By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Oh, mulitplayer all the way. Can't beat the good 'ol human interaction. I prefer multiplayre in person too, online might as well be single player against really good AI... AI that often does everything they can to exploit lame tactics... AI that is simply obsessed with winning, and doesn't care about anything else really...

 ...where was I? Oh yea, multplayer. I actually wrote a nice piece on the divide between Co-op multiplayers and competative ones. 

 

 Co-Op or Competative?

Ah yes, the argument as old as gaming itself: Co-operative multiplayer, or competitive multiplayer. I always thought it strange that these two methods of play were lumped together under the name “multiplayer” even though they are completely opposite from each other (killing an enemy or helping a friend). Surly neither can be said to be better than the other, or more important than the other, and this brings up another interesting point. How come most of us really prefer one style to the other? Personally, most of the gamers I have talked to either love co-op or they love competitive. Why can’t we love them both? Let’s take a look at players of both games types…

Jon’s palms are sweaty on the controller as he nervously walks down the dark hallway. Goldeneye is an old game but it’s his game and there is no way some freshmen in his dorm is going to beat him at his game, not today, not in Goldeneye, He glances at his ammo situation and thanks himself for going to get that AR-15, he’s going to need it. His eyes detect a flurry of movement at the corner of his screen and his hands leap into action, precisely turning and aiming the target. With reflexes and skills honed over ten years of playing he fires shot after shot with perfect accuracy. His human opponent, smarter and faster than any AI could ever hope to be, valiantly fights back with equally impressive skill and nearly takes out Jon with a grenade; Jon dodged it in a flash and returns the favor with a remote mine of his own that finishes the match. Jon stands up with an adrenaline rush and holds his controller high with a yell; he thanks his years of practice and triumphantly proclaims “HA! No one beats me at Goldeneye! No one!!”

Across the hall Matt and Ryan are in the middle of a Co-op campaign in another FPS game. Best friends since they were three, Matt and Ryan knew they could count on each other as they progress through the level. They both know Ryan is better at sneak attacks so he takes a side path for a secondary objective. Suddenly Ryan yells out in alarm, he was ambushed badly. Matt does a 180 and takes off as fast as he can, he changes to his best gun and screams “Hang on Ryan!!” Ryan runs in desperation towards Matt as he gets hit from all sides; Ryan knows there is no one better than Matt when it comes to crowd control. Matt jumps off a ledge and lands right next to his best friend, tossing him a better gun before opening fire on the oncoming horde. “Ryan, I’ll hold them off, RUN!!”. Ryan makes it about ten steps before stopping and turning around, he can’t leave his friend behind, and there’s no one better at dodging then Ryan. Together, back to back, they fight for each other and emerge from the jungle level victorious and together.

 

Naturally, first person shooting games are a great example to show the differences between the two styles of gameplay, and illustrate that they are both equally fun to play. So why does everyone take sides? If you think about it, almost all games have aspects of both types of multiplayer, from capture the flag FPS games to MMO's like WoW. So why do people usually prefer one style to another? Is one group better than the other? I wouldn't think so but often The whole co-op vs competitive preference draws a deep line inbetween gamers. This divide is based on something far greater than the simple “my console maker is better than yours” argument and this Editor finds it strange that this divide is settled relatively peacefully. Why do we all draw our swords when someone says they prefer a different company, yet when someone says they prefer a vastly different type of game (killing vs helping) we all get along? The next time someone says the PS3 is better than the 360 can't you two instead agree that console games are better than arcade games? Or agree that computer games are better than console games? Human nature seems to make us want to argue at anything and everything, but it doesn't have to be that way. People can get along just fine even if they have different tastes. I think we all need to take a lesson from the competitive/co-op debate, which rages on, peacefully.