Left 4 Dead 2 Mutations

I've been playing Left 4 Dead 2 a lot recently, and quite enjoying it. Several months ago, Valve introduced a new game-mode called Mutation, a weekly-variegating modification of standard game types. There have been fourteen mutations thus far, an impressive count. And each offers a new perspective on the norm. Valve's mutations not only experiment with permutations of their game modes, but also revise and restate the emotional affect of a mode's gameplay by increasing the sense of impact, necessity, and intensity.

Two modes I've been exploring much of lately are Follow the Liter and Healthpackalypse.

Follow the Liter
Follow the Liter is a mutation of far-and-away my favorite game mode, Scavenge. In Scavenge, two teams of players take turns as the survivor team, collecting as many of sixteen available gas cans as possible, and, subsequently, preventing the opposing team from doing so as special infected. Follow the Liter more strictly narrows the objective by allowing only a certain patch of cans to be collected at a time. A new patch spawns for collection as soon as the current has been dumped.

In Scavenge, the survivor-team has the upper-hand. Survivors are equipped to fell infected easily, especially experienced players who know what to expect. The challenge for infected is communicating coordinated, timely assaults that can incapacitate the survivor team. The trouble is, with cans spread widely throughout a level, infected players often have difficulty predicting where the survivors will aim for next, excepting that they're eventually guaranteed to fuel the generator. Therefore, infected players must be constantly communicating to be one step ahead of the survivors and pull off a successful gank, a task only experienced teams can negotiate. To be fair, survivors must also communicate direction frequently lest one of their team wander off in the wrong direction.

Follow the Liter is an excellent riff on Scavenge and, in my opinion, a superior game mode. Follow the Liter punctuates the core emotional qualities of Scavenge, more strictly defining the gameplay experience. Because infected have guaranteed knowledge of a survivor's run for cans, they can better prepare for the advance and coordinate a joint-strike. The middle-man of maintaining rank becomes much easier to manage and more minute planning takes precedent. Survivors are funneled into a choke-point each run for cans, and infected can focus on simply timing their spawns and locating specific spawn locations for optimal attacks rather than foolishly chasing down survivors in frustration or spawning into a shotgun from feeling rushed. The crux of the matter is that Follow the Liter, as opposed to Scavenge, allows the infected team to feel more powerful, in control, and dominating, boons of the horror trade and the source of enjoyment as infected characters. The mutation accentuates what is already so good about Scavenge by more strictly tightening the rules. The mode creates pressure. And every impact as a result is energized and charged with greater force.

As survivors, Follow the Liter at the very least encourages unified formation rather than allowing players to assume their own pairs and venture on improvised paths. On one hand, this structure of sequenced singular goals incites teamwork and cohesion, especially since players know to expect more effective attacks, and where. On the other hand, though, allowing only one present objective arguably stunts creativity, barring surprising and diversified approaches to can retrieval. In fact, I would say this is Follow the Liter's comparatively greatest fault, negating the myriad of styles of can collection offered to survivors, for two reasons. First, standard Scavenge is creatively liberal, offering multiple approaches for survivors. Part of the fun of scavenge is discussing with your team members and attempting the most efficient or surprising strategy to collecting cans. Second, the level and objective design of standard scavenge is nearly begging survivors to split up and open themselves to vulnerability. Much like the cave of wonders scene in Disney's Aladdin when Abu can't help touching the ruby despite both his own and Aladdin’s best interests, Survivors often have trouble working as a unit. Scavenge is invitation for schism between survivors, an invitation readily gobbled by keen infected. Staying focused and communicative is the mark of a good Scavenge team, something Follow the Liter arguably somewhat negates.

The last things I would like to mention about Follow the Liter is that rounds are shorter than Scavenge, a good thing, and that rounds are potentially more balanced because each team is required to run the same gauntlet as the opposition. Furthermore, mistakes are more harshly punished. A failed gank on any single patch of cans means two to three guaranteed points for the survivors and an additional forty to sixty seconds on the clock. Likewise, destroying cans, either as spitter or by tricking survivors into shooting them, bears greatly increased consequences, as survivors are unable to switch tacks for new cans, but must wait in agony for the destroyed to respawn, time ticking away all the while.

