"Game Together Or Die Alone" -- Issues And Expectations With Capcom Co-Op

45 Comments

Posted May 14, 2010 - By pklepek

It took all of five minutes to realize Lost Planet 2 wasn't for me. In that same time frame, I recognized Capcom's development team approached the sequel with a similar philosophy to Resident Evil 5, a game I spent hours trying to enjoy before ultimately giving up, realizing it was a game designed for someone else. By someone else, of course, I mean someone else playing with me. Lost Planet 2 and Resident Evil 5 are adventures meant for co-op, both a response to co-op dominance in Western games, but has Capcom taken the wrong lesson, a simple matter of miscommunication, or both?

Here are the last few games I've played co-operatively and really enjoyed: New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Gears of War 2, Left 4 Dead 2, The Beatles: Rock Band and LEGO Batman.

Gears of War 2 is the first modern game I played from start to finish with another person. Take a look at that list of games. Most of them encourage swapping between single-player and co-op. I play games late at night, once the girlfriend is sleeping, and because we're in a small apartment, yapping into a microphone isn't really an option. I'm also someone who primarily enjoys single-player games -- if you've watched Feedback, you're well aware of my multiplayer aversions -- but I often welcome co-op as a fantastic addition to the game.

What I don't like is being lied to. In the case of Lost Planet 2 and Resident Evil 5, I felt tricked by Capcom. Both previous installments in each franchise, Lost Planet and Resident Evil 4, were strong single-player adventures. The former dabbled with multiplayer. The sequels promised to be bigger, better and incorporate gamers playing with one another from the very beginning. Historically, Resident Evil has always been a strong single-player franchise, and the addition of playing with a partner sounded exciting. As it turned out, though, it was nearly a requirement to play, as the A.I. partner was so poorly implemented that you ended up working around them to play.

Lost Planet 2 shares the same issue, except it's across four-player co-op, not two. It's worse.

The two games have a common link in Capcom producer Jun Takeuchi. Lost Planet 2 arrives a little over a year after Resident Evil 5, meaning the games have been developed mostly side-by-side. Takeuchi explains how Lost Planet 2 went down this path in an interview with VG247 last summer:

"The number one item for the players’ wish list was co-op play. So I discussed the possibility of incorporating it with the team, and came up with a new gameplay style. As a result, the Campaign mode, which started as a straight forward single-play, has changed into the different gameplay that would evolve by the players. And I think this was a part of evolution that LP2 has achieved too."

If Capcom had communicated, "Look, these games have a single-player component because it'd be insane to leave it out, but you're going to have trouble playing the game solo, since we designed the whole experience for multiple people," there would be less of an issue. It didn't. You don't realize the problem until the game begins. The issues in both games could have been easily lessened with better partner A.I. As it stands, much of the frustration in each game comes from your A.I. teammates not being able to do their job correctly, enforcing an unnecessary You're Doing It Wrong mentality. Required co-op is understood when engaging multiplayer-only games or an online experience like World of Warcraft. There, you're signing up for gameplay that requires other players to fully engage in.

Clearly, Capcom's feedback shows gamers are want more co-op in their games, but Capcom then diverged from the two central Western-based design philosophies for co-op that I've been able to trace.

One, design your game so that it primarily works single-player but is enhanced with co-op.

Two, ignore the idea of co-op entirely in the main campaign and construct a separate mode.

Gears of War 2 and New Super Mario Bros. Wii are supremely enjoyable games without anyone else playing, but when someone else is added to the mix, it only increases the fun. Splinter Cell: Conviction and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 are two games where the developers literally created a separate co-op mode. Resident Evil 5 and Lost Planet 2 choose the first route but flipped the traditional design approach, crafting the experience around multiplayer without balancing for single-player.

