CDZ Why Not Play Cooperative Games?

[JimBowie1958]

Almost every game sold today is a game of competition, where the winner has to beat his fellow players.

I am not intending to brag when I say I excel at such games and am usually among the top players if not THE top player.

But my family tired of losing to me in everything we played, so we invented (at least from our perspective) cooperative games. We changed the rules slightly to reward cooperation with each other and we played against the game itself for a group win or loss. Monopoly was the first project to be mutated into a coop game and it worked by setting as the win condition that we play till we had $100k in total cash and everyone has to still be in business. Still had to play by all the other rules though, as written (but we still had the center public parking mod). IT was more fun and challenging than playing competitively since you MUST charge rent when people land on your property. To make it more challenging we put in a 50 turn limit.

We have done this with other games as well, but a strange thought occurred to me; why are all games competitive?

Over the past few years I have seen more and more games that are coop games, everything from zombie apocolyptic games to survival games.

So I thought I would ask the folks here; why are so many games competitive instead of cooperative vrs the game itself? Which do you prefer?

The coop games are far more fun in my house and we play ocassionally even now.

 

[martybegan]

Almost every game sold today is a game of competition, where the winner has to beat his fellow players.

I am not intending to brag when I say I excel at such games and am usually among the top players if not THE top player.

But my family tired of losing to me in everything we played, so we invented (at least from our perspective) cooperative games. We changed the rules slightly to reward cooperation with each other and we played against the game itself for a group win or loss. Monopoly was the first project to be mutated into a coop game and it worked by setting as the win condition that we play till we had $100k in total cash and everyone has to still be in business. Still had to play by all the other rules though, as written (but we still had the center public parking mod). IT was more fun and challenging than playing competitively since you MUST charge rent when people land on your property. To make it more challenging we put in a 50 turn limit.

We have done this with other games as well, but a strange thought occurred to me; why are all games competitive?

Over the past few years I have seen more and more games that are coop games, everything from zombie apocolyptic games to survival games.

So I thought I would ask the folks here; why are so many games competitive instead of cooperative vrs the game itself? Which do you prefer?

The coop games are far more fun in my house and we play ocassionally even now.

To me there always has to be a "bad guy", even if the "bad guy" is just a friendly opponent.

There can be team play, but to me there has to be winners and losers.

I used to be addicted to World of Warcraft, and 25 person raids were perfect examples of the need for cooperation, but in the end you were still trying to beat something, just together.

 

[JimBowie1958]

To me there always has to be a "bad guy", even if the "bad guy" is just a friendly opponent.

There can be team play, but to me there has to be winners and losers.

I used to be addicted to World of Warcraft, and 25 person raids were perfect examples of the need for cooperation, but in the end you were still trying to beat something, just together.

Cooperative games have the 'bd guy' as well, the game itself.

For example, there is a game we used to play about surviving a desert after our plane crashed. We had to endure dehydration while we searched for parts to the plane to rebuild it and fly away.

The game was the 'bad guy' and it was difficult to win.

But yes, there always must be an opponent and with these cooperative games the system is the opponent, kind of like real life,lol.

 

[martybegan]

To me there always has to be a "bad guy", even if the "bad guy" is just a friendly opponent.

There can be team play, but to me there has to be winners and losers.

I used to be addicted to World of Warcraft, and 25 person raids were perfect examples of the need for cooperation, but in the end you were still trying to beat something, just together.

Cooperative games have the 'bd guy' as well, the game itself.

For example, there is a game we used to play about surviving a desert after our plane crashed. We had to endure dehydration while we searched for parts tot he plane to rebuild it and fly away.

The game was the 'bad guy' and it was difficult to win.

But yes, there always must be an opponent and with these cooperative games the system is the opponent, kind of like real life,lol.

I can see it, but in your monopoly example the game doesn't seem to be that "bad".

I've also played Arkham Horror, which is cooperative but the game itself is as evil as you can get. Winning is a real real pain in the ass.

I worry that cooperative games could morph into the "everyone gets a trophy" situation we see in kids sports.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I can see it, but in your monopoly example the game doesn't seem to be that "bad".

