I agree, to an extent. To me, it seems similar to the term “doomclone”, which was used before “first-person shooter” was coined. Though, in this case it seems like the term “friendslop” or “party slop” is being used as shorthand for the “cooperative multiplayer” and “cooperative multiplayer job simulator” genres. A genre marker that may have some derogatory connotations, but is not being used in a derogatory way by everyone.
On that note, there’s a lot of devs who say they’d “never make a friendslop game” with a tone of derision. I wonder if they’d give the same response if asked if they’d consider making a cooperative multiplayer game.
I guess you’re right about this. Though, I’m pretty sure the term “co-op” is still being used for some games, and “friendslop” for others. I wonder where the delineation is, if there is one at all.
Co-Op was initially intended for co-operators, i.e. two people playing with multiple inputs attached to the same instance of the same game and working towards a common goal. It is now interchangeably used to also mean Online Co-Op.
Co-Op is based on the same psychology that MMOs are based on - which is, “We can attract more customers if we let people play with their friends.” And evolved into, “We can attract more customers and keep those monthly subscriptions going if we let people make new friends they can only talk to in our game.”
Co-op with me and my relatives somehow means “Sabotage the level by throwing objects at allies, pushing them off cliffs when they LEAST expect it., etc.”!11111!
It was more for the OP. Tandem mechanics exist in games already, raising a child could actually be argued against based on the arguments provided. I think the question draws out that the framing of it is a bit ludicrous.
Sure, but if the rules themselves are flawed, it kinda throws the entire discussion out the window right? Given the question I posed, how can you defend the rules?
And I don’t think there is democratic voting in a monarchy.