Here's how Infinity Ward community manager Robert Bowling explained the decision to include co-op, but remove the experience from the main campaign, traditionally a Call of Duty single-player affair:

"Spec Ops started out as as co-op through [the story]. But it really broke the cinematic experience, took the immersion out of it, out of the story and the pacing and everything we'd spent so long crafting. It just ruined the experience we were aiming for, so we took it out, kept the single-player for that one player intact and polished it. But then there were moments that were really fun with two players, so we took those moments and put them in Spec Ops."

I don't mean to propose Capcom are necessarily Doing It Wrong. While I do believe the legacy of both franchises rightly misled my expectations for their sequels, Capcom's fundamental philosophy towards co-op isn't necessarily incorrect. I do believe it's a philosophy institutionalized by Capcom's success with Monster Hunter, a series that has sold millions overseas but struggled for acceptance elsewhere. In Japan, Monster Hunter is a social experience; Japanese gamers are often near each other, making local multiplayer the expectation, rather than the exception, as it is here. Heck, it wasn't until Monster Hunter Tri that the series even included online play. It would seem natural for Capcom to note gamers' desire for a more robust co-op experience and look towards their own success with co-op when conceptualizing them for the rest of the world. Lost Planet 2 especially feels like a sci-fi Monster Hunter, with players tackling massive enemies together in an almost MMO-like instanced fashion.

The title of this article is a riff on "Live Together or Die Alone," which came to mind because I can't get Lost off my mind lately. The phrase, uttered when Jack Shepard assumes leadership of the survivors of Oceanic 815, underscores how gamers need to work together in Capcom's world of co-op. The speech:

"It's been six days and we're all still waiting, waiting for someone to come. But what if they don't? We have to stop waiting. We need to start figuring things out. A woman died this morning just going for a swim. He tried to save her and now you're about to crucify him? We can't do this. Every man for himself is not going to work. It's time to start organizing. We need to figure out how we're going to survive here. Now, I found water, fresh water up in the valley. I'll take a group in at first light. If you don't want to come, then find another way to contribute. Last week, most of us were strangers. But we're all here now and God knows how long we're gonna be here. But if we can't live together, we're gonna die alone."

Maybe Capcom's approach to co-op means their single-player isn't what it used to be. I know that for Lost Planet 3 and Resident Evil 6. Because most of the time, I want to die alone in my video games.

Have something to share? Sitting on a news tip? E-mail me. You can also follow me on Twitter.

Tags: Videogames

Comments are Closed

Comments

Newest First

Displaying 1–20 of 45

12 3 2

Cathartic Denoument

So, basically..
..This game is a RENT @ best, and should only be played during LAN Parties..
..Correct?

Posted: June 2, 2010 10:22 PM
Nosce

Really? You're going to attribute that quote "Live together or die alone" to "Lost"? Abraham Lincoln anyone? "A house divided against itself cannot stand"? And about a billion other variations on that same quotation for at least a hundred + years.

Posted: May 17, 2010 11:47 AM
danielle007

See, I agree with a lot of the points, but I also think that it's wrong to criticize Capcom for doing games where co-op isn't just an addon, it's a necessity. It also reminds me of L4D, one of my favorite games ever. Like, all of these games are nowhere near as fun playing alone than playing with a friend. Which, does kind of suck if you don't have someone on your friends list just ready to play with you. But, there's not many games out there like this where co-op is actually a requirement, it's usually just not there at all, or it's just single player played with more than one person. So, I'll accept these special games for exactly what they are, and not try to play them single player, and I won't call them out for doing something outside of the norm.

Posted: May 17, 2010 9:31 AM
kujel

I'm mostly a single-player gamer but enjoy co-op too (aside from a few games I don't care for a competitive multiplayer). I have RE5 but never finished it in part to how much of a pain it is to play, I wish capcom would learn from their mistakes but some how I have my doubts. Ironically enough most of the capcom games I have were used copies.

Posted: May 17, 2010 1:58 AM
Wandrecanada

I believe games like Lost Planet 2 and Brink put the lie to the idea that no game should be primarily co op. Why do you think that every game needs to be a solo game? Multiplayer only games have finally come to the fore as being "acceptable" without a single player component. Why then can there not be games that are made for co op.

