Competitive multiplayer has always been seen as the face of online gaming, but at the same time, we’re playing more co-op games than ever before. Whether taking the action online alone or with a local friend riding shotgun, we’re starting to see a renaissance in the way developers are turning their AAA games into more co-op friendly experiences.
One of the highest profile names among this recent spate of co-op titles is, of course, Bungie’s Destiny. Where earlier games like the original Borderlands showed us how one of the industry’s biggest genres could be moulded to suit co-operative play, Destiny managed to break down walls, often on the verge of stepping into full MMORPG territory, with its stellar gameplay and mainstream appeal.
Although it does feature a dedicated mode for competitive play, it’s an inherently co-op game throughout, designed to be played with friends. That’s not to say The Crucible isn’t as refined, it just happens to be largely overshadowed by the raft of options available to those who want to group up and tackle PvE content.
Jumping on the co-op bandwagon this year, we also have Call of Duty: Black Ops III. With the series really having built its fanbase around its extraordinarily popular competitive multiplayer, it was surprising to hear that this year’s instalment would go for something a bit different, with co-op play possible all the way through the campaign, within the increasingly popular Zombies game mode, and with split-screen play possible throughout.
Although this move can be seen as Treyarch tapping into the popularity spike for co-op games, you have to consider that when buying Call of Duty, a staggering number of players still won’t even go near the campaign, let alone finish it. Maybe this is a solution?
Yet on the other side of the coin, it was with great disappointment that fans of the Halo franchise – a game series which has had split-screen co-op since the very first game – was removing this feature in favour of online only co-op play. Though the story and the squad-based gameplay are very much focussed around letting you have four people playing together, it’s no longer possible for them to be doing so while on the same console.
It isn’t the only game series to abandon this feature. When it launches in December, Rainbow Six: Siege will also pass on split-screen support while dropping the much requested singleplayer campaign altogether. However, looking at the game’s online element, as well as that of Battleborn and other big-name shooters, we’re starting to see something of a crossover point. Spread across a series of intimate scenarios – both competitively and co-operatively – Siege demands that teams play closely together, discussing loadouts, formulating strategies and assigning roles before each gunfight.
Gearbox Interactive’s latest shooter, Battleborn, is more or less on the same track. It may have a Borderlands-like story-driven campaign to gun your way through (alone, via split-screen, or online) yet features a core focus that blends together elements from both the co-op and competitive ends of the multiplayer spectrum. This is due mainly to its marrying of the shooter and MOBA genres. The latter, though extremely competitive, hinges almost entirely on teamplay.
For me, this proliferation of co-op games does more than damage than good. Don’t get me wrong, I’m quite partial to playing with other online – what I don’t like, however, is the way in which these games force me to change my regular approach. Destiny is perhaps the most egregious culprit in this respect, having barred off entire swathes of content I’d like to play, simply because I’m unable to regularly find willing teammates beyond the game’s matchmaking tools. As someone who likes to kick back and play games without feeling restricted, this was a major no-no, forcing me to wipe Destiny from my cluttered PS4 hard drive without giving The Taken King a second look.
For that same reason, I probably won’t be grabbing a copy of Rainbow Six: Siege either. Although I appreciate the heightened sense of interaction between players in an online game, I’m rarely the sort to fish out a headset and start yapping away. Even though I hadn’t thought about it up until now, the increasing emphasis on co-op is probably why I passed on pre-ordering Black Ops III, too. I suppose it simply comes down to my individual habits as a gamer, especially when it comes to shooters. For a long time I’ve been used to booting up a CoD game, rinsing the singleplayer campaign, and then heading online for some competitive action.
Now it’s over to you. How do you feel about the recent proliferation of co-operative gameplay? For a while now, it’s been a big bullet point for the back of the box, but do you see it as a good thing that gives you more choice and options over how to play, or a negative that dilutes the solo experience?
