Gura and Kiara Realized Something in Every Collab Game They’ve Played on Stream【Hololive】

Gawr Gura Ch
Takanashi Kiara Ch
Ceres Fauna Ch
​⁠​⁠​⁠​Hakoz Baelz Ch
IRyS Ch
Mori Calliope Ch
Ninomae Ina’nis Ch
Nanashi Mumei Ch
Ouro Kronii Ch
Watson Amelia Ch
Koseki Bijou Ch
Nerissa Ravencroft Ch
Shiorin Novella Ch
Fuwamoco Ch

Hololive Reaction
Hololive Ch
Hololive Animation
Hololive English
Hololive EN

#gawrgura #hololiveenglish #hololiveen #holomyth #hololivemyth #hololivecouncil

[WaddleDee]

My guess is because split screen co-op would divide the screen into up to four squares and that just kind of stuck even for online games.

[retrochuuni]

Throughout the entirety of this stream I thought that damned cricket was in my room and it was driving me insane.
Walking around my room going "WHERE ARE YOU FOUL DEMON!!!"

[monsterman]

I do remember that developer commentary on Left 4 Dead said more than 4 players got chaotic and less organized, whereas 4 players kept things more team focused and encouraged more teamwork and coordination in the zombie encounters

[Geheimnis-ce]

Meanwhile HoloAdvent debuting five members but two of them come in one package:

"Fine, we'll do out ourselves."

[SKy_the_Thunder]

4 players is good for casual cooperation, especially on larger worlds or with more complex tasks. It's enough for a varied team and if someone has to go help the one player lagging behind, you won't leave another all alone. More can get really chaotic though, with all around more things happening.
You'll notice the games that have 5-player coop will typically have more focused round-based gameplay, including a setup phase for pre-planned strategies.

[bluethan]

I think it’s mostly tradition from 4 player split screen, and 4 player split screen was a product of technical limitations as well as visually managing four corners seemed like the safe maximum amount

[GameCarpenter]

It's an interesting topic. In video games, for local multiplayer, they would often divide the screen for different player perspectives. Obviously, 4 small screens is way more sensible than five for a lot of reasons. On console, it was a hardware thing. Most early consoles supported 2 players natively, but could go up to four with some sort of multitap. I think the N64 might have been the first to have four controller ports standard (which is one of the reasons SSB was so big imho.)

This was proceeded by arcade games, where the four player games were often the big draws (at least until competitive arcade games, such as SFII, MK, Primal Rage, etc.) as early as Gauntlet, the (first) TMNT arcade game, and The Simpsons arcade game.

This also has been the case for many mainstay board games, like Parchesi, Sorry, or Trouble, where a square table with a chair on each edge is an ideal 'gaming' table in most cases with everyone having easy access to the board. With card games being part of that as well, most notably Bridge, which when properly played requires exactly four players - often two groups of two that join together since it's a team game.

Even today, there is a screen real-estate issue. If you want to be able to see information about each of the players, you need to dedicate somewhere on the player's screen for that information to go. It could go in a side bar and accomidate more, which is often done for larger player counts, (or a grid like voting in among us) but it's often relegated to the four corners of the screen, like the game state informatioin in Mario Party.

[thewerebear]

Archaic holdover from the 4 control port era

[whade]

Such "magic numbers" hold true for many topics. For example, the "ideal" tabletop group for more people is 4+1 players assuming there's usually 1 person who can't make it. There's also a theory that the number of items your average person can remember or focus on is 5-7. RPGs tend to have around 6 main attributes. Even shows tend to have a cast of core characters of 3-6 people. You basically want to facilitate a variety of interactions, but avoid overbloating where individuals start to get ignored. Even Hololive gen member numbers work by this logic.

[usakenvi]

pretty sure since multiplayer party games started as a split screen gaming (or the game industry are marketing it with it). not everyone had their own consoles or pcs early back then.

[darkjackl]

Honestly 4s basically just the magic number
5 can get too chaotic/disorganized
3 can make you feel too rushed/overloaded

[gemstonegynoid]

couch co-op pretty much had the limit of 4 players as thats how much you can cram into a tv.

[dragoon]

Every now and then you get an odd ball that’s max 3 instead (the Remnant games for example) but i don’t think I’ve ever seen a max 5 outside of MOBAs or FPS games.

[crimcrammoo]

maybe its an artificact from the split screen days when you can fit 4 players on the screen

[AceArata]

Club penguin dance Ame is melting my heart

[faereman]

It's a leftover from 4-way split-screen multiplayer games.

[artist]

That's why 4 is the perfect number per generation, they can all play together, every collab is full and they can just play whatever, it worked with Uproar, then Tempus (twice) and now with Advent, I think that's a better approach instead of a 5 band collab but one is just watching

Also 4 is the perfect party number for games; phasmo, mario party, monhun, deep rock galactic, it just works

[magnuswright]

They could play competitive TF2 if they get a sixth person to play with them

[agibitable]

It's from the console era where 4 controller ports was standard for couch co-op

[gribberoni]

"average person has 3 friends" factoid is actually just a statistical error. the average person has 0 friends. Friends Georg, who lives in a cave and gains 10, 000 friends per day, is an outlier and should not have been counted