I expect the subject line will seem preposterous to most of you, while some will equate Team and Co-op as two sides of the same coin. Technically, when you get down to it, Team play is Co-op. I start this thread as a response to this article. All I read was the Article Title, and I snapped. I calmed down a moment, composed myself, wiped the froth from my mouth, and am now typing out a more civil rebuke to !@#$ING OrigamiPanther's !@#$ING !@#$ED UP DEFINITION OF !@#$ING CO-OPERATIVE VIDEO GAMING. Okay. I'm calm now. Calm blue sea, calm blue sea, calm blue sea. I did read the article, and I have to say that OrigamiPanther's definition of Co-op appears to be very skewed, as with the rest of the Co-optimus crew, judging by some of the games listed as co-op.

How can games like Age of Booty be called "co-op?" Sure, you can set the skirmish mode to play with friends against computers, but that's not co-op in the way we mean it. That's just team play. When we say co-op, we refer to a game which is explicitly meant for player versus computer rivalry. We should be talking about a game (or mode) that pits asymmetric teams against each other, and if there are players on the other side, they make up a minority of the team rather than replacing them. When we think of co-op in regards to an FPS, it's pretty clear-cut what is and is not co-op. Playing multiplayer modes with players versus bots, such as Team Deathmatch, Team CTF, Team King of the Hill, and so on? We do NOT consider that Co-op. You know this. I know this. I know you know this, because everytime an FPS is announced with [team PvP modes] but no "co-op" you sigh and move on. And since I know you've all let out this collective sigh with me time and again, clearly we each understand what truly defines Co-op.

Notice the words I've used? "Team" versus "Co-op." Now, notice how I've placed different connotations on them? Why is it we do not consider Team and Co-op to be equal? At the heart of it all, a Team game consists of even teams. Perhaps not the same makeup, such as different class usage in TF2, or imperfect mirrors as in Quake Wars, but in the end the sides are still even and whatever "asymmetry" exists is due to player choice rather than the game placing that restriction. When you replace the computers with humans in a Team game, the essence of play is not changed. The pacing is not changed per se. The opponent simply becomes smarter. In a Co-op game, you have asymmetric teams pitted against each other. Having the opponent follow certain scripted behaviours is, I believe, crucial to the nature of Co-op gaming.

In short, if setting up the Skirmish mode of Age of Booty in player/computer teams is considered co-op, then so too is Team Deathmatch in any FPS. In both cases, you have a scenario where there is no significant change in gameplay when you change the computer team to human opponents. If Age of Booty Skirmish is considered to be co-op, then just about every FPS released in the last ten years is also co-op.

-----------------------------------------------------

That covers games where you play simultaneously. What of games with alternating play? That is, turn-based games? If you think about it, Co-op by nature must be real-time, with no turn-based play. Why do I say this? Walk with me here.

Consider Advance Wars. What is happening here? Is it really two players versus two computers? Yes, that's what it looks like at face value. But now take it in the abstract. That nothing is happening in real-time means you could use just the one person to control both player's armies. What's that you say? The inability to transfer funds means you have to help weaker players get back on your feet? BULL. !@#$. All that's happening in the abstract is one person controlling two armies separately. Adding a second player is not necessary to control two armies. You just alternate with yourself.

When we consider Co-op, we are referring specifically to situations where adding players increases your capabilities as a unit. More firepower, more tactical options such as flanking, more co-ordination, more manpower. You are working together as one. Turn-based play removes the need for everyone to work in unison. Adding players in Advance Wars changes the scale of the game. But it does not increase your potential for firepower, tactics, co-ordination, or manpower.

-----------------------------------------------------

In short, for a game to be considered co-op, and not just team-based, you need a real-time play, asymmetric teams, and enemies that could only work if AI scripted. (Or at least an environment that demands it, such as if you were to remove the Skeletons from Trine.) Symmetric games are simply Team games. Turn-based based have no need of a "team" concept, let alone co-op.

If Co-optimus wants to leave Team games such as Age of Booty on its list, I have no objection per se, but they should be properly labelled as not being Co-op. ("Team" would be fine.) But turn-based games such as Advance Wars have absolutely no place on a co-op site.

yeah i was a bit confused by that too... but i'm not sure it constituted such a mountain of text lol

My angry Australian friend,

The reason a lot of games with "co-op" modes that actually end up being what RTS players refer to as "Comp Stomping" are in our database is because early/preview materials for a lot of these titles tout co-op play and we have to take them on their word.

For example, Demigod was pimped on this site for a long time because Stardock/GPG kept referring to their teamplay as co-op. When we received review code for the game, we realized it didn't exactly fit our Ultimate Awesome Description of What Makes Something Co-Op, and chose not to post a "Co-Op" Review of it. The fact such games remain in the database despite factual errors is more of an administrative fault- we don't currently have a reliable method in our admin area to remove games.

