-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
After playing RE5...is forced co-op really a necessary gaming trend?
- Thread starter U5230
- Start date
Metroidvania
People called Romanes they go the house?
I think, at least, for RE5, that if they could have somehow tailored two campaigns in, a la Resistance 2 or something, that it would have been much better.
Co-op was a lot of fun online, but AI Sheva will never be as good as someone else playing with you....but where does that leave all those who don't go online regularly?
I'm hoping co-op stays in some areas like Army of Two, maybe Gears, etc...but stays out of established franchises like some of the ones that have been already mentioned.
Yes. Yes, you do.
Co-op was a lot of fun online, but AI Sheva will never be as good as someone else playing with you....but where does that leave all those who don't go online regularly?
I'm hoping co-op stays in some areas like Army of Two, maybe Gears, etc...but stays out of established franchises like some of the ones that have been already mentioned.
Yes. Yes, you do.
Danne-Danger said:
All games would not benefit from optional co-op. Thats like saying all games benefit from multiplayer. They simply don't. If its not designed for co-op and you don't have CPU controller teammates while you paly single player or some other good reason to not be alone during the campaign than it will be shitty. Co-op would not make Metroid better and Someone already said Bioshock.
blackMamba1187
Member
What about Uncharted 2? That could be fun with coop.
omg rite said:
But you see, that's not how I play games at all. I'm sure the potential is there for great cooperative gameplay, and the end result is very satisfying.
But I don't care if you're dying and want a health pack, or if there are villagers attacking you, or if you need a boost to a higher level. All of that gets in the way of my ability to finish the game.
You see, the character I inhabit in any game is selfish, explores the world at his own pace, and isn't much concerned about what doesn't benefit him.
I will go even further, I wish if my brother and I both had the same game, I could watch him play and chat, as if I were sitting in his house with him. We used to play games together all the time, and I miss it now that we live hundreds of miles away.
Generally these days, I don't really like playing games with myself. It's kind of dull.
Generally these days, I don't really like playing games with myself. It's kind of dull.
This is me exactly.
Haeleos
Member
jibblypop said:
Wrong. It doesn't effect single player at all when it's implemented correctly. Do you often use blanket statements to try and validate your opinions? Single player has nothing to do with co-op if the developers take the time to implement it correctly. Because one game comes along that has a half assed implementation of it doesn't make it true to all games.
I'm singling you out right now because most people are just dropping in to see what the group mentality is on this and posting "yea, I hate forced co-op". Can anyone here even define what "forced co-op" is, because if it's referring to RE5, last I checked you can play it single player. BUT, if it means the single player game sucks because of Sheva's terrible AI, then it has nothing to do with co-op and everything to do with Capcom's half assed PAHTNAH code.
But by all means, everyone continue to circle jerk in this week's new hive mind thread without articulating anything...
Nuclear Muffin
Banned
I agree, I hate this trend which dictates that every bloody game has to have some sort of co-op. Not every game needs it!
Of course it's not the only trend these days I hate.
Of course it's not the only trend these days I hate.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
Sadist said:
This.
Houston3000
Member
I refuse to believe that Resident Evil 5, had it been designed for only a single player, would have been as fun as the game we have today. Playing through the game co-op with my friend online, as we talk to each other over our headsets (or even if we played split screen), is more entertaining than any single player game experience they could of come up with.
Sure, it would be really cool that, if when your friend wasn't there to play with you, the game would somehow scale back magically to a full blown single player experience without sticking you with a gimped AI partner. I would also like to walk on the moon though, developers aren't going to design two games and sell it as one, and I'd rather have the option to play co-op even if it means slightly gimping the game's solo players... and yes I would also rather have a fully feature complete co-op mode than an epic single player game with a mediocre co-op mode attached ("just invite your friends and all the enemies gain more health" kind of crap).
So... I think the current trend is fine. In the end I hope developers don't try and appease some of you, the ones all wishing RE5 was single-player, and I hope for your sakes that you all just make some new friends and embrace co-op. In the mean time I'll pray that there are some big developments in AI technology so we can experience the fun of both worlds.