Healthpackalypse
For one main reason, I never played much Versus: I didn't feel as though my attempts as an infected had any impact on the survivors' progress. Versus is where the L4D elite go to play. Many players are so good at playing survivors, a less-than-perfect attack from an infected is swept easily aside. An infected team must perform flawless ganks to even remotely impact the opposing team.

Far more importantly, though, is the emotion derived from versus. As infected, a botched attack accomplishes nothing and is frustrating. One reason for this is because any damage dealt can be readily healed away with pills or a health pack. Suppose an infected player deals forty damage to a survivor before getting killed. The player may have even downed the survivor. No worries. The survivor just pops some pills or wraps up his wounds real fast. No harm done. All that effort, if not, in fact, wasted, feels wasted. Sure, that survivor wont be able to use his or health pack later on which may eventually cause trouble, but the present feeling of the infected is one of disappointment and failure. In my opinion, healing in Versus is a handicap, achieving not much more than to prolong deserved victory.

However, there is one reason I appreciate the presence of healing: the intellectual gamble of timely healing. People are greedy and arrogant. Players like to wait until the last moment to heal themselves because they want to horde their pills or health for as long as they are able. Unfortunately for them, their hubris is often their downfall, falling prey to infected before they “get the chance” to heal-up. Survivors acutely feel this balance of risk and reward because they do not want to use their health packs until they can receive the item's full benefits. Pills are a larger problem, in terms of game design, because they temporarily heal thirty health almost instantly, meaning they can be used at even 70% of full health and still receive the full benefit.

But I digress. Healthpackalypse is mutation of Versus, removing all health items from the game. No pills, no adrenaline shots, no health packs. Only a single health bar fast on it's way to depletion. Survivors can no longer heal-up and move on; any damage they sustain stays that way. This design has fascinating repercussions on the experience. Infected players have easier opportunity for more individual impact because even fifteen damage has an effect. It feels amazing to deal damage and relish the fact that your victims are unable to undo your efforts. However, for the very same reason, that any attack is damaging and has an impact, infected team-play is less essential. Teamwork and cooperation is still extremely effective, fun, and recommended, but the mutation lessens it's necessity.

Healthpackalypse for survivors, meanwhile, is a more tense, frightening, and suspenseful experience. Mistakes carry larger consequences because the Ctrl+Z function has been removed. Cooperation is vital. It is in a way the reverse of the affect upon the infected experience. Solo play is disastrous because healing is impossible. This incites unifying teamwork.

Valve's mutations are interesting revisions of their established game-types. As revisions, they offer different experiences, some positive, others negative. It's great to see a company still experimenting with what has been a proven success, stating that maybe there is room for improvement yet. Largely, I think at least these two mutations discussed help to accentuate the emotional qualities of the modes but dilute the intellectual qualities. And game design aside, as a marketing strategy, mutations are genius, hypothetically rejuvenating the established player-base while inspiring new customers. Especially when paired with Valve's approach to free DLC, like The Sacrifice coming October 5th, mutations are refreshing a game nearly a year into it's life, a long time for most video games.

Image Source

Fable 2: In Real Life

Cooperative gaming is all the rage these days. In fact, there has been a huge surge of coop games this past year. Co-op is, in a way, the medium's zeitgeist. Not only do players love the new focus, but designers as well, who are enamored with the challenges of co-op game design. From Army of Two to Schizoid, designers are experimenting with the boundaries of co-op and learning about its possibilities and limitations. Co-op is far from new, just look at Gauntlet, but as a style of gameplay it has recently received a jolt of attention.

Among those games lavishing in co-op is Fable 2. Peter Molyneux isn't one to rest on his laurels, let alone those of others. He and the team at Lion Head are pushing the limits of what games can achieve with co-op. Other co-op games up until now have focused on cooperative gameplay, which is fantastic in and of itself. However, Fable 2 is trying to offer something else altogether: co-op narrative.

