🛈 Announcement
Greetings! Far Cry forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game.

Thread: Co-op. | Forums

  1. #1

    Co-op.

    I've just finished reading an article about this game on "DigitalSpy", listing dot-points highlighting game features, differences to other FC games and the like and they stated that "Ubisoft has described this as a 'single-player experience'". I'm just posting here to say that I sincerely hope that they're wrong, and why.

    Just to make sure there's no misunderstandings here, I'll clarify the difference between "co-op" and "mulitplayer", because 90% of gamers seem to think they're the same thing, when they're absolutely not.

    Co-op, short for "co-operative", means working with other players against the game (AI, NPCs, what have you). A.K.A. Far Cry 4, Halo campaign, Borderlands, and the list goes on.
    This is not multiplayer, even though there are technically multiple players.

    Multiplayer is either players fighting players, as seen in Call of Duty, and Battlefield, etc. It can also be MMOs, where there are other people who aren't there to either help or hinder you, they're doing their own thing.

    Very different. Now that's out of the way, allow me to shoot down one of the most popular "anti co-op" arguments in history "it ruins the single-player experience".
    No, it doesn't. Not if it's done correctly.

    Option #1 : Drop-in, drop-out. The second player isn't a part of the story, or even an important person. They're a bystander. Just watching the "story" unfold, while helping out with the gameplay.

    Option #2 : Drop-in, drop-out. If there's Dragon Age style dialogue, the second player can be someone of importance. Just add the SWTOR conversation system. Each player gets a turn to say something.

    Make the first player or "player 1" the host, and make the connecting player(s) follow the story from where the host is up to.

    This way, the player with the least progress can host, and not have any of the story spoiled. Using either of these two options gives everyone what they want. A non-intrusive co-op mode for those (myself) who actually like playing with other people (because EVERYTHING is better when you're not alone), and for those that hate the idea of co-op, they don't have to use it. They can play alone just as easily. It's a win-win, and not overly difficult to implement.

    I'm sure there's more ways that could be listed to properly implement co-op, but these are just the two that come to mind while writing this.

    From a sales standpoint, myself and all of my friends don't even bother buying a game if we can't play it together. I know we're not the only ones out there who have a close group of gaming friends, so the addition of a co-op mode not only broadens your potential market, but also makes it more approachable for people who may be new to gaming (i.e. girlfriends and wives in most cases) who would feel more comfortable playing with someone while they learn the ropes, expanding your market even further.

    Then there's the potentially most important factor out of all of these. The "fun factor".
    In all honesty, who ISN'T going to have an absolute blast fighting Sabretooth Tigers with spears and bows, and a few friends?
    Or pissing off a Mammoth and watching it trample your buddy just for the lols. Absolutely no-one, that's who.

    There is literally NO downside to making the game 2-4 player co-op (assuming it isn't already), and I (and many others, I'm sure) think ignoring the amazing potential this game has as a singleplayer AND co-op experience is a huge, huge mistake.

    Multiplayer on the other hand, takes too much time and effort. Making specific maps, balancing weapons for PvP, classes, game modes, etc etc. It's not worth the hassle, imho.
    If it were to ever be implemented, it would ideally be as a DLC, post-completion of development so that the base game is functioning properly (with co-op). Having the networking capability already established via having co-op cuts down on a bit of the work, I suppose.

    I can't even fathom this game not having co-op. It is the perfect setting for it. Not to mention that more than one "hero" is so many multiple times more realistic than having a single man save the day again. It's ridiculous. Out of the 10, 000 enemies you eliminate during your heroic escapade, surely one of them is going to get the better of you. Much less likely with a "team" of "heroes". The one-man-army idea is a little stale.

