but if 4 was just like 5, minus the co-op, then I really can't understand the love it got last generation. Still need to give it a go though.
Danne-Danger said:All games benefit from optional co-op, that's a fact.
Hell I remember enjoying Armorines: Project SWARM (PSone) for a few minutes because of co-op. :lol
omg rite said:Based on RE5? From what I played last night, it's completely amazing, so no.
.
Great post This is me exactly.Speevy 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.
jibblypop said:Boo to co-op being shoe-horned into every game... It makes the game developers treat playing single player like an afterthought when it's what some of us care about the most.
Sadist said:Hate the forced co-op trend.
I played Resident Evil 5 for a bit and I like the game and all, but the singleplayer was a bit ruined by Sheva being a bit of a troublemaker. And I'm not that big of a fan of co-op games in general, so that makes RE 5 for me less enjoyable when compared to RE 4.
Haeleos said: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.
Houston3000 said: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.
Houston3000 said: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'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: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...
RurouniZel 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.
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.
Haeleos 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.
RurouniZel said: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
{Mike} said:Want to know what went wrong?
All they had to do is take the RE4 formula, make a great SOLO EXPERIENCE, and add MULTIPLAYER MERCS. That's all. But Takeuchi can suck my dick for forcing coop everywhere just so it might be more similar to games such as Gears of War, Army of Two, etc.
Want to make a good RE again? Give coop as OPTION, and create ORIGINAL scenarios created solely for coop. Not the whole fucking game you morans.
good luck with thatHouston3000 said: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.
blackMamba1187 said:What about Uncharted 2? That could be fun with coop.
Crunched said:Did all of you suddenly forget Left 4 Dead?
Crunched said:Did all of you suddenly forget Left 4 Dead?
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: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.
RurouniZel said:Isn't that my basic argument, or did I miss something?
Haleos 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.
Sinatar said: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.
Second said:Optional co-op is acceptable.
But forced co-op is annoying.
No wonder RE5 is my least favorite main RE game to date.
jon bones said:I really hate mandatory co-op... but co-op itself is a great feature.
Some games don't need it (cough, bioshock 2, cough) but some games really shine with local co op (gears of war 2). It's a tough call because it's clear so much of RE5 was designed for co op play... when I was living alone, I hated it (online 1 + 1 co op blows, so that's not even an option) but now that I'm moving in with one of my friends, co op becomes awesome.
Zefah said: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.