Avenger
Co-op is pretty awesome and these days it, in the case of Blops 3, can be the only reason I’ll bother playing the main campaign in a primarily multiplayer shooter. The most fantastic part of Ghosts was the Extinction mode and it wasn’t hugely reliant on co-op interaction, it was just fun to team up and tear through some aliens.
There are some not so nice aspects though. Destiny was fun up until the raids which required friends you knew on the exact same platform. The lack of matchmaking in some games is diabolical, but I realise it’s sometimes necessary if the game requires communication between people who know each other. But then matchmaking would at least allow a chance to try things like Raids and even make some friends to one day try a raid out more seriously.
double-o-dave
I really enjoy games when the main campaign can be played through in co-op. I’m not a big fan of COD games, but if it was cheap enough & my mates bought copies, I’d actually consider buying Black Ops 3 just for the co-op.
The co-op missions in Uncharted 2 were a blast & entertained me more than the pop multiplayer, then they decided to bin them off for some reason in Uncharted 3. Hopefully they’ll bring co-op back in Uncharted 4.
Fallout 4 is on my radar but I’m in 2 minds whether to pick up a copy – I don’t mind playing through a 15hr single player campaign on my own, but if I’m going to spend 30+ hours in a world, it would be nice to share it with a few people. If it did have co-op, it would be a definite purchase.
As for Rainbow 6 Siege, don’t even get me started. Being able to play R6 Vegas’ main campaign or the Terrorist Hunts in co-op with a mate was amazing. I was really looking forward to this until they announced this Siege crap! Even though Siege is supposed to be heavily based & played co-operatively, I’d class it as a multi-player game, rather than co-op – which probably makes no sense ;)
Carrot381
I’ve never really been interested in multi-player or co-op gameplay. Maybe it’s because when I started playing computer games there was no co-op as such (unless you count the odd game that had you trying to squeeze 2 pairs of hands onto that tiny Spectrum keyboard) or perhaps it’s because I find the whole online environment so utterly disheartening.
Personally, I’d much rather escape from the world by getting engrossed in a decent single player story for a few hours.
Bodachi
Coop is sometimes the only reason I’d get a game. I doubt I would of brought Dying Light but because it had coop I got it. It is not that it is a bad game but like Dead Island it didn’t have a compelling enough story. With a mate it was great fun.
blast71
I enjoy co-op more than competitive multi-player as I’m a bit rubbish and need my partner to get me out of the shit most of the time. Currently having some great games with avengerr on splinter cell blacklist, mostly running away from dogs & drones when we’re not setting off alarms or treading on mines ;p
Avenger
The minefield was hilarious. Those kind of experiences are co-op exclusive, not quite the stuff I’d see in single player :)
badger3078
I never play normal online multiplayer on anything, but online coop I enjoy. Played borderlands 2 from start to finish in coop with my mate and put around 150 hours into it. Also picked up Army Of Two for £4 in psn sale, and whilst it’s not the best game it was good fun with my mate.
I’ll even buy the new COD at some point because it has coop in it,and the last COD I bought was world at war!
So whilst I predominantly play games alone, I think it’s great to have the option of playing a game in coop, especially if you’ve got a good mate to play them with.
tactical20
Single player is still my gaming preference, but I much prefer co-op to competitive multiplayer. What a shame the recent surge in co-op games is locked behind the PS+ paywall.
JustTaylorNow
If it’s not local co op, it’s not as fun. I rather play a game by myself of the co op is online requirement.
scavenga
I’m with you.
I’m very rarely interested in hooking up with strangers online, and the few mates I have added to my list very rarely play the games I play at the same time as me. And even if we play the same games over a period, it’s hard to find a common free time slot to link up in.
Couch co-op is the one mode we all enjoy equally, and it’s hassle free (provided we can find some time to meet up to begin with). We’re always on the lookout for local co-op games, it’s the best time I have gaming.
coruscant
Yet, bizarrely, very few racing games both last gen and this gen have included split-screen, despite being the perfect genre for it.
alistair6969
I’m all for Co-op the more the better it makes a nice change Devs are allow to be allowed to put what they want in they games without anybody telling what is acceptable & what is not. :|