
It’s a testament to the success of the two previous Little Nightmares titles that this third instalment exists at all.
With Swedish series creator Tarsier switching to new title Reanimal, publisher Bandai Namco has turned to Until Dawn developer Supermassive Games to make this co-op focused threequel.
In some ways, the UK studio may seem like an odd fit: it’s honed its craft with story-focused narrative adventures. But it also knows a thing or two about co-op – especially with its line of Dark Pictures Anthology games, which have been pitched as social experiences.
Subscribe to Push Square on YouTube166k


At a behind-closed-doors event earlier this month, we were able to spend about 90 minutes playing through Little Nightmares 3’s creepy Carnevale stage, entirely in co-op with another games writer.
It should be stressed that the co-op is an online-only experience, and there’s no split-screen option. This is because the developer wants to maintain a sense of tension that it didn’t feel split-screen could provide.
To make this setup a little more accessible, the game will have a Friend Pass like Split Fiction, where only one person needs to own the full game.
“We really wanted to control the camera,” executive producer Coralie Feniello tells us shortly after our playthrough. “Splitting the screen would just make the puzzles way more complicated to do. We really wanted to keep each character being the owner of the camera.”
Those of you who’ve played past Little Nightmares games will be familiar with the format here: each room presents a puzzle, and you’ll need to be paying close attention to your environment in order to decipher what to do.

The twist here is that you’ll choose to play as one of two characters: Alone or Low.
The former has bright red pigtails and goggles, and is armed with a giant wrench. She’s who we got to play as. Meanwhile, the latter is equipped with a bird mask, and has a bow and arrow.
The pair complement each other – for example, in combat, you’ll shoot off the heads of enemies using Low’s bow and arrow, then smash them with Alone’s wrench.
There are also moments where you’ll need to coordinate each other’s abilities to progress, shooting a switch with an arrow and then hacking through a wooden panel to get to the next room.
Playing in co-op, we found there was an element of trial-and-error to each puzzle, and with the stakes high we didn’t always feel we had enough time to figure out how to progress. Fortunately, respawns are fast and checkpoints are generous, but those playing in single player may find the game a bit easier.

“In multiplayer I think it’s harder for a lot of things because you need to be more coordinated with your partner, where the AI will just do the thing coordinated naturally so you have a bit less risk of failing,” notes Feniello. “But at the same time, you can’t talk with the AI to discuss and find the solutions. So, yeah, it's all a matter of balancing. Each one of them has their own challenges, I think.”
It’s definitely fun finding those solutions, which are often more obvious than you may first think. Looking back on our session, we reckon we were trying to get too creative with our conclusions, when the answer was staring us in the face all along.
A lot of the puzzles rely on the game’s physics engine, which has foundations dating all the way back to LittleBigPlanet. Long-time readers may know that Tarsier worked on Media Molecule’s franchise for quite some time, and the series has maintained that floaty, ragdoll feel to it.
We will say, while Reanimal looks to have adopted a more grotesque art direction, Little Nightmares 3 is sticking with the Tim Burton-style look.

“We call it charming horror,” Feniello laughs. “Like the fact that you have the kids, like, little dips of hope in the middle of that very, very dark universe, and the fact that you don't feel like you belong here. These are the main things we wanted to keep, and that was really important for us.”
She adds that the Carnevale is all about bringing those childhood fears to life, and this is certainly a twisted circus, with large desaturated tents set against a heavy downpour.
The one thing that surprised us, though: no clowns! (That we saw, anyway.)
“We didn’t want it to be too direct!” explains Feniello. “Little Nightmares is never like a very direct type of horror. It’s not very gore. Even if sometimes you can have like some gory moments it’s not the point of this nightmare. It's more into hidden stuff.”
As in past Little Nightmares games, however, you will find yourself the subject of a larger-than-life foe – this time a kind of ventriloquist who slumps about the stage and is accompanied by a speedier, maggot-style creature.

