I miss strong co-op/couch co-op games.

[Roxor]

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.

If that's true, then wouldn't the reduction in detail saving money on development be attractive to publishers?

 

[Vigormortis]

Except that the OP asked for local co-op games, not online co-op games.

Thread title is: "I miss strong co-op/couch co-op games." Indicating the OP was looking for both. Even if that's not what was intended.

Besides, as I've said a number of times already, almost half of those I listed are playable splitscreen/locally. And, as I also said, that is a very small list that I came up with off the top of my head. There are plenty more co-op titles out there.

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?

Honestly? No more or less than the other. It's all dependent on the game you're playing. Whether it's a newer game or older.

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.

But again, as I had said before, there are still games today that function similarly alone or with friends. Not all do, of course, but the same can be said of games in the past.

It's easy to look to the past and recall all of the good examples, and then look to today and take note of all the bad. But if you look for them, I can guarantee you'll find exactly what you're looking for.

Hell, just peruse the indie markets on Steam, GoG, or Live. You'll find an incredible number of old-school type games with drop-in co-op.

If you're only looking to the biggest budget, triple-A market then you're limiting your options dramatically.

Coincidentally, a friend of mine just purchased Bleed on Steam. It's a classic side-scrolling shmup with local co-op. Save for a recent launching problem, you might want to look that one up.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Yeah I find it weird that Co-op has disappeared when we live in an era with massive TVs and fast internet.

Not really, there are plenty of games that can be co-oped, it just isn't side by side couch co-op any more, but online multiplayer co-op.

It is a lot cheaper for me to turn on my 360 and team up with my friends, instead of driving over to their apartment every time I want to co-op.

I still go over to their place once every two weeks, but even then I bring my TV over and we of course all have our own systems and have them all connected to the router.

 

[edudewired]

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.

If that's true, then wouldn't the reduction in detail saving money on development be attractive to publishers?

Well I guess to some but most publishers prefer to have MAXIMUM GRAPHICS or MAXIMUM WHATEVER, and also decreasing the quality of your game just to create couch co-op seems very against what a publisher would do, as you could have no couch co-op where 4 people have to buy a copy of your game to play together or couch co-op where only one person buys your game but still plays it with 3 people.

 

[RicoADF]

Yeah I find it weird that Co-op has disappeared when we live in an era with massive TVs and fast internet.

Not really, there are plenty of games that can be co-oped, it just isn't side by side couch co-op any more, but online multiplayer co-op.

It is a lot cheaper for me to turn on my 360 and team up with my friends, instead of driving over to their apartment every time I want to co-op.

I still go over to their place once every two weeks, but even then I bring my TV over and we of course all have our own systems and have them all connected to the router.

Bullshit. I just had a great weekend playing coop at my mate's place on xbox and PS3, theres PLENTY out there that have split screen as well as local network. All the call of duties, Left 4 Dead 2 and Halo just being 3 off the top of my head. I agree there was a lul there for abit but it seems like the complaints about no local mp have been heard and they are being made. I agree it's not every MP game like before, but now that we have fast net it's a less important feature to some companies but there are still plenty out there.

 

[HardkorSB]

I have friends that live by and I have a big family. Considering how many people in the escapist could possible, *GASP* be part of a large family too. Maybe a new co-op game would be fun?

I believe that Nintendo is making most of it's money by making family/group oriented games.
I'm sure you can find tons of co-op games in their library.

Some other co-op games I like are:

Gears of War 1-3 (3 has a 4 player split screen option)
Resident Evil 5
Marvel Ultimate Alliance
Mortal Kombat (team ladder option)
Tekken Tag Tournament 2
Borderlands
Call of Duty (I only play the zombie mode but it's really fun on co-op)
Army of Two

Also, what about all the Guitar Hero and Rock Band games that were all the rage just a little while ago?

I'm going to make it easy for you and just give you this list of games on the xbox360:

http://www.co-optimus.com/system/1/xbox-360.html

and the PS3:

http://www.co-optimus.com/system/2/playstation-3.html

Use the filters "couch co-op" and "split screen" and see how many titles you have to choose from.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

What about Borderlands? Also Halo? None of those doing it for you?

 

[Negatempest]

Except that the OP asked for local co-op games, not online co-op games.

Thread title is: "I miss strong co-op/couch co-op games." Indicating the OP was looking for both. Even if that's not what was intended.

Besides, as I've said a number of times already, almost half of those I listed are playable splitscreen/locally. And, as I also said, that is a very small list that I came up with off the top of my head. There are plenty more co-op titles out there.

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?

