1. #51
    coltcat's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    602
    Originally Posted by zer0netgain Go to original post
    I'd like co-op to NOT require a 2nd player.

    I HATE it when a game creates a whole mechanic where you can't do a mission without another person doing stuff in real time. Especially if you don't want to PAY to be able to play online (e.g., Xbox Live).

    So far, Conviction and Blacklist have co-op missions you can "solo" with a second controller. You just have to keep the other character someplace "safe" until you clear a path. In a way, it's an extra challenge because you're doing with one character what's meant to be handled by two. Some are really hard...but doable.

    Heck, I don't know how hard it would be, but I'd not mind a co-op where the 2nd character is a BOT that does little more than stay out of the way until you signal it to join you (so you don't have to keep saving its backside). Having whole parts of a game locked out because you don't or can't game online takes away the value of the product.
    Wouldn't that simply defeat the purpose of coop? we want coop partner, not a 2p.
    what you want is some d-ops mode where you can actually chooses every single maps thats in the game, but tweaked version, without coop-required obstacles.
    Share this post

  2. #52
    Originally Posted by coltcat Go to original post
    Wouldn't that simply defeat the purpose of coop? we want coop partner, not a 2p.
    what you want is some d-ops mode where you can actually chooses every single maps thats in the game, but tweaked version, without coop-required obstacles.
    I had the idea of playing coop missions single player by changing what WOULD require coop to something that a single player can get through. It might not be the best idea ever, but his point is what my point was. There are players that are stupid as hell on the game and you just want to play those missions solo, but you can't because it REQUIRES a second person which is why I had the idea of whenever there are two players, the map is set at default where it requires two players and if you want to play it solo, they change the little sections that require coop so that a single player can do it. It is something they can do, they did it with the first Splinter Cell for different consoles. I'm just not sure how the overall experience would turn out, if you tried playing coop for the first time on single player, it could ruin the whole "First time experience" which is why my idea might also not be the best idea, but I do get sick of having stupid players or nobody playing the damn game mode at all and it becomes a whole wasted mode that you never play.
    Share this post

  3. #53
    Originally Posted by coltcat Go to original post
    Wouldn't that simply defeat the purpose of coop? we want coop partner, not a 2p.
    what you want is some d-ops mode where you can actually chooses every single maps thats in the game, but tweaked version, without coop-required obstacles.
    Well, I'm also thinking of other titles where a fraction of the game is devoted to "multiplayer." If you don't have broadband access (or can't afford the related costs), it's a whole section of the game that's off-limits to you. I DO appreciate that Conviction and Blacklist seemingly worked the co-op missions so you could "solo" by just plugging in another controller.

    Smugglers Compound (Briggs mission) is a good example. That last bit with the drone was totally annoying but utterly satisfying when you managed to get through it (especially on Realistic difficulty). Had the devs done some garbage where the other guy had to actively cover you with sniper fire while you tried to move from cover to cover, it'd likely be undoable. As it stands, you can clear out an area with the drone, move the agent towards the goal, and just go back and forth between controllers.

    I just don't like the trend of games that deal with an individual (e.g., Halo and Splinter Cell) creating a multiplayer aspect that doesn't find a way for "offline gamers" to join in on the experience. Part of why I gave up on Halo is that it puts more emphasis on the multiplayer angle to the point that I can't get excited about the "story" anymore. Games that are intended to be multiplayer should be just that. Games that deal with an individual/story should ensure the single player can enjoy the whole project and not just part of it.
    Share this post

  4. #54
    Originally Posted by EddieTheBunny2 Go to original post
    I had the idea of playing coop missions single player by changing what WOULD require coop to something that a single player can get through....which is why I had the idea of whenever there are two players, the map is set at default where it requires two players and if you want to play it solo, they change the little sections that require coop so that a single player can do it....
    As I said above, I think (so far) that the Briggs missions might have been done well in this regard (only played Smugglers Compound so far). I know solo missions that can be done co-op limit your options if you go single because you need a second player to do certain things...no biggie. However, in dedicated co-op missions, there should always be a way to "solo" them. This means there's a path you can take without needing a second person or that whenever you need a second person, it's a relatively "safe" place or there's a safe place nearby to "store" one of your players while you move ahead. A decent VI bot might do the job in future titles. Just don't write a mission so that you MUST have another living person playing in real time or you can never get through the mission.

    Think of it as linear vs. sandbox. Sandbox is more fun because if you can find a way to get from A to B, it's good. Sometimes the devs play games and put easter eggs in the places you wouldn't think to look. While the Splinter Cell games are pretty much linear gameplay (a negative but perhaps sandbox isn't an option due to the nature of the story), the more options and avenues they code to let you go from A to B to C to D makes the missions more interesting and worth replaying. I still laugh when I play something for the Nth time and come across a path or technique I didn't know was there before. Hats off to the guy/gal who thought to put it in there.
    Share this post

  5. #55
    I'd like to possibly see Kestrel make an appearance at some point in the co-op or single player. Ideas?
    Share this post

  6. #56
    However, in dedicated co-op missions, there should always be a way to "solo" them.
    I agree so long as you are by yourself. If you DO have a partner, it should require teamwork. That's what makes the whole coop experience. Solo should mean solo and coop should require COOP!

    While the Splinter Cell games are pretty much linear gameplay
    Conviction and Blacklist are the actual linear ones. While the first two were obviously a straight forward track, Blacklist and Conviction limited the player by A LOT by CHOOSING where the player can go WITHIN that path whereas the first two, you could find your own ways within the path. It had the obvious choices, but if you wanted to be a hotshot or a risky SOB, YOU COULD DO IT. Chaos Theory and Double Agent do not fall under the category of "linear".

    I still laugh when I play something for the Nth time and come across a path or technique I didn't know was there before. Hats off to the guy/gal who thought to put it in there.
    HEY! I STILL find places I never knew were there or paths I didn't think possible, but for Blacklist and Conviction they already TELL you where you can go, they just give away the answer and due to there being no jump button and since they script the paths already, you're limited as ****.
    Share this post

Page 6 of 6 ◄◄  First ... 456