NYT article about a board game design

[formfarbeminze]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/magazine/28PHENOM.html?ei=5090&en=2331603dc0efbf47&ex=1259384400&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all

[GBGames]

That is an interesting article. Making games that are competitive yet let everyone who plays feel like a winner sounds like success. People enjoy playing games like DDR because even though there is a winner and loser, the win isn't so big and both parties have fun.

Perhaps a big key is to make losing less stressful and more fun. It's fun to lose "Win, Lose, or Draw" because you can poke fun at yourself for making a bad drawing. It isn't so fun to lose at Super Mario Bros because losing means you have to wait until the other player's turn is over, and if you remember, you had to wait until the other player lost in the original game before you could play again. If you played with a really good veteran, it was boring to sit there and wait. Super Mario Bros 3 made the loss softer since it was going to be your turn whether the opponent beat the level or not.

[Greg Squire]

I like some of the old cooperative arcade games like Gauntlet, MegaMan, etc., and since you weren't competing there wasn't this feeling that you lost and the other guy won. There are ways to have fun even when there's no winner or looser.

[GBGames]

Actually I remember getting frustrated in games like Gauntlet. People get pissed off if you "stole their food" accidentally, or if you hung out too far off screen, preventing them from moving where they want to go.

And I don't remember a co-op Megaman. /me Googles...

[Greg Squire]

Maybe I have a different definition of "Co-operative". In Mega Man (The Power Battle) it's true you can compete by trying to get a higher score (the one that helped the most), but I view that as secondary. The overall goal in each part of the game is that you're both (or all) trying to defeat the bad guy that is thrown at you (you're not trying kill each other). You're playing on the same team, instead of opposing teams. I've never played MegaMan 2 so that might be different. There are lots of "co-op" or "team" side scrollers with this same idea as well.

I guess you mentioned one of the downsides to some "team play" games, and that is when one team player can't (or won't) carry his weight compared to the others (such as hanging out too far off screen). In some "co-op" games this is important, but in others it's not.

[yanuart]

this is so wronggg... competition is what drive people to play multiplayer game :D At least that's what I intend to when I play any fighting games with my hommies .. I want to be able to show off and let my buddies feel the bad taste of humiliation when losing a round.
This is probably the same in any Quake/CS session I had :D.. there's no need to "soften" a defeat.. softening a defeat will also mean softening a victory.. and that sucks..
of course competition sometimes drive people mad too.. I once saw some kids fighting in a LAN party bcause of this :D

[GBGames]

I think the point is that little kids easily get frustrated if they lose. Imagine being the little brother or sister of the family. Every game of Monopoly or Risk, you end up losing because the rest of the family gangs up on you or won't let you get stable enough to be a factor in the game.

When you're older and can more maturely handle defeat, then being frag bait isn't as big of a problem. We love competition where winning gives you bragging rights. But this turns off some people, so there's the niche that's being filled.

[Anthony Flack]

The ideal, most-fun game outcome for an individual player is to win, but to come within a hairs-breadth of losing. It sounds like what these guys are trying to do is to make it feel like that for all the players.

Getting pasted isn't much fun - and conversely, pasting someone else isn't much fun either.