Co-op gameplay in Fable 2 is excellent design in its own right. A second player, known as the "henchman," can jump into the host player's world at any time simply by pushing start. Experience and gold can be divided howsoever the players chose by allotting percentages of each when the henchman joins. Henchmen will retain their gold and experience when they return to their own games. Combat, likewise, is adjusted when playing co-op, as players must work together to fight most effectively. But these features aren't what set Fable 2 apart from the herd. What does is the game's transgression into reality.A henchman in Fable 2 has the power to permanently affect the host player's world. Henchmen have all the freedoms of the host player. In fact, the henchman has equal power, or perhaps even greater power, than does the host player. In Fable 2, a player cannot kill his or her spouse. Spousal-murder simply is not possibly. Personally, I'm a fan of this limitation. Lion Head, while advocating freedom as one of the main themes of Fable 2, it seems does not want to support, or even allow, such atrocious immorality. Actually, I think this is a much, much bigger issue than immediately apparent, but thats for another article. However, while players cannot murder their own spouse, henchmen can. Henchmen can walk into the host player's house, pull out a gun, and shoot the player's husband or wife. And the character will never come back. The spouse is dead for all time and forever and ever.

This initially bothered me. "Griefing" comes to mind as I consider the potential ruin and sadness that could be affected upon a person. I would be extremely upset with anyone who killed my spouse in-game. And then I realized, that is the whole point. Allowing such freedom in co-op gameplay is more than just characters interacting with characters; it is about people interacting with people through the game, and the game interacting with people through their actions and decisions. This level of co-op interaction transcends the television screen, and the game becomes something else altogether.Suddenly, co-op is less so about working together and more so about the relationship between two people. Now, cooperative gameplay is about trust. Not that it wasn't before either. Working together to take down monsters or ships certainly does involve trust, but Fable 2 employs trust on a completely different level, a level of morality and friendship. How two people play Fable 2 together is symbolic of their friendship. The game becomes a sharing experience. What players do in the game, even outside of murdering or not murdering spouses, is an interaction between two people, not two characters. Playing is like dancing: when two people dance with one another, they are interacting and representing their individual emotions. This is what Fable 2 is trying to achieve. The game relates to the players, offering a means of interaction, an outlet for sharing an experience. How the players engage that world and engage one another speaks to their relationship as people. Who you play with is a sign of trust. Can you trust your friend. Can you trust that your friend won't kill your spouse? What does this say about your relationship with that person. Furthermore, how will your interactions in the game affect your relationship. If your best friend murders your spouse, how does that affect your freidnship; what is your friend trying to tell you (and I don't mean he or she hates your spouse in real life, but maybe)?

Then the game becomes an exchange between player and character. The players actions affect the world, the world reacts to the character, and subsequently the player is affected by the worlds reactions. Fable 2 fuses character and player; the game creates a bond between the two. The character is a representation of the player, the person in a polygonal form. Therefore, when two players interact in a game, they are truly interacting as humans.

Images from Lion Head

Army of Two: The Ties that Bind

Army of Two has been a long time coming, and it wasn't until this week that we knew all that much about the game, thanks to 1up's week long cover feature. Army of Two is developed by EA Montreal and was designed from the beginning as a completely cooperative experience. Whether playing with realistic AI or an actual human, with Army of Two, EA Montreal is set out to reinvigorate the cooperative shooter.We've discussed cooperative games before, in an overview, really, of what they're all about. EA Montreal's main goal was to create a game that required players to play cooperatively. In the 1up preview, Senior Producer on Army of Two explains their premise:

Gears has a really cool co-op experience, too. But what we've been really looking at is 'How do we take what those games have done' -- and I don't want to take anything away from those guys; they've done a really cool job, but it's always just been the add-on -- and figuring out 'How do we make a game where co-op is the focus?