“I think it’s really cool that these two need each other to survive,” Feniello continues. “And I saw you enjoyed the ending where you got to kill the small one. It’s a satisfying payoff after being chased for so long.”
It’s true: the end of the level sees you escape in a hot air balloon, and as the aforementioned critter attempts to climb aboard, you’re tasked with lighting the flame to set fire to the nightmare fuel. It’s a great ending to a level that’s emotionally draining throughout.
We’re fairly confident Little Nightmares 3 will have plenty of these moments, we’re just not fully on board with the co-op yet. With so little time to process what you have to do in some moments, we can see this game really straining relationships and leading to frustration.

But if the single player works like Little Nightmares 2, where you just need to direct your companion, then that will likely fare better – although we still have questions about sections where you’re split from your partner, and won’t have a full grasp of what they’re doing off-screen.
Regardless, we remain charmed by the art direction and the ragdoll feel of the characters. Considering the success of past entries, this third instalment seems to have all the pieces in place to please long-term fans.
Will you be braving the Carnevale alone, or teaming up to survive this latest Little Nightmare? Share your co-op plans in the comments below





Comments 21
"It should be stressed that the co-op is an online-only experience, and there’s no split-screen option." - No local co-op?! Seriously? This is really disappointing..
@Fatewalker Yeah, that’s correct. If you read the interview she explains why, but I totally get the disappointment.
This is a shame. Co op was the obvious next evolution of the series but no local is a no buy for me.
So is it Co-Op or can I play it alone in SP? I‘m having a hard time getting that from the article
No sure why people are making such a fuss over the co-op thing, I mean yeah it sucks but you shouldn't write the game off over that alone...
@Oram77 I am not going to buy but only because I intended on playing on the couch with my wife. None of my friends will enjoy this one and I don’t care to meet new people or play with strangers. I can admit this is likely a me issue rather than it being their issue though 🤣
@Cerny You can play single player and the CPU will control the other character.
@IamJT I understand where you are coming from, but these can be enjoyed in solo player, hell the first 2 were only sp, but hey everyone has different wants from a game.
Sounds promising, I’m pretty excited for this. Hope it ultimately reviews well.
Just cancelled my pre-order, had no idea this didn't have local co-op. I'm almost offended this article invokes the names of LBP & Split Fiction when this game doesn't even do local lol. Whole reason I got it was to play with my roommates.. Oh well, guess I'll watch it on yt or something & save some money.
@IamJT
Lego Voyagers mate. A game that you can play with your partner. Also it goes without saying but "Overcooked! All You Can Eat" is the peak gf/wife game; so much fun both with team work and arguing.
About the game; I am not excited one bit. Feels like it will be inferior to 2nd one and upcoming Reanimal from the og creators.
@get2sammyb glad we can single player could have almost cried seeing this article 😂😭
This post may not get very many eyes on it especially if this article is not popular, but these type of games just bring up a bigger problem with the fact that online play is monotized. (I know microsoft does it as well.). Sure you get a friend pass but even if you have a “friend” or person you know that you would like to play with they both have to pay for online play in order to do it.
From a development perspective I understand what their trying to do but from a buyer standpoint you just made it a bigger problem at the buyer’s expense. Try telling a buyer that we could of put in co-op but because we didn’t feel that it fit, you will need two system’s and pay for online twice in order to enjoy the way YOU want to.
This isn’t the first game with this issue and I know that, but being so many years into online gaming, it’s time to stop monotized online play. Enough money has been made from online play and by now there are many other ways to add value and help keep these “subscriptions” a need for consumers. (I won’t mention ideas here. This can be part of a future article)
Why allow the monotization of online play be the gateway between consumers and the monotization of online multiplayer features, etc. There’s a lot of money to be made from consumer’s that don’t currently play multiplayer games because the lowest subscription package doesn’t have enough value.
I have no doubt this game will be a success and that’s great. I just think it opens up a much bigger conversation to be had.
Hopefully it plays great solo
@Scottyy my wife and I platinumed overcooked 1 & 2 peak couch gaming. I will look into voyagers!
It's literally 2 characters on screen? How hard is that to do local co-op, split screen or all on the 1 screen, you literally have a bot walking around with you but can't add controls to it?