As a person who loves a co op game more than single player games I would like to thank you all for implying that I'm a demographic that shouldn't be represented.

Posted: May 16, 2010 6:17 PM
dabos90

I don't know why people keep saying that co-op is a "new" trend, i've been playing games since the 80's and co-op's always been there. It's just that for some reason co-op games disappeared for some time and now they're starting to come back, but it seems that developers forgot how to make them.

Personally I find online co-op horrible, it just doesn't seem to work. There are too many issues, like the other person(s) has stopped playing for some reason, either they went to the bathroom or their connection went out. But even worse than that is the lack of team dynamics with online co-op, it alway seems that everyone is out for themselves trying to get the msot XP instead of working together. I found this to be true in mainly FPS games like Resistance 2, but when i play split screen with my brother we seem to get more done with just the two of us. So I think local co-op/multi gameplay should come back into the limelight 'cause what's the point of having multiple controllers for your 360 or PS3 if there's no games to use them with.

Posted: May 16, 2010 1:29 PM
JOKERNJ732

I really don't see the issue here. Resident Evil 5 was one of most graphically beautiful games i have ever played. I had absolutley no issues playing that game solo or with friends. and to this day is one of the best experiences i have ever had chasing down 1400 gamerscore.

I also picked up Lost Planet 2 this week and i am in love with the campaign. multiplayer is absolute rubbish. While this game has a ton of issue that tick me off...ie, 42 secret achievements most of which are long term things that require a lot of dedication that i personally wont have the time to give the game simply cuz of the slew of great games coming out next week and a few titles in june. also this game doesn't have check points! but you can kind of appreciate it in a way the battle gauge is almost like old school games, remember continues. where you had a set amount of lives and continues thats what it reminds me of.

now saying all that the least of the problems with game are the co op. i played by myself and in co op and had fun in both experiences. co op is great and so are the servers no lag or loss of frame rate whatsoever. i also do enjoy going at it alone so i can take my time explore a bit plus theres no arguing about who gets the vs suit.

in closing stop complaining about co op u cry babies. there games like mag that are straight multiplayer and no one complains about that and thats more of an afront to gaming than co op. there single player games and theres co op games if u dont like one dont get it. later

Posted: May 16, 2010 3:14 AM
JOKERNJ732

I really don't see the issue here. Resident Evil 5 was one of most graphically beautiful games i have ever played. I had absolutley no issues playing that game solo or with friends. and to this day is one of the best experiences i have ever had chasing down 1400 gamerscore.

I also picked up Lost Planet 2 this week and i am in love with the campaign. multiplayer is absolute rubbish. While this game has a ton of issue that tick me off...ie, 42 secret achievements most of which are long term things that require a lot of dedication that i personally wont have the time to give the game simply cuz of the slew of great games coming out next week and a few titles in june. also this game doesn't have check points! but you can kind of appreciate it in a way the battle gauge is almost like old school games, remember continues. where you had a set amount of lives and continues thats what it reminds me of.

now saying all that the least of the problems with game are the co op. i played by myself and in co op and had fun in both experiences. co op is great and so are the servers no lag or loss of frame rate whatsoever. i also do enjoy going at it alone so i can take my time explore a bit plus theres no arguing about who gets the vs suit.

in closing stop complaining about co op u cry babies. there games like mag that are straight multiplayer and no one complains about that and thats more of an afront to gaming than co op. there single player games and theres co op games if u dont like one dont get it. later

Posted: May 16, 2010 3:12 AM
erosennin987

I gatta say Lost Planet 2's Co-op screen in the SAME system SUX D1CK!!!!!!! its horrible how they made it so small and put the map on the side to waste half the screens space!!!! anyone else agree!?!???

Posted: May 15, 2010 8:31 PM
Slayinfool

Most coop games I play are lacking smart team AI. Even beloved Gears of War has AI partners just getting in my way. One of my favorites, Left4Dead has horrible AI teammates. True, Capcom has a lot to learn when it comes to coop and are definitely behind the 8 ball. But they are not alone and many companys seem to be still trying to improve on a struggling feature. I for one love Coop. Could mean the difference between buying or renting.