Their solution is a game where in two players take control of two soldiers, named Salem and Rios, working for a private military corporation (PMC). The setting and story is actually really interesting and definitely worth reading about in 1up's various previews and interviews. The point, though, is that the two soldiers (players) must work together to make it through the game. How has EA achieved this requisite realiance on the other player? Well, a big part is something they've designed called the Aggro Meter. Aggro isn't new to games by any means. You'll find it MMO's most prominately, where monsters will swarm players who happen to cross they're path. But Chris Ferriera isn't kidding when he says we've never seen Aggro in a shooter before. This is how it works: players share an Aggro Meter that is displayed across the top of the hud. Its called a meter because thats exactly what it is, just like a speedometer or ticket meter. During the game, the meter pin will swing left or right towards one extreme or the other, each end capped by an icon representing either Salem or Rios.
The meter will swing based on a number of things, but primarily how angry the enemies are. The more attention a player draws to himself, the more aggrevated the enemies will act towards that player. If players blatantly run and gun towards the enemy, naturally, the enemy isn't going to be happy and will start focusing their fire on that character. The other player, meanwhile, may be more reserved in his approach, obviously the enemy will not be as concerned about the player that is seemingly less of an immediate threat, and will focus on fire on the other player. As a result, the pin on the Aggro Meter will swing towards the more aggressive player. Drawing the enemy's attention away allows the other player to, as an example, circle around and shoot the enemy from behind. Alternatively, both players could play aggressively and run guns blazing into the firefight. In this case, the aggro meter may be centered and the enemy fire will be focused on both players. In game, as a player becomes more aggro'd against, his character will glow red. As a character aggrevates an enemy less,on the other hand, he will become slightly transparent. This allows players to differentiate between the two characters' aggro state without looking up at the hud.

Their have been coop games before. But what EA is trying to do is make this a cohesive, neigh, central feature of Army of Two. The aggro meter is EA's answer to cooperative gameplay. The aggro meter is affected by more than just making enemies angry, Army of Two has a big customization system that plays into the meter as well. The game allows players to outfit and customize guns and equipment to great extent, just how the players customize their weapons is what effects their aggro draw, shall we say. For example, if players outfit a gun with a silencer, then shooting at enemies will draw less aggro than it would have without a silencer. A counter example, if players bling out their guns with gold plating, then the enemies are gonna get angry more easily thanks to the player's blatant arrogance. But thats good. For you see, players will have to communicate before each level to decide who will be taking what kind of equipment. One player may want to play stealthily, the other may want to play haughtily. And customizing characters to draw more or less aggro, on average, allows player to strategize about how they're going to cooperate later on, and eventually form their play experience.The aggro meter is a clear design choice that allows players to cooperate at their best. Players will constantly be balancing aggro by drawing and retreating from fire. Aggro allows players to manipulate the enemy to take them out. Working together and using aggro properly will be completely necessary to win each stage. I think that EA Montreal has a fine looking cooperative shooter on their hands, it will be fun to see just how well the aggro works come game time.

Cooperative Gameplay, The Return Of

Cooperative gameplay has been around for a long time. From Ikari Warriors to Sonic and Tails to Resident Evil: Outbreak-- feature, not to mention central element. It is exciting, ergo, that coop is finally coming into full bloom. Lately, coop is garnering a healthy dose of attention from the entire gaming industry: the media, developers, and even publishers. The reasons? There are several, but a huge beneficiary, I'd argue, is the advent of fully-functional online gameplay offered (originally by the PC, PS2 and Xbox) by the 360 and soon to be from the PS3. Online cannot take credit for the entire meal though, for it is by and large a gateway. Xbox Live, along with its recent crop of supporting games, has shown the industry that cooperative gameplay offers the best of bothcoop has certainly proven its rightful place in games. However, up until now, cooperative gameplay has mostly been more of a cursory option then a full-fledged single and multi-player: the potential for a fun interactive story now experienced and shared with a friend.

Two of the most lauded holiday titles are testament to coop's newfound appreciation, Gears of War and Crackdown. Both games offer a two-player coop campaign over Xbox Live. Both games also feature a “hop-in/hop-out” play structure. Players can jump in and out of a game at any time in any place. In Crackdown the visiting player takes control if his or her superagent; in Gears of War the visitor takes control of Dom. This free-form coop creates a welcoming environment for players with few frightening restrictions or commitments. Gears of War creator Cliff Bleszinski once said, “For me theres a huge delta between casual and hardcore gamers, and coop is one of the ways we can bridge that gap.” Essentially, Xbox Live has created a fantastic opportunity for cooperative play-and the other systems are sure to follow suit soon enough. Online functionality bypasses the limitations of split-screen and ad-hoc cooperative gameplay; and in the end creates a more welcoming environment, allowing developers more freedom to explore its design.

