Share this article:
 Digg.com Facebook Google Bookmarks N4G Gamerblips del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot.org StumbleUpon If this was PS3 exclusive then it would rock so hard! But it isnt Sigh ^. It looks like a great game. If it was an exclusive, not as many people would be able to experience it. Which would be bad. If this was a Wonder Swan exclusive it would rock so hard.......... :shock: No. Yeah, if it was exclusive to the Atari Jaguar it would be great We just got rid of standard, we don't need another one. Its exclusive to gamers !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hopefully we'll be able to customize our weapons like in RainbowSix: Vegas 2, I loved all the options. @flash501, Standard is gone????, omg. since when was it the new year!? If this was Mattel INTELLIVISION exclusive then it would rock so hard! :shock: So wait Soap returns? so that means its up the good old British army to win the war again (one thing IW got right)
no more infinite enemy respawns.. Thank you, so many times i would hang back and clear a building only to realise that it could not be doen until i actaully got into the building, which kinda defeated the object of sniper rifles in SP.
but Sneaking can be chosen if the player chooses, so what thats like the 5th game in a year to say that, at first it was cool and innovative, now its became as bland as FPS genre itself.
still looking forward to this thought IW have never failed on a COD, 2 & 4 were both amazing games imo. No doubt he'll be back under a new name, when we see a newbie qouting shakespeare one second and saying 'xbox sucks' the next we'll know. Not happy with lack of campaign co-op, how the heck Bungie got the original Halo to run split screen co-op on the xbox yonks ago (given the enemies and vehicle's chomping on its processing power) remains one of the most impressive feats in FPS history considering how well adapted current gen developers are with 360 and PS3 (cough Resistance 2), yet cant manage the same level of brilliance as Bungie did back then (cough Resistance 2).
We dont want watered down, sub, campaigns. We want forced tactical legendary elite style battles on split screen co-op campaigns from the same expertly crafted single player games. I can only imagine what the original COD 4 wouldve been like with split screen co-op, kudos to COD WOW for doing so as it made a lesser game something more (whoops, i didnt mean airstrike your head lol).
Sorry, mindless rant over, but its still not to late Infinity Ward to make a brilliant game something more! Why would it rock if it was a ps3 exclusive?
You make no sense my friend.
Im looking forward to this, but as i spend most my time on the Multiplayer modes im hoping for some big changes there. E.G. Destructible environments. Blow up a wall and use it as cover, or then climb up the rubble to access a sniper spot. Surely they can make a decent phsics engine to make the walls fall differently each time and give some variation to the game........ HELL YEAH!! Those improvements are making me look forward to this more and more. It sounds like the SP game will be a lot more cinematic, almost bond-like in its missions. Sounds cool.
Also, it'll be nice to have the trophies on the new game - and dare I say it - RUMBLE!!! Totally agree with starsail on co-op. It's unbelievable to me too that games which would benefit from co-op, and where it makes so much sense, don't have it. What's this down to? Laziness? Cost saving? Lack of design and programming skill? Personally I see no excuse. WAW, although inferior to COD:MW in many ways, at least got this part of the game right. Extremely disappointing about that. I would happily have lost 2 or 3 maps and half the weapons if that had freed up the finances to include co-op. For that matter I'd happily have had a very short single player campaign and had more of the co-op special forces mode.
As far as enemy respawns are concerned, I actually find it a little worrying that it's taken the collective outbursts of gamers to make Infinity Ward realise this was a bad idea. Surely every developer knows by now gamers hate respawning enemies. While it may have made sense when consoles weren't very powerful there's absolutely no excuse for it now. It's always been a poor gaming mechanic, and always will. Respawning enemies should be something we looked back on with total disgust, rather than worrying if our next game has it or not.
Don't get me wrong, I'm really looking forward to this game. I loved the first Modern Warfare and will certainly be first in queue for no. 2. I love the idea that we'll have an option to sneak rather than go in guns blazing. Seems we'll be able to take the British or the American approach! Just a shame I'll only ever play through the single player campaign once, maybe twice.
