Co-op horror

[Your Computer]

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.

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?

Consider not mentioning a word that you choose not to use fully. Indeed, why use a word if you don't mean it? Whether you care about semantics or not, a consumer looking to buy will. If a company is to label a game as part of a "co-op horror" genre, and if a consumer is to pay real money for it, those words better have the meaning the consumer expects. From what i saw in the article--even from you--, i don't see an example of what i expect to be co-op horror or an example of what co-op horror is. And if what i am to expect co-op horror to be is one person experiencing something and the other being a spectator to it all, or multiple players experiencing different things that are unrelated to each other, i would argue that game has a very low success rate because it has no real indication of what it is trying to achieve.

No project, no matter how big it thinks it can be, will go anywhere without a clear indication of what it is and what it is trying to achieve. Daring not to dive into semantics would show, at least to me, the potential for great failure. It would not be farfetched to say that the consumer doesn't even know what they want if the consumer cares not about semantics. You want a company to fulfill a wish? Clearly define the wish, for you can only be disappointed for not doing so.

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.

I'm the one that's impressed. I said only one form can ever exist at any one time since they're mutually exclusive. How do you get from that to my statement meaning that a game should only ever have either complete darkness or be completely full of light? Is it because you're stuck on "co-op without co-op"? I would have figured i have plainly explained what i meant by that.

You have not shown how it would work and have been merely suggesting that it could work ("if done correctly"), as if from wishful thinking. Normally the person that starts a discussion presents something tangible to be discussed. All that has been given is the article, which i've already said simply gives an example that doesn't touch on cooperation (which isn't a surprise to me). The existence of any transition, or the in-between, that would occur between gameplay scenarios concerning cooperation and horror is not evidence of developer accomplishment, let alone a project's success.

IIRC, i hear there are games out there (though not related to the horror genre; i.e. bulletstorm) that had considered co-op for the main campaign but chose to drop the idea of co-op because players that were part of the test phase weren't acting the way the developers wanted them to act. They weren't cooperating with each other but competing against each other. These developers had an understanding of what cooperation meant and developed in hopes of implementing cooperative gameplay. The exact same could apply to the co-op horror genre--although, the ambiguity behind the "co-op horror" genre allows for pretty much anything, whether successful or a failure.

[Bridge]

Consider not mentioning a word that you choose not to use fully. Indeed, why use a word if you don't mean it?

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.

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.

I'm the one that's impressed. I said only one form can ever exist at any one time since they're mutually exclusive. How do you get from that to my statement meaning that a game should only ever have either complete darkness or be completely full of light? Is it because you're stuck on "co-op without co-op"? I would have figured i have plainly explained what i meant by that.

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.

[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.

[Hunter of Shadows]

This is why discussions like these get locked, because when we're trying to discuss something people fight over who's right and wrong...

In other words, stop YC, just stop trying to stubbornly invalidate everything Bridge is saying, and just...

I give up, I don't even know why I should feel a need to tell a moderator to not behave in a fashion that could instigate potential fighting, Bridge is doing a remarkable job(despite the odd jab here and there) from not letting it degenerate to that point.

Seriously, we're here to have a DISCUSSION NOT A GODDAMN ARGUMENT

It really feels like you're being contradictory to what Bridge is saying for the sake of being contradictory cause you don't like what he's saying YC.

There is probably a 100% chance this is not what you're trying to do, but it is what it seriously comes across to me as what you're trying to do, this is 100% opinion on my part and should not be taken as a statement of fact

there disclaimer added
_______________________

I'm actually really liking what Bridge is saying, a lot of what he's saying seems very well thought out and gives me food for thought, making me wonder 'if it were possible to create a genuinely scary co-op horror game how would it be done'

I fully believe it's possible, there's been absolutely not one decent reason or example of why it can't, no one's even tried it, no one's even considered it, Bridge is trying to get you guys to do so and you're being incredibly close-minded and stubborn about how it's NOT possible.