The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Why are so many multiplayer games competitive? You're either shooting each others' heads off, ramming one another into the wall of the Indie 500 or beating each other up in the latest 3D fighter... if only for the satisfaction of being able to moon at your opponent and ridicule his virtual skills... or lack of them- charming.
So, why don't more games have a co-operativer option in them. Instead of being working forever against each other, insetad you and friends would work together, in unison to acheive tasks in the game.
Allow me to give you an example:
In MGS2, there could be two characters that you and a friend would play. One would have to infiltrate a base one way and take out the power, thus allowing the other to gain access to some secret lab. Then you could meet up and shoot your way out of the level. Now, how fun would that be?
Not only that, but many one player games even site one of their selling points as allowing you to play more than one character. Perfect examples of this would be MDK (whose name is a pun- the name stands for Max, Doc and Kurt- the 3 game characters. The game itself is far from a murder death kill scenario!), and Space Station Silicon Valley.
But surely these games are missing the point. By making you constantly change character you lose your immersion in the game, and you relationship with the characters. But, more importantly, it loses a key chance to impliment a 2player cooperative mode...
Rather than play as one character, then another, then another, you would now play as just one character, with your friend playing as another. You would have to work simaltaneously to solve tasks, making the use of strategy and planning ever more important. You'd have more immersion in the game knowing that you're partner was actually a real person- not some computer character who always get's their task right! Finally, both characters could have levels where they teamed up for a full on royal rumble-esque scenario.
How much better does gameplay get?
Sonic
PS: "Pong" and "Tetris" are NOT valid answer!
So, why don't more games have a co-operativer option in them. Instead of being working forever against each other, insetad you and friends would work together, in unison to acheive tasks in the game.
Allow me to give you an example:
In MGS2, there could be two characters that you and a friend would play. One would have to infiltrate a base one way and take out the power, thus allowing the other to gain access to some secret lab. Then you could meet up and shoot your way out of the level. Now, how fun would that be?
Not only that, but many one player games even site one of their selling points as allowing you to play more than one character. Perfect examples of this would be MDK (whose name is a pun- the name stands for Max, Doc and Kurt- the 3 game characters. The game itself is far from a murder death kill scenario!), and Space Station Silicon Valley.
But surely these games are missing the point. By making you constantly change character you lose your immersion in the game, and you relationship with the characters. But, more importantly, it loses a key chance to impliment a 2player cooperative mode...
Rather than play as one character, then another, then another, you would now play as just one character, with your friend playing as another. You would have to work simaltaneously to solve tasks, making the use of strategy and planning ever more important. You'd have more immersion in the game knowing that you're partner was actually a real person- not some computer character who always get's their task right! Finally, both characters could have levels where they teamed up for a full on royal rumble-esque scenario.
How much better does gameplay get?
Sonic
PS: "Pong" and "Tetris" are NOT valid answer!
Page:
Well you can be one the same sides in football, wrestling and most First Person Shooters have Co oprative modes
Turbonutter wrote:
> I won a GAD once on this subject. Do you want me to paste it?
No... that would wreck my gad chances.
Sonic
> I won a GAD once on this subject. Do you want me to paste it?
No... that would wreck my gad chances.
Sonic
Turbonutter wrote:
> I won a GAD once on this subject. Do you want me to paste it?
-----
No.
> I won a GAD once on this subject. Do you want me to paste it?
-----
No.
I won a GAD once on this subject. Do you want me to paste it?
Seems like a lot of people missed out on Perfect Dark on the N64.
Had a cool co-operative mode where you could play all the levels on the game with your a 2nd player as back up. Only problem is, the game suffered from slowdown a bit. But a brilliant idea anyway, although it is just too tempting to shoot your partner...
Hopefully this mode will be expanded on with Perfect Dark Zero on the Gamecube.
Had a cool co-operative mode where you could play all the levels on the game with your a 2nd player as back up. Only problem is, the game suffered from slowdown a bit. But a brilliant idea anyway, although it is just too tempting to shoot your partner...
Hopefully this mode will be expanded on with Perfect Dark Zero on the Gamecube.
Why are so many multiplayer games competitive? You're either shooting each others' heads off, ramming one another into the wall of the Indie 500 or beating each other up in the latest 3D fighter... if only for the satisfaction of being able to moon at your opponent and ridicule his virtual skills... or lack of them- charming.
So, why don't more games have a co-operativer option in them. Instead of being working forever against each other, insetad you and friends would work together, in unison to acheive tasks in the game.
Allow me to give you an example:
In MGS2, there could be two characters that you and a friend would play. One would have to infiltrate a base one way and take out the power, thus allowing the other to gain access to some secret lab. Then you could meet up and shoot your way out of the level. Now, how fun would that be?
Not only that, but many one player games even site one of their selling points as allowing you to play more than one character. Perfect examples of this would be MDK (whose name is a pun- the name stands for Max, Doc and Kurt- the 3 game characters. The game itself is far from a murder death kill scenario!), and Space Station Silicon Valley.
But surely these games are missing the point. By making you constantly change character you lose your immersion in the game, and you relationship with the characters. But, more importantly, it loses a key chance to impliment a 2player cooperative mode...
Rather than play as one character, then another, then another, you would now play as just one character, with your friend playing as another. You would have to work simaltaneously to solve tasks, making the use of strategy and planning ever more important. You'd have more immersion in the game knowing that you're partner was actually a real person- not some computer character who always get's their task right! Finally, both characters could have levels where they teamed up for a full on royal rumble-esque scenario.
How much better does gameplay get?
Sonic
PS: "Pong" and "Tetris" are NOT valid answer!
So, why don't more games have a co-operativer option in them. Instead of being working forever against each other, insetad you and friends would work together, in unison to acheive tasks in the game.
Allow me to give you an example:
In MGS2, there could be two characters that you and a friend would play. One would have to infiltrate a base one way and take out the power, thus allowing the other to gain access to some secret lab. Then you could meet up and shoot your way out of the level. Now, how fun would that be?
Not only that, but many one player games even site one of their selling points as allowing you to play more than one character. Perfect examples of this would be MDK (whose name is a pun- the name stands for Max, Doc and Kurt- the 3 game characters. The game itself is far from a murder death kill scenario!), and Space Station Silicon Valley.
But surely these games are missing the point. By making you constantly change character you lose your immersion in the game, and you relationship with the characters. But, more importantly, it loses a key chance to impliment a 2player cooperative mode...
Rather than play as one character, then another, then another, you would now play as just one character, with your friend playing as another. You would have to work simaltaneously to solve tasks, making the use of strategy and planning ever more important. You'd have more immersion in the game knowing that you're partner was actually a real person- not some computer character who always get's their task right! Finally, both characters could have levels where they teamed up for a full on royal rumble-esque scenario.
How much better does gameplay get?
Sonic
PS: "Pong" and "Tetris" are NOT valid answer!
Page: