or what they do. Some things from their environments carry over to yours and vice versa. For instance, you could go into the Storage. Five minutes later someone else does. There is a closed door as you pass it. After the next player searches the room and finds nothing he leaves the door open as a potential hiding spot. You then go back to the room and find the door wide open and every container inside searched.

[the dark side]

I am not sold on the idea of Multiplayer appearing alongside of single player being a valid element of any genre outside of Purely Multiplayer only titles such as team fortress or World Of Warcraft, personally, let alone horror (a genre that is supposed to be purely SP), perhaps its my age, but i see mutiplayers addition alongside SP, regardless of what game or genre (outside of MMO) it is in, as a pure gimmick, designed primarily to appeal to skype heads who want to do nothing more than act like douchebags and or smack the crap out of each other, but in an environment that wont lead to them being arrested for those actions. To me a Multiplayer mode outside of a Multiplayer only game is a waste of time and budget that should be spent on a longer, more immersive, higher quality single player experience. it has no place in any non MMO gaming genre as far as i am concernd, let alone horror, were the whole idea is, you play the game alone, in the dark, on MAXIMUM volume in an attempt to scare yourself into cardiac arrest. A Multiplayer Mode in an SP title is, was, and always will be a waste of development time and budget in my opinion, an unessasary gimmick,and a waste of Money for the person who buys the game and never uses the multiplayer for whatever reason. it has no place in non MMO gaming, in any genre, let alone horror, and for me, the sooner it looses popularity, the better. To me, you either make a game Purely MP (like team fortress 2) or Purely Sp, and to me, the ratio should be at least ten purely Sp games to one purely MP game, you dont mix the two, as both suffer from lack of effort, time and budget if you do.

"Multiplayer? Don't make Me Laugh" Ben "Yahtzee" Crosshaw.

[plutomaniac]

OK that's the exact opposite which in my opinion is exaggerated. In general there are lots of games where multi is very fun and should exist. However I don't like:

1) Multi with Horror, as I explained above it doesn't really work as intended.
2) Single player game series that add multi at some point and ruin all the actual story experience. When I hear the developer of a previously single player game say "for our next game we are mainly focusing on multiplayer" or "first we are building the multiplayer" I immediately know that the result will not be worthy of the previous games. The only exception to his rule, in my personal experience, is Assasins Creed series which continued to have a rich story.

[the dark side]

on point two, wich i agree with wholeheartedly, I personally Beleive the addition Of MP will Always ruin a game i think, because Marketing, and i have more than enough personal experience of how greedy they are, will automatically aim it at the lowest common denominator (GOW Fans, Fans of a certain Warfare franchise and Burnout Fans, Depending on Genre), to get the fastest possible buck, and force the devs to make the game a Casual Smackfest.

I mean, Just look at the new "Tomb Raider" for proof, Regenerating Health with "Bloody Screen!, so Real...", Cover to Cover "Press X to Cover", Lara cant swim, no "proper" platforming, its done By QTE instead, no puzzles, again, replaced with QTE. over in 5 hours tops (and thats from Eidos), whats the difference between it and Gears Of War gameplay wise? i dont see any? mechanically identical, and mechanically inferior to "Real" Tomb Raider (TR1-Revelations, Lara Died in The Last Revelation as far as i am concerned, all later Tomb Raider productss are non cannon for me) in my opinion, and quess what, this is genuine text from the Crystal Dynamics Press Release taken from "Kotaku" "We are aiming the game at todays Console based Social Generation with our awesome new Tomb Raider themed Online Deathmatch..." why am i not suprised the SP ended up as yet another GOW Clone TPS, and is going to... well, stink, another Resident Evil 6.

Personally to me, as soon as they say "multiplayer componant" i know the game is going to be a dumbed down Smack fest developed on the xbox-360 and immediatly abandon it as i know it would leave me either upside down, nauseus, Patronised or downright Angry at being backstabbed in favour of "new gamers" who won't buy the game anyway because it doesnt say "Gears Of War", "You Know What Activision Game" "Halo" "Battlefield" "Burnout" or "Need For Speed" on the box, and most new gamers are total utter spoilt brats with mionumental "entitlement" fantasies and attitude issues the size of lake maracaibo (at least im still only coniston water sized) who wont buy any game that doesnt have one of those "kewl" titles on it (just read youtube comments on any game that doesnt have one of those titles but does resemble them in gameplay for proof of there attitudes to "game x ripoffs"), resulting in the game flopping as the old established fans like me will mostly be boycotting the developer/publisher for backstabbing us, and the new fans hating on it for not being one of the "kewl" franchises, i mean, come on games industry! was "Douche Narkem :Failever" (sorry i physically Cannot bring myself to call it Duke) not lesson enough that you "Don't Sell out"? and, with me especially and my focal distraction issues, a very nasty combination of all of them.

id rather not comment on assasins creed, as well, as i said, you can have the best story in the world, but to me, if your gameplay doesnt meet my standards, that story counts for diddly in my personal opinion.

