Co-op horror

[Tommyboypsp]

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.

[Ghieri]

There are a lot of game ideas in that article that seem to just have novelty and gimmicks involved. If I owned a studio, I wouldn't make any of them.

[Bridge]

There are a lot of game ideas in that article that seem to just have novelty and gimmicks involved. If I owned a studio, I wouldn't make any of them.

That I agree with, I actually found many of them to be too niche and obscure to even make it into an article, let alone a game. The editor just had some passionate ideas about game design that he wanted to vent I guess. Those highly romanticized, impractical fantasies we all have.

[Your Computer]

I disagree. The deliberate non-inclusion of co-op midgame (especially if it's unanticipated) is equivalent to starting the game in a well lit area, only to deprive you of light later on (and we can all agree how effectively FG have used that concept). It gives you solace in the fact that at least you are not alone, only to freaking torment you with the prospect of suddenly being completely alone. I admit everything needs to fall exactly into place for it to be successful, but I find it unfair to dismiss the idea based only on the fact that it's "co-op without the co-op".

The article pretty much says the only way "co-op horror" will be successful is if still manages to maintain the feeling of loneliness and helplessness. Can it get any more self-contradicting? Hence co-op without the concept of co-op. Paradoxes FTW.

[Bridge]

I disagree. The deliberate non-inclusion of co-op midgame (especially if it's unanticipated) is equivalent to starting the game in a well lit area, only to deprive you of light later on (and we can all agree how effectively FG have used that concept). It gives you solace in the fact that at least you are not alone, only to freaking torment you with the prospect of suddenly being completely alone. I admit everything needs to fall exactly into place for it to be successful, but I find it unfair to dismiss the idea based only on the fact that it's "co-op without the co-op".

The article pretty much says the only way "co-op horror" will be successful is if still manages to maintain the feeling of loneliness and helplessness. Can it get any more self-contradicting? Hence co-op without the concept of co-op. Paradoxes FTW.

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.

EDIT: You might as well say:

LOL, there should be no light in horror games. Light is not scary, light is comforting. Remove light and the player will be super scared the entire game.

The fact is, the juxtaposition of darkness with light is essential to the whole essence of being afraid of the darkness. The more you depend on light to alleviate your fear, the more horrifying being thrown right into the darkness will be.

[Ghieri]

If the players are mature,

Relying on the players to properly interpret the gameplay the same way you do is leaving yourself to a very small fringe of demographic that may or may not exist. Therefor really not worth the time, effort, or money of full scale production. Co-op is a mechanic fundamentally designed for "fun" gameplay, which is why it is fundamentally incompatible with horror.

EDIT: I made puns and instantly regretted it.

[Bridge]

If the players are mature,

Relying on the players to properly interpret the gameplay the same way you do is leaving yourself to a very small fringe of demographic that may or may not exist. Therefor really not worth the time, effort, or money of full scale production. Co-op is a mechanic fundamentally designed for "fun" gameplay, which is why it is fundamentally incompatible with horror.

EDIT: I made puns and instantly regretted it.

This is the very definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because you do not believe it can work, it won't. Have a little faith, man. Also, co-op is not a mechanic fundamentally designed for "fun gameplay". Once upon a time, video games were a "mechanic fundamentally designed for fun", and I'm sure you don't agree with that anymore.

Also, you always have to trust your audience to interpret your art correctly. If the audience can go through the entire game/piece/movie/whatever not expending any kind of emotional or mental effort, it's not art. Sorry to say but these are incredibly weak arguments, based more around the presiding status quo and unwillingness to progress than any kind of logical thought process - no offense intended.

[Ghieri]

Because you do not believe it can work, it won't.

Because it probably won't work and the consequences of it backfiring are too high, It's a very high risk project, even for an indie company. Sure we can say in hindsight that an idea is good, but for developers wanting their game to even break even, they really do need to go for "tried and true". Financial risk is a scary thing, and with evidence actually pointing against the success of co-op imersive horror, the risk is 10-fold.

[Bridge]

Because you do not believe it can work, it won't.

Because it probably won't work and the consequences of it backfiring are too high, It's a very high risk project, even for an indie company. Sure we can say in hindsight that an idea is good, but for developers wanting their game to even break even, they really do need to go for "tried and true". Financial risk is a scary thing, and with evidence actually pointing against the success of co-op imersive horror, the risk is 10-fold.

There is no evidence, just mindless naysaying. Frictional, by the way, have not been known to go the safe route in order to break even. Honestly, I really don't see how you can even bring this up. Their games are the opposite of "tried and true". In fact, they are one of the most idealistic and innovative video game companies out there. I'm not proposing that Frictional make this game, honestly I'm not really that excited about the idea in general, but I am interesting in discussing it, and why it is not a viable development in the horror genre.

So far, all attempts at co-op horror have been shallow and "fun-based". Can you explain to me how that means that is how it will always be? People are capable of ruining the experience by not taking it seriously all by themselves, and yet this is not considered a flaw in the game but a lack of effort on the player's part to immerse himself. So, why do different rules apply to co-op?

[Nice]

edit: nvm