Co-Optimus - News: Ubisoft Says: Co-Op Ruins the Story

Ubisoft Says: Co-Op Ruins the Story

Jim "txshurricane" McLaughlin July 7th, 2009 at 12:05 PM

"It's a good thing you're controlled by AI, brother... Otherwise, we'd be generic."

Ubi.com community manager Ubi.Vigil (forum moniker) answered a handful of questions in June regarding prequel western-themed shooter Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood. Among them: the seemingly ubiquitous reason for a complete lack of co-op...

Story is very important in both Call of Juarez games. We didn't want to create a generic FPS where cowboys could be swapped for space marines or navy seals without making a difference. Thus came the decision to focus on the single-player experience and making playing as each of the McCalls a chance to see the story from a slightly different perspective which shifts even more as the rift between brothers grows deeper.

We've heard this before - quite recently - and even then it wasn't for the first time. Do you remember when versus multiplayer was cut out for the same reason? Funny...it seems that nowadays competitive modes don't hamper the story, but co-op does.

What a disappointing trend that's being set this summer by a handful of big studios; hopefully our wallets will speak loud enough to buck it. For some reason, the stellar 2008 holiday season -- with its plethora of incredible co-op -- didn't provide enough of evidence to some folks that co-op is on the rise.

What makes this news even worse for us as Co-Optimus is the theme of the game. Sure, it had a style all its own, but being a part of the western genre and lacking co-op is a double sting. One of our ultimate fantasies -- aside from Nick's weird chicken suit fetish -- is for someone to step up and create an epic co-op western-themed game.

Source: Link

Tags: co-op news politics call of juarez

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Details "Leaked", Debunked

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare PS3 screenshot Get ready for a plausible rumor with a less plausible source. The internet (Read More)

This Week in Co-Op: Gears of War

Well, after a two week hiatus, This Week in Co-Op is back. Since Gears of War 2 has been quite the popular game recently, I(Read More)

Microsoft E3 2009 Press Conference Streaming Live Right Here!

Thanks to G4 TV we'll be streaming the Microsoft E3 2009 Media Briefing LIVE at 1:25 PM EDT! Check back to th(Read More)

37 Total Reader Comments

Agentfyre at 07:28 AM on 7.7.2009

Boooo!

Shazoo at 07:43 AM on 7.7.2009

some developers decide that single player is what's best for the game, and they develop it around that. Like Bapenguin said in another thread about the same issue, if they would've developed it from the ground up to be co-op friendly, it might have the same impact on a gamer. It'll come back to bite them in the end not supporting co-op as a feature.

Mrxknown_JG at 07:48 AM on 7.7.2009

I agree with Agentfyre's comment.

Of course, this mindset will change as games that allow social activities for players against a common goal set the bar.

Studios just need to look at the biggest release titles, the Halos, the Gears, LittleBigPlanet, Lego games, Uncharted 2, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Call of Duty (5 & MW2), etc.

If a majority of the BIG brands have co-op, how could that be wrong?

Of course, I stand by the statement that if, IF, the game has a great story, then single player is fine.

But that is usually reserved for RPGs like Mass Effect, KOTOR, Jade Empire, and anything else made by BioWare and Interplay Pre-Fallout 3.

But action, games usually don't have great stories that restrict the use of co-op.

Zonf86 at 07:51 AM on 7.7.2009

Exactly - Bioshock is a prime example. I've yet to find a co-op which has as an engrossing story as bioshock and other single player games.

I think it can work, if done well.

Agentfyre at 07:54 AM on 7.7.2009

Yea, and really, not supporting co-op won't just bite them in the butt, it bites us as well.

When I rented Ghostbusters I thought to myself, "How much more replay value would this game have if it had a 4 player co-op campaign?"

I believe co-op is the future, and it's fun. However, some people find it a chore if you don't have the right people in your friend's list, I wonder if bad co-op experiences are affecting decisions to include it. Either way, I can't see co-op ruining a game, although it does make it difficult to center the game on the story.

