Me and my brother play Resident Evil co-op mode. It is the only way to make that game fun. Also try TF2, it's the best online shooter.
I miss strong co-op/couch co-op games.
- Thread starter Negatempest
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Dragon Crown
I want to believe it will be the best Co-op game of the year!!!!
F*CK YEAH THE HYPE!!!!
I think he was referring to couch co-op mainly. Outside of shooters I can only think of a handful of decent ones that have come out since the gamecube era. I find this rather amusing actually given how it's only as gaming becomes more social and more of a widely accepted past time that we can only play with each other while in separate rooms.Vigormortis said:
It's a bit of a nuisance having to lug over a PC or console every time you want to play a game with them
Borderlands does coop brilliantly AND it's splitscreen. There have been a lot of coop arcade games on the XBLA with multiplayer. Nintendo particularly has been making tons of from the couch co-op games. That aside there has been tons of coop (though most of it online) added to AAA games. Honestly I think right now there's more coop than there has been for a long time. The gamecube, ps2, N64, and original playstation barely had any coop games. the original xbox had a good amount but probably not as many as this gen.
Baulders Gate Dark Alliance 1 and Especially 2. Both games were a romp through mid-grade fantasy madness. Like the story was never the best but it had some of the most unique villian, enemies, and places in any co-op game.
Plus the customization for each of the 5 classes (2 unlockable so 7) were so unique you could play them anyway you wanted and it would be just different enough each play through.
Seriously, people that hated that game, go back and play it now and you wont feel the same, its one of those games to spend a rainy weekend with your best friend playing!
Plus the customization for each of the 5 classes (2 unlockable so 7) were so unique you could play them anyway you wanted and it would be just different enough each play through.
Seriously, people that hated that game, go back and play it now and you wont feel the same, its one of those games to spend a rainy weekend with your best friend playing!
Wow, no one's mentioned Little Big Planet? That's a great Couch Coop game and I agree there should be more like it, You may have to turn to indie games to find more though.
I have said on my OP that the ones that do exist now have "okay" co-op at best.Vigormortis said:
Left 4 Dead- Annoying amount of Crowd Control in that game, mainly a PC game thus can't really play with your friend next to you. These reasons why I do not play it anymore.
Borderlands- Very dependent on the other player not being an expert or OP. When you exclude certain players from Co-op, to be it's bad co-op. It's fun when done right, but the last half of my experience with borderlands was that I had my hand held. Boring alone, so I had not much of a choice.
Torchlight- It is fun with others, but it's more competitive in nature. You work together to than compete for the items.
Diablo 3- Same reason as torchlight.
CoD- Great game, more multi-player than co-op in nature. Also the sharing lives is stupidly annoying in co-op portion.
Dungeon Defenders- Great game, but unfortunately i'm the only one here that likes that game genre.
Monaco-Love this game, but requires everyone to know their jobs to fully enjoy the game. -_-
Portal 2-Great game. Gotta have patience for sure.
Terraria-Have this game too. No local co-op though.
Minecraft-Same as Terraria.
Worms- You and I both know that this is a competitive game.
Sanctum-Same reason as Dungeon Defenders.
Magic- Again, we know that MTG is a competitive game.
Payday- Co-op is fun, but I never have good luck with players who are not asses.
Warframe- It's closer to an MMO than I like.
Or if you want me to make a long story short.
Most games you recommended require the other player to know the ins and outs of the game to have fun. In past co-ops on old consoles and old PC games, newbies could have just as much fun with veterans, which is a huge plus back than. A newbie would not be able to hold the veteran back by much or at all.
It seems to me that the problem is not a lack of coop games, but a lack of games in the genres you want to play. A valid complainant but a different one.
FEAR3 was easily the worst of the series, it's not a bad game but it's not anything to go crazy about.Anthony Corrigan said:
OT: Serious Sam HD or 3 are really fun co-op games all split screen on console (from what I gather) the HD titles are not split on PC but 3 is. Confusing? Yep.
The main problem with splitscreen co-op is that the way games work, its not so much rendering out a world and showing it from x camera points, it's having to render the game world x number of times. most modern triple A games would rather create a really fancy world (whether that's graphics or cpu fancy) and do online matchmaking than making their game 1/2-1/4 as complicated to implement a splitscreen co-op.