We rely on our community to help us keep track of what games should/shouldn't be in our database- if you see anything that appears it shouldn't be there, or you would like to contest a listing, please feel free to email tips@co-optimus.com or use the feedback thread in the forums: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=169

I haven't played Age of Booty, so I can't really comment on that particular game, but if you're telling me that a team of four players against a team of four AI is not co-op, then throw Unreal Tournament III, Ghostbusters, Gears of War Horde mode, etc right out of the window along with Age of Booty.

Cooperative gameplay does not require a campaign, and it does not require players to be vastly outnumbered.

I think I can accurately sum up co-op and why it makes a difference to be playing against AI as opposed to human players: True co-op is the act of working together toward a common goal, and the role of your adversary in true co-op is to prevent you from reaching that goal. Unfortunately, you cannot guarantee that human opponents will fall in line with that formula...be it team killing, stat boosting, sucking (providing no real competition), or simply dropping out of the game, human opponents don't have the same rules to follow that AI does, and therefore cannot be counted on to provide you and your co-op friends with a clear objective.

A lot of people seem to have the wrong impression that co-op is just a multiplayer game without competitive (versus) gameplay. That's wrong - many co-op games have players competing in some fashion (Ghostbusters, CoD: World at War, etc). Co-op levels the field for all players and encourages teamwork, whereas team-based games allow cooperative performance but promote competition via leaderboards, tournaments, rankings, etc.

Just to mix things up a bit - what would you consider versus mode in L4D?

Two human teams, playing competitively against one another. Each team working together with various tactics and benefiting from this.

I don't think your definition of co-op is as black and white as you describe.

There are different kinds of co-op... in this case, the majority of us prefer the kind where we play against AI rather than other teams.

I think CoD5 captures this difference nicely, with their different campaign co-op modes.

Co-op Vs Competitive Co-op

If we really want to get bogged down in semantics, arguably playing death match with other players is a form of co-op play. How can this be? Well, the game wouldn't exist unless you all joined in.

What I think co-op comes down to is - can you play with other player? Yes or No.
Once this is clarified, then you have sub categories within that.

Most commonly though, on this site refer to co-op as us vs AI.


EDIT: Just to quote the about section of this site:

(Good call Bap).

I think this answers your initially concern, while also supporting mine (and others) argument as to what co-op is.

there's a lot of grey area when you introduce AI to an otherwise team deathmatch sort of mode. personally i didn't feel like any of the UT's are "co-op" because you can just as easily replace humans for the AI and have generally the same experience. however, horde modes are definitely co-op because you're forced on the same "team" and your goal is to survive. everyone has their own opinions and normally i can at least see where someone is coming from, but i'm sorry, UT just isn't co-op. you move up the ladder together but that's pretty weak. i haven't played the game in question though so i can't comment much on it but from how OrigamiPanther describes it, i can see how you could call it co-op (however, with excellent narration, anything could be co-op).

I think that true team based games like Team Fortress, L4D or Shadowrun can be considered co-op if the games are played correctly. Working together as a team to aid one another with the skills. However, despite how the developers make the game they often just descend into anarchy.

Therefore, I consider true co-op to be pals vs the AI. It is how I like to play as am not a competative person in the world of gaming. However, Zonf is right in that there is probably scope for sub genres of co-op gaming.

I agree with Samoza I am pretty passive on the competitive side of things I would rather chill with some friends and take out AI rather then be forced to play against other people; However I will say that TF2 when played correctly is an awesome co-op experience although on a different level.

Which is why we do things like Beyond Co-Op and the Battlefield Report!

@ong_elvin

Your language and attitude towards this subject are unsuitable for the type of discourse that usually takes place here and, quite frankly, disrespectful, rude and ignorant. You are far more guilty of the sins that you accuse OrigamiPanther of then he is. Your rigid interpretation of co-op play and co-op games alienates others (which goes against co-oping). As your rant makes obvious, your definition should also preclude others from having discussions about the gaming experience of any game that you don't feel fits your definition. Unless of course that discussion includes hate filled and profanity laced attacks on other gamers. In your quest to rigidly define co-op, you have lost track of what it really means.

Regular readers here, or anyone who cares to take a casual study of co-op play, will discover that there are many types of cooperative play. While we do tend to have a "perfect" idea of what co-op should be, that does not mean that we ignore games or gameplay styles that may fall outside that perfect description. To do so would be doing a disservice to this community and to the games themselves. We're here to have fun, not blubber and spit on ourselves about how the site isn't respecting our definition of co-op gaming.

We have over and over again discussed the subject of co-op and it's relationship to gaming (single player, competitive and co-op). Many of us have found ways to turn what are not traditionally co-op games into fun co-op experiences with our spouses, kids and friends. Your diatribe is insulting to everyone who has imaginatively turned the rigid rules of a non-co-op game into a co-op experience.

