The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Think of some of the biggest games of recent months, on any platform. Metal Gear Solid 2, Unreal Tournament 2003, the Resident Evil rehash on GameCube, even the sublime Final Fantasy X.
All of these are superb single-player experiences, pretty much unmatched by any other contenders in their respective genre. Now look at the type of ‘group’ experience that they offer. With the exception of UT2K3, none of the above games have any type of multiplayer shipped with the game. This is a bad thing.
Indeed, more often than not, the multiplay given by FPSs is very limited to a deathmatch/team deathmatch system (with the occasional Capture-the-Flag thrown in for good measure). This can become incredibly and monotonously dull. Yet one aspect of multiplayer has been overlooked consistently by almost all the great games recently: Co-operative play. Hell, even Doom offered gamers the ability to shoot their way through the entire game together. Why on Earth do developers seem to find it so hard to simply add a co-operative option to the multiplay menu?
I suppose the main reason for this is the level design. Many scripted events within games rely on the (single) player being in a certain place at a certain time, in order to activate a series of actions from non-playable characters. Yet it shouldn’t cause developers a huge headache to simply change levels slightly so that players are forced to enter new areas together (or something to that effect). It can also be a nightmare for internet games, since lag packets and other online jargon needs to be taken in to account so that gamers can all see the same enemies etc.
Granted, console gamers tend to have co-op play a lot more frequently than PC gamers do – the only recent FPS I can think of with co-op on PC is Serious Sam (along with pretty much all the Bioware role-playing games, which were designed as co-operative). The PS2 version of Half-life has a co-operative mode, even though it isn’t the entire single-player set of levels. But wouldn’t it have been great to play through Metal Gear Solid 2 as a pair of secret agents, or to save Spira as a party of six or seven real people in FFX? The possibilities simply boggle the mind. Co-op play can also add months to the gameplay of a title, since a game is much more fun if you go through it with a friend.
It seems as though (particularly for PC users) working through a game as a team has been left behind in favor of lonely people who prefer to play with themselves (in a non-smutty way :D ). It’s so much fun defeating challenging enemies with strategies worked out as a group that I find it very hard to understand why developers are leaving co-op by the wayside. Don’t you remember Golden Axe as a co-op two-player, or Wolfenstein 3D over a serial link cable? Don’t you want to do it again?
Think of it this way – deathmatches (such as those featured in Quake or Red Faction) serve only to get people angry with each other. People stop speaking to each other for weeks, just because they’ve discovered their ‘best’ friend had autoaim turned on for that all-important championship match. Deathmatches are, by nature, isolationist forms of play. Co-op play forces people to band together to defeat obstacles. Surely this would result in happier gamers. Who knows, if deathmatches were removed from games, maybe there would never be any wars again…
All of these are superb single-player experiences, pretty much unmatched by any other contenders in their respective genre. Now look at the type of ‘group’ experience that they offer. With the exception of UT2K3, none of the above games have any type of multiplayer shipped with the game. This is a bad thing.
Indeed, more often than not, the multiplay given by FPSs is very limited to a deathmatch/team deathmatch system (with the occasional Capture-the-Flag thrown in for good measure). This can become incredibly and monotonously dull. Yet one aspect of multiplayer has been overlooked consistently by almost all the great games recently: Co-operative play. Hell, even Doom offered gamers the ability to shoot their way through the entire game together. Why on Earth do developers seem to find it so hard to simply add a co-operative option to the multiplay menu?
I suppose the main reason for this is the level design. Many scripted events within games rely on the (single) player being in a certain place at a certain time, in order to activate a series of actions from non-playable characters. Yet it shouldn’t cause developers a huge headache to simply change levels slightly so that players are forced to enter new areas together (or something to that effect). It can also be a nightmare for internet games, since lag packets and other online jargon needs to be taken in to account so that gamers can all see the same enemies etc.
Granted, console gamers tend to have co-op play a lot more frequently than PC gamers do – the only recent FPS I can think of with co-op on PC is Serious Sam (along with pretty much all the Bioware role-playing games, which were designed as co-operative). The PS2 version of Half-life has a co-operative mode, even though it isn’t the entire single-player set of levels. But wouldn’t it have been great to play through Metal Gear Solid 2 as a pair of secret agents, or to save Spira as a party of six or seven real people in FFX? The possibilities simply boggle the mind. Co-op play can also add months to the gameplay of a title, since a game is much more fun if you go through it with a friend.
It seems as though (particularly for PC users) working through a game as a team has been left behind in favor of lonely people who prefer to play with themselves (in a non-smutty way :D ). It’s so much fun defeating challenging enemies with strategies worked out as a group that I find it very hard to understand why developers are leaving co-op by the wayside. Don’t you remember Golden Axe as a co-op two-player, or Wolfenstein 3D over a serial link cable? Don’t you want to do it again?
Think of it this way – deathmatches (such as those featured in Quake or Red Faction) serve only to get people angry with each other. People stop speaking to each other for weeks, just because they’ve discovered their ‘best’ friend had autoaim turned on for that all-important championship match. Deathmatches are, by nature, isolationist forms of play. Co-op play forces people to band together to defeat obstacles. Surely this would result in happier gamers. Who knows, if deathmatches were removed from games, maybe there would never be any wars again…
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
>I was a bit worried about the title ;)
Heh, me too. I thought calling a thread 'co-op play' would get no-one's attention. Glad to see the alternative worked ;)
>I was a bit worried about the title ;)
Heh, me too. I thought calling a thread 'co-op play' would get no-one's attention. Glad to see the alternative worked ;)
Good post! I was a bit worried about the title ;) I was laughing so much when I read the title yet the post is very good!