Having a friend pass is nice like the IT Takes Two/Split Fiction, etc. studio Hazelight. But those games work 'local' as well, so..... way to take inspiration and half offer it when the ones who have worked with the idea well do it better.
Even Lego games can do this regardless of the pull away or join back up split screen to explore compared to older era ones forced to go one way and not too far away.
No excuse for online only other then laziness or 'modern game design' and to ignore the other to implement. Did they want that PS+ money that doesn't even involve them of a cut (or does it?)
You literally have Diablo clones that do all on the same screen, or Trine, or Mario games (chaotic but still an option of 4-5 players even if 1 to 2 recommended), if devs are that stupid and go 'oh we can't do split screen with our engine, modern console audiences/consoles can't do it, we don't want to or oh it effects the resolution' I don't know what to say.
All on the same screen doesn't effect resolution at all or as much (it's called being creative with your co-op your brain dead creatives, get creative, but who does that these days, no one, it's why games suck and are so grounded is brain dead non creatives) just inputs, so these devs are useless.
Time to work on things sure I get it, but online got the support it needed, and costs more money, more time and more to work out connections and servers, but no local all on same screen co-op. Brain dead, absolutely brain dead people working on games these days.
Says a lot Borderlands is the last AAA game left to do split screen, regardless of it's cell shaded art style or engine, they know their audience and make it work, and regardless of tone. They aren't the best games ever but how they outshined Halo/COD let alone many others for continued split screen co-op is amazing.
That aside LN3 is just 1 and 2 lite anyway. IF they can try to make more out of it sure but the footage has been underwhelming for it's direction. Reanimal looks way better.
I think it's tough to have another studio capture what the original did but in cases like this I don't have much to say other then it looks 'fine'.
@SuntannedDuck2
The difference here is that we are to believe they purposely did not implement local co-op because THEY believe it would break the immersion during split-screen. You lose, they win. Oh, wait. I guess we’ll see. Crazy I get it especially if you read my post above.
The lack of split-screen isn't a deal-breaker for me, since I played the first two solo. The fact this isn't by the original devs kindof is, so if I play, it won't be at launch.
Guess I'm playing solo then. Hope the uh... "tension" is worth the lack of options.
@IamJT
Hope their new game delivers too!
@AndAnother1 Never do I care about illusions because they really don't effect me but may others so I can't be too sure there.
It's up to the devs of course I just think it's a bit silly that's all even if I was a bit more heated sounding prior. I don't ignore potential options if I have seen it as possible or suitable to add something to and due to the nature of these games camera/character space used on screen in many scenes/even this one in footage, I think it's just a bit ridiculous.
I get gameplay immersed not world or character involved immersed so to me it can be the most realistic thing regardless of the minor things to make it a game, a sitcom, whatever and I'll still not care if they intend to immerse that way, if jokes land or gameplay mechanics are appealing I'm already immersed, I don't care how fictional it is or how realistic it is or how strong the horror aspects are, not by the world or characters. Not that I'm always thinking about the characterisation or world design/artstyle and critiquing them all the time I'm not. Sure these games are a light horror and that's totally fine they do capture it very well (not into dark horror but fine with light horror), but even still just saying what I would usually count as immersive that isn't the case for others.
I have tried the 1st game and it was ok, but I'm not that deep into them like another i know that is on the fence about 3 (I can see why) and more interested in Reanimal but loves 1 and 2. But having played Limbo/Inside to story end, Typoman briefly, or looked at others rather then playing others inspired and so on I get a decent idea of what these games are like from seeing or explanations.
But I mean that's why I mentioned 1 screen, just have players move around and if at the edge of the screen, pull it back for scenes (like any other game would singleplayer or multiplayer). It's really not hard to do.
Little Big Planet does it, 2D Mario Bros games do it, not split screen, single screen following camera, just move in the space, Lego games have, Diablo likes. Plenty of examples.
It's basically online but still same screen and local, no server needed, it requires no effort to add a menu option, and controls to it (maybe a few minor things but way less effort than server costs for online would), other then the right mindset to do it, it's really not that hard.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...