co-op what game can't it improve

[Assassin Xaero]

Some of us don't have friends that play games or have time to play when we do, so coop is shit. Left 4 Dead was fun until it was taken over by all noobs and dumbasses, then the server mods made the game even more unplayable.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

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.

Again: possible, but doesn't really change the gameplay much for the better, because you're still JUST racing, totally disconnected from each other. It would be like Split screen racing only without the immediate competition and rivalry since it won't MATTER whether or not you beat the guy sitting right next to you, since you can't brag or rub it in if he comes in behind you.
I'm getting Impatient for my cookies, mate

 

[nuba km]

snip

but their are two main poitns about co-op that you are ignoring
1.) the banter with your mate
2.) the joy of achieving something by working together
which in both possibilities would still be thier but the first option has more of a chance of great banter.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I imagin a prince of persia game esque game would compeltely suck with co-op due to the camera being enough of a blurt for one person as is.

 

[teebeeohh]

i am not exactly a big fan of coop and sometimes i find a game ruined because the single player campaign was designed with coop-capability in mind.
the fact that every post gets a reply along the lines of: "COOP makes everything BETTAR" or "All your friends are assholes"

survival horror
RTS (2on2 is not coop)

 

[nuba km]

snip

portal is getting co-op and it looks great with puzzle games the puzzles would have to be designed about the fact their are two people which can make for some great puzzles see Lara croft and the guardian of light as an examples.

snip

I said 'well added co-op' not just tacked on co-op.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

snip

D&D is a role playing game and I am quite sure that other players make it better.

Two different media formats. I would love to see a game come out that you could play like I used to play D&D beginning back in the early 80s, but for the moment, it simply doesnt exist.

That said, Mass Effect is a single player experience.

Look, dont get me wrong, I like coop. I have a friend that I play online with, all the time, and we love to play Halo, Gears, AC brotherhood, and just about any coop game you can name out there together, but even he and I agree that games like Mass Effect, Oblivion, Fallout 3... are better off remaining single player.

There is a time and place for coop, those games are just not it.

 

[Estocavio]

Trying to survive with a buddy in a Survival Horror game could be great fun.

Or it could give you too much confidence - HOWEVER, IF it made you both spawn in completely different sections of a non-linear area, it would work, since youd have to locate each other.
Then gameplay mechanics come in.

I could go on for ages.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

snip

but their are two main poitns about co-op that you are ignoring
1.) the banter with your mate
2.) the joy of achieving something by working together
which in both possibilities would still be thier but the first option has more of a chance of great banter.

That right there is a huge difference between you and me. I dont want ANY banter of any sort while I am playing those games I am speaking of...

Mass Effect tells a story. A story you can control the direction for, and it has cues and dialog that immerse you through music, emotion, and drama. Cue a dead halt to all of that, when your coop buddy says, "Dude, this is so cool!". There is an immersive quality to these that cannot be achieved with coop.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

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.

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.
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.

Its not naive at all! Sure, the combat is fun, and I am not saying it isnt. But in the overall scheme of things, the importance does not lie with the combat, it lies with the story, the music, and your choices. It is an RPG. Are you going to start calling Fallout a shooter, too? Or Oblivion a hack and slash?

 

[Continuity]

this is a question to point out that every game you can think of could be improved with a well added co-op mode especially if it's online so I challenge you to think of a came which would be less fun playing with your friends (it doesn't count if your friends are dicks).

Simple, any good adventure game. For example The longest Journey, or Machinarium. These are quintessential single player games. By extension you could also say any game with a good adventure element has certain charms in single player, often having RL mates along for the ride just breaks the immersion.

Some of us don't have friends that play games or have time to play when we do, so coop is shit. Left 4 Dead was fun until it was taken over by all noobs and dumbasses, then the server mods made the game even more unplayable.

This is the harsh reality of online multiplayer, its at its most fun when played with people you know who are just as into it as you are. But if you don't know anyone who fits that description then its pretty bleak.
Still, there is always the friends facility in steam, its second best to having actual mates play with you but it can sometimes be just as good or even better.

