Chambered: 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.
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.
I think it makes a big difference. In COD4, there were a lot of HOLY SH**!!!! moments that really put the player into the game. To have the game developer ignore these elements just to have co-op for co-ops sake would just detract from the game. Alot of players who have high hopes for this game would be disappointed when they get a watered-down experience when they are already expecting an (over-hyped) epic game.
Face it, with MW2 - if you put in co-op in the epic campaign, you better get it 100% right.
any1 no if mw2 will be available on the exchange?
it alrdy is
jrstriker12: I think it makes a big difference. In COD4, there were a lot of HOLY SH**!!!! moments that really put the player into the game. To have the game developer ignore these elements just to have co-op for co-ops sake would just detract from the game. Alot of players who have high hopes for this game would be disappointed when they get a watered-down experience when they are already expecting an (over-hyped) epic game. Face it, with MW2 - if you put in co-op in the epic campaign, you better get it 100% right.
Why would you have to remove those elements to add another feature? Storyline creation, cinematics, and game features and mechanics are different parts of the development process.
You add it to the list of things for the programmers to do: add second spawning playable character to the single player portion and split the screen in half. Yeah, you have to write the code for the engine to handle the split screen, but again, not something that's going to take time away from the people writing the "holy sh*t!!!" moments.
PSN: Treshnell
Join the Goozex PS3 multiplayer group!
I'm not preordering, or purchasing this in the first half year of release because of the whole PC server thing. I'll wait a while until the price drops to a more reasonable level.
Chambered: jrstriker12: I think it makes a big difference. In COD4, there were a lot of HOLY SH**!!!! moments that really put the player into the game. To have the game developer ignore these elements just to have co-op for co-ops sake would just detract from the game. Alot of players who have high hopes for this game would be disappointed when they get a watered-down experience when they are already expecting an (over-hyped) epic game. Face it, with MW2 - if you put in co-op in the epic campaign, you better get it 100% right. Why would you have to remove those elements to add another feature? Storyline creation, cinematics, and game features and mechanics are different parts of the development process. You add it to the list of things for the programmers to do: add second spawning playable character to the single player portion and split the screen in half. Yeah, you have to write the code for the engine to handle the split screen, but again, not something that's going to take time away from the people writing the "holy sh*t!!!" moments.
You wouldn't have to remove them - but if you have the campaign where a single character is the focus of the whole story (MW2) - it's kind of hard to create the same feeling with two - see my earlier example and also another's poster's comment on ODST.
It's more than the tech side, you would have to re-write the narrative and figure a way to recreate the same sort of pacing, storyline for both players. Not saying it impossible, just saying that it's more difficult and may end up with uneven or create moments that hinder the type of immersion that a player/developer is seeking. It's the difference between being the center of a story and watching your friend be the center of a story.
When you have a game that's more of an open world and less of a straight narrative, then this isn't really much of an issue.
I don't know - maybe I'm the only fan of a good single player campaign....
jrstriker12: You wouldn't have to remove them - but if you have the campaign where a single character is the focus of the whole story (MW2) - it's kind of hard to create the same feeling with two - see my earlier example and also another's poster's comment on ODST. It's more than the tech side, you would have to re-write the narrative and figure a way to recreate the same sort of pacing, storyline for both players. Not saying it impossible, just saying that it's more difficult and may end up with uneven or create moments that hinder the type of immersion that a player/developer is seeking.
It's more than the tech side, you would have to re-write the narrative and figure a way to recreate the same sort of pacing, storyline for both players. Not saying it impossible, just saying that it's more difficult and may end up with uneven or create moments that hinder the type of immersion that a player/developer is seeking.
I'm not disagreeing with that at all, but I'm just saying that giving players that option doesn't hurt anything for anyone. You don't have to rewrite any storyline or work the second player in at all, that's what I'm trying to say. Make the game for the one player and let it be awesome. Everyone that wants that impact will play it exactly as intended. But, where is the harm in adding a feature that allows you to just play through the game with a friend?
People that want the immersion still get it (they just choose to not play with someone else), and people that just want to enjoy playing the game with another get that, too!
The second player in Halo's co-op is never explained. He's just there, a carbon copy of the main player. And it's hella fun to play through with a friend. It doesn't make the game any less enjoyable for single-player people.
JonhMan: I'm not preordering, or purchasing this in the first half year of release because of the whole PC server thing. I'll wait a while until the price drops to a more reasonable level.
That's kind of where my buddies and I have settled. We generally play everything latest and greatest, and will surely have to see this game eventually (unless of course P2P is unbearable...not to mention the disappointing 8v8 games) but won't throw more than $20 its way. By the time it's that cheap, Battlefield: BC2 should be nearing and I might not even care.
As far as the CO-OP narrative, I dont see how that'd be a problem in this game. Aren't you generally running with a squad?? Even if players 2 through X were just observing the scene through the eyes of their squadmate that would be good enough; nothing more than a different camera angle while player 1, the squad leader perhaps, deals with the main story line.
If something epic happens, maybe an explosion to thrust the user somewhere before continuing the game, just throw the others a different direction before continuing. A key character is shot? Player 1 can react while the others provide cover, just as they'd do IRL. There's no need to drastically alter any storyline to add some cooperative play, and there's always the 'don't bother to explain it at all' route noted earlier too.
CO-OP was formerly a PC and early console gem, albeit rather rare outside the beat-em-up lines. Now that it has gained popularity, across ALL consoles, I don't think it can be afforded to easily just write it off.
Join the Goozex Pokerstars Club!
GreenManGaming
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/pc-modern-warfare-2-its-much-worse-than-you-thought.ars
When asked if the PC version was just a port of the console version, IW replied: "No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings."
Ooh! Mouse control! (duh?) Text chat in game! (Know any multiplayer PC games that don't have that?) And Graphics settings!!!
All PC servers will be hosted by players (you better hope your ISP allows you to do that. Most don't, it's against their ToS), and the max number of players is 9 per team.
No modding options. No mapping options.
No console to open for back-end game control.
Sucks to be a PC player! I know I'd have been really looking forward to this game if I was going to get it on PC.