The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
There are many different types of multiplayer gaming available at the moment, but out of the main three for first and third person shoot-em-ups, cooperative, counteroperative and deathmatch, which one is the best?
What are they all about?
Cooperative play is where two or more of you play together on the same game helping each other complete the final goal. Usually this kind of play is simultaneous, both players are involved at the same time, however, there is the possibility for one character to complete one part of a level, whilst another does the next, and so on.
Counteroperative play is the exact opposite. It is where one player takes control of the good guy, trying to defeat evil, whereas the other player takes control of an enemy, or a group of enemies and tries to stop the good guy. Usually, when the evil character dies, another one respawns (appears out of nowhere) so that the counteroperative player can try again.
Deathmatch is something completely different. Deathmatch play is when all the players duke it out in different arenas to see who is the best. All players usually choose different characters from the game (whether they be good or evil), then they poor loads of ammo into each others guts, respawning many times to try again until either one player has reached a certain number of kills, or time runs out.
Their good points.
Cooperative is really good if you are always telling them how to play the game, even though you may not be that good at it yourself. You can work together without arguing to try and get past that boss, to try and defeat that hoarde of alien scum, and to try and find that hidden piece of cheese which has no relevance to the game at all.
Ok that last bit was about Perfect Dark.....
You have the ability to work like James Bond. He always has someone helping him somewhere in the films. He had Feelix in the early movies, Natalia in Goldeneye, Christmas Jones and Valentin in The World Is Not Enough, all their helping him at some point. Now you can do the same, maybe clearing out the enemies for your ally who has no ammunition for his rifle, or opening one section of level, so the other player has the chance to get through it himself and complete the mission.
Cooperative modes have the potential to do a lot more than just run in a square room and kill a few aliens.
Counteroperative play is quite similar too. How often have you seen a James Bond movie where you say to yourself "Why doesn't he just shoot Bond instead of telling him the whole plot and giving him the opportunity to escape?" Counteroperative modes allow you to do just that, kill the good guy the way you want to, instead of the way a pre-programmed drone would. Ofcourse you have to take into consideration that whoever is controlling the first player will also be plotting and scheming against you. Of course, playing as the enemy, you aso have the chance to use your hoardes of evil as protection. Why not hide behind them whilst blasting away at the good guy?
It's also good for the person trying to save the world. They have the chance to fight an opponent who isn't controlled by the cpu, who has human intelligence (to some level anyway) and who is worthy of your golden bullet. You have the opportunity to learn new tactics for beating the enemies in the single player game as you're opponent is tougher and overall, you get to beat everyone else in a level instead of in a special arena.
Deathmatch has lots of benefits. you get a chance to try out different weapons against everyone else, you have the ability to blast each other instead of fighting in the real world, you can compete in tournaments against lots of friends to see who really is the best, you can play one of many specially designed arenas, you can play as nealy any character you like, and the list goes on and on and on. In some games you can make up your own rules and minigames to play which means you don't have to stick to the basic "kill everything that moves" setting. Some games even have special modes where you have little or no health which makes the game seem more realistic. One shot immobolises you. That's as close to realism as you can get really. Other modes can make it so that every player has lots of health and it takes a lot of ammo to finish them off. There's just so many options available on deathmatch modes.
Their bad points.
Well, cooperative is very limited, and makes the games seem a lot easier. Sometimes you'll be arguing next to a dead body about who's going to pick up that ammo, or who's going to do what. The other player might rush ahead and finish the level leaving you a fair way behind, and then it doesn't seem fun at all. You may as well be playing single player when it gets like that. Although the games are more socially friendly, they do tend to get more annoying then fun. You need to match the other player's pace to get anything out of it.
Counteroperative is also very limited. The health level of the enemies is generally much lower than that of the person controlling the good guys. So you end up running up to whoever is playing as the main character, just to get killed and try again. There's no fun in that. You have to try and be more tactful with your limited amount of weaponry and ammo, and that can make the game a lot more frustrating than playing on cooperative mode.
Deathmatches also have their bad points. If you aren't used to the controls, or even the game's physics, you'll find it hard to beat your friends at the game. If you're round a friend's house and you're playing their game, chances are you wont know where to find the best weapons, but they will. And they'll use that to their advantage. However, adding 'bots' to deathmatches does tend to even things out a bit.
