I went to the ‘House of Games’ game jam this weekend and ended up creating something pretty interesting with some pretty talented people there.
We decided on a genre of games that I think is somehow one of the least common and yet easiest to make something interesting: the multiplayer puzzle game. Our game is called Life Line, and is a co-op game featuring two rock climbers connected by a rope. The rope functions as the main mechanic of the game, and if one player falls the other can grip tightly to the rock (by mashing the A button), allowing the other player to swing from them until they get their grip. Dangle too long from your buddy, and he loses his grip and you both fall to your doom. It’s all for one and one for all.
Not surprisingly, my coding contribution in the 28 hour project was the dynamic rope physics and player movement, which was a lot of fun to implement and I think has a potential that is only hinted at in this video. I can imagine taking this mechanic to all kinds of logical extremes – tying the fate of two players together figuratively and very literally, and yet using that interplay to increase the reach of the team beyond the sum of the two individuals. In the video you can see how we used this: one player can climb to a certain height, while the other one jumps off the rock and uses the rope anchored to his buddy to swing to an otherwise inaccessible rock while the anchored played mashes A for dear life. I’d like to push this mechanic further, and might do that with a future project. Some ideas:
- How would this work with 4 players, each chained to the next in turn? Could get some really complex/interesting acrobatics.
- Life Line as a mobile game. I’m picturing a multiplayer Temple-Run style game, where all 2/3/4 players are continuously climbing up along different tracks, and players can jump off the rock by swiping left or right, and if your buddy is dangling from you, you survive by tapping the screen to grip the rock. The multiplayer infinite runner, I think it could really work. Would need to support seamless matchmaking and easy ways to play with friends on a single device, via bluetooth, or over an internet connection. With the right amount of polish and a casual, cheeky flair (like Ski Safari with its Sasquatch vehicles) I could see the game taking off.
- We need a ‘cut the rope’ button because it’s just such an emotional moment to have to cut your buddy loose when he’s dangling from you and you have no other choice. Push this button and be haunted forever.
- What else could be done with this? Lots I think.
Here’s the windows executable if you want to try it. Use two controls, or keys:
- Player 1:Arrows to move, Space to grip, Enter to release
- Player 2: WASD to move, E to grip, Q to release
http://private.strangeloopgames.com/LIFELINE%20-%20Final%20Gamejam%20Build.zip
anon 
John K. 
It is an extremely relevant and lucrative question. In a market crowded with me-too games and ostensibly ‘safe’ bets, there is enormous potential for games that do something different, that push the envelope, and consumers are ready and fast to notice. It is a market incredibly ripe for these kind of advancements. While game makers scramble to recreate the latest hit title, there lies an ocean of unexplored possibilities laid before them. As an example ‘Draw Something’, a game only 6 weeks old, has already garnered 37 million downloads and was today purchased by Zynga for $180 million. How did this happen, and why now? The technology to create a title like this has existed for a few years at least, and the connectivity it requires through social media has been available as well. What can account for that delay? A game where you draw with friends seems like the most obvious idea in the world and the perfect use of this technology, and yet it took this long for it to hit. The fact that a game can go from nothing to 37 million downloads in less than 2 months points to a woefully underserved audience, and I believe games like these have barely scratched the surface of new experiences that technology now allows and that consumers will readily embrace.
Looking at the length of time between when a truly new game is created and when the concept would have been possible on current tech is an interesting excersie, and almost always the game trails the tech that makes it possible by 5 years or more. When did the technology exist to create the space-warping gameplay of Portal, or the time-bending puzzles of Braid? Years before the games arrived, and yet no one explored these gameplay possibilities until much later. Notably, in both these cases the leap was created by game industry outsiders. Braid was created by an independent developer and Portal’s original concept by a student. The fact that hundreds of companies and thousands of employees in the mainstream games industry were unable or unwilling to create either of these styles of gameplay (both very high rated, industry-defining games) despite the technology being available for years indicates a focus that is critically missing in the games industry. However, rather than see this as a fault and a reason to lament, it should be seen as an enormous opportunity. The tech to make these types of games is here, and the audience is here. It’s simply a matter of taking the ‘risky’ bets and building these kinds of games, and in the current climate of the games industry I would easily swap the conventional ideas of what is safe and what is risky.
Kregoth 
Ryan Irby 
Cong Cong Tang 
Nice write-up of the work, John.
I was surprised at how interesting this mechanic turned out to be (considering the short dev time), but I think what really makes it work is the constant requirement of actively putting your success into your partner’s hands (whenever you jump). A lot of co-op games have fairly passive interdependence, like needing your teammates to revive you whenever you get hit, etc, but I think this has a nice twist to it (he he).
That said, I’m not convinced it could work for more than two players. Hmmm… I’d need to think about it a little.