Depends on your friend then. If your friend knows you personally and has just bought the game as well, and you're playing through it together for the first time ever, you're both going to be on edge. Just as much as you would be on single player. Maybe a couple of jokes to ease the tension, but that'd just shit you up even more.Soylent Bacon said:
co-op what game can't it improve
- Thread starter nuba km
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Um, thats pretty much how it goes down with the NPCs. Its scripted, and it plays out to give a desired effect. Your buddy is NOT going to be scripted like that. Nor will it be YOUR adventure. I cannot fathom how people cannot see this.Colonel Alzheimer said:
I hate to rain on peoples parades, but not all games need coop. In fact, in would downright ruin certain ones, Mass Effect being one of them.
Custers Revenge. I can't think of any mechanics that would save this title from the pits of the collective gamers conscience as something awful. Adding another person would only make it worse.nuba km said:
Do I win something for beating your challenge?
More importantly, I get where you're coming from. There are SO many titles I've said to myself "damn, I wish this was Co-Op"
-Far Cry 2, CoD4, Mechwarrior 3, all the GTA's (yes I know they actually did it in the latter ones, did it WELL is another matter), Oblivion and Fallout3, and this is just the start...
You know what would be great? Is that you let people have their opinion and not deem yours to be fact. You counter every single reply saying you think it would be fun no matter what, just to detract from the point of anyone actually posting at all and trying to make it seem like your the master of impossible questions and more intelligent, this isn't the first time I've seen you do this in a thread of yours.nuba km said:
ON TOPIC: I said both controlling the same block at the same time, if it's more than 1 block it's not Tetris, but a retarded clone no-one wants, either way it wouldn't be fun for me and most definitely would detract from the experience.
Also reading maps isn't fun and I can imagine everyone wanting to be driver, that would not make it a better racing game for me.
the old'no it wouldn't argument' how clever (sorry for sounding like a smug git).Riff Moonraker said:
I found left 4 dead on expert to be a real survival horror experience were you have to pick between saving your friend for long term benefits but at a high chance of not getting it or short term benefits with a chance increased chance of getting killed but i think survival horror it REALLY depends on how it's pulled of.
their is a reason that I said WELL ADDED CO-OP though their should still be single player games as an option just because I think zombies are awesome doesn't mean I think they could improve all games and I don't for a good reason because happy feet the game wouldn't be fun if the penguins were being attacked by zombies. also I don't think fallout legend of zelda and super meat boy would fell different in any dramatic way and ii don't think they would make you play the co-op game if you don't want to.Charles_njc said:
When the question of co-op making any game experience better is asked, who's experience are we talking about?
Bioware and Bethesda games have been argued as franchises that wouldn't benefit and the counter claim has been to suggest ways it could be incorporated successfully, but as these games are designed as 'you save the world' stories' adding another player would put that player in the role of sidekick or observer. Would that be a better experience for the main player, yes, if for no other reason than human players are invariably better than AI. Would that be a better experience for the 'sidekick', no as they would be observer for all of the key decision making moments. (Who would you rather be, Indiana Jones or Shortround?)
I would also like to pre-empt any comment about changing the discussion/decision making mechanics to incorporate co-op by stating that that would change the whole dynamic of the story and create a completely different game experience (which is not improvement, it's renovation).
Bioware and Bethesda games have been argued as franchises that wouldn't benefit and the counter claim has been to suggest ways it could be incorporated successfully, but as these games are designed as 'you save the world' stories' adding another player would put that player in the role of sidekick or observer. Would that be a better experience for the main player, yes, if for no other reason than human players are invariably better than AI. Would that be a better experience for the 'sidekick', no as they would be observer for all of the key decision making moments. (Who would you rather be, Indiana Jones or Shortround?)
I would also like to pre-empt any comment about changing the discussion/decision making mechanics to incorporate co-op by stating that that would change the whole dynamic of the story and create a completely different game experience (which is not improvement, it's renovation).
And how is "reading a map for someone else" more fun than "driving another race car" which is what my friend would rather be doing? It's possible, but not an improvement.nuba km said:
So fork over them cookies, sonny!
