Say you're writing a multi-player game that is level based. The number of players is small (four or less, maybe just 2), and the game is essentially action based. The specific genre doesn't matter too much I don't think, although correct me if you think it does. How do you handle players splitting up and how should they proceed through the levels together? Assume that the game is a cooperative game, not competitive. Also, the players are trying to reach some endpoint in the game and there are multiple ways to get there.

Something in another thread sparked this thought, and I'm just sort of curious what other people think about it. Do you force the players to be on the same screen at all times? I always thought that sort of sucked. I was never a fan of split screen either, but I understood why it was necessary on a console. But in a networked game, each player has their own screen, so having the other character on the screen at all times isn't necessarily a requirement.

So, if the players can split up and wander around, how do you enforce the integrity of the end of a level while giving them the freedom to do anything they want? For example, the players are in a dungeon and have to get to the doors at the other end of the level. Only one door on the other end, but multiple ways to get there. If the players split up, what do you do when one player gets there and the other is still hacking his way through monsters?

Should you just make the first player wait? Should you let him continue without the first player? Should the first player be tossed into the next level with the first player? What do you think? Or does it really depend on how the levels are arranged and what the game is? I'm just sort of interested to see some discussion on this.

I think Baldur's Gate (and other games) handle such situations pretty well: the party can't exit the level until everyone is within a certain distance from the exit. If one tries to leave before everyone is close enough, the game says, "You must gather your party before leaving" (or something similar). As long as the players don't need to be unreasonably close to the exit, it works pretty well IMO.

Two console games with different approaches to this problem are Halo and Gauntlet on the XBox.

In Halo if one player gets too far ahead in a level, he usually drags the other player forward. Every level is segmented, so this dragging happens at the connections between segments. It's a little disorienting at first if you're the player that gets dragged ahead, but you get used to it after a while. It actually provides some gameplay advantage too. For instance, only one player need cross a certain section (such as a bridge), and the other player will be dragged forward, even while engaged in combat.

In Gauntlet you can have up to 4 players on screen at once. The game uses an overhead 3D perspective, and all players are always visible on the same screen. As the players cluster together, the camera zooms in closer. As they spread apart, the camera zooms out. There's a limit as to how far players can spread apart though, and even with only 2 players, you feel somewhat like Siamese twins. The freedom to move around separately just isn't there.

Of the two I prefer Halo's approach. It feels less restrictive. But Halo and Gauntlet are both very linear games. There's some freedom of movement, but generally there's a pre-ordained order that must be followed through each level. The gameplay in Halo suffers a bit if players get too far apart, since then there's no more direct cooperation but rather each player doing his/her own thing.

How about just using a minimap... a green dot on the minimap for one person.. a red for the other or some such. Players could discover the map, you dont have to expose it all to begin with. But when someone finds the exit, it coudl show up on both players minimaps. The player who found it could message the other player "hey, lets get out of here" etc.

I don't think waiting for the other players to get to the exit is a bad idea as long as it's not too long. One thing you could do while the player is waiting is let them have a camera view that follows one of the other party members and see some of the action. Another is to let them have a free camera that allows them to scroll around the level until they find another player.

If left up to the imagination, a designer could come up with things to avoid the boredom of waiting like spawning a magical "familiar" for the first player that reaches the exit. It could act like a free camera and be controlled to find and help other players. You could let the familiars be indestructible with their own stats. Players could compare them and boast about who's getting the most clock time and experience on their familiar.

I've played Halo on the XBox, but never Gauntlet. I actually rented it once, but really wasn't paying attention and felt like an idiot when I had to exchange it 2 minutes after I rented it because the PS2 Gauntlet was on the XBox rack. Anyone know of any other games that might fit into this sort of profile? I remember some much older games like Ikari Warriors, Contra, Super Smash TV, and a few others. These three all kept the players on the same screen at the same time, but if one person really wanted to, they could royally screw the other player just by positioning themselves correctly.

Perhaps the type of game really does come into play more than I thought. If it's truly cooperative, then players are more willing to help one another. Cutthroat attitudes come into play too though. Like Golden Axe. Who gets the potions which can level an entire room? I've seen players actually beat on each other or purposely do things so they get the treasure first.