Mass Effect tells a story. A story you can control the direction for, and it has cues and dialog that immerse you through music, emotion, and drama. Cue a dead halt to all of that, when your coop buddy says, "Dude, this is so cool!". There is an immersive quality to these that cannot be achieved with coop.

Exactly.

 

[nuba km]

I imagin a prince of persia game esque game would compeltely suck with co-op due to the camera being enough of a blurt for one person as is.

split screen or online co-op though because I have never played prince of persia or even seen anyone play prince of persia I can't really say much about co-op.

snip

first of all I give at least one reason to why co-op makes it better and two i only say your friends are ass-holes when the person said it wouldn't be fun because their friends would be dicks.

survival horror has been disgust but to give you the short answer L4D
RTS I see as 2 on 2 as co-op because a team that plans together is going to do better then a team that works separate so co-operating is important.

snip

I was trying to point out that having a group of people make a story can often be better then a single person making the adventure.

 

[bam13302]

Any game where if your playing single player, you wont have an idiot AI to replace co-op (RE5, im looking at you), or make 2 campaigns, one sp, one co-op (i think splinter cell did this, at least the old ps2 ones, and its a good idea)
i love coop, but dont stick me with an idiot if i play single player
I would like to see more RTS games with story co-op (alot of games advertise coop, but it ends up being just you + others vs AI on a skirmish map, not actually story coop) (and if anyone knows of a decent RTS with story coop, please message me the game, if it looks good, i will buy it)
i was severly disappointed when i learned that the multiplayer in Mount and Blade Warband was not you and others online on the mount and blade map fighting for control, but instead, was just individual, disjointed battles
to be honest, most games, Co-op could ruin if done wrong, but if its done right, it would be freakin amazing

 

[Vampire cat]

Depending on the people your playing with actually... A coop experience is rubbish if the people your playing with are jerks... Play with good friends and it's the best gaming experience there is ^^.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

but their are two main poitns about co-op that you are ignoring
1.) the banter with your mate
2.) the joy of achieving something by working together
which in both possibilities would still be their but the first option has more of a chance of great banter.

*sigh*
1)you can still banter if you're playing AGAINST him in split-screen. and that banter is more fun, because it's competitive: "Haha, eat my dirt jack-ass!" instead of just "Which lap are you in?""4th""oh ok." -_-
2)you wouldn't be achieving anything "greater" you'd still just be winning a race, or coming second. sure that might mean more points for your team or whatever....but it won't feel any more like a victory than just winning by yourself. Again, not much of an improvement. just having split-screen is better.

 

[nuba km]

snip

I think this comes down to difference in opinion and experience because in my group of friends we prefer working together rather then working against each other so I will give you half a cookie.

 

[Kris015]

this is a question to point out that every game you can think of could be improved with a well added co-op mode especially if it's online so I challenge you to think of a came which would be less fun playing with your friends (it doesn't count if your friends are dicks). also what game would you like to see with co-op I would say bethesda and bioware games.

Aaaaand, breathe. Any game dependent on conversation, steering your character's personality one way or another would be difficult to pull off with someone else horning in. So yeah, Bethesda or Bioware games.

Also, GTA games. Though I may be slanted on that, because I wouldn't be able to resist just titting about rather than playing the campaign or missions.

Those aside, I think a well-implemented co-op would be a massive bonus.

GTA has a campaign?!

Aaaanyways, Machinarium and other point-and-click games wouldn't be very cool with co-op

 

[CatmanStu]

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.

Although I laud the sociable idea of sharing a game experience (I've enjoyed some games more as a spectator than a player) I have to say in this case you are mistaken. It DOES have to be a one player experience because that is the story Bioware wanted to tell. With this point being fact, any additional player would be reduced to a slave; a player who's only role is to help you to your destiny without ever having their own opinion. Your brother may have advised on the decisions but you ultimately had to make them, he may have felt differently about the disagreements if he had contributed in the gameplay effort to get to those moments and then had no say in the outcome.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

This is what i get for arguing for 5 minutes and then googling "half a cookie"?

....you're mean....(sob)

 

[C95J]

I would have loved to see co-op campaign in Black Ops, like in WaW, it would have been really good.

A game with no co-op would be games like Fallout 3, because I just can't see myself running around the wasteland with another player.