Lousy Update

[x4000]

There is a very direct reward: enemies are easier when you play together in one chunk. Each added player only adds 90% of the health to the enemy. So if you and I are in different chunks, we each face enemies that are 100% as strong as normal. 200% combined, then. When we are both in the same chunk, it's only 190%.

Not to mention that enemies don't get extra shots or firepower, so your ability to flank enemies is dramatically more powerful when you are together rather than apart.

In terms of the reward choosing, I agree, and that's something we are moving towards with a future iteration.

[LayZboy]

There is a very direct reward: enemies are easier when you play together in one chunk. Each added player only adds 90% of the health to the enemy. So if you and I are in different chunks, we each face enemies that are 100% as strong as normal. 200% combined, then. When we are both in the same chunk, it's only 190%.

If it takes me 2 hits to kill a monster, and then 4 hits with my mate playing (2 hits each), it's no bloody different than playing by yourself.
The only way you see it works is on boss monsters, maybe.

[x4000]

There is a very direct reward: enemies are easier when you play together in one chunk. Each added player only adds 90% of the health to the enemy. So if you and I are in different chunks, we each face enemies that are 100% as strong as normal. 200% combined, then. When we are both in the same chunk, it's only 190%.

If it takes me 2 hits to kill a monster, and then 4 hits with my mate playing (2 hits each), it's no bloody different than playing by yourself.
The only way you see it works is on boss monsters, maybe.

My stated goal, in general, is to have it be no different than playing by yourself.  Playing with more people and having it be easier is not fun in my opinion.  If you want it to be easier, turn down the difficulty level.  When you're playing with a group of people in co-op, presumably it's because you all want to experience the game together.  That's the value added by playing together.  If you're getting a watered down experience that is pathetically easy compared to what you would have in solo, that really kind of stinks.

I'm not sure what your expectation is, or what other game works that way.  Most co-op games seem to retain their difficulty in co-op, and some (like New Super Mario Bros or Donkey Kong Returns) actually get excessively harder with multiple people.  But still, the draw is that you get to play with those other people.  I've played lots of co-op games, in fact I specifically seek them out, and I can't recall one that got easier to my knowledge when playing in co-op.  Even something like Resistance 2 would adjust enemies and health drops and so on.  Left 4 Dead has AI to compensate for lack of co-op players in solo play to keep the difficulty constant, etc.

My extended thoughts on co-op, for the curious: http://christophermpark.blogspot.com/2009/05/case-for-co-op-games.html

[LaughingThesaurus]

My input: When teamwork is necessary and bots are involved, playing co-op with other people is infinitely better than playing by yourself. I can't count the times my AI teammates in left 4 dead would run around in circles on the other side of a corner while I was down and slowly bleeding to death. It's even worse in versus. Whether or not you'll win, or even get out the safe room, is a roll of the dice if you don't have players on your team instead of bots.
In this game though, I totally agree. I mean, if it were already fairly hard to begin with, I'd argue it, but it's already easy enough to kill/survive on the difficulty that says it's for experienced gamers. I more often than not end up with HP profit from drops. If it got much easier, that'd be awful, particularly for players of differing skill levels.

...but... ultimately, it doesn't seem like there's a great exact balance you can strike. Left 4 Dead was made for multiplayer, and it's unbelievably frustrating (at least for me) in single player. Multiplayer balances very well, particularly on Advanced, and is loads of fun... but with bots you need the margin for error of Normal, because it's basically a roll of the random number generator whether their AI will save you before you take damage, or after you take 30 damage from the hunter right next to them. A Valley Without Wind, however, feels more balanced around the single player experience. Thus, people report some multiplayer problems, like not getting any sort of benefit from playing with friends. I kinda prefer it this way, just because I'm not a big fan of the stupid AI kind of frustration.

...and it's totally not because playing versus with my ex resulted in me getting charged by her into a corner, and dying from only that while the bots were just sort of pacing around inside of acidic spit. God, that was annoying. I get too competitive sometimes. =/

[Nanashi]

I've played lots of co-op games, in fact I specifically seek them out, and I can't recall one that got easier to my knowledge when playing in co-op.  Even something like Resistance 2 would adjust enemies and health drops and so on.  Left 4 Dead has AI to compensate for lack of co-op players in solo play to keep the difficulty constant, etc.

My extended thoughts on co-op, for the curious: http://christophermpark.blogspot.com/2009/05/case-for-co-op-games.html

Not related to this debate, but you might want to try Lost Planet 2. Games which only get easier in co-op do exist, but they usually have multiple simultaneous goals crippled by terrible NPC AI or weird combo mechanics (such as piloting mecha in LP2).

[x4000]

Ah yes, Lost Planet 2 was not one I played.  I'm sure that there are games that do every sort of mechanic under the book, actually -- I guess there's something for every palate, which is always a good thing.  I should know to stick away from sweeping generalizations.   But in terms of the bulk of the industry...