Okay, but let's be fair here:The Almighty Aardvark said:
I've only listed a very small number of games compared to what's actually available now-a-days. And, even then, almost half the list is playable locally. I.E. on the same machine.
So even if you're looking for "couch co-op", there are plenty of options today.
Actually my OP doesn't go into enough details, so I'll explain better.zerragonoss said:
Co-op, like in the past, where both newbies and veterans can have nearly the exact same fun. Lets look at Contra for example. A total newbie would die a lot in that game, but veteran would know the layout and would not suffer much because of the newbie. The only way a newbie would hold back the veteran would be if the newbie slowed down the pace on purpose.
Now lets look at Borderlands. A great co-op game. But a veteran player would destroy the experience for the Newbie. The veteran would come in with his +500 acid dmg gun and nuke every single enemy the newbie faces. It becomes more hand holding than shared experience.
This is what I mean by poorly implemented Co-op. When a newbie can't have the same fun as a veteran.
Heck, let us look at Zombies Ate My Neighbors. A game where a veteran could hold the hand of the newbie. But the second set of artillery would help the veteran so both players would have fun. Most importantly there is no need to figure out the In's and Out's for the Newbie. The whole game is enjoyable where a few mistakes are passable and he learning does not slow down the veterans pace.
Oh I'm well aware, I wasn't going just off of your list here. Me and my girlfriend have spent a fair bit of time looking with little luck beyond shooters. We always end up going with some older game to play like FF: CC or Phantasy Star Online (oddly enough, a split screen title). The closest we came to a newer game was Lord of the Rings: War in the North, but eventually decided not to because it got awful reviews. Portal 2 would have been a great one to try, but I've already beaten it several times on co-op.Vigormortis said:
I'd love to be proven wrong though, and if there's some hidden plethora of newly released couch co-op games (preferrably a couple good ones) I will have no issue conceding to whoever shows me it
EDIT: Actually, now that I think of it there's some nintendo titles as well. They just tend to be rather same-y platformers. So there's a couple in the 2d platformer genre too
It's on the Xbox, with roughly all the same content. And even then, both versions of the game can be played split-screen. Failing to see how this doesn't fit your criteria.Negatempest said:
But this is true of every single co-op game in existence, really. If one player has an enormous advantage over the others than the others will feel like they're just being dragged along instead of participating.
Have you actually played these games cooperatively? Item drops aren't shared. Each player has independent item spawns. So there's never any "fighting" over items.
Honestly, Torchlight 2 is by far the most co-op friendly ARPG I've ever come across.
I wouldn't quite say same the same for Diablo 3, but it too has independent item drops. So no competing over items.
Fair enough, but a large portion of the "old school" co-op games had shared lives. So this isn't that dissimilar.
There are quite a lot of people on Steam that like Dungeon Defenders. I think there's even a dedicated group whose sole purpose is to find people who like playing the game together. Might want to give that a look.
Same goes for Sanctum, unless I'm mistaken.
How is that any different from any co-op game, though? If one person is being completely useless they will often ruin the experience, regardless of the game.
Not sure if you're saying this as a good thing or a bad thing. Either way, this is another that can be played split-screen on both console and PC.
Fair enough, but local co-op was only half of what you said you were looking for in your OP. So I presumed you meant both co-op and local co-op.Terraria-Have this game too. No local co-op though.
Minecraft-Same as Terraria.
No, it can be competitive. But there are lots of ways to play the game with friends. As in, your friend working with you on your team.Worms- You and I both know that this is a competitive game.
But like worms, there are many ways to play. Some of which involve completing tasks with the help of a friend. The two of you using your own decks cooperatively to win.Magic- Again, we know that MTG is a competitive game.
Well, then don't play with randoms online! Team up with friends, assuming they have the game of course.
Fair point. Can't fault you for simply not liking a certain genre. (a genre I'm not fond of either)Warframe- It's closer to an MMO than I like.
I can't agree with this, though. Not entirely.Or if you want me to make a long story short.
Many of the old-school co-op games required the other player to have at least the same level of skill as you to avoid ruining the experience. Especially those that had shared lives or the ones that would consider a level/mission/quest failed if one or more of the players died.
