co-op what game can't it improve

[Natasha_LB]

to you really think someone at valve would go 'you know that awesome horror level idea we have lets not to it instead of removing one of our more samey bits to make a small co-op campaign' and that would be followed by 'yes' because if that's your view of how hey add co-op to games you are properly thinking they removed some great single player puzzles from portal 2 in order to make the co-op puzzles if so I think you'll be in for a pleasant surprise.

If you have a finite amount of funding to make a game, and you decide to add a coop option to a game that was originally going to just be SP, then your going to have to make sacrifices somewhere; this is basic mathematics.

No I don't think someone at valve would go "you know that awesome horror level idea we have lets not do it so we can make the game coop", because I don't think anyone at valve is that dumb! And your argument to remove one of the more "samey" bits, only proves that you yourself know that adding coop will always have to detract from the SP game... makeing the experience not as good

As for portal 2, while I think it will be great (And I'm actually looking forward to the coop) the SP game probably would end up being a little longer (Or the game would be released sooner) if there was no coop.

Trust me when I say, your wrong. Otherwise all games would feature coop (And I'd be king of all the verse and wear a shiny hat!)

 

[Craig Cameron]

snip

I use the well added clause when someone mentions a bad co-op idea or says stuff like shoehorn co-op into the game also co-op doesn't mean single player campaign with another person it could be a much smaller story made with co-op in mind also I and several people I have talked always come up with the idea of more then 2 people in a conversation now this idea may be insane but it tends to happen in real life (this is an idea for mass effect co-op). as for L4D I actually find the game really intense on expert having to make a split second decision between running fro the save house or saving a friend from a smoker I think it's just your too skilled at left 4 dead so their aren't many risky decisions you have to make making the game loss its scariness. as for bethesda games people are pretty much split down the middle on group saying it ruins the story (because?) and that no one would work together (because ?) while the other group saying it will be great fun raiding dungeons with friends and exploring the land. also their are people that have beaten my challenge with :silent hill 1-3 and custers revenge and I think their was another one but I can't find the post

Fair enough.
I will concede that maybe I was a bit hasty to assume that the majority of people would agree that zombies are about as scary as a Yorkshire terrier when you are given a shotgun. Also I wasn't really that good at L4D We'd play the episodes on expert but we'd never all make it to the end of the game alive, I died a lot to distract the hoard from my friends escape.

Let me put this to you, you make an RPG with deep plot and rich characters. You design the game around co-op and your new system to allow multiple players to converse with the same NPC. A person picks up this game and so does one of his friends, they play through the game together and enjoy the dynamic of it. A while later the same person starts up a new game, his friend is off playing another game, he doesn't want to play that game again just now. This person travels through your game, suddenly there isn't another person there to help, to bounce between when trying to get information from NPCs, or even worse, an AI character with all the personality of a wet boot. This person has lost enjoyment because he didn't have a buddy to co-op with when he wanted to play, so instead of improving the game it's ruined his experience.

I know that you could flip it around and say if he played it solo first then did co-op, it would have improved his experience, but the point I'm trying to make is that while co-op is all well and good, co-op designed content and games are no fun alone and you won't always have a friend with the same game or content who wants to play.

That comes from personal experience, my last game of L4D was to see if the game was any good on it's own, all my mates were off playing other games as was I but I felt a little pang and went back and loaded up a solo campaign and I have never felt more depressed while playing a game as I did then.

 

[Sensenmann]

Commas. Not enough commas.
Anyways, I would imagine that Survival Horror with co-op would be perfect.
Imagine Amnesia co-op style. I can scream my lungs out with a friend!

Here; ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

That should tide you over until tommorow.

OT:It only works in games that you have to constantly push forward without really exploring. Otherwise people get bored

Good horror games push you forward. All other horror games become gore-fests or just plain rubbish.

I was not scared in Dead Space when there was the man banging his head against the wall because he dies whether you wait or move to him. Nor was I scared after a predictable monster closet, when I was placed at close range. I run back, kill it move forwards.

I was, however, scared in FEAR 2. The ghosts came because they were endless and I wanted to hide in the corner, while they would never be gone if I didn't push forwards. I have could taken it like a man, but I put music on so I lost my suspension of disbelief. I was not scared during any cutscene where Alma was like "oh hi there". Infact I laughed and print screened pictures of her ugly face (and the rest of her).

Also, personally I did not think the Amnesia demo was scary, but if I go on any longer I am talking about making people scared, rather than the topic..



I would like to see more co-op horror. I'd actually like to see a co-op rts in the style of Evil Genius. Co-op Hitman or Bioshock.

 

[nuba km]

snip

snip

I suppose you guys are right while co-op is more fun adding it can worsen or even ruin the single player aspect and we need that for when no one is playing the multiplayer game any more.

 

[Croaker42]

SotC. In that game you were meant to feel alone. Co-Op would make the death of Argos mean nothing.

 

[nuba km]

SotC. In that game you were meant to feel alone. Co-Op would make the death of Argos mean nothing.

I think that going through the desert to your next fight would still make you feel lonely but less but they could make just one colossus fight for two people were you have to fight two colossus at the same time so I sorta agree and disagree with this so have half a cookie.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

RTS games, with offline multiplayer. Think how bad that would suck. Then think how awesome it is online. Thank fuck for the internet.

 

[Croaker42]

SotC. In that game you were meant to feel alone. Co-Op would make the death of Argos mean nothing.

I think that going through the desert to your next fight would still make you feel lonely but less but they could make just one colossus fight for two people were you have to fight two colossus at the same time so I sorta agree and disagree with this so have half a cookie.

Mmmmm half cookie.