As for the exact game at hand, I have played the skirmishes co-op with my lady. As I stated in the original comments, I would have certainly preferred a campaign for more longevity, but that doesn't mean we didn't enjoy playing it for a few evenings. It was a co-operative experience in that we had to work together to achieve the goals of each map we played. It's a title that's disappointing as it so easily could have upheld all the standards we hope to see co-op games, but that it fell short does not mean that we should not be discussing it.

*claps*

When we set off to create this site we had a few goals in mind. The first was to promote a true definition of co-op play. Like you we felt that cooperative gameplay had to have some story based elements tied to it and be placed against the AI.

As the site progressed and grew we got all kinds of interesting tips from people as to what they considered co-op. Racing games, party games, and sports games were all mentioned in the realm of co-op. And while most didn't fit our classical definition, a lot of people considered them as such.

Soon we began to see that co-op didn't have to be restricted to a strong engaging story experienced with a friend, even though this was what intrigued us most. So yeah, we have some games in our database that are skirmish based. By their very nature of genre, there's really no other way to play it in co-op.

Sins of a Solar Empire is a great example. The single player experience is actually a series of skirmishes with different objectives and set ups. Any of these can be played co-op. So if the main game doesn't even have a story, yet it's clearly designed to be played with friends, why is it not co-op?

The simple answer is, it is. People can get together and work against the AI, furthering their own story of gameplay.

This is why we have the "Co-Op Experience" section on the game's pages. So people know exactly what they are getting into.

Like you said there's many games out there that claim co-op, but really are skirmish based. In fact, many developers are even calling into co-op in their game itself.

The bottom line is there is no right answer - and we can't make everyone happy. If we omit these games, people will call us out on it. If we add these games - well we've now been called out on it. I hope you'll continue to stick with the site, read the forums and news, and understand that there's co-op out there for everyone.

I am still looking for a website dedicated to "party games"

I think such a website will also be asked to differentiate between party and co-op. For example, I consider LBP a great party game because it is easily accessible and up to 4 local people can play, but I can imagine people saying this game is co-op and not a party game.

so lets call it both...

why people always feel the need to assign just one category to things i'll never understand. i'm more of a labels and tags guy (which is why i fell in love with gmail and never turned back).

Woah, there's a phrase for that? SWEET! I love comp stomping! That's my idea co-op experience in any game!!

pheriannath introduced me to the phrase in another thread awhile back, and I felt like you. I think it's meant as a derogatory term though I'll take some good comp stomping any day of the week!



*bows*

Generally speaking, there are a lot of games that claim to be co-op, but may or may not be co-op by our definition. Sure, it's a simple mix up most of the time - and we're glad to see you're so passionate about co-op, but such an outburst isn't really necessary.

The "This week in co-op" is a casual weekly article about generally gaming together. I've used blatantly non-co-op games in a co-op light. We tend to be much more forgiving than this - especially since we're such a specialized genre of games.

We would love to see more co-op games by our definition, but we take it where we can get it most of the time.

Also; I love comp stomping too! May not be real co-op, but it is fun to work together toward the common goal of wiping those AI baddies off the map! See: This post.

Before I respond, I want to reiterate with colour, because this was missed the first time. I'll also be referring back to this quote.
The Real-Time component is addressed in the second section of my opening post. The asymmetric teams I didn't properly address, but I did sort of cover it before the first section break. I've gone into more detail below. The AI enemies is where most people misinterpreted me. (Yeah, being angry makes us forget to explain ourselves.) I made a distinction between Team-based AI and Co-op AI, and noted that while Team-based AI is interchangeable with sentience, Co-op AI is not. Much more detail below. Finally, I want to point out that the Thread Title is NOT my own view of what defines Co-op (probably another thing that tripped people up) but what happens if the game in linked article can be considered Co-op.

I used that a while ago. Advance Wars and Age of Booty were in my list of contests.

smurphster is pretty much saying what I've said, with less anger and rage. UT2k4's Invasion mode is synonymous with Horde mode, and I would call that co-op. But ordinary Deathmatch and CTF are not. We're in agreement here. I defined what I meant by AI very specifically - players that would change the nature of the game itself if made human. I haven't played UT3 or Ghostbusters, but again, I was very specific with my description of AI opponents; and from what I've read of Ghostbusters "Horde" mode that would be co-op as well.

I did acknowledge this. First two sentences in the opening post. But I also defined a difference between "co-op" and "non-coop teams" that most people can identify with.

Yes, I did realise someone would eventually throw that in. There's always that exception out there messing with things. (MtG players will recall Mistform Ultimus and Changelings messing with trivia related to creature types.)