If anything, co-op games today are far more forgiving of varied player skills. The old-school ones often expected you and your fellow players to execute the game near perfect or else you all failed.
All I'm saying is: as long as you're willing to look for them, the gaming industry today offers a veritable smorgasbord of games with decent co-op.
Now, is there an over-abundance of true "old-school" style co-op games? No. But even so, there are still those options. Even if they aren't as abundant.
Believe me, I used to think the same thing. "Co-op is dead!" But then I looked past my rose-tinted nostalgia of the "good ole days" and realized that there are many, many good co-op games available now-a-days.
Here's hoping you find a few to slake your thirst.
I have said before shared lives, even in past co-op games, was and still is a stupid mechanic for artificial difficulty. And both players did not need to have the same game experience to have fun with a game. Old co-op game, Aero Fighers. A veteran player could easily dodge bullet fire and know when to attack. A newbie who joins the veteran player on the game would in no way make it harder on the veteran player. Think about this for a second. How often have you thought or said, "LtP or Newbie is ruining the experience" in past co-op games compared to present ones? To me I can play a game of House of the Dead and would be happy that a new player joins, regardless if they're newbies or not. The game is engaging on its own and even more so with another player. I do that a lot with my little cousins when we play House of the Dead in an arcade. They SUCK, but we both still have a good time and he doesn't hold me back.Vigormortis said:It's on the Xbox, with roughly all the same content. And even then, both versions of the game can be played split-screen. Failing to see how this doesn't fit your criteria.Negatempest said:
But this is true of every single co-op game in existence, really. If one player has an enormous advantage over the others than the others will feel like they're just being dragged along instead of participating.
Have you actually played these games cooperatively? Item drops aren't shared. Each player has independent item spawns. So there's never any "fighting" over items.
Honestly, Torchlight 2 is by far the most co-op friendly ARPG I've ever come across.
I wouldn't quite say same the same for Diablo 3, but it too has independent item drops. So no competing over items.
Fair enough, but a large portion of the "old school" co-op games had shared lives. So this isn't that dissimilar.
There are quite a lot of people on Steam that like Dungeon Defenders. I think there's even a dedicated group whose sole purpose is to find people who like playing the game together. Might want to give that a look.
Same goes for Sanctum, unless I'm mistaken.
How is that any different from any co-op game, though? If one person is being completely useless they will often ruin the experience, regardless of the game.
Not sure if you're saying this as a good thing or a bad thing. Either way, this is another that can be played split-screen on both console and PC.
Fair enough, but local co-op was only half of what you said you were looking for in your OP. So I presumed you meant both co-op and local co-op.Terraria-Have this game too. No local co-op though.
Minecraft-Same as Terraria.
No, it can be competitive. But there are lots of ways to play the game with friends. As in, your friend working with you on your team.Worms- You and I both know that this is a competitive game.
But like worms, there are many ways to play. Some of which involve completing tasks with the help of a friend. The two of you using your own decks cooperatively to win.Magic- Again, we know that MTG is a competitive game.
Well, then don't play with randoms online! Team up with friends, assuming they have the game of course.
Fair point. Can't fault you for simply not liking a certain genre. (a genre I'm not fond of either)Warframe- It's closer to an MMO than I like.
I can't agree with this, though. Not entirely.Or if you want me to make a long story short.
Many of the old-school co-op games required the other player to have at least the same level of skill as you to avoid ruining the experience. Especially those that had shared lives or the ones that would consider a level/mission/quest failed if one or more of the players died.
If anything, co-op games today are far more forgiving of varied player skills. The old-school ones often expected you and your fellow players to execute the game near perfect or else you all failed.
All I'm saying is: as long as you're willing to look for them, the gaming industry today offers a veritable smorgasbord of games with decent co-op.
Now, is there an over-abundance of true "old-school" style co-op games? No. But even so, there are still those options. Even if they aren't as abundant.
Believe me, I used to think the same thing. "Co-op is dead!" But then I looked past my rose-tinted nostalgia of the "good ole days" and realized that there are many, many good co-op games available now-a-days.
Here's hoping you find a few to slake your thirst.