I have to stick to my guns on this one but will budge in saying the perhaps offering a separate game mode where your suggestion is available would be spot on.
If they gave multiplayer and a mechanic where two players would need to work together to scale a colossus or indeed fight two, that would be really fun. My only demand would be that it only be offered in an online non story based mode.

 

[StBishop]

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.

San Andreas had Co-op and it was awesome. Although unfortunately it was shared screen which is balls.

Edit:

Spoiler: Potentially unneccisary rant

OT: Ok, this makes me feel like a bad person, because I've not read past the first page yet, but I can't keep reading what I percieve to be the same argument worded differently, even if the person typing the post doesn't know it, but OP I think the reason you're not agreeing with so many of these people is this.

They don't like playing games with other people more than they like playing on their own.

You do.

That's all there is to it. If I said, Unicorns are awesome, tell me a game that wouldn't be awesome if unicorns were implimented well. I'm sure you could think of plenty, but I'd keep saying, yeah but what if you could do what you said, with a unicorn.
You'd be like; "Well the answer is still no."
And I'd be like; "But Unicorns, man."

Now I promise that if this has been adressed by the time I've read through the next three pages I'll put all this in spoiler tags or something, but I don't know if anyone else will have been bothered to go through the trouble. I am too tired to read all of the posts and it seems to just be the same two opinions over and over. I'll leave this here in case no one posted something similar, but I did promise to put it in spoiler tags or something...

For the record, I use to play all of my games co-op. We'd just hand the conrtoller over or what ever.

 

[nuba km]

snip

I have come to an agreement that while co-op if done right is always more enjoyable then single player but adding co-op to games can worsen or even ruin the single player which is needed and therefore needs to be prioritised.

 

[StBishop]

snip

I have come to an agreement that while co-op if done right is always more enjoyable then single player but adding co-op to games can worsen or even ruin the single player which is needed and therefore needs to be prioritised.

I still think that with the appropriate mindset it could either make every game ever better or every game ever worse.

There are people, for example who love multi/co-op play. Mass effect is boring to them unless they talk to their mates at work about it, or unless they're on vent/voice chat talking to mates while talking ot have a mate on the couch.
Those people, I think would find all game better with co-op even if it diminished the story line.

There are others, however, who play WoW as if everyone else is an NPC and buy CoD solely for the campaign. Those people would probably hate the co-op as the other person is ruining their fun or immersion.

Technically neither person is wrong, they just place value on different things. Personally I love co-op but I wouldn't want to share my Dragon Age experience. I'm just selfish like that.

 

[Craig Cameron]

snip

snip

I suppose you guys are right while co-op is more fun adding it can worsen or even ruin the single player aspect and we need that for when no one is playing the multiplayer game any more.

It's been good debating with you my friend and I am glad we can agree...
I forget why I joined this debate now, I also wish to apologise for sounding quite rude in my first post.

Anyway good luck in finding the games which don't feature a co-op mode and would benefit with the addition of one.

Games like Vanquish where a slow down feature is present would be difficult to make co-op friendly, that being said the gameplay is quite hectic at times so two players would be able to slow the game to an easier pace more often.

But that's just my mind going on a wander.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Civilization 5.. The turns take ages, when you add a player it takes ages times 2. Sure its fun but it sure doesnt "Improve" the game. It just changes it. xD

 

[Hooded.Gamer]

How about Half-Life? I mean, everyone would want to either be Gordon Freeman or the bald scientist, nobody would want to be Alyx (because everyone fancies her), and nobody CAN be Eli because he

Spoiler

______________________ at the end of Half-Life 2: Episode Two.

 

[Jelly ^.^]

Dwarf Fortress.

 

[Fishyash]

I generally find co-op not to be anything but for laughs if a friend comes over or want to play with you over xbox live. I don't generally think that's a bad thing, but it doesn't really... improve the game. GOOD co-op though, I really like. Good co-op as in, co-op puzzle solving, games become more difficult, having to master new co-op techniques, and co-op exclusive levels. I think new super mario bros. wii did this well. The co-op version of the game was acctually more difficult than the single player simply because you all had to co-operate and not kill each other. It brought a whole challenge to the game. Just, it doesn't needed to be added on by an afterthought.

Games like mass effect, where the choices you make affect the state of the game though, I generally find them a bad ideas. RPGs in general I don't really think would be good for co-op because of this. The choice is no longer your own, you will be arguing about it with your friend. Also, 3d sandbox games I generally don't like the idea of co-op play, you will be arguing about where to go and what to do with your friend.

 

[Crazie_Guy]

Having a great gaming buddy, I can confidently say almost no game could ever not improve with co-op. The only exceptions I can think of are atmospheric horror games (that is, games like Amnesia, not the ones that try to scare you despite that armory in your back pocket) and point and click adventure games. If every game had a good multiplayer mode we would be living in a much, much better world. Or, at least my friend and I would, don't know about you suckers.

 

[Adultism]

There is an easy answer for this. Any game that requires both players to be smart, because alot of time on RE5 I get dumb players who don't know what to do and we die tons of times and get low rank.

 

[lemiel14n3]

in a lot of games Co-Op can be pretty unnecessary, and even irritating. if they had put it in Mass Effect for example, it wouldn't have worked, what held Mass Effect up as a game was story, not gameplay, and RPG elements and leveling characters do not make for a compelling coop experience.

but in other games Co-Op can add a huge part to the experience. I would have loved to see da blob with split-screen co-op. and shooters often have good Co-Op. And the Co-Op in Kirbys epic yarn worked fantastically.

The important thing is to ensure that the game isn't dependent on co-op. if you need to wrangle up a friend in order to play your favorite game, you're going to have problems, and the controls are usually frustrating at best when manipulating the second character.