Sure, it would be really cool that, if when your friend wasn't there to play with you, the game would somehow scale back magically to a full blown single player experience without sticking you with a gimped AI partner. I would also like to walk on the moon though, developers aren't going to design two games and sell it as one, and I'd rather have the option to play co-op even if it means slightly gimping the game's solo players... and yes I would also rather have a fully feature complete co-op mode than an epic single player game with a mediocre co-op mode attached ("just invite your friends and all the enemies gain more health" kind of crap).
So... I think the current trend is fine. In the end I hope developers don't try and appease some of you, the ones all wishing RE5 was single-player, and I hope for your sakes that you all just make some new friends and embrace co-op. In the mean time I'll pray that there are some big developments in AI technology so we can experience the fun of both worlds.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
Haeleos said:
My definition of "force co-op" is a game that is clearly designed to be played with another person, with playing single player as a secondary feature. This is especially annoying when it's thrown in a series that has long been predominantly single player.
I don't hate the idea of co-op. I hate that Resident Evil 5 is co-op. It's a series I love, but I don't play co-op games because I do not enjoy them. Keep co-op to series' I don't care about (because they never had it before) and I have no problem.
Houston3000 said:
The problem is that Resident Evil 5 is a new game in a long series of games that's never been co-op. This is especially problematic since it's a story-based series unlike say, Final Fantasy, where the lack of a connecting story-line from sequel to sequel means we can skip games we don't like without too much fuss.
I don't think there's anything wrong with online co-op. But it does not belong in Resident Evil 5.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
dp
Haeleos
Member
Houston3000 said:
I think allowing Sheva to die outright is one of the biggest mistakes for the single player game. A Gears 2-like system of your partner being downed/reviving them is the way to go. Getting a GAME OVER screen from Sheva's AI, let alone any NPC Computer controlled character, because they can't judge situations correctly sounds like a game mechanic from the 90s. If there was unlimited ammo/unlimited health for Sheva in single player, this thread wouldn't exist, and the single player wouldn't feel like one big escort mission.
Then again, Capcom have been stuck in the 80/90s with nearly every first party release from them this gen. (Dead Rising's save system, Lost Planet's stun animations/controls/time limit, Street Fighter's combo system).
Nizz
Member
I'm not speaking for everyone, but I feel the forced co-op angle has to do with me not wanting to have to be directly responsible for a character I have no control over. I want to have to worry about just my own ass. I want to worry about my character's health in a game, my well being. I don't want to have to constantly be looking over my shoulder to make sure an additional character I didn't ask to be in the game, is ok. As an escort mission where you have to, for a short time, protect a character (Ashley from RE4), fine. But for the full game? No thanks. To be fair, I can't think of a game that has really, without doubt, gotten partner AI right 100%. I'm no dev, but from what I understand, AI can be pretty tricky to program sometimes. Hey, if I want to play the game with someone, sure give people the option. I just don't want there to be no option.Haeleos said:
Haeleos
Member
RurouniZel said:
I am just bothered by the semantics of your argument. RE5's problem isn't co-op itself, it's the effect it has on single player and Capcom's decision to apply the same expectations on an AI controlled character... which makes Sheva an ammo vampire that hinders more often than helps.
This reminds me of GRAW on PC, playing it with AI squadmates is a lesson in frustruation but playing it co-op is great. The difference is: I don't sit there and blame the co-op mode on why the single player AI sucks.
decibel_hz
Neo Member
Co-op sucks. At least until my co-op partner is released from prison.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
Haeleos said:
Isn't that my basic argument, or did I miss something?
RurouniZel said:
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
they pretty much just saw co-op as a popular new thing they could get a sales boost in the series (as if it needed it, i realize that) for including. it's a typically SP game? make the campaign include a tag along AI buddy the whole time. problem solved. oh, don't worry about all of those annoyed people that are still bitter from how much the series has strayed over the years.
I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. It's like the single player experience doesn't mean anything anymore in this day and age. It's disappointing how developers EXPECT the players to play game in co-op. Personally, i blame Gears of War. Now i don't hate the game (the two games great), i just hate the influence it's had on other games.
{Mike} said:
While quite a bit over the top, I largely agree. Whether the implimentation of the co-op mode was a sucess or not doesn't matter to me in the end.