Try it with the final cash amount for the win at $25,000/player. And remember, you still have to pay the rents, you cant let Suzie off the hook because you want to and there is a fifty turn limit.

I've also played Arkham Horror, which is cooperative but the game itself is as evil as you can get. Winning is a real real pain in the ass.

Yeah that one is hard, but if you focus on getting the clues and closing the gates early you can usually get the win that way. Some of the Old Gods are just unbeatable once they come through.

I worry that cooperative games could morph into the "everyone gets a trophy" situation we see in kids sports.

Yeah, I can see that. We still need to have competition, but it seems to be unbalanced right now between cooperative vrs competitive.

 

[Penelope]

So you played as a group. There are group games which involve more than 2 players, when we use to play scrabble, one on one it was competitive, when men verses females, it was group against group.

In Chess I play one on one and I'm competitive.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean. How can one play against the game itself?

 

[BlackSand]

I liked an open world game that was a decent mix of both competition and cooperation ... Freelancer.

It's an older game (2007, lol) but was awesome in concept.
It had a Universe with an abundance of solar systems (each with their own residents, ships, goods, weapons and difficulties).

You had to build a decent rep with the system's occupants to dock without them killing you.
Some systems had AI enemies with stations or planets in the same system ... If you were friends with one the other is going to try and kill you.

The best part is that it is also a multiplayer game in its totality.
You could work with other players to run trade routes ... Some players and NPC's could be pirates.

The most skilled pilots were hard to beat ... But that doesn't mean 3 decent pilots wouldn't spend the time cross the Universe and kill the hot shot.
Massive wars ... NPC and Player alike ... If you wanted to work with others, it was perfect.
And like you said ... The game was always trying to kill you one way or another.

You had to be able to actually arm and fly your ships ... There were thousands of options with advantages and disadvantages.
Here is some live footage in game ... Take a peek at the combat sequences towards the end and the utter chaos (fun) cooperation could provide.




There are still games worth playing ... You just have to find them.

.

 

[Toronado3800]

I think there is a need for both and I like both types as well. Playing Lego Star Wars with the kid is fun. We cooperate. Playing Stratego with the kid is fun. We compete. All of one or the other is probably bad or a sign of a non well rounded personality.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you played as a group. There are group games which involve more than 2 players, when we use to play scrabble, one on one it was competitive, when men verses females, it was group against group.

In Chess I play one on one and I'm competitive.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean. How can one play against the game itself?

Playing against the game is basically where the conditions to win are set for everyone to win or everyone to lose together. The game difficulty is high enough that even with everyone playing together it is a challenge to win.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Almost every game sold today is a game of competition, where the winner has to beat his fellow players.

I am not intending to brag when I say I excel at such games and am usually among the top players if not THE top player.

But my family tired of losing to me in everything we played, so we invented (at least from our perspective) cooperative games. We changed the rules slightly to reward cooperation with each other and we played against the game itself for a group win or loss. Monopoly was the first project to be mutated into a coop game and it worked by setting as the win condition that we play till we had $100k in total cash and everyone has to still be in business. Still had to play by all the other rules though, as written (but we still had the center public parking mod). IT was more fun and challenging than playing competitively since you MUST charge rent when people land on your property. To make it more challenging we put in a 50 turn limit.

We have done this with other games as well, but a strange thought occurred to me; why are all games competitive?

Over the past few years I have seen more and more games that are coop games, everything from zombie apocolyptic games to survival games.

So I thought I would ask the folks here; why are so many games competitive instead of cooperative vrs the game itself? Which do you prefer?

The coop games are far more fun in my house and we play ocassionally even now.

There are plenty of coop games if you look in the right places. Best one to start off with imo, is Pandemic

 

[JimBowie1958]

Almost every game sold today is a game of competition, where the winner has to beat his fellow players.

I am not intending to brag when I say I excel at such games and am usually among the top players if not THE top player.