CrispyLog, along with a few others, I think your comment about this game being exclusive are ridiculous. I'm geniunely hopeful that in this tough economic climate independant developers realise it makes more financial sense to get their games on as many systems as possible. While Sony or Microsoft will always make their games exclusive, I don't think exclusive games do us, the gamers, any good whatsoever. It's time the era of many exclusive titles died off. Everyone benefits. I thought CoD4 was toooooo overhyped and was getting tired of em cause they never really try terribly alot new (other than the multiplayer) but this sounds fricking awesome i'll admit. Open ended missions and option for stealth. Liking the sound of it. Click the below link for scanned images of article from gamesinformer.
http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion/30/modern-warfare-2-info-imageshack-links/242063/ Oh yeah im feeling that Come on dudes make it PS3(gods own machine) exclusive
dont waste your time with the flopbox Hope this comes out on Wii as well... so JensonJet, what you're suggesting is kind of communism for games. Be very careful. I'm not entirely sure you're allowed to post even a link to a link of a scan... I remain to be convinced this isn't just CoD4.5
If they remove the old school wave respawn system I might get excited. If they get rid of the respawning enemies what will they replace them with? What'll be there to stop the snipers(player) from sitting back, capping everything in site and then strolling to the end of the level? There's got to be something to keep the player moving forward, like maybe a time limit? :? dont care about co-op, hope it isnt included, its for show offs. anyone can shoot dumb AI that stands around waiting for you. its a race between real players to shoot the most AI. absolutely bull.
the stealth sounds cool, adding bit of cunning to proceedings... unless you want to blaze through it on co-op shooting everything that moves, showing off your "skills". morons. Sweet, thanks. I'm sure they'll think of something, the FPS genre has been doing just fine for years with other ways of implementing enemy spawning. You could take out one group, move along the level and get ambushed by another. Though of course different level design will call for different enemy placement, intelligence.
The main thing I imagine they'll be getting rid of is if you sit in one place, then wave after wave of enemies just keep on coming - that definitely needs to go. Even though it didn't really bother me all that much, apart from on Veteran.
I trust IW personally.
I just watched Gametrailers video, and they seem to be including the AK-103! :D So basically SVD, you don't like co-op as you're either: a) bit rubbish and can't keep up with your co-op partner or b) impossible to play alongside because of your constant hatred towards everything? :wink:
I think co-op is brilliant- and I'm not talking about showing off here, I'm talking about actually using tactics. In both Gears and the Halo games (on the hardest settings), teamwork is essential.
I'm still on the fence about MW2, the first one was polished, and had a couple of interesting levels, but it was all a bit... tame for my tastes. Great multiplayer though. Ok, so having read the article (don't worry, I'll purchase this magazine as it actually appears worthwhile!), it clears up a few little details and questions we have.
It seems the co-op side of the game will be made up of maps that either didn't work in the single player game, or are directly related to the single player game, but drop the story mode for a hardcore fight which requires more than one player. Interestingly the developer mentions Mile High Club. So I'm under the impression we'll have co-op as difficult (at least on the hardest setting) as this 'bonus' map. It's probably similar to Rainbow Six's terrorist hunt. While not ideal, it's about as good as it gets for co-op fans.
The single player sounds like it's got some nice additions, notably a larger variety of locations, and some chance to pick your own route rather than be forced along on rails. I think there will still be respawning enemies, but purely to take advantage of moveable gun turrets (bit like those to defend the tunnels in Aliens!).
FiltyMonkey (isn't that supposed to be FilthyMonkey?), sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. I actually agree with this comment about co-op, And the other persons comments about gears and halo on co-op making it a better experience, yes maybe, but making the game infinitely easier in the process. Halo especially on legendary was a joke in 2 players, even more so 3 or 4.
