Total Cooperation Gameplay
by Bill Bouma · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 04/04/2003 (1:54 pm) · 2 replies
In current team games, the player assumes a role
and combines with others playing different roles
to form a group capable of multiple tasks. Like
one guy is a driver and the other is a gunner.
One guy is a medic to heal and another is the
sniper to provide cover fire and another is the
mechanic to hack defenses. But each player is
capable of doing his role without the others. The
sniper can snipe and the medic can heal even if
he is the only player on his team. The driver
can drive the vehicle even if there is no
gunner, and the gunner can shoot stationary if
there is no driver.
I propose something completely different. How
about a game where nothing can be done by the
individual (apart from running around and dying
of course)? To shoot a weapon requires at least
two people, maybe 4 or 6 for the biggest ones.
Healing someone requires 3 people to cooperate,
none of which is the one being healed. There is
no specialization. That guy just healed can
join with two of the ones that healed him to heal
the third. The game would totally reward co-
operation. Even griefers would need to find
others to join them in order to cause trouble.
You can then easily kick them because they
can't claim "it was an accident".
It is just a brainstorm idea with little of the
mechanics filled in. Perhaps shots could be
averaged for certain weapons amongst the shots
of the individuals using it. Another weapon
migh cycle shots from player to player. It may
need to be massive. If you have 6 guys using
a big artillery weapon you'd probably need a
few 2-3 man teams to protect them. The game
would need plenty of bodies around to to fill
in when players die. Then what happens when
a guy respawns and wants to rejoin his buds but
someone else is filling his spot? Mahem could
ensue. It needs thought, but could be cool.
and combines with others playing different roles
to form a group capable of multiple tasks. Like
one guy is a driver and the other is a gunner.
One guy is a medic to heal and another is the
sniper to provide cover fire and another is the
mechanic to hack defenses. But each player is
capable of doing his role without the others. The
sniper can snipe and the medic can heal even if
he is the only player on his team. The driver
can drive the vehicle even if there is no
gunner, and the gunner can shoot stationary if
there is no driver.
I propose something completely different. How
about a game where nothing can be done by the
individual (apart from running around and dying
of course)? To shoot a weapon requires at least
two people, maybe 4 or 6 for the biggest ones.
Healing someone requires 3 people to cooperate,
none of which is the one being healed. There is
no specialization. That guy just healed can
join with two of the ones that healed him to heal
the third. The game would totally reward co-
operation. Even griefers would need to find
others to join them in order to cause trouble.
You can then easily kick them because they
can't claim "it was an accident".
It is just a brainstorm idea with little of the
mechanics filled in. Perhaps shots could be
averaged for certain weapons amongst the shots
of the individuals using it. Another weapon
migh cycle shots from player to player. It may
need to be massive. If you have 6 guys using
a big artillery weapon you'd probably need a
few 2-3 man teams to protect them. The game
would need plenty of bodies around to to fill
in when players die. Then what happens when
a guy respawns and wants to rejoin his buds but
someone else is filling his spot? Mahem could
ensue. It needs thought, but could be cool.
#2
In the game I am developing (see my thread on this same forum), we have 4 player classes that are designed in such a way (hitpoints, damage output, and utility) that it is practically impossible to play without at least 2 other players each playing as one class. Our idea, like yours, focuses on the unity of teams in combating one another and achieving goals.
04/05/2003 (3:04 pm)
You might find that you have to limit players to "classes" that they can choose to be.In the game I am developing (see my thread on this same forum), we have 4 player classes that are designed in such a way (hitpoints, damage output, and utility) that it is practically impossible to play without at least 2 other players each playing as one class. Our idea, like yours, focuses on the unity of teams in combating one another and achieving goals.
Torque Owner Christopher Dapo
Good luck!
- Chris