TVGB: "Senior game designer Edward Stern from UK-based developer Splash Damage believes it's "ridiculous" that games these days still have the single-player, multiplayer and cooperative modes as separate entities."
i dont like when they have the co-op separate from the main campaign like in resistance 2... it becomes kinda pointless IMO and you feel like all you do is "shoot everything that moves" rinse and repeat.. with little to no story at all.. back in the golden eye days i had no problem with splitscreen even with 4 players.. but now i feel like the screen gets too small and bothers me, thats why i dont care about offline splitscreen anymore.. maybe im gettin too old and im losing my sight..
What are you talking about??? Having a separate campaign in Resistance 2 was one of the funnest part of it. It felt like a completely new experience rather than repeating the single player campaign with a friend... Yes it lacked a story and was pretty bland, but it was still fun, encouraged team-play and became a challenge. I see separate co-op campaigns being introduced more and more in future games, and I highly welcome it.
I liked the Resistance 2 co-op, and playing the Uncharted 2 beta co-op only served to reinforce that opinion. Also, I like my single player games single player. Sometimes, I don't want to deal with other people, and just enjoy being submersed in the game. So I like the modes as separate entities. Depending on mood, I can be left alone, help someone, or take someone out.
Yeah I was a huge, huge fan of the Resistance 2 co-op. I think that sort of implementation of co-op is a great idea, and really fun. I like the RPG aspect, almost like an MMOFPS haha. Leveling up is much awesome! The only game I can think of with single-player, multiplayer, and co-op NOT separate is DEMON'S SOULS. It's all integrated into the same experience. No menus, no leaving single-player to start the other, you're always connected and at any time you could be playing the game by yourself, or with others (competitively or cooperatively). It's a very unique way of doing it. But it wouldn't work for most types of games, the game would have to be designed from the ground up for that sort of thing, like Demon's Souls was.
I agree. The main point of co-op (to me at least) is so that you can play the main story with a friend. Imagine if Gears of War, Crackdown, Halo, Resident Evil 5, etc just had some tacky co-op "mission" mode with no co-op for the story mode; it'd be lame. To me that gets old fast becuase it's pointless. World at War made the single player campaign co-op and although it wasn't perfect, Treyarch new it was something people want. I just recently started playing Resistance 2 where I found out I can't even play co-op campaign split-screen with my brother like I did Resistance 1. Only thing co-op is that 8p mode which was fun for like, the first three times but it got old fast becuase it was pointless with no end or goal. Uncharted 2 has the co-op "missions" and I remember playing it in the beta and to me that was more fun then the competitive gameplay. But still its just "missions" with no purpose, not saying that's a bad thing though becuase like I said, I enjoyed that part the most. Even Modern Warfare 2 will do this with some co-op "missions" with no real purpose, storyline or goal. Why not the main story? Treyarch did it with World at War and Infinity Ward could've done it 10x better. I would've loved to play CoD4's storymode in co-op. But the point of co-op games is to share the experience of playing the game's story mode or a campaign with a story and goal with a buddy locally or over the net; not just to play some missions together which are just pointless to me unless done right like Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. They did it where the co-op was not part of the main single player yes, but it still had it's OWN story mode campaign of relevance and tons of them too so where it was actually fun and not just shooting everyone on screen for the sake of completing the level for no reason.
I hardly ever play online, I prefer playong COD4 for example with 3 friends right next to me even though that means less space on da screen.
Why do I have 0 agrees and 4 disagrees on my last comment? I can't figure it out. Do people really hate R2's co-op that much, or do you have no idea about Demon's Souls and you disagreed because you can't fathom what I said about it? Either way, I must say I'm confused at the disagrees. People who disagree, give me a heads up, I want to know what I said that is so off base in your opinion.
I disagreed because of your second comment. Anyone asking 'Oh, why did I get disagreed' deserves all the disagrees they get.
Everyone who is interested in this article should check out this week's bonus round which I think nails the point of this: http://www.gametrailers.com... at the 0:31 mark that guy nailed it about the co-op experience.
Does anyone here enjoy playing RE5 alone?
i know i would without a useless AI forced on me , because of said co-op mode . I dont mind co-op , and even enjoy it , so long as it doesnt affect my single play experience or it's quality . See that guys from splash gives a good example of someone playing solo and a buddy see him online and join him . But he doesnt tell you if you can even refuse . Demon's souls got a pretty decent system where you play alone and can out of choice decide to to invite other adventurers (though you really can't choose who ) . Since there is pvp and the risk of pk invading your game , you even also can play it offline . The two most important parts being that it's your choice , and that the game isnt designed with the idea that you'll always co-op and so always need someone .
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! The AI gets in my way ALL THE TIME! Plus its good just playing with a friend on any game.
i hate playing it alone too, the AI is so retarded. ok maybe i should elaborate :p What i was trying to say is that when you force co-op into the campaign, you better design a competent AI or else it would drag the whole game down. I personally feel that separating the SP and online aspect of the game (like what Uncharted2 is doing) is the best way to go. I was glad i rented RE5.Had i bought it,i would probably still be cursing at Capcom for not enabling solo play. @Baka-akaB Aha you're right! Demon's Souls system is imo the best of them all. There must always be a choice, not everyone likes playing with strangers you know...
No, no it's not.
I really don't see anything wrong with that. I hate when people want to rush from one "gaming revolution" to another when gaming doesn't need to ba hanged at all. Stop pumping out new gimmicks and just make more great games by sticking to the basic formula.