Honestly? No more or less than the other. It's all dependent on the game you're playing. Whether it's a newer game or older.

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.

But again, as I had said before, there are still games today that function similarly alone or with friends. Not all do, of course, but the same can be said of games in the past.

It's easy to look to the past and recall all of the good examples, and then look to today and take note of all the bad. But if you look for them, I can guarantee you'll find exactly what you're looking for.

Hell, just peruse the indie markets on Steam, GoG, or Live. You'll find an incredible number of old-school type games with drop-in co-op.

If you're only looking to the biggest budget, triple-A market then you're limiting your options dramatically.

Coincidentally, a friend of mine just purchased Bleed on Steam. It's a classic side-scrolling shmup with local co-op. Save for a recent launching problem, you might want to look that one up.

Now I'm not saying that everyone suffers the same issue, but I'm one of the lucky few where steam has more issues on my computer than it's worth. When my internet goes down, Steam refuses to work in offline mode. So I rarely use Steam anymore. If I go to GoG for co-op, all I'm doing is proving my point of co-op best in the past. Also I don't like Co-op on PC since I've spent a good hour (30 minutes ) to organize buttons on the PC D-pad and just hate doing that each time on a new game.

 

[Negatempest]

What about Borderlands? Also Halo? None of those doing it for you?

Funny story. Borderlands is what made me want old school co-op again. Half the game I played alone on PC GFWL. The other half I got visits from players who more or less walked me through the end game. That game required specific circumstances of everyone being on the same page to have fun.

Halo on the other hand was a great game with awesome co-op, the kind I wanted. Too bad my 2nd 360 console died and I don't want to buy another one.

 

[Negatempest]

I have friends that live by and I have a big family. Considering how many people in the escapist could possible, *GASP* be part of a large family too. Maybe a new co-op game would be fun?

I believe that Nintendo is making most of it's money by making family/group oriented games.
I'm sure you can find tons of co-op games in their library.

Some other co-op games I like are:

Gears of War 1-3 (3 has a 4 player split screen option)
Resident Evil 5
Marvel Ultimate Alliance
Mortal Kombat (team ladder option)
Tekken Tag Tournament 2
Borderlands
Call of Duty (I only play the zombie mode but it's really fun on co-op)
Army of Two

Also, what about all the Guitar Hero and Rock Band games that were all the rage just a little while ago?

I'm going to make it easy for you and just give you this list of games on the xbox360:

http://www.co-optimus.com/system/1/xbox-360.html

and the PS3:

http://www.co-optimus.com/system/2/playstation-3.html

Use the filters "couch co-op" and "split screen" and see how many titles you have to choose from.

Tried it before I made this post on finding co-op. But it is like trying to find a decent co-op in a list filled with mostly discount bin games.

 

[Elijin]

Snip

Terraria and Minecraft both have local co-op on their console versions. Which is relevant because you're looking for couch co-op, so consoles totally count.

The Magic The Gathering games have local co-op in a 2v2 which you can do against the AI or online players.

Now here's a zero effort list, just going through my game library:


3on3 NHL Arcade: Little arcadey ice hockey game with teams of three, all 3 human player can be on one team, or spread across both, with AI filling the roles of unoccupied players. (Human players can switch to any AI body at will)

Battleblock Theater: Puzzle platformer with combat. Local co-op includes modified levels to encourage co-operation between the two players.

Castle Crashers: Skipping blurb, you're familiar.

Cloning Clyde: Puzzle Platformer with some wierd mutating mechanics.

Crimson Alliance: Top down hack and slash. Drops money (to both players) with a store inbetween levels for gear. So no loot quabbles.

Dungeon Defenders: You're familiar with this.

Earthworm Jim HD: The classic, in HD

Golden Axe: There's a few of these old ports in my list.

Warhammer 40K Kill Team: Fairly simple twin stick top down shooter.

Magic Games (4 of them): Already covered this. Each game adds new decks/cards.

Matt Hazard Blood Bath and Beyond: Sidescrolling 2D shooter.

Minecraft: Yep.

Monaco: Yep.

N+: Puzzle platformer, pretty chaotic, amusing fun even when you lose.

Phantom Breaker Battle Grounds: Sidescroller beat em up with some RPG mechanics. (Similar to Castle Crashers)

Scott Pilgrim vs The World: The Game: Sidescroller beat em up with lite rpg mechanics.

Shoot Many Robots: Sidescrolling 2D shooter.

South Park Lets Go Tower Defense Play! Tower defense game.

Spelunky: Roguelike exploration/platformer, Supports up to 4p local co-op.