*goes and reads title again*
*goes and reads title again*
You are completely right!!!!!!!
every time i look at a game i hope for a co-operative mode because in my opinion deathmatches just aren't fun, but to play through a game together with a friend puts a whole new perspective on the thing, its way more fun because in any game i would rather play with than against my mates.
every time i look at a game i hope for a co-operative mode because in my opinion deathmatches just aren't fun, but to play through a game together with a friend puts a whole new perspective on the thing, its way more fun because in any game i would rather play with than against my mates.
Think of some of the biggest games of recent months, on any platform. Metal Gear Solid 2, Unreal Tournament 2003, the Resident Evil rehash on GameCube, even the sublime Final Fantasy X.
All of these are superb single-player experiences, pretty much unmatched by any other contenders in their respective genre. Now look at the type of ‘group’ experience that they offer. With the exception of UT2K3, none of the above games have any type of multiplayer shipped with the game. This is a bad thing.
Indeed, more often than not, the multiplay given by FPSs is very limited to a deathmatch/team deathmatch system (with the occasional Capture-the-Flag thrown in for good measure). This can become incredibly and monotonously dull. Yet one aspect of multiplayer has been overlooked consistently by almost all the great games recently: Co-operative play. Hell, even Doom offered gamers the ability to shoot their way through the entire game together. Why on Earth do developers seem to find it so hard to simply add a co-operative option to the multiplay menu?
I suppose the main reason for this is the level design. Many scripted events within games rely on the (single) player being in a certain place at a certain time, in order to activate a series of actions from non-playable characters. Yet it shouldn’t cause developers a huge headache to simply change levels slightly so that players are forced to enter new areas together (or something to that effect). It can also be a nightmare for internet games, since lag packets and other online jargon needs to be taken in to account so that gamers can all see the same enemies etc.
Granted, console gamers tend to have co-op play a lot more frequently than PC gamers do – the only recent FPS I can think of with co-op on PC is Serious Sam (along with pretty much all the Bioware role-playing games, which were designed as co-operative). The PS2 version of Half-life has a co-operative mode, even though it isn’t the entire single-player set of levels. But wouldn’t it have been great to play through Metal Gear Solid 2 as a pair of secret agents, or to save Spira as a party of six or seven real people in FFX? The possibilities simply boggle the mind. Co-op play can also add months to the gameplay of a title, since a game is much more fun if you go through it with a friend.
It seems as though (particularly for PC users) working through a game as a team has been left behind in favor of lonely people who prefer to play with themselves (in a non-smutty way :D ). It’s so much fun defeating challenging enemies with strategies worked out as a group that I find it very hard to understand why developers are leaving co-op by the wayside. Don’t you remember Golden Axe as a co-op two-player, or Wolfenstein 3D over a serial link cable? Don’t you want to do it again?
Think of it this way – deathmatches (such as those featured in Quake or Red Faction) serve only to get people angry with each other. People stop speaking to each other for weeks, just because they’ve discovered their ‘best’ friend had autoaim turned on for that all-important championship match. Deathmatches are, by nature, isolationist forms of play. Co-op play forces people to band together to defeat obstacles. Surely this would result in happier gamers. Who knows, if deathmatches were removed from games, maybe there would never be any wars again…
All of these are superb single-player experiences, pretty much unmatched by any other contenders in their respective genre. Now look at the type of ‘group’ experience that they offer. With the exception of UT2K3, none of the above games have any type of multiplayer shipped with the game. This is a bad thing.
Indeed, more often than not, the multiplay given by FPSs is very limited to a deathmatch/team deathmatch system (with the occasional Capture-the-Flag thrown in for good measure). This can become incredibly and monotonously dull. Yet one aspect of multiplayer has been overlooked consistently by almost all the great games recently: Co-operative play. Hell, even Doom offered gamers the ability to shoot their way through the entire game together. Why on Earth do developers seem to find it so hard to simply add a co-operative option to the multiplay menu?
I suppose the main reason for this is the level design. Many scripted events within games rely on the (single) player being in a certain place at a certain time, in order to activate a series of actions from non-playable characters. Yet it shouldn’t cause developers a huge headache to simply change levels slightly so that players are forced to enter new areas together (or something to that effect). It can also be a nightmare for internet games, since lag packets and other online jargon needs to be taken in to account so that gamers can all see the same enemies etc.
Granted, console gamers tend to have co-op play a lot more frequently than PC gamers do – the only recent FPS I can think of with co-op on PC is Serious Sam (along with pretty much all the Bioware role-playing games, which were designed as co-operative). The PS2 version of Half-life has a co-operative mode, even though it isn’t the entire single-player set of levels. But wouldn’t it have been great to play through Metal Gear Solid 2 as a pair of secret agents, or to save Spira as a party of six or seven real people in FFX? The possibilities simply boggle the mind. Co-op play can also add months to the gameplay of a title, since a game is much more fun if you go through it with a friend.
It seems as though (particularly for PC users) working through a game as a team has been left behind in favor of lonely people who prefer to play with themselves (in a non-smutty way :D ). It’s so much fun defeating challenging enemies with strategies worked out as a group that I find it very hard to understand why developers are leaving co-op by the wayside. Don’t you remember Golden Axe as a co-op two-player, or Wolfenstein 3D over a serial link cable? Don’t you want to do it again?
Think of it this way – deathmatches (such as those featured in Quake or Red Faction) serve only to get people angry with each other. People stop speaking to each other for weeks, just because they’ve discovered their ‘best’ friend had autoaim turned on for that all-important championship match. Deathmatches are, by nature, isolationist forms of play. Co-op play forces people to band together to defeat obstacles. Surely this would result in happier gamers. Who knows, if deathmatches were removed from games, maybe there would never be any wars again…