Same as i know if MP came to Amnesia, greed would set in somewhere, and we would end up with a wave based, very dumbed down, gun filled "Zombiez" mode with the Amnesia title slammed on it, as thats what happens, every time, as soon as companies focus on multiplayer, as EA's Marketing division will see the dollar signs, use a nasty little legal trick to purchase frictional out and automatically make the dev team aim at the lowest common denominator, teenage, american, console, gamers. hence why i am totally against MP in Horror, or any Non MMO game. keeps EA away!

I am sorry to say this, and sorry for being such a douchey, ranting old git, but i have not yet personally seen one game aimed at todays "socially connected" multiplayer market that has not been a washed out casual experience that treats SP as nothing more than a tutorial for the MP, with a clear focus on console gamers with very simple gameplay, extrememly poor graphics (as they have to work on the postivly pre-historic Xbox360), a PC port (if they even bother) that is so full of bugs and so rushed out it wont work if there is a Y in the day...and 'Murica..

And i am fed up of it. in fact, i'm getting ANGRY!, I am a Single Player only European PC biased gamer, and, i am getting kind of fed up of being ripped of by "fastest buck possible" American megacorps Like EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Enix, 2K Whatever, aiming Everthing at the "Social/Casual generation",. the sooner gaming splits in Half with the inevitable demise of the console, with casual social multiplayer going to the phones, and Challenging, immerseve single player heading to PC, the better for all of us and the games industry in general i think. Leave Multiplayer for Phones and MMO. Keep Everything else Sp only and Classic. or the games industry will tank again, its already slipping...

[eliasfrost]

If I were a developer I would honestly try to make a multiplayer horror, the challenge alone would be rewarding and fun enough to go through with it, also it's experimenting with different genres that move the game industry forward. That's why I like games like Amnesia and Condemned (combining traditional Survival horror elements with traditional FPS gameplay). Heck, someone should make a game that combines RTS, MFPS, MMO, PUZZLE, PLATFORMER, DATESIM and QUICKTIME all at the same time.

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Guys this thing will never work as intended and it comes down to basic human instincts. And not only humans. There is a reason why people, wolves, dogs, birds etc...(animals) form groups. Not only are they stronger but most importantly they feel safe. Sometimes, this feeling is all that is needed to do things that you previously would have never imagined doing. That's why aggressive dogs are so unpredictable when they form a small group. That worm feeling of being safe is what effectively ruins horror.

Definitely. But I think that this feeling of being safe in a group could also be used to create even more fear in contrast. I'm thinking about how good horror games often include a few safe areas, so the player doesn't become too jaded from constant stress. (Back Hall in Amnesia for example, which was a save hub.)
So first you make the player feel all safe and cozy in his group - even better if you can manage to create emotional attachment to his fellow players (Journey-style ). Then you suddenly separate the players again. Maybe something that tears the group apart, like a portcullis crashing down, some sort of devious labyrinth that teleports you around or maybe just puzzles that require the group to split up.

Now I'm pretty sure that being alone after having gotten used to being safe in a group feels much more intense than just having been alone all along. Especially if the game established beforehand that you actually are safer in the group (Maybe there's some sort of enemy that attacks lone players but flees from groups?). Players would automatically set it as their goal to find their partners again, the relief when they found them again creating more emotion.

I think it could be very engaging if done well - I mean even in Journey there were a lot of players who panicked upon losing sight of their partner, even though there was no real punishment for playing alone, it was all just emotional attachment.

When it comes to gaming, if multiplayer horror rises as a game style you will see that most people will play with their friends and instead of being scared they will go all the way to find the monsters just to scream and laugh as they are being chased and of course video/audio recorded. Sometimes, this also applies to "skype let's plays" were people are constantly distructed by their talking or screaming friends resulting in a ruined immersion.

Jup, I agree. That's why I'd prefer a more anonymous approach with extremely limited communication. I guess you can't keep players from playing with their friends in the same room if they really want to, but at some point I think it's not the game dev's problem anymore. There are always people who will go out of their way to ruin a perfectly crafted experience, not only in multiplayer. As long as the game doesn't encourage such behavior, all is okay - after all, some people ruined Amnesia for themselves, too, by doing the same thing, but that doesn't mean Frictional did something wrong

[Ghieri]

I honestly don't see it getting even close to Amnesia.

It would probably end up being like l4d2.

Let's face it. Introduce co-op and you will have non-stop shenanigans. Such as dicks being drawn in the mini-map, or group therapy sessions with Stephano.