I applaud Infinity Ward for not following the masses of other games that don't need co-op either and not ruining COD6. Imagine how easy COD4 would have been on co-op thus ruining the challenge. It’s not always about the difficulty of it though, it’s about the fun! Halo on four player legendary is great fun, of course it’s not going to be as hard as single player as multiple guns will always make it easier than if you were a lone soldier, but it’s certainly not just about shooting as many as you can before your teammate…unless you’re in some kind of scoring mode. no, i like to play the single player at my OWN pace. not someone elses.
for me, the real co-op is online teams. humans vs humans. cooperating against the computer is too easy as the other guy said, and to be honest, a total bore.
the single player is for ME. and the stealth tactics are just my thing. i expect it to be a bit like MGS where you disturb the baddies and they hunt for you or call backup - not instantly start firing time at you 100% of the time. Surely they could just make the difficulty level adapt to how many people were playing? doesnt stop the other players from doing all your work. FPS co-op is almost as boring as getting stuck as a passenger in GTA4 online. yawn fest. if they have a reason for completing a stage rapidly then co-op will make sense. if not, i dont want or need any help.
i dont run and gun, but in co-op you need to. otherwise your just walking through a stage full of dead people. But isn’t humans vs. humans just a team deathmatch? Or some kind of objective based team game? Co-op adds another dimension of being able to play with your friends, and I’m not talking about randoms you spar against in deathmatches et al, I’m talking about real life friends. It’s a good laugh, and Gears on Insane is a good laugh combined with pulling your hair out at points… would rather play with my mates against some worthy opponents i.e. other humans than destroy the computer AI in single player co-op...
a multiplayer objective game like headquarters etc. humans vs humans.
can you imagine protecting your HQ against the AI in the single player instead of humans?! you wouldnt die once. auto-win. pointless!
dont see it any differently in single player co-op... its a walkover. I personally wouldn't want co-op in Modern Warfare 2. By the sounds of it, IW are doing the right thing by having co-op levels separate. this game will be amazing period! i agree that campaign should be coop though. will have to wait and see if the new special forces mode shows that overall it's the right decision...bring it on!!would like to see something a bit more inventive oline than the prestige system and more map packs this time please. true, integrating co-op into the single player as it is could, or even WOULD compromise it. and we'd end up with something a bit gimped from the original vision.
killzone refused to do it for that exact reason. i agree with that. i think the cod4 experience made itself epic in scale and action by the fact that it was single player experience. it may not work as well with coop even though coop is now standard for shooters. i like that they have at least introduced a coop mode as i'm sure it will be fun either way. The arguments against co-op are unfounded in my experience.
For a start co-op is an alternative to the single player game. The single player game need not be altered whatsoever. It'll always be there, in every game for those that either cannot or do not want to work within a team. From my experience gamers work together within a co-op team far better than in adversarial games.
While I accept player vs player has it's merits, there are equally as many gamers playing this way that are desperate to gain more kills than everyone else, and although this can be true of co-op it's certainly not as prevelant. There's also more conversation and tatic discussion in co-op than what goes on in adverserial games.
If you prefer to play at a slower pace, there's always gamers that also want to play this way and playing alongside friends resolves this issue. Which brings me onto the idea that co-op is easy. While it may have been in Halo 3, it certainly wasn't (at least on the hardest difficulty) in the Rainbow Six series. There's no reason why there couldn't be an increased number of enemy to accomodate the extra team members. This would also slow down or eliminate the loan wolf/Rambo-style/show-off/skilled gamers strategies. While it's a valid argument that skilled players can dominate a co-op experience, it's up to the developers to ensure the gameplay is fun and difficult and suits everyone, which is usually why we have the hardest difficulty settings.
It really sounds like those that dislike co-op want co-op lovers to go without. Fortunately those that don't care for adversarial games aren't so draconian towards others. I guess by their very nature co-op players are less selfish and happy for others to join their enjoyment of a game, being helped and helping others. From my experience younger gamers don't tend to care for co-op as much as older ones, which is always a welcome change from the sometimes unpleasant adversarial players. And as I've said in the past co-op has proven the single best way of meeting new gaming friends online.
On the argument that respawning enemies keep people moving, I'm completely lost on this one. A gamer who decides to move forward slowly or not at all can still follow this gameplan regardless of enemy respawns. The reality is respawning enemy is often a smoke-screen for either poor game design, or the developers ability to create smart AI that has any sense of self preservation. the guff from above.
ok then, how do you do the mission in CoD4 all gullied up where you are the sole sniper trying to shoot the baddie amidst cross winds etc. everyone having pot shots until he catches one?
thats just like the thing. co-op is run and gun for people who cant take on proper opponents. go play a racing game. for me FPS's are to be savored, not blazed through.
if you want proper mayhem get online instead of these closed predictable games.