For one thing, the combat in Mass Effect 2 is great, and the combat in Mass Effect 3 will be great. Like it or not, Mass Effect isn't just a series about the dialog and the story and the characters anymore. While those are still huge parts of the game, combat is one of the best parts of Mass Effect, and games like Gears of War and Halo have proved that combat only gets better in co-op. Combat with a friend will not be like the way it is with the NPC's at all. In terms of conversations, I did say that your friend would have to be really cool. But say they're not. Of course, your friend will not be scripted and they will be pissed off if you make a decision for them that they don't agree with. So you (as Shepherd) won't want to piss them off, so you might actually listen to their suggestions. And if you disagree, you can argue about it, much like the characters in the game would. I will say that you are right about one thing. It won't be YOUR adventure, but it will be a SHARED adventure. If you want it to be solely your adventure, there's always singleplayer. But if you want to add depth to the in-game characters, increase the fun in combat and add more conflict to every decision, I think co-op could do that for you.Riff Moonraker said:
You've given this response a lot, it seems. Keep in mind, you don't actually need co-op in a game to have a laugh about it. I'm perfectly capable of laughing at a game with a friend while just watching him play or vice versa. If all your co-op adds is "you can laugh at the game with a friend," then co-op hasn't added anything to the game because you could do that anyway.nuba km said:
In other words, thank you for agreeing with me that Too Human wouldn't be improved by co-op play.
Also, knowing IWBTG, trying to jump off of a friend in co-op would probably just cause both of you to explode.
actually i'm amazed there are so few local co-op games; i've been seeking some splitscreen game for a while, and found out about a nice website called Co-optimus.com which tells you what game does have and which games don't do coop.
and yes there's few interesting games that i'd like to play with a friend...
and yes there's few interesting games that i'd like to play with a friend...
I beg to differ. I played it on PC at a LAN with a friend of mine. There was nothing like being able to turn around and high-five after beating a boss, or have a laugh at how ludicrous the story was. I know you're going to say in that case I enjoyed the time with my friend, not the game...and maybe that's true, but it doesn't change the fact that if the coop mode was not there, I wouldn't have even finished the game or so much as cracked a smile at it's silliness. Coop made it better.northeast rower said:
To answer the question though, the game really needs to be designed with coop in mind and can't be made better just by slapping it in. It can't feel tacked on or it does nothing for the game (Fable), but if it is designed around it and played solo, it's a bit more of a weak experience (Army of Two, Resident evil 5).
that's the second game that has beaten the challenge you get a imaginary cookie.Capt. Crankypants said:
well first of all it's still tetras just with a variation second of all having I don't expect reading the map to be fun but the bander that would come along with this experience would be hilarious as well as a nice feeling of accomplishment and team work would be nice.Weslebear said:
I actually find co-op in both those game great fun when you actually work together.Guitarmasterx7 said:
The combat, while fun and part of the gameplay, basically serves as a way to advance... your STORY. Mass Effect is completely about the story, the characters, and your choices. You put another person in, its not YOUR story anymore. Another human player will not add more depth to your roster of character, only the writers of the game will do that. Mass Effect is not Gears of War or Halo. Its not the same genre, its not the same type game. Yes, it has combat. No, it is not a TPS, or a FPS. It is an RPG. Role.Playing.Game. You are given a role, you make choices in that role, and it effects the outcome of your game. You want to play combat with your buddy, then go play Gears or Halo. That is not what this game (Mass Effect) is, nor should it ever be.Colonel Alzheimer said:
This is precisely my thoughts. Co-op can't make just any game better, but if a game is designed around co-op it could be fantastic.Diligent said:
As to games that probably couldn't be better, I'd say any text adventure. Heck, I'd probably upgrade to just about any adventure game. I would say that a co-op Myst-type game COULD be fun, but again, it would have to be designed around co-op, not just tacked on. Sadly, I never got around to playing the Myst online game when it existed so I can't say if it was actually any good, but it had potential.
I know the map idea isn't the best idea but it's more the banter that comes along with this gameplay that could work well. I suppose both of you could be in the same racing team but in different cars and the racing team at the end of a tournament with the most points win could be another option.GrizzlerBorno said:
simple example of how co-op improves it:Shjade said:
in resident evil 5 it's more fun to bash the game and play it co-op then to bash the game and will watching someone play it, it may be the banter that's fun but playing it together is just better.
What I'm saying is that it does not have to be just your story. There is nothing wrong with letting some one else in and sharing the story with them. I've played both Mass Effects sitting next to my brother, and he helped me make some of the decisions. Sometimes we agreed, sometimes we disagreed, but in the end, the game was better because I let someone else in. I'm not saying this is perfect for everybody, but at the very least it could be an option.Riff Moonraker said:
Also, what is the point of labeling Mass Effect with a genre? It is an RPG, sure, but it is not just an RPG. It is naive to say the only purpose of the combat in Mass Effect is to advance the story. All the combat adds to the general experience of the game, and stands on its own as a great part of the game. I don't get why it's so wrong to call Mass Effect both an RPG and a third person shooter. If you actually play the game it's clear that it is both.