Conclusion.
Overall, I'd say that the best multiplayer mode in a first and third person shoot-em-up game is the deathmatch. You get great play from the other two modes, but they are very limited to what you can do. However, Deathmatches have plenty of variety and there are many different ways of playing them. I could spend hours playing Quake 3 Arena on the Dreamcast, or Goldeneye on License to Kill mode using pistols as the weapon scheme. There's just so many ways to play, and you can make up unwritten rules to play them as well, like "No shooting someone who hasn't got a gun".
Try all three modes out on different games yourself and see which one you think is the best.
What are they all about?
Cooperative play is where two or more of you play together on the same game helping each other complete the final goal. Usually this kind of play is simultaneous, both players are involved at the same time, however, there is the possibility for one character to complete one part of a level, whilst another does the next, and so on.
Counteroperative play is the exact opposite. It is where one player takes control of the good guy, trying to defeat evil, whereas the other player takes control of an enemy, or a group of enemies and tries to stop the good guy. Usually, when the evil character dies, another one respawns (appears out of nowhere) so that the counteroperative player can try again.
Deathmatch is something completely different. Deathmatch play is when all the players duke it out in different arenas to see who is the best. All players usually choose different characters from the game (whether they be good or evil), then they poor loads of ammo into each others guts, respawning many times to try again until either one player has reached a certain number of kills, or time runs out.
Their good points.
Cooperative is really good if you are always telling them how to play the game, even though you may not be that good at it yourself. You can work together without arguing to try and get past that boss, to try and defeat that hoarde of alien scum, and to try and find that hidden piece of cheese which has no relevance to the game at all.
Ok that last bit was about Perfect Dark.....
You have the ability to work like James Bond. He always has someone helping him somewhere in the films. He had Feelix in the early movies, Natalia in Goldeneye, Christmas Jones and Valentin in The World Is Not Enough, all their helping him at some point. Now you can do the same, maybe clearing out the enemies for your ally who has no ammunition for his rifle, or opening one section of level, so the other player has the chance to get through it himself and complete the mission.
Cooperative modes have the potential to do a lot more than just run in a square room and kill a few aliens.
Counteroperative play is quite similar too. How often have you seen a James Bond movie where you say to yourself "Why doesn't he just shoot Bond instead of telling him the whole plot and giving him the opportunity to escape?" Counteroperative modes allow you to do just that, kill the good guy the way you want to, instead of the way a pre-programmed drone would. Ofcourse you have to take into consideration that whoever is controlling the first player will also be plotting and scheming against you. Of course, playing as the enemy, you aso have the chance to use your hoardes of evil as protection. Why not hide behind them whilst blasting away at the good guy?
It's also good for the person trying to save the world. They have the chance to fight an opponent who isn't controlled by the cpu, who has human intelligence (to some level anyway) and who is worthy of your golden bullet. You have the opportunity to learn new tactics for beating the enemies in the single player game as you're opponent is tougher and overall, you get to beat everyone else in a level instead of in a special arena.
Deathmatch has lots of benefits. you get a chance to try out different weapons against everyone else, you have the ability to blast each other instead of fighting in the real world, you can compete in tournaments against lots of friends to see who really is the best, you can play one of many specially designed arenas, you can play as nealy any character you like, and the list goes on and on and on. In some games you can make up your own rules and minigames to play which means you don't have to stick to the basic "kill everything that moves" setting. Some games even have special modes where you have little or no health which makes the game seem more realistic. One shot immobolises you. That's as close to realism as you can get really. Other modes can make it so that every player has lots of health and it takes a lot of ammo to finish them off. There's just so many options available on deathmatch modes.
Their bad points.
Well, cooperative is very limited, and makes the games seem a lot easier. Sometimes you'll be arguing next to a dead body about who's going to pick up that ammo, or who's going to do what. The other player might rush ahead and finish the level leaving you a fair way behind, and then it doesn't seem fun at all. You may as well be playing single player when it gets like that. Although the games are more socially friendly, they do tend to get more annoying then fun. You need to match the other player's pace to get anything out of it.
Counteroperative is also very limited. The health level of the enemies is generally much lower than that of the person controlling the good guys. So you end up running up to whoever is playing as the main character, just to get killed and try again. There's no fun in that. You have to try and be more tactful with your limited amount of weaponry and ammo, and that can make the game a lot more frustrating than playing on cooperative mode.