We need something like interactive cutscenes or something to make stroy elements tolerable in a multi-player environment.

smurphster at 07:57 AM on 7.7.2009

i don't understand the swapping cowboys with space marines or navy seals. you can have a rich story regardless of who your characters are AND have co-op. halo 2 did a good job of including co-op while showing 2 very different perspectives of a story (one thing halo 2 has over halo 3 IMO). there was nothing generic about those characters either.

lately it hasn't been the fact that co-op is missing that bugs me. its the excuses coming from developers as to why. just give it to us flat out and don't tell us you think we'll like it better. that's just silly talk.

Agentfyre at 08:12 AM on 7.7.2009

Wow Smurphster, I completely agree.

Something I'd love to see in a co-op game: Split-ups. Not all the time, but I think it'd be cool if two people had to split up sometimes and do different things and come back together. Gears does this, but I'd like something more in depth than just covering each other from different vantages. Maybe puzzles to solve in different places where it requires communication from your partner for each to continue. It would seem more like your a tactical team working together for something.

Torg001 at 08:14 AM on 7.7.2009

I agree, especially with your last paragraph.

bigDinyomouth at 08:27 AM on 7.7.2009

agreed papa smurf. I was almost ready to get all MW2 on these guys, but you already said what I wanted to say in your post.

whenever a developer sounds off on there anti-coop views, I just hope another developer wont read and think "you know what? I dont want co-op in my future games either!"

Its ok though, i wasnt looking forward to this game anyway. needless to say i guess we can bet that future techland games wont have co-op. Damn shame! I was hoping dead island would have some form of co-op.

Lun4tic at 08:29 AM on 7.7.2009

Lame, Ubisoft, just lame.

OrigamiPanther at 08:47 AM on 7.7.2009

To take a slightly different take on this, I actually see it as a positive. A major game developer/publisher responded to a question in a public release about why there wasn't a co-op mode in their latest game. They no doubt get tons of questions about the game from a variety of sources, any number of which they can choose to ignore, and of all those, they answered this one.

That should signify, more than anything else, that they do recognize the importance of co-op in gaming... now. This particular game likely began development at least 2 years ago, before the recent co-op boom. But as a result of said boom, they are now forced to be more responsive as to why a game doesn't have co-op (which in turn makes them think about the co-op state of future games/games currently under development). Sure, it's not the best response, but hey, at least it IS a response! They are thinking about all us co-opers out there in gaming land and not just ignoring our requests!

txshurricane at 09:05 AM on 7.7.2009

Keep in mind, Jason, that development almost certainly started after Halo 3 and Gears of War hit. Neither are my favorites, but both featured co-op campaigns and both experienced incredible sales. Other than that, you do make a good point -- we can't fault them for missing out on the clues of holiday 2008 if they already had the game halfway completed before then.

OrigamiPanther at 09:29 AM on 7.7.2009

eh, it's possible that development started after Halo 3; hard to say sometimes. But even assuming that it did, numbers that show that a game sold well don't exactly translate to the reason why a game sold well. Yes, both Halo 3 and Gears have some great co-op campaigns, but a good portion of the fan base came for the multiplayer deathmatch, CTF, etc. and single player modes.

P.S. I do some stats work as a part of my job so the causal/correlational relationship of two things is something I obsess over on a regular basis

bigmunch at 09:36 AM on 7.7.2009

So let me get this straight he says Co-Op ruins the story yet their single player story isn't really all that? Just do like resistance did and tell a single person story and just let the second player play along, how hard is that?

jasoncourt at 09:47 AM on 7.7.2009

How about the OPTION, that all I (we) ask. That way you can preface it all with "While we think the story is best served in single player..." and maybe encourage co-op in a second play-through. Whatever you want. In a game like this where it would seemingly take little effort to enable(compared to other games without a constant partner) it is all the more frustrating to not have.

hedgehogaj at 09:51 AM on 7.7.2009

Or better yet, alter how you tell the story so that it works for two people. Split them up at points. Show them different cut-scenes. Show them the same cut-scene from a different angle. Make keys only work for the player that's holding them.

roland at 09:54 AM on 7.7.2009

Stat geeks FTW!