Splosion Man: Puzzle Platformer

Streets of Rage 2: Heh.

Terraria: Yep.

The Dishwasher: Vampire Smile: Side scroller beat em up ninja game...thing.

TMNT Turtles in time: Heh.



That list is only even skimming through my arcade purchases (and Im cheap, the arcade is filled with local co-op goodies). People who say couch co-op is dead are either really badly misinformed, or just too lazy to go looking for what they want.

edit: This forum apparently does spoilers differently than Im used to.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Too bad my 2nd 360 console died and I don't want to buy another one.

You got those two at some local retailer, right? You see, they don't watch which console they give you. They just give you a random one. That's why you need to screen each one they give you by going with this handy chart:

You'll want one with a Falcon or, even better, Jasper motherboard. Opus will do though if that's all they have. If they try to give you a Xenon or Zephyr though, toss that crap back in their face and tell 'em to give you another one. No exceptions.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

what about fear 3 which destroyed a single player game to turn it into co-op or RE5

FEAR3 was easily the worst of the series, it's not a bad game but it's not anything to go crazy about.

I tried FEAR3 coop with my young cousin and after 20 minutes of neither of us being able to see anything that was going on on-screen because of how murky, dark and indistinguishable everything was, it went straight off never to be played again.

Army of Two was given about an hour, only because I was determined to get a shotgun. The gunplay was mildly entertaining, if nothing spectacular, but everything else about the game was so atrocious that when we both died at one point, neither of us could face replaying the game from the checkpoint. Off, never to be played again.

So far the only games I've had fun with in Coop splitscreen are Dynasty Warriors 7 and Splinter Cell: Conviction. Not as good as Chaos Theory in coop, but still enjoyable coop games. Forza Motorsport has great splitscreen racing too and is a brilliant racer with a great choice of cars. My even younger cousin loves spending as much time choosing which cars he (and I) drive as racing.

 

[kingthrall]

WELL, my favorite game in my avatar myth is perhaps the best coop game ever made..

Simply put you can play the campaign online, one person is the captain of all the units. He starts off with the entire army and then gives out units he wants the other players to have. So by doing this he can give the new guys a small band of warriors or archers to stand back and fire while the more veteran players use the heavy hitting/valuable units such as the dwarf.

This also acts out in the multiplayer games as well, so you can fight each other or be on the same team. Myth world cup 2013 is actually currently running but as you can see for these two team tournament the captain selects out of a bunch of points an army trade to cater for the objective in this case assassin (kill all the enemy assassin units to win the game).
Then they distribute the army to their team players.

 

[Cabisco]

I think personally Co-op is doing alright for itself, but as it's my favorite game mode to play I feel I don't see it enough either. Though this is likely because I wish co-op was in every game ever, so often I'll be playing through something and just think about how amazing this would be to do with a friend. Though I do get annoyed when they do co-op half arsed when it could have so much potential, like far cry 3 where they didn't just let me have a friend run around the map with me and instead we played through small contained levels :/

 

[Negatempest]

Too bad my 2nd 360 console died and I don't want to buy another one.

You got those two at some local retailer, right? You see, they don't watch which console they give you. They just give you a random one. That's why you need to screen each one they give you by going with this handy chart:

You'll want one with a Falcon or, even better, Jasper motherboard. Opus will do though if that's all they have. If they try to give you a Xenon or Zephyr though, toss that crap back in their face and tell 'em to give you another one. No exceptions.

The first time was me buying the console about 2 years after launch. Second time was as a gift for the first one bricking a year after use.

 

[Samthropus]

Most of the thread here is talking about shooters, side-scrollers, and top-down action games because that's what has historically been available for co-op, and because couch co-op means console -- but I'm wondering what kind of appetite there might be for more deep strategy or management games, like empire-builders or RPGs, that are designed with co-op and multi-play in mind. I can't think of too many entries in that category -- I think LOTR War in the North and the Baldur's Gate console spin-offs were mentioned, but that's not much. Do you think it's an inherent conflict of formats, lack of desire, or lack of developer incentives that keeps immersive, complex strategy games from having a larger multiplayer focus?

 

[Dragonbums]

To be honest there are quite a lot of co-op games now, couch co-op are rarer for sure but online co-op is very much alive. The next gen seems heavily based on the concept of having a small group of friends and playing together against NPCs (Destiny, The Crew, The Division). Some could be called MMOs but their structure looks a lot closer to Dark Souls with groups.

I think OP is talking about couch get together co op.
Not online co op while still the same, still loses that social "touch" that the old games had.