I guess I just find it all pretty interesting is all. Something else I'd thought of was a Diablo like system where the players can move completely independently of each other and have nothing tying them together if they don't want to. Level discrepancies can become a problem though. Any thoughts on that?

golden axe !!! whoo i always beat up my cousin to get the potions :) then he would take revenge on me after a while, and then i waited a bit more until he was in toruble and went to kick his ass too...

And of course, all this in cooperative play :)

I think allowing the players to hurt each other helps teh gameplay, first, players cant go mental an shoot/hit everything that moves, and the other is teh competitive nature when ppl want to get better items and beat each other for them :)

Ah... the potion battles. Now that's a walk down memory lane.

Also the old Double Dragon games had co-op play with both players on the same screen. It worked well though because the pacing was so slow.

Suddenly I'm having a notalgic desire to play Ikari Warriors. I used to have a NES system with over 100 games, most of which I finished at least once. One of my favorites was a single-player game called Bionic Commando. The bionic arm feature was extremely fun.

Bionic Commando! That was my favorite game for the NES! It was such a feeling of accomplishment to finally make it past the fourth area. Then after that, finishing the game took forever. By the time I finished that, I was so good with the bionic arm that I could scale a sheer wall. That's actually how I ended up beating the huge battle truck at the end of it.

ahhh, the memories...

Oh nostalgia. That's a dangerous topic on this forum I'm sure. I sense that a good many nostalgic types frequent these parts.. ;)

Bionic Commando is also one of the few NES games which had the outright distinction of being far superior to its arcade counterpart. I think the arcade game was actually made later (not sure though) and while it looked much fancier then the NES version, the mechanics of the bionic arm were poop and hence the game stunk in comparison. The graphics were also way too colorful and it lost that gritty war-torn feel.

Originally posted by Dexterity
One of my favorites was a single-player game called Bionic Commando. The bionic arm feature was extremely fun.
Oh yes! Bionic Commando! I never could get enough of shooting that arm at stuff and then swinging like Tarzan! That was such an innovative gameplay mechanism.

Back on the topic, I guess it depends on the structure and background of your game, but what if your door is not so much a door as it is a magical-something-or-other that, once opened, suddenly destroys all monsters on the level and then teleports any players in the level on to the next level? Ofcourse, like I said, this may not suit your game at all depending on what your story is etc.. But when appropriate, try "simple solutions" like this when possible. Personally, as a player, I'd rather have a simple slution like this than have my gameplay and freedom of movement impeded. After all, it's about the gameplay itself -- not the ending's razzle-dazzle.

You open the door and it kills everything. What an elegant and totally simplistic solution. So obvious I didn't even think of it.

Originally posted by mtaber
I remember some much older games like Ikari Warriors, Contra, Super Smash TV, and a few others. These three all kept the players on the same screen at the same time, but if one person really wanted to, they could royally screw the other player just by positioning themselves correctly.


I recall in Ikari Warrios that you would drag the other player... and if there was something impassible in their way, it would kill them.

In Contra (at least the NES version), you were stuck on the same screen in the horizontal levels, but on the vertical levels you would kill your buddy if you went up too fast.

And of course Smash TV was room-based, it didn't scroll... so it wasn't an issue.

There was a side scrolling shooter named Silkworm on the Amiga where two players cooperated, one playing a jeep with a gun and the other one playing a helicopter. The helicopter could move freely while the jeep could essentially drive forward, jump and turn the gun. While the helicopter could shoot generally forward the jeep could aim anywhere in a 180 degree arc and clean out enemies from behind the chopper. Really addictive gameplay. The screen moved constantly and someone hanging on the back border could get killed if an obstactle moved on them.

No excatly your problem, but another design solution (locked advance rate) and a tribute to the nostalgia running amok. Yes, I too liked Bionic Commando .. :)

Silkworm !!! thats the name of the game! you can't imagine the time i spent online trying to find the name of that game... Ok, now to dust my spectrum emulator and have a good time playing it (and yes, i played it on the spectrum, and it was very good fyi :))



nostalgia is really a dangerous topic :)

Silkworm was originally an arcade game... and it's supported in MAME.

Just FYI. :)

(ah, nostalgia...)