kevlar51: 8k?! Congrats cheez!
8k?! Congrats cheez!
My MW skills are inversely proportional to my post count
Forum Moderator
Darn it... couldn't get my other much longer post to go through....
Anyway - Quick reply to Kenny007
1. They need to raise the limit but if you can get 30+ kills- then yeah, nuke em
2. urban zombies = L4D , L4D2 - no need for it in MW2
3. Don't discount Spec ops. The airplane level in COD4 was epic. Co-op in Spec ops is a good addition.
4. Mw2 single player narritive looks awesome, may not need co-op
5. Feel you on the PC/MW2 thing. That's why I got it for 360 instead....
jrstriker12:4. Mw2 single player narritive looks awesome, may not need co-op
this is the only one i really disagree with of your bulletpoints as over the past year, I've really come to appreciate co-op gameplay more and believe it should be implemented if at all possible
I really wish more games would implement split-screen co-op. I love playing with my family members, but so few games allow for that.
Left4Dead was a blast, that's for sure!
PSN: Treshnell
Join the Goozex PS3 multiplayer group!
amen to that. especially on the ps3. i love my system but i'm all about the coop and it's practically non-existent here. i've given in to the online multiplayer style coop as i have no choice, but come on, some of us do have friends that want to come over for a beer whilst playing some split screen.
Weapon-x - don't get me wrong. Co-op is great but developers shouldn't use co-op just to have co-op - just like some games that have multi-player just to have multiplayer suck....
http://videogamesrepublic.com/?p=11540
This article said that the develpers said co-op in the campaign messed with the cinematic feel. We'll see if their statements hold true.... It might be plausable that they didn't have the time needed to develop the campaign and still keep the the same type of feel.
Just a quick thought - in the clips in MW2 where you are climbing ice and you fall and the NPC catches you, how does that work in co-op? Do you both fall? Does he catch you both? Who falls and who doesn't? The guy who doesn't fall doesn't get the same HOLY SH**!! feeling. The co-op player could catch you, but then the co-op player wouldn't deliver the same dialog that an NPC would - which is part of the elements of drawing the player into the game.
Another thought - would Bio Shock have been as creepy/unsettling with a co-op player? How about Deadspace?
I think there is still a place for a good single player experience.
Hmm.. some interesting points about co-op. I definitely can't imagine BioShock being as immersive without you, the player, being the only outsider wandering through Rapture.
On the other hand, I could see a co-op option being added upon completion of the single-player game, that might let you team up with an actual resident of Rapture.
Goozex Forum Moderator
timpysan:Hmm.. some interesting points about co-op.
I agree and I see where they're coming from, but I personally place more stock in the co-op experience (especially for shooters) than I do the single player.
no on bioshock but dead space would have been awesome co-op. open up the hallways and add a few more guys and hell yes. i know its a lot more programming and it adds to the costs of development but stop being lazy and cheap you mofos and give me my co-op.
Good points about co-op.
I think ODST is great example for both arguments.
Co-oping the campaign was definately fun, but I felt like I was rushing through it and missed whatever story was actually happening.
Borderlands is a game that gets both ends right. Single player is amazing, co-op is fantastic. In that game, the narrative takes a backseat to gameplay, and it works, really, really well.
COD4? I think I enjoy it more the way it was. There is so much chatter going on during that game it really can immerse you. If they are amping it up for MW2, I'm fine with it. Especially if they are adding and additional co-op feature.
jrstriker12: Another thought - would Bio Shock have been as creepy/unsettling with a co-op player? How about Deadspace? I think there is still a place for a good single player experience.
i'll agree with you there but i think that it's really coming down down to Genre in these situations; i probably should've been a little more specific
Saying L4D2 (another problematic game all its own) has urban zombie co-op covered is like saying Mario Bros had platforming covered so no need for Ratchet & Clank and all others. There's no reason they couldn't have added a killer side game to their title. It was killer in W@W.
They really side stepped co-op overall in this title, a shame really. Originally they had it planned to be in a similar vein as W@W's Co-op, but cut it as they wanted the one player to be the central hero. That's a good idea as noted in some comments and storylines above, but in a squad based shooter? Come on.
Granted, the consolization of the PC version is my only real purchase-avoiding qualm, but there are a few other decisions in the development that really make me raise an eyebrow as well.
Join the Goozex Pokerstars Club!
GreenManGaming
Kenny007:They really side stepped co-op overall in this title, a shame really.
Wait, they've removed the co-op mode completely?
cheeznrice: Kenny007:They really side stepped co-op overall in this title, a shame really. Wait, they've removed the co-op mode completely?
Co-Op Mode is like short snippets of gameplay. Not full campaign.
I disagree about leaving Co-Op out of games because of their style/type/or ambience. Sure, Dead Space and Bioshock are cooler / scarier when you play alone. Okay, so the second player that does the catching or whatever in the scene in MW2 wouldn't get the same "impact" from the scene as the primary player. But I contend that it doesn't matter.
I don't need the game to explain the second player's presence. I really wouldn't care if both players played the exact same character, just working side-by-side and in cutscenes it just shows the one character as if that second player didn't exist at all. I just want that ability to play a game with a friend sitting next to me. So we can both run around in a level killing enemies and finding funny little bugs and stuff.
Actually, there was a game that did [/i]exactly[/i] that. Halo. I think they had just about as perfect a co-op mode as you can get. I wasn't a huge fan of the story or the game play (it wasn't bad, just over-hyped), but I would love to see exactly that same feature implemented in other games.
If I want to play a game to be wowed by the cinematics and the immersiveness, I'll reserve time alone to do so. If I want to play that same game with a buddy so we can just screw around for a few hours, I just want that option do so, also.
I honestly can't see how this would at all detract from the game (aside from taking a little more time away from developing other features). NaughtyDog's excuse was that it would force them to lower the amazingness of their graphics to include a split-screen mode. I mean, if it's a huge time-cost and presents lots of bugs, then fine, I can understand. But if all it would take is a bit of resolution lowering, toss in a second spawning player character, and add some features to stop players from breaking the game (like Halo's 'pull' thing when one of the players triggers the next area), then they should have done it. Uncharted 2 would have been a blast to play on split-screen co-op. Ditto for Modern Warfare 2.