If played on harder difficulty settings, Residen Evil: Outbreak could be pretty damn good with 4 players.FreelanceButler said:
OT: I'd like to see co-op in Vanquish, that would be awesome.
co-op what game can't it improve
- Thread starter nuba km
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT: I'd like to see co-op in Vanquish, that would be awesome.
I think it would be worse when you are stuck in a small room (in game) and you and your friends start screaming at each other at how to get out, then you hear a monster. Example:FreelanceButler said:
Jake: Now what the hell do we do?
Joel: I think we have to think of a way out.
Will: Oh really genius? Did it take you that long to figure out?
Joel: Will, your not helping.
Will: Neither is your fat ass!
Joel: Screw you!
Jake: Guys shut up I think we move these bricks.
Will: Maybe fat boy will eat them!
Joel: I'm gonna kick your a--
*Loud moaning noise*
Jake: Crap! What was that?
Joel: Send Will down to go see.
Will: Screw you fat boy!
Jake: Guys be quiet, it is coming clos--
Joel: You wanna go, punk? I'll bash this lantern over your head!
Will: Think you gotta shot fat boy!?!
Jake: The light brings the monsters closer you kno-
*Monster Jumps up and kills us all*
That is actually how my two friends would react in a game like Amnesia: The Dark Decent.
Hahaha. Myst was the very first game that popped into my head.Squilookle said:
Besides Myst, I'd have to say that Microsoft Flight Simulator II would never have been improved with co-op. In fact, the only simulator I could think of that could benefit from co-op is Desert Bus, and that's only if player 2 gets to be a passenger on the bus. At least then something could happen on that damn bus.
I'd like to see more dedicated co-op games rather than just having it added onto single player games as an after-thought.
I totally understand. But wouldn't we joke in a scary situation to relieve the fear we have in an environment?Soylent Bacon said:
I wouldnt mind seeing co-op in something like blitzkrieg, it was a great rts game where you had no base and no resource management. Just a number of re-enforcements that you could call up and a simple objective.
The campaigns in it were great but pretty short I'm afraid to say.
Close combat (battle of the bulge) is along the same lines but much older no base, no re-enforcements at all. Engagements in that could take ages if you left them, it would be rather interesting to see what would happen if that had co-op.
The campaigns in it were great but pretty short I'm afraid to say.
Close combat (battle of the bulge) is along the same lines but much older no base, no re-enforcements at all. Engagements in that could take ages if you left them, it would be rather interesting to see what would happen if that had co-op.
"Well added CO-OP"
Why do you use that as a clause every time some pokes a hole in your theory?
You seem to be unable to understand that to have "Well added CO-OP" you would need to have a game designed specifically for CO-OP or re-design an existing single player game to accommodate co-op which would not improve a game as it would no longer be the same game.
As many have brought up the horror genre of games is not a good candidate for this as immersion and fear are the foundation of all true horror games. Contrary to popular belief Left 4 Dead is not a true horror game, it's an FPS which has zombies, as horror and survival go hand in hand to create fear and fear is not a factor when regardless of how you have progressed thus far you will always have a way to kill the zombies (aka unlimited pistol ammo). Not to say that Left 4 Dead is not a good game, my friends and I had a lot of fun playing it, and would always play on expert for the challenge but never once did we feel fear while playing it, because gore does not make a game scary. While I concede that a horror game where all of the players are separated and out of contact with only certain areas being connected in some way to facilitate the sharing of ideas, would work as a co-op game, it would not work as well as a single player experience, thus bringing me back the point that games not designed for co-op cannot be improved with co-op.
On the subject of RPG we will start with the bethesda games. co-op in these games would not work. I know if anyone bothered to read this far they will either being nodding or writing an angry reply, but hear me out on this one. I put it to you that co-op does not work in an open world game to the effect it would in a linear game. This sounds like tripe at the moment but lets think about it. The point of bethesda RPG's is exploration, this alone splits players into two groups, those who like to wander and those who like to have purpose and complete the story, now in an open world any of the players could go anywhere to do as they wished. This fact alone could make or break the co-op of such a game, you could have an organised team of friends each doing parts of spread out quests such as gathering items or doing encounters to get loot and coin for the benefit of the whole, but more than likely you will have a group of friends faffing about in their own way miles apart from each other every now and then meeting each other and trading or killing each other essentially turning it into an MMO which defeats the idea of co-op mode.