I'm playing a Resident Evil game, and even with the somewhat action heavy 4, the single player has always provided an experience that's incredibly tense, stressful (in a good way), and pretty damn scary.
Playing with a buddy, while inherantly fun, really takes away from the kind of experience you had in past installments solo mode. For better or worse (to most it seems, for the better), it's become a much different game (with more a focus on action strategies). The single player also loses that charm due to shitty ai and babysitting. Who has time to get scared?
So I guess we have two camps here. Folks who want the series to return to a more traditional setup of true survival horror (while giving the option for some multiplayer scenarios); and folks who love the more Gears-of-Warish direction with scenarios developed around teamplay and multiplayer.
Here's hoping 6 can please both.
edit: For the record, I LOVE most co-op games. It's usually the only kind of online multiplayer I'm down with (don't have enough free time to get good enough at competitive play). I just happen to hold some things as sacred. I tend to be a bit conservative with some genres (Splinter Cell is another example).
It's a shame the single player wasn't handled the way RE0 was.
radioheadrule83
Banned
blackMamba1187 said:
Considering it would make it more gun-section heavy, and I go through all that to enjoy the other shit, that would be annoying. On the other hand, it would make the shooting sections easier...
but yeah, I wanna play that particular game on my own.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
Crunched said:
Did you forget Left 4 Dead is an original IP, not a sequel to an existing one?
Not only that, but I am a creature of wacky habits-- I want to play my games when I want for however long I want. I don't want to be tied to a coop partner to make a game's structure tolerable. Granted, Sheva is for the most part "competent." I'm very frustrated when I see people tell me to play in coop instead of complaining about her AI. No, I understand that the game is probably better in coop, but I want to play it alone first because this is how I play. And if the game is going to be worse because of that, then I'm not going to excuse or look to fix it...it simply is.Speevy said:
I would say the online co-op trend is a symptom of a much larger disease called metacritic, wherein reviewers seem to have a pre-set checklist of stuff that HAS to be in every game of a specific genre in order to achieve a higher score.
RE5 online co-op is cool, but was it totally 100% necessary? No.
Does a lack of co-op really need to be mentioned in almost every KZ2 review? No, but it is.
Does Bioshock 2 really need online multiplayer? No, because Bioshock is about things like narrative, not teabagging your friends in deathmatch.
However, all these things become an issue because reviewers have too much influence and dock games for a lack of a feature that was in whatever other game in the same vein had. But on that note, it's hard to single out reviewers alone when gamers themselves have dumbass arguments over whether console A or console B has better exclusives due to a less than 3% difference in review scores between various high profile games. (the GAF ban on "So game X is better than game Y" in review discussions is there for a very valid reason)
RE5 online co-op is cool, but was it totally 100% necessary? No.
Does a lack of co-op really need to be mentioned in almost every KZ2 review? No, but it is.
Does Bioshock 2 really need online multiplayer? No, because Bioshock is about things like narrative, not teabagging your friends in deathmatch.
However, all these things become an issue because reviewers have too much influence and dock games for a lack of a feature that was in whatever other game in the same vein had. But on that note, it's hard to single out reviewers alone when gamers themselves have dumbass arguments over whether console A or console B has better exclusives due to a less than 3% difference in review scores between various high profile games. (the GAF ban on "So game X is better than game Y" in review discussions is there for a very valid reason)
I can see why some are frustrated by the fact that a single player game has turned into a coop-centric game. Especially for a popular name franchise like Resident Evil.
With Gears of War, it started as one and continues to be one so that's fine I suppose.
I have no qualms about it probably because I have friends who I can coop with and we enjoy the coop gaming experience. If you simply don't have a friend who's willing to coop then yeah it sucks.
I might go off tangent here, but lets take RPGs as a different example.
There still are single player type RPGs, but the genre has expanded with genres like MMOs. It's like a coop RPG if you think about it. I tried enjoying it but I never managed to appreciate it. But the difference is, in RPGs, you have to level up and if there is a huge disparity between you and your friends, then it suddenly becomes unenjoyable.
At least with action games, there are no levels involved so the only disparity becomes skill. Me and my friends are comfortable with RE5. No one sucks at it so we enjoy it. I think thats what becomes important.
I for one, probably would not enjoy playing FF13 if it turned into a coop game.