Posted: May 15, 2010 3:07 PM
drangel_jam

EDIT: *I haven't bought LP2*

Posted: May 15, 2010 12:43 PM
drangel_jam

I agree with the author, but it feels like you're assuming that RE5 and LP2 are bad games just because they play better as co-op.

I feel like the industry, especially the media and not the gamers, has double standards. BF: BC 1&2 don't really have great campaigns but since the MP is great, they are regarded as great games. Well, RE5 and LP2 are not at their best as solo experiences, yet people spend more time talking about what wrong with the solo campaign than what's right and fun in a full 4P co-op experience.

I only played RE5 co-op, and by the way, with a friend who lives in Japan, the quality was incredible, and we played it for about 30 hours, and unlocked everything including 1000 achievement points. It is one if not the best co-op experience I've ever had. And although, it's not a horror game anymore, it's a great thriller. I say RE5 is a great game because it has superb co-op and great mechanics for a thriller, but pessimists say it isn't RE, or isn't disappointing because the (solo) campaign sucks, and not as scary or horrific as it should be.

I loved LP1, played it for more than 60hrs, and also unlocked everything, but I have bought LP2 (yet?!) because I know what LP has long checkpoints, and the hardest difficulties can easily become frustrating. I can manage my own mistakes, but the idea of putting up with 3 other people, it just makes me think that the potential of dying is quadrupled. Not to mention, playing online, people may need a break, leave, or could drop, before we get to save. That's why I probably won't get LP2, best case scenario, I'll wait for their Goty version a la Colonies. It could contain all of the DLC, and some gameplay revisions.

Posted: May 15, 2010 12:39 PM
Dreadlocks88

I must be the only one who has had no problems out of Sheva in RE5 she didn't really waste ammo and aimed for the head way more than I did when I first began playing. I haven't had her run to a zombie unless she was going to finish him off and she saved my butt more than a few times as seen by a head exploding in back of me or the other zombies dropping dead around us as we fought them off. The great part was having two main characters together with their differing personalities though I think they should have played up more of Sheva being a guide since it is her home but they played well off each other. I have not picked up Lost Planet 2 because I felt the same way in that it was not a single player experience with a multiplayer aspect. I thought you would go be able through the main campaign online with up to 4 people with some added features but not a single player that is meant for CO-OP. However I think each persons experience will be different just like RE5 I have already read and seen reviews where the reviewer will put down the AI in lost planet 2 but then another reviewer will praise them for picking up the slack when you are playing alone

Posted: May 15, 2010 11:35 AM
TelevisionEyes

RE5's single player was broken. I couldn't get Sheva to stop running out and getting killed. I'd call her back and she would come, then run back out again. Without a co-op partner, single player was just one long escort mission. Could have, should have been awesome. Sadly, no.

Posted: May 15, 2010 10:19 AM
EdSabre

I dont want them to stop doing their Co-op thing until I have a co-op DMC. After that, I dont care what they do.

Posted: May 15, 2010 7:46 AM
Meatball_Mamba

Honestly, I have trouble getting into co-op experiences that are seperate to the main campaign and don't have as strong a story. I loved RE5, but I only ever played it in co-op (where it was a huge amount of fun), single player absolutely would have been a headache.

However, shoot me if the solution becomes a stand-alone co-op mode in every game comprised of missions that have no story or any reason for me to care (achievements don't count). Sure, these modes can be and are fun, but my best co-op experiences have all come when playing through an actual campaign.

Posted: May 15, 2010 2:07 AM
loupinconnu

How can anyone complain about the AI in lost planet 2? Seriously it's not like they are wasting anything at all, in fact on more than one occasion they've halped me take down (or just distract, either one works really) the many G class enemies you fight.