Bioware games in the past have had pseudo co-op in the form of neverwinter nights multiplayer where a group of people can play through a dungeon , but these dungeons where linear and were never story driven like the single player campaign. Mass Effect would suffer immensely with co-op due to the fact the combat was there to break up conversations and facilitate the story. To make a game like that co-op friendly would destroy the emotional links with characters and kill the immersion.
To contest a point you have made, no amount of banter, shenanigans and shared amusement at bad dialogue will ever be enough to substitute for an immersive single player experience.
Why do you use that as a clause every time some pokes a hole in your theory?
You seem to be unable to understand that to have "Well added CO-OP" you would need to have a game designed specifically for CO-OP or re-design an existing single player game to accommodate co-op which would not improve a game as it would no longer be the same game.
As many have brought up the horror genre of games is not a good candidate for this as immersion and fear are the foundation of all true horror games. Contrary to popular belief Left 4 Dead is not a true horror game, it's an FPS which has zombies, as horror and survival go hand in hand to create fear and fear is not a factor when regardless of how you have progressed thus far you will always have a way to kill the zombies (aka unlimited pistol ammo). Not to say that Left 4 Dead is not a good game, my friends and I had a lot of fun playing it, and would always play on expert for the challenge but never once did we feel fear while playing it, because gore does not make a game scary. While I concede that a horror game where all of the players are separated and out of contact with only certain areas being connected in some way to facilitate the sharing of ideas, would work as a co-op game, it would not work as well as a single player experience, thus bringing me back the point that games not designed for co-op cannot be improved with co-op.
On the subject of RPG we will start with the bethesda games. co-op in these games would not work. I know if anyone bothered to read this far they will either being nodding or writing an angry reply, but hear me out on this one. I put it to you that co-op does not work in an open world game to the effect it would in a linear game. This sounds like tripe at the moment but lets think about it. The point of bethesda RPG's is exploration, this alone splits players into two groups, those who like to wander and those who like to have purpose and complete the story, now in an open world any of the players could go anywhere to do as they wished. This fact alone could make or break the co-op of such a game, you could have an organised team of friends each doing parts of spread out quests such as gathering items or doing encounters to get loot and coin for the benefit of the whole, but more than likely you will have a group of friends faffing about in their own way miles apart from each other every now and then meeting each other and trading or killing each other essentially turning it into an MMO which defeats the idea of co-op mode.
Bioware games in the past have had pseudo co-op in the form of neverwinter nights multiplayer where a group of people can play through a dungeon , but these dungeons where linear and were never story driven like the single player campaign. Mass Effect would suffer immensely with co-op due to the fact the combat was there to break up conversations and facilitate the story. To make a game like that co-op friendly would destroy the emotional links with characters and kill the immersion.
To contest a point you have made, no amount of banter, shenanigans and shared amusement at bad dialogue will ever be enough to substitute for an immersive single player experience.
You seem to have taken a pretty defensive attitude here, so apologies if my comments have been seen as a personal attack, this was not the intent. However I still disagree with you heavily. As others have pointed out, you've slightly overused the "well added" clause, and it's really starting to lose it's effectiveness.nuba km said:
Additionally, your argument that they wouldn't make you play the coop content, falls short after analysis: Even if it was just an optional extra alongside the main game, it would be naive to think that it would not have affect the main game it some ways... imagine if they wanted to add coop to Half Life 2, they don't have quite enough money or time to do it thought, so they cut out the Ravenholm section of the SP game, and use the time and money saved, to make coop extra that people don't even want.
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 dents 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 postCraig Cameron said:
I defend my well added clause up above^Charles_njc said:
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.nuba km said:
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!)
Fair enough.nuba km said:
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.
Good horror games push you forward. All other horror games become gore-fests or just plain rubbish.Mr Pantomime said:
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.
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.Croaker42 said: