Author Topic: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play  (Read 5417 times)

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Administrator
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,458
Original: http://christophermpark.blogspot.com/2013/12/thoughts-on-alone-together.html

This is an idea that I originally had for The Last Federation, our upcoming title, but which I think could be applicable to all sorts of games, including our last title, Bionic Dues.  Right now it is just a for-future-exploration sort of idea, but I wanted to put my thoughts out there and see what sort of response players have to it.

So here we go:

Some Games Just Can't Do Traditional Multiplayer
Bionic Dues just isn't good for multiplayer for a lot of reasons, despite the fact that I absolutely want co-op in every game I make.  As I've said in the past, I believe that every game should have co-op (for social, not "check mark on the box" purposes).

The Last Federation also is a case where traditional multiplayer just would not work in a satisfactory way.  Both combat and the solar system map are pauseable realtime, with also a fast-forward function.  The combat flow is vaguely like Faster Than Light in the sense that you may want to pause and get your bearings rather than just plowing through.  And the solar map is vaguely like SimCity in the sense that sometimes you want to be paused for a long while, do a bunch of stuff, and then run on fast forward until you hit some sort of key event you are waiting for.

Neither of those things are conducive to traditional multiplayer, because the flow of time is so fragmented and so player-dependent.  Depending on what the player is doing, they may want time paused, running normally, or running fast.

A traditional RTS does not have this sort of problem (generally time just runs, period), but there are other examples of games that have this problem: Civilization IV and V, for instance.  I absolutely adore both games, but I do find that a lot of the enjoyment is sucked out of multiplayer thanks to the fact that I spend so much time waiting for other players to do things, even when we are playing simultaneously.  I read quickly, and know the game well, and don't do a lot of combat, so typically my turns are short and sweet.  If someone else takes several minutes on their turn, I'm literally sitting there reading a book until the "next turn" beep hits.

So I mean, multiplayer in Civilization does work, but it feels somewhat frustrating (to me) compared to the incredibly-addictive solo play.  With TLF or Bionic, it doesn't even work at all, just from a design/usability/fun standpoint.  Or SimCity, for that matter, if you were trying to have two people in one city.

Thoughts On Co-Op In RTS Games
I play almost all RTS games in skirmish mode with co-op on, and Arcen's own AI War: Fleet Command is designed solely around this mode of multiplayer.  In a literal sense, what is happening is that there is a constant flow of time, and all the players are mixed together, and in some respects it's no different from, say, playing an FPS game.

I mean, in an FPS game, all the players are in one arena and running around shooting one another in realtime.  In an RTS game, the difference is that you have lots of little guys running around shooting or stabbing each other, and you control them indirectly.  Right?

Here's the thing, though -- and maybe this is just me and how I play, so this is part of why I'm writing this long post to feel other people out on the idea -- in an RTS game, unlike an FPS game, for practical purposes the players are mostly "alone together" even though the space is shared and realtime.

What I mean is that I have my town/base/whatever, and you have yours.  You mostly focus on yours, and your resources and whatnot are all separate from mine.  Throughout the bulk of the game, we don't directly interact in a sense where we really need to be in the same realtime locale as one another.  If you really think about it.

There are exceptions: during battles we likely mass our forces.  In one battle I might position my guys to block guys from hitting your forces, so that you can regroup.  In another battle we might flank the enemy and come at them from two different sides.  If my town gets wiped out, I might retreat my last villagers to your town and set up a pathetic little camp that eventually becomes something useful, under the umbrella of your protection.

Those exceptions are admittedly really cool, and some of my favorite moments.  But the fact remains that the bulk of the time is players independently managing their own affairs, and coordinating verbally/textually with one another to have complementary strategies that ultimately result in victory.

What I posit is that for THAT aspect of multiplayer, the players do not need to be in a contiguous arena, nor in a timescale that flows the same for all players.  (Aka I can pause my part of the game while you are fast-forwarding, and we don't get in one another's way).

