Blog - Design of Co-op Games

Designing games that are meant for two or more people to play together where they cooperate together instead of competing.

In order to deeply do cooperation you need to approach it from almost a different angle or with new considerations at least.

The reason I'm interested in co-op game design is that co-op games are unique and can help facilitate emotions between two or more people via the interaction in the game.

I think why we make games is because we like to bring emotion to our players whether that be joy or sadness or whatever, like any art form it's meant to help you experience emotions.

I think that's an extremely important thing to consider when designing your co-op. In the big picture you'll want your game to facilitate emotions between people and usually a co-op game these are friendlier joyful emotions and you save the conflicting or competitive emotions for PVP style games.

A fundamental idea of the 3 categories of co-op gameplay:

1 Parallel Co-op

2 Step by step Co-op

3 Simultaneous Co-op

Parallel co-op

Parallel co-op is sort of when each person is playing a single player experience together. This is often seen in games that don't exclusively have coop game design.

When you do co-op it might include stronger or more enemies and open the door like one person driving the car while the other shoots but it's essentially two people playing a shooter almost the same way they would play alone they're just doing it together.

Parallel co-op is actually nice because pretty much any game can benefit from it for not that much more overhead.

I think it's just a generally accepted thing that playing games with your friends is more fun. So at the least if you could implement parallel co-op it's just an easier way I guess to do co-op and to get that extra bit of fun out of your game.

Don't get me wrong there will still be challenges adding it both technically and from a level design standpoint to maintain the difficulty balance but at least you won't have to re-design entire sections of the game, and you just have to account for there being more than one person.

Step by step co-op

It is the idea that the players take turns completing steps so each player has a moment or responsibility. This is most often seen in co-op puzzle games like Fireboy and Watergirl.

It's sort of like when in a game you have to move that platform so I can jump on it and unlock the door so that the both of us can move on.

Step by step coop works well because it allows each player to have a moment where they can help or contribute to the team.

Sometimes it's not engaging for one player if the other is more skilled and just carries the team and you kind of feel like you're just along for the ride with the other player.

In parallel co-op for instance if one player is vastly more skilled it can feel kinda like you're babysitting the other player and it can be demeaning for the under-skilled player.

Step by step is a specific design that allows for each person to have a responsibility and therefore fulfillment and purpose.

This does of course come with the cons of you needing to design specifically for the scenario and also we'll talk about that later problems.

Simultaneous co-op

This is sort of like a blend between step-by-step and parallel as each player has defined responsibilities for step-by-step but you can carry out these responsibilities whenever or simultaneously.

I prefer simultaneous co-op because I think it's a good compromise between the flexibility of parallel and the deeper and meaningful step by step.

It can be difficult to be. Balancing with so much opportunity for cooperation in so many different kinds of responsibilities, it can be hard to plan for and balance all strategies that your player might come up with.

And I said that simultaneous coop is my favorite but maybe that was an inaccurate thing to say. Really when deciding which style to go for you should decide which is best for your game.

I think parallel works great for shooters, step by step for puzzle platformers and simultaneous co-op for RPGs. But you could use any combination you feel is right for your game.

Symmetry VS asymmetry

A symmetrical co-op game is one where players both play the game in the same way. The parallel coop idea from earlier would be an example of symmetrical co-op.

Think about classic running gun shooters like contra, adding another player doesn't really change anything and both players play the game the same way. In other words they play it symmetrically.

Asymmetrical is when players have unique and defined roles. The best example I can think of for this is Super Mario Galaxy. The co-op mode in Super Mario Galaxy is extremely asymmetrical.

When you turn on co-op mode, one player controls Mario the same as ever, and the other player points the remote at the screen and is in control of our cursor.

The person with the cursor can click on enemies to stun them or collect stars on the screen and a few other low impact things.

This is interesting because it's asymmetric in impact. The cursor person really is more of a helper than a player, they can't really even move the camera and can't play the game without player one controlling Mario.

It's also asymmetric in its skill requirement which I think is actually by design.

This is the perfect form of coop for an adult and a young child, the child can help the adult and contribute with pretty much 0 risk and responsibility.

I think it's interesting because it opens the door to co-op for more people with different roles and really skill levels, and it's friendly and provides opportunities to people who are maybe not the most efficient in their role and I think it's really approachable game design.

Speaking of roles, let's talk about static and dynamic roles.

Dynamic roles VS static roles

Static roles design is great for approachable games, this is because the player can focus on their one thing and don't have to learn a huge list of game mechanics. Static roles are usually asymmetric.

A good example would be a game like Rock Band. You can learn one instrument and just focus on playing the drums and other people on your team can handle the other stuff.

The problem is that static roles can be boring or lack depth. I think people naturally are curious about the other roles and it doesn't really allow your team to cross over and help you and you can have a situation where someone may just be waiting around for them to do their thing.

This is where dynamic rules come in.

Dynamic roles are where the game has defined roles but the players can freely float in between them depending on the current team's needs.

A game like Overcooked where you play as a bunch of chefs in the hectic kitchen is a good example of this.

Someone has to prepare the veggies, cook the meat or make the stew. Every chef is capable of doing these tasks and as a team the players will evolve into different roles depending on the current needs of the team.

I hope you can see how although there are defined roles for the game the players are able to switch between them.

Dynamic roles are awesome because they allow for your players to play both symmetrically and asymmetrically.

They can have a focus on their thing while still helping the team with other tasks that can be done symmetrically.

I don't think one style of role is objectively better than the other and like always I think it's just important to pick what's right for your game.

Facilitating emotion

Facilitating emotion in the co-op group is the most important thing to consider when designing a co-op.

In other words we want to make sure the game design is creating the right kind of emotions between players.

For instance you could be making a co-op game centered around friendship or romance or you could make one intended for a more comedic tone. The point is you want to consider how the players will be transferring emotions and if that's too nebulous or heavy of a concept.

When designing your game you want to make sure that the co-op mechanics are resulting in the positive and targeted facilitation of emotions between players.

Let’s use It Takes Two as an example. It is about a bickering couple with relationship issues and they get turned into toys and have to go on this adventure I guess.

The game design is constantly reflecting the emotional things associated with the bickering couple story.

A lot of the levels are about communications, sacrifice, compromise and knowing when to lead and when to follow building trust.

It's not just a story that's being told to you, you're experiencing these emotions and learning these lessons about relationships in real time by playing the game with someone via the game design.

There's even some competitive sections where you can sort of get in conflict with your partner in the same way that the couple in the story's relationship.

Co-op game design can evoke emotions between people in a way that no other art form can replicate.

You're not just making a game that's fun to play, you could be helping to make memories between two people.