I would tend to lean towards Jason's look at this. It is good that they aren't just ignoring these questions, particularly on a game that looks like it could have had co-op as such a natural part of it.

That said, the story excuse is starting to fall apart. We are seeing more games that attempt to incorporate multiple characters/players into the actual story. Their excuse may have some merit now, but a year from now we'll be able to point to an even wider variety of games that have story driven campaigns with co-op.

txshurricane at 10:05 AM on 7.7.2009

Yeah, no matter the reason, I'm always for the OPTION. If I listen to loud music while I'm playing, or I have Xbox Live notifications turned on, it interferes with the story, and that's my choice. Why I can't ruin the narrative that I purchased by letting my wife play with me I'll never know.

smurphster at 10:25 AM on 7.7.2009

lol... does your wife make you skip the cut scenes too?

txshurricane at 11:13 AM on 7.7.2009

Actually, she makes me let them run. She's a sucker for story. Ironic, no?

smurphster at 11:21 AM on 7.7.2009

my wife will let me watch them the first time through but heaven forbid she sees the same cut scene twice.

but anyway, i agree, if co-op "ruins" the story, so be it. i'd rather have it "ruined" than not have co-op. i fail to see how having another person with me could ruin a story though.

maybe we're bad critics. is there really an excuse/reason that we'll agree with? in most cases, probably not. is that unfair of us? maybe. i just want my co-op!

roland at 12:25 PM on 7.7.2009

That's the most honest statement of the day

rafoca at 02:13 PM on 7.7.2009

We can conclude that Ubisoft knows nothing about co-op and lack imaginantion on how to do a good story with co-op included.

OrigamiPanther at 02:32 PM on 7.7.2009

Ok, so 1)

fixed (Techland is developer, Ubisoft is publisher, and even with that that's a bold statement, imo)

and 2) Ubisoft does know some things about making a co-op game

bapenguin at 03:30 PM on 7.7.2009

fixed (Techland is developer, Ubisoft is publisher, and even with that that's a bold statement, imo)

Actually, still not true. This is a Ubisoft representative's statement. Publishers have a strong say in the features of a game - so it is feasible Techland wanted co-op but never put it in because Ubisoft thought it'd be better to focus on the story. A lot of time the publisher's act as producers on these titles.

bigDinyomouth at 03:47 PM on 7.7.2009

I don't think at all its unfair of us too sound off agaisnt these ill thought out PR responses to lack of co-op in games where co-op can easily be supported.

I mean were talking first person shooters here. Where the only real narrative is either shooting a guy in the face to save the world or cut-scenes

Instead of enraging everyone, Ubisoft could've said something along the lines of "because our resources and/or time is strapped we couldn't expand the Call of Juarez experiance with co-op play"

or at the "we looked into co-op and threw several ideas around the table, but in the end we decided co-op didn't work best for our game".

I could have respected a response like that and not get up in arms about it, but when they put it "ohh co-op is garbage you will never see that in one of our games".

I just have a hard time respecting a company that just dismisses a growing treand of this generation. Especially when its a game that can easily support co-op.

txshurricane at 04:47 PM on 7.7.2009

Be careful what you wish for. After the MW2 thread, I wondered to myself how we'd react if we were given the straight answer: "we just think co-op sucks".
Let's face it: this is Co-Optimus, and there really isn't a good reason not to include co-op, at least not to most of us.

While I do think that these types of articles are valid, at the same time let's devote some of this energy to hooking up with each other to shoot some zombies or something. While we're busy ravaging developers, we're missing out on some great meetups and Official Co-Op Nights...myself especially.