But my family tired of losing to me in everything we played, so we invented (at least from our perspective) cooperative games. We changed the rules slightly to reward cooperation with each other and we played against the game itself for a group win or loss. Monopoly was the first project to be mutated into a coop game and it worked by setting as the win condition that we play till we had $100k in total cash and everyone has to still be in business. Still had to play by all the other rules though, as written (but we still had the center public parking mod). IT was more fun and challenging than playing competitively since you MUST charge rent when people land on your property. To make it more challenging we put in a 50 turn limit.

We have done this with other games as well, but a strange thought occurred to me; why are all games competitive?

Over the past few years I have seen more and more games that are coop games, everything from zombie apocolyptic games to survival games.

So I thought I would ask the folks here; why are so many games competitive instead of cooperative vrs the game itself? Which do you prefer?

The coop games are far more fun in my house and we play ocassionally even now.

There are plenty of coop games if you look in the right places. Best one to start off with imo, is Pandemic

I have theory about Pandemic; it was financed by the Madagascar tourism bureau.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Almost every game sold today is a game of competition, where the winner has to beat his fellow players.

I am not intending to brag when I say I excel at such games and am usually among the top players if not THE top player.

But my family tired of losing to me in everything we played, so we invented (at least from our perspective) cooperative games. We changed the rules slightly to reward cooperation with each other and we played against the game itself for a group win or loss. Monopoly was the first project to be mutated into a coop game and it worked by setting as the win condition that we play till we had $100k in total cash and everyone has to still be in business. Still had to play by all the other rules though, as written (but we still had the center public parking mod). IT was more fun and challenging than playing competitively since you MUST charge rent when people land on your property. To make it more challenging we put in a 50 turn limit.

We have done this with other games as well, but a strange thought occurred to me; why are all games competitive?

Over the past few years I have seen more and more games that are coop games, everything from zombie apocolyptic games to survival games.

So I thought I would ask the folks here; why are so many games competitive instead of cooperative vrs the game itself? Which do you prefer?

The coop games are far more fun in my house and we play ocassionally even now.

There are plenty of coop games if you look in the right places. Best one to start off with imo, is Pandemic

I have theory about Pandemic; it was financed by the Madagascar tourism bureau.

Lolol!

The boardgame has nothing to do with the online game though. You’re trying to stop 4 diseases instead of spreading 1.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Almost every game sold today is a game of competition, where the winner has to beat his fellow players.

I am not intending to brag when I say I excel at such games and am usually among the top players if not THE top player.

But my family tired of losing to me in everything we played, so we invented (at least from our perspective) cooperative games. We changed the rules slightly to reward cooperation with each other and we played against the game itself for a group win or loss. Monopoly was the first project to be mutated into a coop game and it worked by setting as the win condition that we play till we had $100k in total cash and everyone has to still be in business. Still had to play by all the other rules though, as written (but we still had the center public parking mod). IT was more fun and challenging than playing competitively since you MUST charge rent when people land on your property. To make it more challenging we put in a 50 turn limit.

We have done this with other games as well, but a strange thought occurred to me; why are all games competitive?

Over the past few years I have seen more and more games that are coop games, everything from zombie apocolyptic games to survival games.

So I thought I would ask the folks here; why are so many games competitive instead of cooperative vrs the game itself? Which do you prefer?

The coop games are far more fun in my house and we play ocassionally even now.

check out DDO online

it's almost strickly co-op

 

[usmbguest5318]

In gaming, I prefer to compete. In work, I prefer to collaborate. Competing and collaborating are both fun, and both are rewarding, but they are those things in different ways, and the two approaches to interacting with others sate different ends and emotions. Obviously, one can undertake some endeavors that are competitive while still requiring a measure of collaboration, or one can take on pursuits that are competitive yet still incorporating collaboration. Thus, competition and collaboration need not be mutually exclusive.

 

[Nosmo King]

The best competitive games have replay ability. A game like Puerto Rico employs many different strategies. Or a game like Stone Age features a balance of strategies.

But a coop game like Pandemic Legacy can only be beat if all the players understand all the possible mechanics.

I've played board games every Friday night for ten years. Literally scores of different games. My favorite are abstract games like Genial or Carole's Magnus. But the groups seems to prefer worker placement games, auction games and hand management games.

 

[Slyhunter]

Almost every game sold today is a game of competition, where the winner has to beat his fellow players.

