Brink Developer On The Art Of Co-op

Katrina "ShadokatRegn" Pawlowski August 3rd, 2009 at 7:24 PM

The Arc truly is the vision of the future.

To co-op, or not to co-op: that is the question. Developers have recently acknowledged that gamers actually like to play together, but often miss a valuable point. Many co-op modes are simply that: modes within an otherwise single-player game. Brink developer Edward Stern gets passionate about his co-op, wondering why we can't have the best of all worlds more often!

"It's just inane. You get games shipping with separate executables, a completely different experience, sometimes a different control scheme. Why would you ever do that? It's crazy now. There's no reason to do that.

It seems ludicrous that we've got this notion of completely separate online, offline, single-player, multiplayer. That's in the past. There's no reason to put up with that anymore."

Splash Damage seems to have the right idea; It's great to play a game alone - But, it's also nice to have co-op in the same story context, as well! Co-op and single player really should be interchangeable, giving gamers the best possible experience in whichever situation tickles their fancy most.

Source: Link

Tags: playstation 3 xbox 360 pc politics co-op

Brink Brings 8 Player Drop-In Co-Op Next Year

Game Name: Brink Co-Op: Yes - 8 Player Co-Op Type: Campaign co-op with drop-in and drop-out support. &n(Read More)

Brink Brings Co-Op in a Stylized Shooter

There's only been a handful of co-op game announcements to come out of E3 this year, but one that seems to be surp(Read More)

Brink: Preview Of The Future

Brink, one of the few pleasant surprises at E3 this year. One that has a handful of great features, including Co-op, beautifully(Read More)

23 Total Reader Comments

Sabre at 02:40 PM on 8.3.2009

I'm hating this game on many levels, most notably the way it nurfs you if you play single player. The smart moving systems sounds interesting, but the way it will pesster you and offer less rewards if played offline is rediculous.

bapenguin at 02:58 PM on 8.3.2009

If so many games "gimp the co-op" for the single player - why can't the reverse be true?

Sabre at 03:40 PM on 8.3.2009

Because it does so by limiting the exp and loot you can get. If it was a gameplay issue, then fair enough, but it's just numbers. Get rid of the nagging and leave the numbers alone and I'd have been happy.

See, I like co-op, but L4D has taught me that brain dead kids are everywhere and spoil the game for everyone. I don't want to HAVE to play online to get the good stuff.

ShadokatRegn at 04:23 PM on 8.3.2009

That's what this website is for! there are good co-op people here, honest.

Jackel at 05:09 PM on 8.3.2009

To be fair, depending on his time zone, it may be more difficult for him to find ppl. (I know for me to play with most of the ppl on this site and CoG, I have to play at 4 or 5 my time which is just a pain)

bapenguin at 06:03 PM on 8.3.2009

Simple solution - uproot your family and move so you can find better co-op players!

Mrxknown_JG at 06:40 PM on 8.3.2009

I'm still not understanding Sabre's point that single is weaken. I don't know much, so what is actually happening in the game for single player vs. Co-op?

Is the difference that big?

Jackel at 06:52 PM on 8.3.2009

Thankfully for more realistic reasons (than co-op gaming) we're moving 2 timezones closer, so this should be a good possibility.

ShadokatRegn at 06:57 PM on 8.3.2009

Really, not from what I understand - though it is presented oddly. By "less loot" I think they mean that there aren't as many players that have to share the loot, so there is enough for one person in single player. Makes sense when put in different terms? By less experience, I would imagine it's the same. These developers don't seem to want to cripple single player games, they just want to encourage co-op with the different possibilities.

This interview with Stern suggests that he is just irked that multiplayer is itself crippled to a sad degree, and he wants it to be a lot more LIKE The single player: a well rounded in depth experience, not just a mode.

Sabre at 12:28 AM on 8.4.2009

3-30
http://www.giantbomb.com/e3-2009-interv ... nk/17-826/

The only one I can find short notice. He phrases it as 'bribing' in this interview, but that doesn't change the point you get better Exp and Loot by playing online vs the equiverlent SP game.

bapenguin at 02:46 AM on 8.4.2009

So it's an MMO model then. In most MMOs only the best stuff can be obtained doing group style quests - stuff you can't solo. Same thing here.

Rahdo at 03:34 AM on 8.4.2009

Hi there. I'm Richard Ham, the guy you see in the video that Sabre linked to. I just wanted to jump on and let you guys know that there's absolutely nothing in Brink that an offline player can't experience to the fullest. Nothing is held back. The whole point of the game is that whether you play it online, offline, single player, co-op, or competitively, you're getting the same great experience, which is actually a fusion of all those great gameplay styles. Every unlockable in the game is available to you, no matter how you play. To not do that would be unfair to players who don't have broadband connections, or who just don't want to go online for whatever reason.

As to the bribery that Sabre is talking about, basically, that's an enticement to encourage players who would normally give online a wide birth to just 'give it a try'. It's exactly like the "double XP weekends" that some shooters do, to entice players into getting online. Or like "limited time sales" that stores use to draw customers in. If you decide not to opt in to get the bonus, no big deal. You're not out anything. You can still go ahead and play the mission offline, and earn a lot of XP and have access to all the same goodies you'd get if you'd gone online. No harm, no foul. The game certainly won't make you feel like you're getting anything less than 100% of a great experience.

Sabre, hopefully this addresses your concern? If not, lemme know.

Biohzrd451 at 04:12 AM on 8.4.2009

Thank you for clearing up any confusion. It is also great to see devs step out and address the concerns of gamers. Defiantly put Brink back on my radar.

Zonf86 at 04:14 AM on 8.4.2009

Seconded.

Welcome to the site too!

bapenguin at 04:22 AM on 8.4.2009

Thanks for clearing that up Richard and welcome to the site!

smurphster at 05:27 AM on 8.4.2009

that's good to know... thanks!

now sabre doesn't need to move . i definitely need to look into this game more. its looking nice and possibly more down my alley than borderlands (although i'll probably end up playing both).

btw... split-screen online? pleeeease?

ShadokatRegn at 07:14 AM on 8.4.2009

This is how I interpreted the whole thing from the start; really glad to see it cleared up from the source!

Sabre at 09:05 AM on 8.4.2009

Aww, no nerd rage for me. Now I'm all mellow.

While I still disagree with the idea of any sort of sort of online incentive, at least it's back on the table.

Rahdo at 08:33 PM on 8.4.2009

I definitely want that too, but can't make any promises just yet, because it's surprisingly hard to pull off for code! Fingers crossed though.

Thanks for the warm welcome, everybody. If anyone has any Brink questions, be sure to let me know. I've now subscribed to this thread so I can keep an eye on it

seshat at 07:59 AM on 8.5.2009

Cool. I agree with having co-op as an option in the main campaign. Now the only thing missing is the local co-op. Does Brink support this feature? The co-optimus website says it does in the 360 but not the ps3.

Another issue that always bugs me is when local co-op can't go online. Is Brink going to support this feature?

smurphster at 08:09 AM on 8.5.2009

@seshat: did you read the comments?

seshat at 08:15 AM on 8.5.2009

well, I thought that offline referred to single-player. Its not clear.

seshat at 08:17 AM on 8.5.2009

Oh i see, you meant your comment. I think I missed it in my first pass. I guess Rahdo's last reply was to your comment.