With Gears of War, it started as one and continues to be one so that's fine I suppose.
I have no qualms about it probably because I have friends who I can coop with and we enjoy the coop gaming experience. If you simply don't have a friend who's willing to coop then yeah it sucks.
I might go off tangent here, but lets take RPGs as a different example.
There still are single player type RPGs, but the genre has expanded with genres like MMOs. It's like a coop RPG if you think about it. I tried enjoying it but I never managed to appreciate it. But the difference is, in RPGs, you have to level up and if there is a huge disparity between you and your friends, then it suddenly becomes unenjoyable.
At least with action games, there are no levels involved so the only disparity becomes skill. Me and my friends are comfortable with RE5. No one sucks at it so we enjoy it. I think thats what becomes important.
I for one, probably would not enjoy playing FF13 if it turned into a coop game.
Haeleos
Member
RurouniZel said:
No it's not. You are saying you hate that Resident Evil 5 has co-op, I'm saying the game having co-op has nothing to do with the single player game. You SHOULD be able to enjoy the single player game without having to worry about co-op, but co-op should still be available for those who want to play it.
It's Capcom's fault that the single player isn't as enjoyable as the co-op experience. If the game shipped and it didn't have any kind of co-op mode in it, but the single player is exactly how it is now, you wouldn't be able to blame co-op. So blaming co-op for Capcom's laziness in Sheva's AI doesn't make sense.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
After careful consideration, I would say that forced co-op is not a *necessary* trend. But then, no trend is "necessary".
Himu, you gotta stop writing thread titles that try to sound like "games journo". You've framed your question incredibly badly.
Himu, you gotta stop writing thread titles that try to sound like "games journo". You've framed your question incredibly badly.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
There are plenty of people who bought the game because it was so co-op centric, but there are also people like me, who even though they are long time fans of the series, have still not bought the game because they don't really intend to play it cooperatively.
Don't get me wrong. I love me some co-op in games like Gears of War, etc... but I personally don't think it works with the Resident Evil setting. The mere fact of having a human partner who you are shooting the shit with all the time will kill pretty much any tension that the game might have had.
I've only played through the demo, but it was pretty obvious that the game was designed to be a co-op game and anyone playing it alone will be at a disadvantage. The graphics are awesome and the gameplay is still a lot of fun, but the game just didn't feel like Resident Evil to me. It doesn't help that I am constantly hearing about how stupid the AI of your partner is.
I will be buying it, but I am going to wait a bit until I can find it for a lot cheaper.
Don't get me wrong. I love me some co-op in games like Gears of War, etc... but I personally don't think it works with the Resident Evil setting. The mere fact of having a human partner who you are shooting the shit with all the time will kill pretty much any tension that the game might have had.
I've only played through the demo, but it was pretty obvious that the game was designed to be a co-op game and anyone playing it alone will be at a disadvantage. The graphics are awesome and the gameplay is still a lot of fun, but the game just didn't feel like Resident Evil to me. It doesn't help that I am constantly hearing about how stupid the AI of your partner is.
I will be buying it, but I am going to wait a bit until I can find it for a lot cheaper.
Haleos said:
My only real problem with this is that it's impossible to name one game where the coop and the single player feel like they had identical amounts of care put into them.
You talk about "implementing" coop like it's assumed that it's something injected into an already existing single-player game.
Davey Cakes
Member
RE5 is still a fun game in single player, no doubt. But, it just lacks certain elements that made RE4 so great and timeless.
At the same time, the co-op is there, which is meant to serve as the compensation for the SP game's shortcomings. And, in a way, it does compensate. However, if you don't intend on playing the game with anybody, you're mostly stuck with an adequate sequel to an excellent game. It's as simple as that. And, I'm accepting of the fact, since RE5, like I said, is fun, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who felt alienated by Capcom's decision as well.
I guess I'd be in the camp that says RE5 should've been SP-focused, with co-op online for Mercenaries, and multiplayer online modes like "Survivor". That way, multiplayer/co-op would seem like a nice addition rather than a forced "compensation."
Co-op has its place. RE5 is an example of a great co-op game. That said, I'm hoping developers learn to balance SP and MP functions rather than making a game so that one mode is vastly superior to the other.