Deathmatches also have their bad points. If you aren't used to the controls, or even the game's physics, you'll find it hard to beat your friends at the game. If you're round a friend's house and you're playing their game, chances are you wont know where to find the best weapons, but they will. And they'll use that to their advantage. However, adding 'bots' to deathmatches does tend to even things out a bit.
Conclusion.
Overall, I'd say that the best multiplayer mode in a first and third person shoot-em-up game is the deathmatch. You get great play from the other two modes, but they are very limited to what you can do. However, Deathmatches have plenty of variety and there are many different ways of playing them. I could spend hours playing Quake 3 Arena on the Dreamcast, or Goldeneye on License to Kill mode using pistols as the weapon scheme. There's just so many ways to play, and you can make up unwritten rules to play them as well, like "No shooting someone who hasn't got a gun".
Try all three modes out on different games yourself and see which one you think is the best.
You need someone good to play against in co/counteroperative modes otherwise it can become too easy.
I prefer deathmatching because you can even things up by giving an opponent a sim as a team mate.
I prefer deathmatching because you can even things up by giving an opponent a sim as a team mate.
Co-operative mode is best for training:
This could be co-operative missions, or training against multiplayer bots.
That is working together against bots and it's good to work with your friends while you get used to the controls.
Deathmatch is better for seasoned players who like to try and tone their skills against players of similar skill, initiative and guile.
You CAN play against computer bots but they're not as good.
They've got no intelligence and folloow a pattern:
Run to best weapon in most efficient and fast route.
Track down player using the radar.
Run at player and get perfect headshots without aiming.
Naturally, it's far more interesting to play fallable, but ultimately better human players.
Counter operative?
Pioneered in Perfect Dark but I think it has an even better future.
One team controls the main fighters, the other team controls various drones or guards.
The guards naturally have less health but better numbers.
The counter operatives control one guard at a time and move into the body in another when they die.
It's sort of interesting in 1 Vs 1 scenarios, but I think it'll really pick up for team internet efforts.
That's when mission based gaming will become REALLY exciting.
Want to take 3 of your friends online splitscreen and go against the odds by taking out a base full of weaker, but just as deadly counter operative opponents from around the world.
Now Rare are making Perfect Dark 2...
This could be co-operative missions, or training against multiplayer bots.
That is working together against bots and it's good to work with your friends while you get used to the controls.
Deathmatch is better for seasoned players who like to try and tone their skills against players of similar skill, initiative and guile.
You CAN play against computer bots but they're not as good.
They've got no intelligence and folloow a pattern:
Run to best weapon in most efficient and fast route.
Track down player using the radar.
Run at player and get perfect headshots without aiming.
Naturally, it's far more interesting to play fallable, but ultimately better human players.
Counter operative?
Pioneered in Perfect Dark but I think it has an even better future.
One team controls the main fighters, the other team controls various drones or guards.
The guards naturally have less health but better numbers.
The counter operatives control one guard at a time and move into the body in another when they die.
It's sort of interesting in 1 Vs 1 scenarios, but I think it'll really pick up for team internet efforts.
That's when mission based gaming will become REALLY exciting.
Want to take 3 of your friends online splitscreen and go against the odds by taking out a base full of weaker, but just as deadly counter operative opponents from around the world.
Now Rare are making Perfect Dark 2...
There are many different types of multiplayer gaming available at the moment, but out of the main three for first and third person shoot-em-ups, cooperative, counteroperative and deathmatch, which one is the best?
What are they all about?
Cooperative play is where two or more of you play together on the same game helping each other complete the final goal. Usually this kind of play is simultaneous, both players are involved at the same time, however, there is the possibility for one character to complete one part of a level, whilst another does the next, and so on.
Counteroperative play is the exact opposite. It is where one player takes control of the good guy, trying to defeat evil, whereas the other player takes control of an enemy, or a group of enemies and tries to stop the good guy. Usually, when the evil character dies, another one respawns (appears out of nowhere) so that the counteroperative player can try again.
Deathmatch is something completely different. Deathmatch play is when all the players duke it out in different arenas to see who is the best. All players usually choose different characters from the game (whether they be good or evil), then they poor loads of ammo into each others guts, respawning many times to try again until either one player has reached a certain number of kills, or time runs out.