The Negative Gut Reaction
Obviously the gut reaction to this sort of thing is "that's not really multiplayer!"  And I'd have to agree, in a lot of respects.

Though it is considerably more multiplayer than, for instance, Super Mario Bros. 3, where players play until they die, and then the other player has their turn.  The only thing shared between the players is their joint progress on which levels they have completed (one player completes level 1-3, and the other player then can't/does-not-have-to).  But that's old school.  The way more fun, modern, way of doing Mario multiplayer is with everyone playing at once.  That was what made Chip And Dale: Rescue Rangers on the original NES so fun, too.

Networked Single Player Games
Because of the negative gut reaction, my inclination is not to call this multiplayer, or to advertise "this game has co-op!" since people would get really angry if they thought it worked one way and then found out it really worked another.  Instead, I'd call this "linking up single-player worlds."

And I'd be really literal about that, too.  You have your world, and you play it alone as much as you want.  While I am also around, I can take a single player world I am playing, and network it with yours.  During this period, we can collaborate in some way.  We don't directly enter one another's worlds, but we can take complementary strategies and pass each other goods and goodies, for instance.

It's the same as in a lot of RTS games: I take up production of resources X Y and Z (because I'm in a good position to do so, let's say) and pass a bunch to you, so that you can focus on some military objective that otherwise would be extra difficult.  Then you focus on production of some sort of awesome military craft that I need, and hand me these big guns that I otherwise could not use, which I then use to wipe up part of my sector.  And so on.

It's "alone together," and we each have totally disconnected worlds with independent savegames (I save my game and it does not affect yours, and vice-versa).  But it has the co-op advantages of being something where you and I can each play the game in a fluid and just-as-good-as-solo fashion (because it IS solo), while at the same time talking strategy and working toward mutually beneficial goals so that we each win our respective games thanks partly to the help we provide one another.

Pros And Cons
On the negative side, there is no escaping the fact that this is "alone together," and some people will not like that.  It may be a marketing fiasco if not handled properly (aka, I'd never say "yes this game has multiplayer).  But I think that if it was expressed properly ("ability to link single player worlds together") then the subset of people who find it interesting -- myself included -- could really enjoy it.

Also negative, it's something that people could use to cheat/farm, since their savegames are independent, and one person could just save prior to gifting a resource to their ally, then reload and repeat.  But let's be honest, there are lots of ways to cheat in games, and some games (AI War included!) even explicitly include cheat codes for people who just want to mess around.  So while this does bug me to a minor degree, I think it's unavoidable and the flexibility it grants is worth it.

On the positive side, if my wife and I want to sit down and do some gaming together, we can crack open Bionic Dues or TLF.  Or, heck, we could play Civ V without me needing to bring a book to read.

Also positive, this is really straightforward to code under the hood -- it's something that requires a network connection, and then there are just occasional data exchanges.  This is trivial to doing something more complex like synchronized RTS-style multiplayer, or constantly-resyncing action-game-style multiplayer.  There is no need for syncing at all, just occasional gift transactions.  This makes it a feature that can be added with a much lesser cost to the developer, thus meaning that even if it appeals to a smaller subset of the target audience, it still might be a net win in terms of value versus cost to create.

Then again, on the negative side, it does require a game design that actually allows for meaningful passing of... something.  So that's a potentially-nontrivial design task, and potentially nontrivial interface design as well.  So that does drive the complexity back up somewhat, though not nearly as much as doing full multiplayer code under the hood.

Examples Of This


Sim City 4 -- You can set up multiple cities in a region, and those cities then trade things back and forth.  This is optional, critically, compared to Sim City 5.  Unfortunately two players can't be playing in the same region at once, so this is only a partial example.  But if you altered things so that I could play in my city while you played in yours, then Sim City 4 would suddenly become a great example of this concept in action.

Pokemon -- This is only a semi-okay example, but the ability to trade Pokemon that you have found is definitely collaborative networking and something that is not "true multiplayer."  If the link was persistent and you could do more interesting things than just trade pokemon themselves, then this would be a better example.

(Hypothetical) Bionic Dues -- Each of us could be playing in our own city, but when linked up there could be missions in my city that could affect your city.  I could do an assassination mission or a lion's den mission that affects your city instead of mine, for instance.  The Bahamut Missions could grant us both epics, rather than just one of us, so that we could divide and conquer that sort of thing.  We could pass each other parts, pokemon-style.  And that's just with the game design as it currently stands.  Other kinds of missions or events could be thought up that would allow for even better collaboration, while still being useful in completely-solo play.

This would also work for TLF in a similar sort of vein, although since people are less familiar with that I won't bother going into a hypothetical example.

Thoughts?
I'm curious as to what the reaction/interest in this sort of thing would be.  To be clear, there's nothing in the short term that I plan to do with this either way, but it is something that -- if there is interest -- I would personally have great interest in integrating into both Bionic Dues and TLF at some point.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,798
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2013, 10:35:30 AM »
Sim City 4 -- You can set up multiple cities in a region, and those cities then trade things back and forth.  This is optional, critically, compared to Sim City 5.  Unfortunately two players can't be playing in the same region at once, so this is only a partial example.  But if you altered things so that I could play in my city while you played in yours, then Sim City 4 would suddenly become a great example of this concept in action.

Its optional in SimCity 4, yes, but still awful.  If you hug up one city in a region for whatever reason, every neighboring region will be polluted with the first region's fuckup.  Still better than 5, but probably the worst idea that ever came to that game.

As for the general idea:

I don't know.  Asynchronous multiplayer has come up a couple of times on the Dwarf Fortress forums and no one's really figured out how to handle it.  I see what you're trying to do, and I respect that, but I don't know if its something I want.  It would probably entirely depend on the implementation.

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Administrator
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,458
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2013, 10:39:56 AM »
"Entirely depending on the implementation" is something that is pretty common, I'd say, with most things.  But yeah, points taken.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Mick

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2013, 10:40:42 AM »
The passing gifts to each other sounds very social network gamey to me. Even though your implementation isn't based around building up marketing data or selling in-app-purchase gifts, it might invoke the negative feelings that come attached with those things anyway.

Am I going to feel like I'm losing out or playing sub-optimally if I don't link my world to a bunch of other peoples when I really want to just sit down and play the game myself? Likewise, will I feel like I'm cheating or making the game easier if I get gifts from others? Which style of play is the game balanced around after all?

It doesn't sound like something that interests me that much honestly. I'd be wondering what features were dropped to spend time on it, or how the gameplay was affected to try to stuff it in.

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Administrator
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,458
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2013, 10:46:25 AM »
Hmm, the social networking aspect of this honestly had not occurred to me at all.  And yeah, I hate that sort of thing and have really negative reactions to it, too.  Some of my family were really into Gardens of Time, and while I'm glad they enjoyed it the social stuff was a real turnoff for me (aside from the fact that the game is not my sort of thing at all).

In terms of "needing" to use the networking stuff, that would definitely never be the case or this would be a no-go.  The idea would be that you'd likely want to scale up the difficulty if you want to have a comparable experience to true-solo.  Or if you are struggling with your solo game and don't want to lose, you can hook up to a friend and have him/her help you out.  That sort of "co-op should let a friend come help me" idea is something that gets expressed a lot, but in terms of a strategy game that might be a negative, I dunno.

Possibly to make it still "fair," you'd have to set how many players your solo game is expected to have, and it scales the difficulty from there accordingly (as in AI War).  And then you can only ever connect with that many other people in that specific game.  Or something.  That gets in the way of the nice "drop in, drop out" functionality, though.

The other thing that interests me for TLF in particular is building in some form of Succession Game support officially, because I think that sort of thing can be really interesting and hilarious.  But mainly I just want to be able to sit down and play TLF with my wife; that's pretty much my sole motivation for this sort of thing, to be frank.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,798
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2013, 10:55:05 AM »
The other thing that interests me for TLF in particular is building in some form of Succession Game support officially, because I think that sort of thing can be really interesting and hilarious.  But mainly I just want to be able to sit down and play TLF with my wife; that's pretty much my sole motivation for this sort of thing, to be frank.

Sorry, TLF?

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Administrator
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,458
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2013, 10:55:29 AM »
The Last Federation, our upcoming game.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Cinth

  • Global Moderator
  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,517
  • Volunteer and occasional contractor
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2013, 11:04:07 AM »
For me, multiplayer isn't something I look for in most games I play.  For one, I'm the only avid gamer in my home (my gf likes to play Mario Kart so there is that).  Second, my dad is usually the only person I know that plays anything I would want to play (usually RTS, played co-op vs an AI).  Third, my favorite genre doesn't have many multiplayer games (JRPGs). 

Now I've been gaming since it was cool to own an Atari 2600.  I've seen many a mp game, from Wizards of Wor and Joust (competitive) to WoW (competitive co-op).  I might should expand on that a little.  Competitive would be players pitted against each other and co-op would be players working toward a common goal.

To go back to a couple of games I spent way to much time with, SMB and SMB3.  SMB I would place as competitive as players played independently of each other yet had the goal of beating the game first (maybe that was just me and dad?).  SMB3 would be a co-op game.  Both players worked toward the same goal on the same map.
SMB had players run until one died, then the next player had a turn.  SMB3 had players swap turns after a stage was cleared or a player died. 

Multiplayer today is such a muddy term now-a-days (to me anyway).  To what extent do other players have control over my game?!!  How does it help me in the long run or hurt me (in the instance of competitive games).  Me? PvP isn't my thing.  There aren't many pure PvP games that can hold my attention for very long and I've been playing PvP since Rainbow Six was new.  That leaves co-op and that's where if I do play mp, I usually have the most fun.  Players working together as a whole or as individual efforts to accomplish the same goal.  Though out of all the games I own that are capable of that, I'm not playing any of them in that capacity.  So in the end, the SP experience has to keep me playing.
Quote from: keith.lamothe
Opened your save. My computer wept. Switched to the ST planet and ship icons filled my screen, so I zoomed out. Game told me that it _was_ totally zoomed out. You could seriously walk from one end of the inner grav well to the other without getting your feet cold.

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,798
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2013, 11:04:20 AM »
The Last Federation, our upcoming game.

Of course.  I was looking for context, but it was too far up the page. @..@

Competitive would be players pitted against each other and co-op would be players working toward a common goal.

One of my goals in game design is to shake that idea up a bit.  My group has penned a few ideas for a game that has both a common goal and a per-player secret objective.  We aren't currently working on that game, mostly due to not being sure of a large portion of the mechanics, but we like the idea.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 11:07:44 AM by Draco18s »

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Administrator
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,458
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2013, 11:08:30 AM »
I absolutely agree that if the solo experience isn't up to snuff, the MP experience doesn't matter.  For the kinds of games Arcen makes, anyway.  But in my article about co-op (linked way above), I explain why I think that games need co-op (otherwise those who don't have the luxury of much solo gaming time can't play many games, and that includes me).
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,798
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2013, 11:18:37 AM »
(otherwise those who don't have the luxury of much solo gaming time can't play many games, and that includes me).

Ironically, I have the opposite problem. :V
I have a fair chunk of time I can devote to playing games most days of most weeks, but it never lines up with any of my friends.

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Administrator
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,458
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2013, 11:19:44 AM »
Well I have that problem with friends also, but with a gamer spouse I wind up with both issues, heh.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,798
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2013, 11:25:04 AM »
Well I have that problem with friends also, but with a gamer spouse I wind up with both issues, heh.

Heh.  Yeah, I'm not married.
(Still living with my parents at 28 :o )

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Administrator
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,458
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2013, 11:27:46 AM »
It happens!
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,798
Re: Thoughts On "Alone Together" Collaborative/Competitive Networked Play
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2013, 11:34:19 AM »
It happens!

Rent's cheap and someone has to look after the animals* when both of them are gone.

*Dog, two cats, three horses, and seven chickens.