Post Reply My favorite thing about comparing single player and co-op with each other
461 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Online
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/13/18
Somehow, I seem to enjoy single player and co-op multiplayer with each other, because even though both are PvE modes, compared to competitive multiplayer being PvP, they still feel like opposites toward each other. Not because one of them is better or worse than the other, but because they each have something to balance out the other.

For example, benefits of solo play:

1. You move faster.

2. stealthier, provided the gameplay mechanics allow it.

3. Use up less resources.

On the other hand, co-op play, whether with player or AI-controlled allies, feature its own benefits, including:

1. Extra security, both physical and psychological.

2. Multitasking.

3. Carry even more resources at the expense of using up just as much.

It's like comparing AI-controlled minions with the bosses who lead them. The minions could be taken down in swarms, but within those exact same swarms, they can take on anything just as easily. Bosses, on the other hand, work fine solo, because of their emphasis on quality over quantity, and could therefore solo entire groups of four to six players in co-op multiplayer. And it's the same deal for a solo player as compared to a co-op team of between four to six players.
38482 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Usually right und...
Online
Posted 3/13/18 , edited 3/14/18
This very much depends on the game you're playing, such as genre and game mechanics (and the people you play with) but your three benefits of solo play can be just as easily applied to co-op play.
- You move faster since you can split the workload
- If done right you can be stealthier by taking out two simultaneous patrols or by one player providing a distraction to cover for the other player
- You use up less resources by getting in more stealth openers and engaging enemies in a way so that at least one player can always attack a weak point


My own comparision of benefits looks something like this
Solo play:
- You can move at your own pace and make your own decisions
- You know exactly where to lay the blame once things go belly up

Co-op:
- Some games are simply more fun with friends, to say nothing of dedicated co-op campaigns
- If the game permits, co-op allows for specialized builds that work well in concert but fail on their own letting you do impressive things at the price of having to coordinate
1603 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Canada, Toronto
Offline
Posted 3/16/18 , edited 3/16/18

Commander_PonyShep wrote:

Somehow, I seem to enjoy single player and co-op multiplayer with each other, because even though both are PvE modes, compared to competitive multiplayer being PvP, they still feel like opposites toward each other. Not because one of them is better or worse than the other, but because they each have something to balance out the other.

For example, benefits of solo play:

1. You move faster.

2. stealthier, provided the gameplay mechanics allow it.

3. Use up less resources.

On the other hand, co-op play, whether with player or AI-controlled allies, feature its own benefits, including:

1. Extra security, both physical and psychological.

2. Multitasking.

3. Carry even more resources at the expense of using up just as much.

It's like comparing AI-controlled minions with the bosses who lead them. The minions could be taken down in swarms, but within those exact same swarms, they can take on anything just as easily. Bosses, on the other hand, work fine solo, because of their emphasis on quality over quantity, and could therefore solo entire groups of four to six players in co-op multiplayer. And it's the same deal for a solo player as compared to a co-op team of between four to six players.


This is somewhat similar to the advantages and disadvantages of group living in animals. Solitary animal can survive on less resource and have less visibility to both predators and competitors. Animals that lives in group have extra eyes to guard their valuable resource and patrol territories. Group living also allow for multitasking, hunting of prey that are larger than the hunter, better combat capacity against same species for land and resource, defence from large predators, and better detection of parasites and intruders.

EDIT: I should also discuss about the in-group relation. Group foraging in animals, like adventuring in groups in multiplayer games, have issues of free-riding, internal conflicts, and in-group dispute especially when the group is more cohesive. In both the animal groups and game party, the free-riding issue are dealt by punishment, reward, reciprocal altruism, and reputation at stake. Animal group solve their internal dispute with hierarchy while gamers could solve it with various methods.
Using term in social biology, the gaming clan tend to have loosely defined social hierarchy and mobile group membership. This tendency toward loose organization is expected within a game that focus on entertainment and individual agency. The ranking decision differ greatly: the guild of multiplayers adventuring games is based on the market principle where the guild is owned and rank of the group members is determined by the decision of the guild owner. The ranking decision in animal groups have more variation and is more dynamic. Their rank could be determined by age, height, or ritualized competition. The competition, in term, can involve combat, threat display, or intimidation. The competitor might also gain support from allies against another competitors.
You must be logged in to post.