How about half the devs stick to the basic formula and half with the gimmicks. There is room for all. Agree with you on the fact that some devs try to revolutionize your favourite franchise and end up ruining it. Or a good developer spends years on something that won't interest you and you've been waiting for them to put out a game!
How well it's actually implemented. If Co-Op is seamlessly put into Single Player like Resident Evil 5 it works well. But a game set up like Resistance 2 which is properly polished and done well between three different game settings "Single Player/Co-Op/Multiplayer" works just as well separated.
Except i disagree about RE5's co-op being well implemented . The mode itself is fine , but as a consequence your solo experience is so designed around co-op that they force down your throat a AI companion . Wich i immensely dislike . And wich is why i'm more than ok with companies like Insommniac saying " ok boys , if we add co-op in the campaign , there are stuff we wont be able to do , since it has to be tailored from the ground for two people , and it will affect the way we wanna tell our story , so let's do a separate mode ) .
Good to see developers assuming everyone wants to play online with other people. Cater for everyone not what the developer wants. Uncharted is story driven and the main game should stay single player, co-op extra done right is great as I am sure Naughty Dog is going to prove.
I agree. While I occasionally enjoy playing MP games with friends (when we can manage a LAN party), I much prefer story-based SP games, and wouldn't want to gimp their design or performance by forcing MP on them. I bought and enjoyed nearly every id game, but skipped "Quake 3: Arena" because it was only a MP game (playing MP against bots isn't a SP experience).
@TKC I'm not sure if your first sentence there is sarcastic, but I'm going on the assumption that it is. In which case, I totally agree with you. That was my first thought when coming into here. Why does it always have to be "multiplayer this" or "co-op that"? Now, don't get me wrong, every once in a while I like to play online just for the hell of it. However, primarily, I am, without a doubt, a single-player gamer. Quite honestly, though, ever since all this multiplayer and co-op stuff, it seems like more and more the single player is being neglected. Sure there are some amazing single player experiences left. But all the focus seems to be shifting to co-op or multiplayer. I don't like that...at all. You need look no further than reviews criticizing and docking games points just because they lack a multiplayer or co-op. Or, look at everybody complaining when games don't feature one of these modes. Or, look at alot of shooter games: weak a$$ single player modes or storylines with, seemingly, all the focus really on the multiplayer stuff. I don't mind the multiplayer stuff being put into a game (if done right), but I think the single-player should be the focus of the game and what really drives it. Unfortunately it seems that's becoming less and less that case gradually over time. Sad really.
Probably the two best examples of where this article fails is - Splinter Cell-Chaos Theory - While this game may be yester-generation, it's single-player campaign was amazing and best left alone. While it's co-op missions were WWAAYYY ahead of their time. Anyone who has played this games' co-op experience knows exactly what I am typing about. It was amazing. BTW this isn't just my opinion, read the reviews on that one. - The other game that this article fails is Resident Evil 5. Because of the heavy focus on co-op in this game, playing (and beating) it in single-player was NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE! Now I know that all of Capcom's games are a b#tch to beat, but that game was hard on a whole new level in SP.
RE5 wasnt that hard to beat , but dealing with the AI was a pain , for both difficulty and fun reason . "So yeah thank you co-op mode for ruining the sp!" :p
What have THEY done to be better than the rest? Big talk big talk, show us or STFU.
They made 'Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory', the free online multiplayer fps that got me back into gaming back in 2003. I still consider it to be one of the best online shooters I've ever played. Enemy territory: Quake wars sucked balls though.. They haven't done any other full retail games I believe, but maybe this gives an indication of what to expect from 'Blink'.
A couple very good reasons for separate executables comes to mind: Game Design: Maybe your SP & MP game designs are very different, and you don't want to gimp all of them by trying to force them all to be the same. What may work for the "Brink" design will only work for a small percentage of other titles. That's like saying every game should consist of ridiculously over-bulked space marines, rolling around like Chinese acrobats in over-dark settings. Memory Limitations: Given the above, why waste the limited memory of the consoles by linking in all of the network code or story-based code into a unified executable, if it is not needed? You are either forcing more data to be streamed from disk (causing hitches, DVD noise, requiring HDD install, etc.) or you are limiting what you can present in a level. Of course, Splash Damage did not do the console versions of ETQW, so perhaps they are assuming the "unlimited resources" of a PC in their game design (the kind of thinking that makes "Crysis" bring even the best systems to their knees).
they talk like they have already made the worlds best game, and i disagree with them. they should go suck a lemon
i thought m$ put out a patent that stops players from jumping driectly into games and playing
I liked R2's co-op mode, but I thought it didn't go far enough. More maps and objectives per map were needed. I like keeping story mode as a single player experience, especially the first time through the game. I enjoyed playing R1's story with a friend, actually twice with different friends, but I played through by myself first. I want to be fully wrapped up in the story, not distracted and pulled out of the experience by a wise cracking buddy. World at War's co-op on the other hand, is also very enjoyable. WaW's story and gameplay lends itself to this approach more than R1 or 2 though, since it's more about a group of soldiers than one guy. As for splitscreen or online, I don't know why anyone would go splitscreen if they had the option to go online. I have a 50 inch widescreen TV and I still find splitscreen to be annoying.
"You could boot up Brink and see that one of your buddies is online. As far as he’s concerned, he’s playing solo, but you can join him and we’ll swap out one of the AI players.”" The first to do "seemless co-op" this gen was Epic with Gears from my understanding. It's a lot of fun playing co-op like that. With that said, the characters on Brink look hilariously cartoony. Could be a great game though.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.