Granted I've only completed the first three chapters of the game so far, but still that's long enough to know when someone is talking from the wrong hole and going 'oh it's AI, they must suck.'

You want to see bad AI, boot up any single player game where you have friendly forces. That is bad AI.

Posted: May 15, 2010 1:59 AM
spicypooptastic

I like single player the best, but I also love multiplayer and team based multiplayer.

But I hate co-op, it does not have the challenge of a real person or reward while also destroying the story.

Posted: May 14, 2010 11:42 PM
blakezilla

Noooo..I mean noooo wayyyyy did my 'partner' in RE5 detract from the game. She definitely would have won on are you smarter than a fifth grader. She knew exactly where the zombies (oops whatever they were) would attack... in fact she would run right to em. She was EEEXXcellnt. In fact I think she may have even lasted a while in Zombieland....well not really.

I played that game on hard and it was soooo magnified by her being a moron it actually made me mad. In fact it might have made me a better gamer overall. Now I know how to compensate for a moron in a tough fight. I honestly had to adapt how I 'wanted to play the game' to how I 'could play the game.'

The village scene (where you get the magnum) where the big hulks come out to get you had to be redone a LOT because she wanted smoke some small zombie instead of the two hulking beast boys. Same for a few scenes later on as well. She had her own agenda and she got dumber as the game progressed and enemies got stronger.

But this is where I adapted.. instead of giving her the guns I would WANT a partner to have I just gave her a machine gun (because I had a ton of ammo for it) and a rifle. She acted as a storage unit for ammo basically. I would ration the health items to her because she could act as an auto healer but dont give all of em to her otherwise she would just burn through them. Next major thing I did was power up her gun cause she would NEVER miss. In fact at one point she sniped people with her machine gun that I could hardly even see with my scoped rifle(it was right before you go into the mine). If I need the rifle I would just take it and give her more ammo to hold.

So after modifying my game plan drastically I got through the game...and it detracted hugely from my enjoyment....Now I will most likely not buy LP2 (unless I find it fr 20ish in a while) because it is apparently this bad experience times two (to be clear I was gonna wait on this game anyways but now I am certainly not in a hurry for it).

Pretty good article, I am glad I am not the only one who shares this point of view about single player games.

Posted: May 14, 2010 10:49 PM
blakezilla

Noooo..I mean noooo wayyyyy did my 'partner' in RE5 detract from the game. She definitely would have won on are you smarter than a fifth grader. She knew exactly where the zombies (oops whatever they were) would attack... in fact she would run right to em. She was EEEXXcellnt. In fact I think she may have even lasted a while in Zombieland....well not really.

I played that game on hard and it was soooo magnified by her being a moron it actually made me mad. In fact it might have made me a better gamer overall. Now I know how to compensate for a moron in a tough fight. I honestly had to adapt how I 'wanted to play the game' to how I 'could play the game.'

The village scene (where you get the magnum) where the big hulks come out to get you had to be redone a LOT because she wanted smoke some small zombie instead of the two hulking beast boys. Same for a few scenes later on as well. She had her own agenda and she got dumber as the game progressed and enemies got stronger.

But this is where I adapted.. instead of giving her the guns I would WANT a partner to have I just gave her a machine gun (because I had a ton of ammo for it) and a rifle. She acted as a storage unit for ammo basically. I would ration the health items to her because she could act as an auto healer but dont give all of em to her otherwise she would just burn through them. Next major thing I did was power up her gun cause she would NEVER miss. In fact at one point she sniped people with her machine gun that I could hardly even see with my scoped rifle(it was right before you go into the mine). If I need the rifle I would just take it and give her more ammo to hold.

So after modifying my game plan drastically I got through the game...and it detracted hugely from my enjoyment....Now I will most likely not buy LP2 (unless I find it fr 20ish in a while) because it is apparently this bad experience times two (to be clear I was gonna wait on this game anyways but now I am certainly not in a hurry for it).

Pretty good article, I am glad I am not the only one who shares this point of view about single player games.

Posted: May 14, 2010 10:48 PM