Their good points.
Cooperative is really good if you are always telling them how to play the game, even though you may not be that good at it yourself. You can work together without arguing to try and get past that boss, to try and defeat that hoarde of alien scum, and to try and find that hidden piece of cheese which has no relevance to the game at all.
Ok that last bit was about Perfect Dark.....
You have the ability to work like James Bond. He always has someone helping him somewhere in the films. He had Feelix in the early movies, Natalia in Goldeneye, Christmas Jones and Valentin in The World Is Not Enough, all their helping him at some point. Now you can do the same, maybe clearing out the enemies for your ally who has no ammunition for his rifle, or opening one section of level, so the other player has the chance to get through it himself and complete the mission.
Cooperative modes have the potential to do a lot more than just run in a square room and kill a few aliens.
Counteroperative play is quite similar too. How often have you seen a James Bond movie where you say to yourself "Why doesn't he just shoot Bond instead of telling him the whole plot and giving him the opportunity to escape?" Counteroperative modes allow you to do just that, kill the good guy the way you want to, instead of the way a pre-programmed drone would. Ofcourse you have to take into consideration that whoever is controlling the first player will also be plotting and scheming against you. Of course, playing as the enemy, you aso have the chance to use your hoardes of evil as protection. Why not hide behind them whilst blasting away at the good guy?
It's also good for the person trying to save the world. They have the chance to fight an opponent who isn't controlled by the cpu, who has human intelligence (to some level anyway) and who is worthy of your golden bullet. You have the opportunity to learn new tactics for beating the enemies in the single player game as you're opponent is tougher and overall, you get to beat everyone else in a level instead of in a special arena.
Deathmatch has lots of benefits. you get a chance to try out different weapons against everyone else, you have the ability to blast each other instead of fighting in the real world, you can compete in tournaments against lots of friends to see who really is the best, you can play one of many specially designed arenas, you can play as nealy any character you like, and the list goes on and on and on. In some games you can make up your own rules and minigames to play which means you don't have to stick to the basic "kill everything that moves" setting. Some games even have special modes where you have little or no health which makes the game seem more realistic. One shot immobolises you. That's as close to realism as you can get really. Other modes can make it so that every player has lots of health and it takes a lot of ammo to finish them off. There's just so many options available on deathmatch modes.
Their bad points.
Well, cooperative is very limited, and makes the games seem a lot easier. Sometimes you'll be arguing next to a dead body about who's going to pick up that ammo, or who's going to do what. The other player might rush ahead and finish the level leaving you a fair way behind, and then it doesn't seem fun at all. You may as well be playing single player when it gets like that. Although the games are more socially friendly, they do tend to get more annoying then fun. You need to match the other player's pace to get anything out of it.
Counteroperative is also very limited. The health level of the enemies is generally much lower than that of the person controlling the good guys. So you end up running up to whoever is playing as the main character, just to get killed and try again. There's no fun in that. You have to try and be more tactful with your limited amount of weaponry and ammo, and that can make the game a lot more frustrating than playing on cooperative mode.
Deathmatches also have their bad points. If you aren't used to the controls, or even the game's physics, you'll find it hard to beat your friends at the game. If you're round a friend's house and you're playing their game, chances are you wont know where to find the best weapons, but they will. And they'll use that to their advantage. However, adding 'bots' to deathmatches does tend to even things out a bit.
Conclusion.
Overall, I'd say that the best multiplayer mode in a first and third person shoot-em-up game is the deathmatch. You get great play from the other two modes, but they are very limited to what you can do. However, Deathmatches have plenty of variety and there are many different ways of playing them. I could spend hours playing Quake 3 Arena on the Dreamcast, or Goldeneye on License to Kill mode using pistols as the weapon scheme. There's just so many ways to play, and you can make up unwritten rules to play them as well, like "No shooting someone who hasn't got a gun".
Try all three modes out on different games yourself and see which one you think is the best.
What are they all about?
Cooperative play is where two or more of you play together on the same game helping each other complete the final goal. Usually this kind of play is simultaneous, both players are involved at the same time, however, there is the possibility for one character to complete one part of a level, whilst another does the next, and so on.
Counteroperative play is the exact opposite. It is where one player takes control of the good guy, trying to defeat evil, whereas the other player takes control of an enemy, or a group of enemies and tries to stop the good guy. Usually, when the evil character dies, another one respawns (appears out of nowhere) so that the counteroperative player can try again.