At the same time, the co-op is there, which is meant to serve as the compensation for the SP game's shortcomings. And, in a way, it does compensate. However, if you don't intend on playing the game with anybody, you're mostly stuck with an adequate sequel to an excellent game. It's as simple as that. And, I'm accepting of the fact, since RE5, like I said, is fun, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who felt alienated by Capcom's decision as well.
I guess I'd be in the camp that says RE5 should've been SP-focused, with co-op online for Mercenaries, and multiplayer online modes like "Survivor". That way, multiplayer/co-op would seem like a nice addition rather than a forced "compensation."
Co-op has its place. RE5 is an example of a great co-op game. That said, I'm hoping developers learn to balance SP and MP functions rather than making a game so that one mode is vastly superior to the other.
I'm loving the trend. I would love for console games to get to the point where 25 man co-op (see WoW raids) isn't such an outrageous idea. Immagine a co-operative experience that the majority of your friend's list can take apart of. That would be kick ass. A 5 player co-op dungeon crawl would be so bad ass.
Obviously co-op is not a necessity to every experience but I love the fact that more major developers are thinking to include the online functionality that modern console gaming can offer into the entire experience and not just a separate portion.
Obviously co-op is not a necessity to every experience but I love the fact that more major developers are thinking to include the online functionality that modern console gaming can offer into the entire experience and not just a separate portion.
Designing games around coop play is the greatest trend in gaming history.
Get on board or get left behind. Seriously, I've been living off a diet of majorly sporadic coop games for years, to finally have coop play not only be a common occurrence but a full blow design philosophy?
Heaven.
Get on board or get left behind. Seriously, I've been living off a diet of majorly sporadic coop games for years, to finally have coop play not only be a common occurrence but a full blow design philosophy?
Heaven.
Future PhaZe
Member
The quality of gameplay is always going to be the most important thing for me. Whether it's a great singleplayer title or otherwise, I always have the friends and the means to enjoy the title as its meant to be played.
I'm not mad at force co-op at all. In fact if a game is going to be co-op, then I'd much rather have people whining their asses off about shitty A.I partners than for people to be complaining about the experience being easy/dull even when you've met the requirements in terms of human players available.
In RE5's case I can say I enjoyed the hell out of the game. The sequel? I have no idea. I'm such a fan of the series and I see so much potential for either scenario.
I'm not mad at force co-op at all. In fact if a game is going to be co-op, then I'd much rather have people whining their asses off about shitty A.I partners than for people to be complaining about the experience being easy/dull even when you've met the requirements in terms of human players available.
In RE5's case I can say I enjoyed the hell out of the game. The sequel? I have no idea. I'm such a fan of the series and I see so much potential for either scenario.
Mango Positive
Member
I bought Resident Evil #1 on opening day, as I worked in a Software, Etc. (remember those?). I loved all of the games... 1, 2, 3, and 4 (never played the zeros and code names). I haven't bought 5 yet and I'm not clamoring for it because of co-op. I don't have any friends that will buy it and I don't trust the stupid fucking AI that inevitably will inhabit single player Shiva. I did not enjoy the demo and, after Dead Space, I honestly don't care if I ever play the game. Survival Horror CAN NOT work with co-op. Survival Horror hinges upon isolation. Remove the isolation, remove the horror. I'll probably play it eventually, but only when 2 of my used games cover the cost of the entirety of RE5. This was a well intentioned misfire. Not because it's bad, but because I don't care if it's good.
LordWillin
Member
being able to beat the game with a friend online or offline is priceless
Fourth Storm
Member
It's not cool, and it's preventing me from purchasing the game for the time being. None of my friends with 360s are getting it at the moment, and I don't like playing co-op with strangers online. And by all accounts, the cpu Sheva is atrocious. So yeah, it sucks.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Co-op isn't the issue here. Crappy crappy AI is the issue. They could have given you no co-op and still had Sheva in there. This isn't the first time two characters have been fighting side by side in an RE game.
I don't get why people complain about co-op in games. Co-op makes everything more fun. Though, I guess if you don't have any friends, co-op is hard to appreciate.
I don't get why people complain about co-op in games. Co-op makes everything more fun. Though, I guess if you don't have any friends, co-op is hard to appreciate.