    TL;DR. Co-op is a must, for those who don't like co-op games, they don't have to play co-op. Multiplayer is eh.
    Share this post

  2. #2
    You're right. Criticism from the fact that what forays they have made into co-op haven't been ideal, haven't been done correctly.
    FC3's was admittedly terrible. FC4 was absolutely a step in the right direction. As I mentioned, Primal gives them a fantastic chance to get it right.
    It could be a beautiful thing.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Co-op is one multiplayer game mode. Others can be deathmatch, capture the flag etc. So you really should not simply use the term "multiplayer" when referring to team deatchmatch or other PvP game modes.

    Other than that, I agree on your point 100%. Co-op cannot make the game any worse, only extend it's lifespan and increase the sales.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Originally Posted by Patu Go to original post
    Co-op is one multiplayer game mode. Others can be deathmatch, capture the flag etc. So you really should not simply use the term "multiplayer" when referring to team deatchmatch or other PvP game modes.

    Other than that, I agree on your point 100%. Co-op cannot make the game any worse, only extend it's lifespan and increase the sales.
    True. I just figured for the sake of clarity I'd further define it. People tend to get them mixed up, and it frustrates me when people are arguing against "co-op" because they don't like PvP.

    Exactly. As I said in my original post, there is literally no downside to be had.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    I don't care about PvP, but I want co-op for 4 players!

    Last very good Far Cry PvP was in Far Cry 1 and the best game mode ever is this:
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Indeed. 4-player co-op is ideal.
    Previous FC co-op was "okay", but my preference isn't structured, contained missions like 3, or the limited experience of 4.
    I'm talking the campaign, story mode co-op. You can go through the story with all your friends, or ditch it and go and do the side objectives etc.
    All the freedom of playing alone, but with 4 players.

    Same reward and sense of purpose of the structured FC3 missions, but with more freedom to approach things the way you want to.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    First time posting here just to say that I'm with OP. Imagine how you planning the attack on some giant deer horde, invisibly surrounding them and then jumping out of bushes and driving animals on the spears of your tribedudes. Moreover, back in those days no one were hunting alone. Man, even today when the beasts are much smaller and less dangerous and the man armed with guns, hunters often going in groups.
    Primal needs COOP.
    WE WANT COOP!
    CO-OP CO-OP CO-OP CO-OP
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Ubi_Jax's Avatar Community Manager
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,469
    Hey everyone.

    Bringing the Stone Age to life and providing the player with a strong gameplay experience based off of the Far Cry legacy meant that we had to reinvent our core gameplay loop, not a small undertaking.
    Our focus was on delivering that fantasy which required clear priorities for the team.

    Therefore, in the early stages of the project, we made the difficult choice of focusing our efforts on the single player experience. Development teams are devoted to offer the best possible Far Cry experience to our fans

    Thanks,
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Ubisoft can do free co-op DLC with own story, like Far Cry 3. I think this will make a lot of fans happy.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by Ubi_Jax Go to original post
    Hey everyone.

    Bringing the Stone Age to life and providing the player with a strong gameplay experience based off of the Far Cry legacy meant that we had to reinvent our core gameplay loop, not a small undertaking.
    Our focus was on delivering that fantasy which required clear priorities for the team.

    Therefore, in the early stages of the project, we made the difficult choice of focusing our efforts on the single player experience. Development teams are devoted to offer the best possible Far Cry experience to our fans

    Thanks,
    Well, I hate to break it to you and your "devoted development team" but as far as your "best possible Far Cry experience" is concerned, you've failed.

    Of all the things you could have done, you did the wrong one. You guys really need to start doing in-depth polls before you start developing your games, so you can find out what people 'actually' want feature wise, not just the setting. Will save you from making future mistakes.

    I was looking forward to Primal. Now there's ~15 people who won't be getting it, just from people I know personally. Not good.

    Originally Posted by CZ-BackPa Go to original post
    Ubisoft can do free co-op DLC with own story, like Far Cry 3. I think this will make a lot of fans happy.
    Absolutely not. That is the worst possible scenario. FC3 co-op was terrible. Hopefully no-one ever does co-op like that, ever again.
    ___________

    This thread is going nowhere now that it's been stated that there will be no co-op, may as well close / lock it.
    Share this post