This is how we work together

Lets talk about coop game design. Specifically, coop is a duo or small group of people that must work as a team to achieve a goal. This often comes in a campaign setting, where two people will play through a story together. The exact definition is blurry, though. What about Counter-Strike? What about Spies vs. Mercs of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and Double Agent? I'd certainly classify these as cooperative. This cooperative model, which we'll call “team-based,” is relatively new territory for developers, and Dark Messiah of Might and Magic's Arkane Studios is venturing further than any developer yet. A new mechanism they're calling “CrossPlay” is set to redefine the team-based model and will be the primary feature of their newest PC game, The Crossing. You can read all about The Crossing in 1up's lengthy interview, but I will summarize it here. CrossPlay fuses single and multiplayer; it allows players to take the place of AI NPCs inside of a story campaign. The Crossing does have normal skirmish servers for all players, but it also has a story that is played out with other players. Those playing the story-arc are the Elites, they will have to cooperatively achieve certain goals within each level. At the same time, the Elite's enemies will be controlled by human opponents, who must play their best to prevent the Elites from completing their objectives. The story is interwoven throughout and in-between levels. Arkane's goal is to combine a rich story, normally played in single-player, with the competition of multiplayer (Recognize that?). Every player will have a unique gameplay experience while also witnessing the same supposedly great story. However, we have to remember that games are interactive. Story is not just what comes out of a cut-scene; it is the personal experience afforded through gameplay. And in this, CrossPlay will have all else beat.

CrossPlay at work

More traditional definitions of coop are from games like Contra, Doom, and Golden Axe. These games allow two or more players to fight together, and, pound each other on the way. It is rare, though, that games require TRULY cooperative gameplay to finish; that is, where players are reliant on one-another. We shall call this model “player-reliant.” I want to discuss two games pushing the boundaries of the player-reliant model: Schizoid and Army of Two. Army of Two is being developed by EA Montreal for the 360 and PS3, and is designed to be played with a friend. Players are not just coaxed into working as a team, they need to. Going solo is not an option. Army of Two offers plenty of ways for allies to interact. Players can share ammo, boost each other over ledges, and use the other as a shield or for cover-fire, among other interactions. Player-reliant is the best coop has to offer. It allows two people to share an experience whole-heartedly. Furthermore, when implemented correctly, players will have a more emotional investment in the game and characters. Sharing is unique--players have to learn how to work together to win; and in the end will be closer to their partner through cooperation and the memory of an awesome experience.

"Its a camera! Pose quick, shoot stuff!"

The final game today is Schizoid. Developed by Torpex for Xbox Live, Schizoid has been described by Torpex president Bill Dugan as “the most co-op game ever.” Schizoid is a two-player cooperative shooter in the vein of Geometry Wars. But like another shooter, Ikaruga, Schizoid has two enemy types to complement two fire types—represented by opposite colors. Each player controls a ship, one is blue the other red. Every enemy in the game is also either blue or red, but unlike the players, the enemies can hurt both ships. The players meanwhile can only shoot down enemies matching their ship color. Already we can see a very basic but solid gameplay design. Red must protect blue from red enemies, blue must protect red from blue enemies. If one player fails to protect the other, eventually both players will die. This is the purest form of coop I can think of, and the very definition of the player-reliant model.

Schizoid-Coop at its most surreal

A slew of online articles discuss various cooperative games:
Gamespot-Top Ten Coop Games
Gamespot-The Crossing Trailer
1up-The Crossing Preview
IGN-Army of Two
1up-Schizoid
IGN-The Death of Split-Screen
-A fantastic article on online's prominence over split-screen, and the pitfalls arising from this.

Lets Cooperate!
Why is cooperative gameplay cool? Why is it fun?
What advantages does coop have over single-player, and visa/versa?
Something I didn't mention: LittleBigPlanet.
How does this coop game differs from others?
What does LittleBigPlanet do successfully as a coop game?
In cooperative game design, what are the most important properties or elements to consider?