Hopefully comments like the one that this Ubisoft community manager made help us to count our blessings, 95% of which are cataloged right here on our database. Call of Juarez is released and has been found wanting; Modern Warfare 2 will still sell, and we'll stay play the heck out of the limited co-op. On another page, we have Left 4 Dead 2, Lost Planet 2, Crackdown 2, Trine, Ninja Turtles, Diablo III, and plenty of other great games coming down the tubes!

Mrxknown_JG at 08:59 PM on 7.7.2009

That's all anyone needed to say Great job, txshurricane.

All I can say is, developers are changing their minds with co-op modes as last year can tell. My guess 2010 will be a big year for co-op.

samoza at 01:07 AM on 7.8.2009

I'm working through Call of Juarez as we speak. I don't mind single player storyled games, but this one is strange because so much of it is co-op, but with AI.

You are constantly supported by your brother who could easily have been player 2. The story in Call is one of its best assets. Playin in co-op usually means that people chat over the cutscenes and they would be lost.

A middle ground should be sought were the story in within the game were one player can be involved if they wish and another not.

BigBadBob113 at 02:25 AM on 7.8.2009

Maybe we should become lobbyists. We can stand outside the buildings of the devs and hold signs and chant slogans like "We like Co-Op" and "One is the Loneliest Number" ... alright, maybe something a little more clever...

Anywho, I hate it when a game lacks co-op when there is constant AI co-op. Also, the excuse that co-op ruins a story is BS, and the perfect example is Resistance: Fall of Man. The story centers on Nathan Hale solely taking on the Chimera invasion of England. However, there was an option to let a second player join in and play through the entire campaign via split screen (locally only.) The point is that they had the ability to have a second player jump in and join in the fight, but this didnt alter the story one bit. It was as if the second player wasnt even there. Player Two's character had no name or anything.

And that was just fine. Just because you add in a second player doesnt mean you have to change the story at all. I wish more devs would look at it that way. A lot of people like to play games with their friends, and its not as much fun sitting back and watching your buddy play through the game.

smurphster at 05:11 AM on 7.8.2009

so?

if the story is so good, it should grip both players so much that they don't want to talk over the cut scenes. regardless of how good the story is, or if we're playing co-op or not, there are so many factors that pull our attention away from the game (kids, wives, music, phone calls, chatting, etc). maybe the game should monitor how much noise is in the room and prevent us from playing if someone is talking or there's music playing... can't ruin the story!

i've played through each halo game several times and i STILL pick up on details i've missed in the past. it doesn't matter if i'm playing w/ someone else or not. its human nature to miss fine details and let our minds wander when we get short breaks (during cut scenes) even with no distractions.

bigmunch at 10:21 AM on 7.8.2009

Well the truth of the matter might be that budgets are getting tight and including co-op = more money spent on dev. So the publishers accountants have to look at how many more copies will we sell with co-op and is it worth the extra dev costs.

smurphster at 10:27 AM on 7.8.2009

that's fine if that's the case... but that's not what they tell us. if they're going to lie, they might as well come up with something better than "we don't like co-op" or whatever.

txshurricane at 11:07 AM on 7.8.2009

Want to know something funny? While researching the Syphon Filter series I came across this:

OrigamiPanther at 04:21 PM on 7.8.2009

I think it was the single player that was tacked on, not the other way around? And, yes, in a move that is greatly ironic in the larger scheme of things, the tacked on solo play killed the game.

txshurricane at 08:53 PM on 7.8.2009

I stand corrected. Thanks, Jason. Just too bad they didn't have a LAN or splitscreen option...that game was awesome.

Mrxknown_JG at 09:30 AM on 7.10.2009

Not to mention there are lots of games being developed with co-op in mine from the onset, Army of Two, Army of Two: The 40th Day, Borderlands, Saint's Row 2, etc.

yes, thinking about having co-op when production has already started may come down to numbers, but if you do it right and start with it at the beginning, I think we all can agree that co-op will work.