I am not intending to brag when I say I excel at such games and am usually among the top players if not THE top player.

But my family tired of losing to me in everything we played, so we invented (at least from our perspective) cooperative games. We changed the rules slightly to reward cooperation with each other and we played against the game itself for a group win or loss. Monopoly was the first project to be mutated into a coop game and it worked by setting as the win condition that we play till we had $100k in total cash and everyone has to still be in business. Still had to play by all the other rules though, as written (but we still had the center public parking mod). IT was more fun and challenging than playing competitively since you MUST charge rent when people land on your property. To make it more challenging we put in a 50 turn limit.

We have done this with other games as well, but a strange thought occurred to me; why are all games competitive?

Over the past few years I have seen more and more games that are coop games, everything from zombie apocolyptic games to survival games.

So I thought I would ask the folks here; why are so many games competitive instead of cooperative vrs the game itself? Which do you prefer?

The coop games are far more fun in my house and we play ocassionally even now.

You don't play mmorpg's.
Playing against the computer when it's handicapped and not allowed to do it's best makes you feel good. Marching in a Raid of 20 - 40 people against some behemoth while you jump and skitter and use group strategy to beat him also makes you feel good. Until you realize, you are supposed to beat him. He was designed to be beaten if you used the right strategy.

Playing against a human who can up and change strategies in the middle of a game or even a movement is more challenging.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Almost every game sold today is a game of competition, where the winner has to beat his fellow players.

I am not intending to brag when I say I excel at such games and am usually among the top players if not THE top player.

But my family tired of losing to me in everything we played, so we invented (at least from our perspective) cooperative games. We changed the rules slightly to reward cooperation with each other and we played against the game itself for a group win or loss. Monopoly was the first project to be mutated into a coop game and it worked by setting as the win condition that we play till we had $100k in total cash and everyone has to still be in business. Still had to play by all the other rules though, as written (but we still had the center public parking mod). IT was more fun and challenging than playing competitively since you MUST charge rent when people land on your property. To make it more challenging we put in a 50 turn limit.

We have done this with other games as well, but a strange thought occurred to me; why are all games competitive?

Over the past few years I have seen more and more games that are coop games, everything from zombie apocolyptic games to survival games.

So I thought I would ask the folks here; why are so many games competitive instead of cooperative vrs the game itself? Which do you prefer?

The coop games are far more fun in my house and we play ocassionally even now.

You don't play mmorpg's.
Playing against the computer when it's handicapped and not allowed to do it's best makes you feel good. Marching in a Raid of 20 - 40 people against some behemoth while you jump and skitter and use group strategy to beat him also makes you feel good. Until you realize, you are supposed to beat him. He was designed to be beaten if you used the right strategy.

Playing against a human who can up and change strategies in the middle of a game or even a movement is more challenging.

Actually I have played Ultima Online, Dark Age of Camelot, Age of Conan, Lord of the Rings Online, Everquest, and World of Warcraft.

While these games often fall into the category of Coop, most of them have some element of PvP as their primary component of end game content.

 

[usmbguest5318]

To make it more challenging we put in a 50 turn limit.

That is but a variation of the notion that "s/he who 'dies' with the most cash wins." What's collaborative about that? Well, it's the players cooperating to agree upon when the game is over. I suppose that's something, but overall, that rule merely hastens the rush to get rich.

I'm not implying that your other modifications don't inject an element of collaboration in to the gameplay; I'm saying that mod doesn't do so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

To make it more challenging we put in a 50 turn limit.

That is but a variation of the notion that "s/he who 'dies' with the most cash wins." What's collaborative about that? Well, it's the players cooperating to agree upon when the game is over. I suppose that's something, but overall, that rule merely hastens the rush to get rich.

I'm not implying that your other modifications don't inject an element of collaboration in to the gameplay; I'm saying that mod doesn't do so.

The conditions were:

1. Everyone still had to be in the game.

2. Reach the $200k goal

3. Do it all in 50 turns.

 

[Bonzi]

I totally agree.

Even games in general. We do puzzles a lot because we can work on a common goal.
I love to beat my siblings in games, but, it's not as joyful when it's your husband.....