Deathmatch is something completely different. Deathmatch play is when all the players duke it out in different arenas to see who is the best. All players usually choose different characters from the game (whether they be good or evil), then they poor loads of ammo into each others guts, respawning many times to try again until either one player has reached a certain number of kills, or time runs out.
Their good points.
Cooperative is really good if you are always telling them how to play the game, even though you may not be that good at it yourself. You can work together without arguing to try and get past that boss, to try and defeat that hoarde of alien scum, and to try and find that hidden piece of cheese which has no relevance to the game at all.
Ok that last bit was about Perfect Dark.....
You have the ability to work like James Bond. He always has someone helping him somewhere in the films. He had Feelix in the early movies, Natalia in Goldeneye, Christmas Jones and Valentin in The World Is Not Enough, all their helping him at some point. Now you can do the same, maybe clearing out the enemies for your ally who has no ammunition for his rifle, or opening one section of level, so the other player has the chance to get through it himself and complete the mission.
Cooperative modes have the potential to do a lot more than just run in a square room and kill a few aliens.
Counteroperative play is quite similar too. How often have you seen a James Bond movie where you say to yourself "Why doesn't he just shoot Bond instead of telling him the whole plot and giving him the opportunity to escape?" Counteroperative modes allow you to do just that, kill the good guy the way you want to, instead of the way a pre-programmed drone would. Ofcourse you have to take into consideration that whoever is controlling the first player will also be plotting and scheming against you. Of course, playing as the enemy, you aso have the chance to use your hoardes of evil as protection. Why not hide behind them whilst blasting away at the good guy?
It's also good for the person trying to save the world. They have the chance to fight an opponent who isn't controlled by the cpu, who has human intelligence (to some level anyway) and who is worthy of your golden bullet. You have the opportunity to learn new tactics for beating the enemies in the single player game as you're opponent is tougher and overall, you get to beat everyone else in a level instead of in a special arena.
Deathmatch has lots of benefits. you get a chance to try out different weapons against everyone else, you have the ability to blast each other instead of fighting in the real world, you can compete in tournaments against lots of friends to see who really is the best, you can play one of many specially designed arenas, you can play as nealy any character you like, and the list goes on and on and on. In some games you can make up your own rules and minigames to play which means you don't have to stick to the basic "kill everything that moves" setting. Some games even have special modes where you have little or no health which makes the game seem more realistic. One shot immobolises you. That's as close to realism as you can get really. Other modes can make it so that every player has lots of health and it takes a lot of ammo to finish them off. There's just so many options available on deathmatch modes.
Their bad points.
Well, cooperative is very limited, and makes the games seem a lot easier. Sometimes you'll be arguing next to a dead body about who's going to pick up that ammo, or who's going to do what. The other player might rush ahead and finish the level leaving you a fair way behind, and then it doesn't seem fun at all. You may as well be playing single player when it gets like that. Although the games are more socially friendly, they do tend to get more annoying then fun. You need to match the other player's pace to get anything out of it.
Counteroperative is also very limited. The health level of the enemies is generally much lower than that of the person controlling the good guys. So you end up running up to whoever is playing as the main character, just to get killed and try again. There's no fun in that. You have to try and be more tactful with your limited amount of weaponry and ammo, and that can make the game a lot more frustrating than playing on cooperative mode.
Deathmatches also have their bad points. If you aren't used to the controls, or even the game's physics, you'll find it hard to beat your friends at the game. If you're round a friend's house and you're playing their game, chances are you wont know where to find the best weapons, but they will. And they'll use that to their advantage. However, adding 'bots' to deathmatches does tend to even things out a bit.
Conclusion.
Overall, I'd say that the best multiplayer mode in a first and third person shoot-em-up game is the deathmatch. You get great play from the other two modes, but they are very limited to what you can do. However, Deathmatches have plenty of variety and there are many different ways of playing them. I could spend hours playing Quake 3 Arena on the Dreamcast, or Goldeneye on License to Kill mode using pistols as the weapon scheme. There's just so many ways to play, and you can make up unwritten rules to play them as well, like "No shooting someone who hasn't got a gun".
Try all three modes out on different games yourself and see which one you think is the best.