Co op game developers : LISTEN

[Jackpot]

"Left 4 Dead for the 360 will be playable solo, in split-screen, via system link, and online. It'll also allow players split-screening on the same console to join games with other online players."

This is what a co-op game should have avalible. None of this "you can only play co-op in manner x". In fact, this is the bare minimum. Because physical constraints exist. Maybe 3 friends can be in the same house, but the tv is only big enough for 2 people, so a 3rd console and tv is set up for the 3rd guy, and the fourth is in arizona, so he comes in from xbox live.

Certain games made it so that you can only co op in the same console(halo 2), and some worse ones(army of two) only allowed co op over live.

This is completely unacceptable, and even more, it is an insult and a spit to the face of the fan who bought your game. You have done them a diservice, and deserve just punishment.

 

[Drumming Panda]

amen to that!

 

[Mister Shades]

Totally agree... however, games with coop get some points for actually featuring coop mode. Games like CoD4 and BF:BC are gasping for coop, but the developers apparently decided to sneak out early to lunch and get high instead.

 

[t0mme]

Yes, Jackpot, you're right. I hope the other developers follow suit. They won't, but I hope they do.

 

[WriterX]

Some games were designed to have co-op, while others didn't. But in the case of games that would be better off featuring it, "everything or nothing".

 

[Madz]

Hmm, while sounding a bit extreme I do agree with your point, on the other hand, I wonder if putting all these "modes" can screw the ping or something else.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Hmm, while sounding a bit extreme I do agree with your point, on the other hand, I wonder if putting all these "modes" can screw the ping or something else.

Ping isn't game dependant, it's connection speed/distance. The lack of modes is just developers being lazy

 

[NeedAUserName]

I agree, but in all fairness I doubt many Co Op game developers are looking for advice on internet forums.

 

[Calmaveth]

Agreeage to the max on that one

 

[arrr_matey]

Can we also demand cross-platform for games? At least ones not published by Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo!

Also, while I'm a bit choked that a game like Mercenaries 2 doesn't have local split-screen co-op, I can understand that a single machine doesn't have the processing power to handle two players in a wide-open sandbox world like that. When it's a corridor shooter, though, there's no excuse for not having local co-op.

 

[mjhhiv]

This is why I will continually buy Valve games.

 

[Zealot_Guy]

Certain games made it so that you can only co op in the same console(halo 2), and some worse ones(army of two) only allowed co op over live.

I dunno about you but I have the Playstation 3 and I must say that it is capapble of doing local coop for Army of 2.

I also have HAZE. Not the best game I grant you but It's online and local coop is seamless. I guess there aught to be more player interaction as one person can easly do the game by themselves. But hell, there's no problem. You can still have fun if your team mates are monkeys with down syndrome.

 

[mjhhiv]

You have to remember that developers are already under tight schedules and budgets. It's very easy to moan about devs forgetting to include something in a game, but in all likelihood they did remember it but couldn't include it, due to having already overstretched their budget and run 5 months over schedule. I agree, more games should have local co-op, but under today's business model it's very difficult to include every single idea into a game. Some have to be jettisoned in order to make room for others.

Would you rather have a game so good you wish you could play it in co-op, or a game that includes co-op, but is too mediocre to warrant a playthrough with a mate?

That's why Left 4 Dead is so exciting. Hopefully it does everything we could want.

 

[Dahemo]

The best Co-op system ever implemented was in Perfect Dark on the Nintendo 64, it didn't have this jump-in system which I think is pointless, the difficulty doesn't adjust so you just get a rather cheap helping hand, but what it did have was a very well implemented joint campaign which altered the difficulty accordingly, and introduced the nifty Counter-Operative system where the second player could control any henchman on the level, not very condusive to level completion but a good laugh.

I agree that both Live and Local need to be supported, but I think unless Co-op is handeled better then the point is relatively moot. I don't care if my mate can co-op in another time zone if all that acheives is cheapen my experience in-game.

 

[arrr_matey]

You have to remember that developers are already under tight schedules and budgets.

It's not like the schedules are handed down by god or something, though. The schedules are arbitrary in the design sense. They only matter to the sales people who want the game to come out on a certain date because they've analyzed trends and yadda yadda. Look at the mightily successful Blizzard with their philosophy of "it's finished when it's finished" (and isn't SquareEnix like that too?) I'm sure co-op would be a big enough selling point to make it worth postponing the release date.

Look at Mercenaries 2 which has been pummeled for being buggy, probably as a result of the developers having to hit a target date rather than shipping the game when it was actually ready.

 

[Zealot_Guy]

I

You have to remember that developers are already under tight schedules and budgets. It's very easy to moan about devs forgetting to include something in a game, but in all likelihood they did remember it but couldn't include it, due to having already overstretched their budget and run 5 months over schedule. I agree, more games should have local co-op, but under today's business model it's very difficult to include every single idea into a game. Some have to be jettisoned in order to make room for others.

Would you rather have a game so good you wish you could play it in co-op, or a game that includes co-op, but is too mediocre to warrant a playthrough with a mate?

I got to agree with you. Which brings up another point...

GAME ADVERTISERS!!
STOP making hype about a game using BETA VERSION STUFF!!! If it wont be in the game, DONT TELL US ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!

PUBLISHERS!!
DO NOT promise a release date if you can not meet by a month late!! and even a MONTH LATE is pretty big. Just say "IN DEVELOPMENT" so we can get excited but not exspect it. Valve is guilty of this but the games they make are just too perfect so we can't complain.
Just make sure you actualy MAKE IT. IM TALKING TO YOU DUKE NUKEUM!!!!

GAME PLAY DESIGNER!!!!
COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR TEAM!!
if the game will be action heavy DO NOT DESIGN THE CONTROLLS FOR STEALTH!!
*Eyes MGS4*

Now I'm just nitpicking.

 

[KenzS]

Excellent Jackpot, I totally agree. If only the game developers would read this!