As for L4D specifically, I'm content to allow its PvP mode to still be considered co-op, by virtue of the fact that teams are asymmetric. Infected players have a different ability set to the Humans, and Infected players get hordes of Zombie assistance. Unlike TF2, players cannot possibly have mirrored teams. The teams cannot be mirrored because they are asymmetric. TF2's classes allows for different teams, but they are still symmetric. 6 Scouts versus 6 HWG is uneven, but still symmetrical because there was the possibility for both teams to be matched up class-to-class. Does this make sense?

I contend Co-op is a subclassification of Team, rather than the other way around, due to the way we normally regard games as "true co-op" and "not true co-op."

Actually, no. I've never felt that co-op play requires story based elements. I didn't include that in my three crucial components to co-op either. What I did define as co-op at the base was real-time play, [vastly] asymmetric teams, and players that only work properly if AI-scripted. I thought I was clear that Horde is Co-op while Deathmatch and Comp-Stomp are not co-op. I guess I needed to be more accurate here, because this is where people are misreading me.

For those who will ask, Comp-Stomp is not co-op because all you are doing is placing an AI in a human opponent's place. The AI and human have no discernable differences in this situation. They both have the same options open to them, the same options closed, and the AI is synonymous with a very predictable human opponent.

Another game I've not played. Still, I'd bet that the computer players in Sins follow very specific commands. Perhaps such as "only attack the home base, never the expansion" or "defend this base and absolutely do not leave it." Perhaps they get cheats and triggers here and there to make sure they run properly, such as "all out attack every 10 minutes" or "spawn 2 critters and attack with them every few seconds." But if you were to allow the computers to behave as humans? Allow them to attack the expansions? Allow them to leave the base? To all-out attack every 20 minutes or whenever you please with a more massive force instead, or perhaps every 10 mintues with only half your army? To pull back the 2 critters and save them for your all-out attack? Nope, that just turns the game into an uneven standard melee.

Consider a scenario where the goal is to take the enemy base and raze it. The enemy is supposed to be unaware of your presence until you attack. Putting a human player in the computer's shoes would change that scenario. Now, the enemy is aware of your (impending) attack. They may go so far as to attack you before you can even set up your base. After all, the defending player in these scenarios starts off with a huge initial army. One thing that differentiates co-op from team is that the enemy has vastly different capabilities. In this case, they are not allowed to do anything until you attack. Otherwise it just becomes another very uneven standard PvP match.

In a similar way, this is why we differentiate Horde/Survival/soon-to-be-added-Firefight from Deathmatch. Both teams are asymmetric, both in player count (100+ vs 5) and abilities (run/jump/fly/swim), and they are not mirrored. Further, their goals are not identical. What, you say the goal is to killkillkill? Nope. The human team's goal is survival. Not to kill, but to live. Killing is a byproduct. Running serves the goal of Survival too, even if it is less efficient. This asymmetry of objectives is not mandatory for co-op, but it does fall under the heading of asymmetric teams.

From memory, I'm only calling you out for Age of Booty and Advance Wars at this point. I don't bother with PS3/PSP and Wii because I don't have those platforms. Horde mode and all its variants can stay, as long as the standard multiplayer components are not counted as co-op. I also said that leaving these team play games (ie, [almost] every FPS ever released) is fine as long as you can differentiate them, because sentiments expressed in previous columns covering the possibility of co-op in Game X match what I'd expect from someone who shares my definition of co-op.

pheriannath also explained the lists not having a reliable removal system and I'd suspected something like this from a previous post. That I can understand. Age of Booty was promised co-op play in previews, I understand that. But to review that game as Co-op is like an insult to the nature of Co-op gaming. Team yes, Co-op no. I dumped in Advance Wars because it was very related to my statements about Real-Time play. I'll continue to use the site. I can RAAAAAAAGE, but I'm not short-sighted as to stop using a good resource due to some faults, and very little in this world is free of faults. You're still the prime source of co-op news and lists of co-op games.

I'm gonna say that defining how an AI is programmed to determine what co-op is, is nitpicking.

I took an AI programming class in college, and all AI is about tricks. Heck, I'd say that in most games we consider "true" co-op the AI has more cheap tricks and spawn hacks than any of the team based one where Bots get a lot more attention.

It's all about learning level patterns and enemy tendencies in games like Gears of War, Resident Evil, etc.

"Ok, this is where the boomers spawn. Get ready.'

Again, everyone has their own definition. We've been kicking around some ideas on how to categorize co-op types, and perhaps it'll come to fruition. But at almost 700 games in the DB now, well - it's gonna take some time to gather data and update.

croud source! if we had some sort of rating system for each category, we could all rate the game by category. so, for example, halo 3 would get an n/a for horde mode while gears of war 2 would get 5 stars. that would give us both a "yes or no" for the feature plus an average rating. that system would count on everyone to rate the games they own but between the ~30-40 of us frequent visitors, we'd be able to cover a good chunk. just an idea off the top of my head. if you want a more definitive system that wouldn't work too well.