When co-op, why 4?

I think it's agreeable that lots of co-op games (or games with team element, like Battlefield 3) the number players are normally at 4 players (except for, say, Serious Sam 3's 16 player co-op)...but why? Sure there's something about computer fields' obsession with base 2 number (I know it, am CS student), but are there any other reasons?

Give me cute or give me...something?

All three of the current-gen consoles have a max of 4 controller/player slots, so that's usually how it goes.

Although it doesn't explain online co-op games. Y'know, the ones where you can ONLY play online...

edited 2nd Jan '12 10:37:29 AM by MrPoly

I imagine four is just the magic number. Presumably there's been plenty of testing with higher player counts but I think four is just the perfect balance. Actually I think I remember Valve saying something on the matter. When they tested the original Left 4 Dead they tried having more players, but instead of forming an X player team (where X is the maximum amount of players) the X players tended to form smaller teams that went off on their own. Communication probably has something to do with it, too. Staying in constant contact with three other people is much easier than with seven.

Needs a new signature.

There ARE co op games of smaller teams. Though most of those smaller ones are 2 player ones

Trine 2 is 3-player co-op, for what it's worth.

4 is indeed the magic number. It's enough players that you feel like part of a team, but few enough that any one player doesn't feel obsolete. If there where 8 people shooting monsters people would eventually delve into Somebody Else's Problem territory.

Heck, this even goes for writing. Ever notice in a Five-Man Band one character always gets sorta sidelined? XD

Bleye knows Sabers.

I assume it was a precedent set by the old arcade games like gauntlet.

Apocalypse: Dirge Of Swans.

In addition to gameplay reasons, it might be because it's an artifact of the times of split-screen. 2 and 4 are the most efficient number of players.

Actually, the Ps3 has 8.

edited 2nd Jan '12 1:12:24 PM by TheatricalAndProud

The problem is that 4 is still used even when the game is explicitly not designed for consoles...Magicka, anyone?

Give me cute or give me...something?

It's just a good number, and we've become accustomed to it ever since the days of yore.

I have a message from another time...

The number four is practically traditional. Every board game seems to use four players - I guess sometime along the line someone figured four players was the most amount of players the general game could fit without things getting too convoluted.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

On Split Screen dividing the screen into 4 sections was more justifiable than 3, 5, 6, 7, or 8.

Even with online affecting how many people can join, 4 was just natural, normal, it worked extremely well.

Troper Page

Guess you won't see that number of players in Japanese games then...Four Is Death and all the stuff...

Give me cute or give me...something?

^ Then why is the traditional JRPG party makeup always 4 people?

Bit further back. The first 4 player console was the Atari Ultra Pong Doubles. Or if you're not counting Pong machines, the Atari5200

edited 3rd Jan '12 12:57:56 AM by TheatricalAndProud

That's a pretty big stretch, and that hasn't stopped them at all.

Four is a very even number. Enough to form two sets of partners if needed, enough to establish basic roles, enough to keep communication effective, etc. It doesn't overpower the group, yet it doesn't make them too weak to handle the situation.

Four also started off as the "family" number. A chance for your dad, mom, yourself, and additional member to play at the same time. It just kinda stuck ever since.

I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -Wanderlustwarrior

Jup, four is just a very, very good number to work with in many team-based games. As a Tabletop RP Ger, I can say that.