and what on earth do you have to talk about in offline co-op over the headsets?!
its easy enough as a lone wolf with no help whatsoever. in co-op its a breeze. certianly no need for "tactics". its dumb AI, that you already bet solo. adding players, even if ramping up the difficulity, is a walk in the park... as i said, its for SHOWOFFS. look at me im shooting someone teehee. who cares, unless they can think for themselves its cheating almost.
no need for backup, or tactics in a single player game. play against like-minded people and then teamplay becomes important. ganging up on a computer is a waste of time. what sense of achievement do you get when you "own" the computer?! i mean it was set in stone before you even began - you arent going to lose against the computer. take the game online and its 50/50 whether you'll win. a bit of tension. Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
I see thee yet, in form as palpable
As this which now I draw.
Thou marshall'st me the way that I was going;
And such an instrument I was to use.
Mine eyes are made the fools o' the other senses,
Or else worth all the rest; I see thee still,
And on thy blade and dudgeon gouts of blood,
Which was not so before. There's no such thing:
It is the bloody business which informs
Thus to mine eyes. Now o'er the one halfworld
Nature seems dead, and wicked dreams abuse
The curtain'd sleep; witchcraft celebrates
Pale Hecate's offerings, and wither'd murder,
Alarum'd by his sentinel, the wolf,
Whose howl's his watch, thus with his stealthy pace.
With Tarquin's ravishing strides, towards his design
Moves like a ghost. Thou sure and firm-set earth,
Hear not my steps, which way they walk, for fear
Thy very stones prate of my whereabout,
And take the present horror from the time,
Which now suits with it. Whiles I threat, he lives:
Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives.
I go, and it is done; the bell invites me.
Hear it not, Duncan; for it is a knell
That summons thee to heaven or to hell. iloveme/standard/crimbo/suiv. in what way does any of this drivel(macbeth i think) apply to this thread i'm sure you've gone mad from being banned all the time :lol: w@nker. i think we have the dictionary definition of a loser here.
little ****ing pollution.
there you go, theres the reply you so desperately seek, enjoy. well im hoping to see the SA80 in the list of guns.
but thats just me being British. So, SVD, what you are basically saying is that EVERY game that has coop is rubbish because EVERY person that will play it on coop will just mindlessly rush through it killing everything before the other player does?. Even by your standards that is bollox.
If I buy a game that has coop more often than not I will play it through with a friend, and in my opinion it adds immeasureably to the game.
If you prefer to play these games on your own because you don't have the discipline to work together with your partner that's fair enough, but don't try to tell those of us who appreciate games with coop that it's a waste of time. @ILOVEME
Does your name refer to your onanistic tendencies?
:shock: where did i slate the actuial game? its the mode i dislike. it detracts immeasurably, in my opinion.
the game is made, intended to be a single player experience. co-op is just a tack-on.
if i want some **** yaking pish on the mic i'll go online. extra players means an easier game. end of. i play ALL my shooter in the hardest difficulty. and i get by. i dont need any help, not in the single player.
the computer AI stand there like a dummy waiting for multiple players to shoot at the same scripted target. i cant say how mundane it is.
cooperate with people AGAINST people. then any tactics you manage to pull off actually mean something!!!
i have a sneaky suspicion you'd get ripped in two online mate. cause you cant enjoy offline co-op if your shit hot against human players.
the single player is predictable enough on your own. adding teammates is a joke. Steady lads, he has got a point, in my experience i have also found the co-op games to be a race rather than a team game.
It's in our competitive nature to be the first or best and the temptation to run on and grab all the kills before anyone else can ruin the co-op experience. Grasshopper, as much as you hate co-op I love it. But the difference is while you want others to not have the feature because it's not for you, I'm happy for game modes that I don't play to be included, but would like one that's often missing from shooters. So as much as your opinion is correct for you I find it unbelievable you selfishly want others to miss out on something they enjoy.
Anyway I'll explain how I see co-op workig in the example you give.
In Gullied-Up there are two of you throughout the mission, so whether there are two in co-op or two teams taking different routes or four in co-op going the same way, the begining and end of this level need not change at all. As far as the sniping section is concerned, there could be two targets! Or the other player/team could perform another task in another part of the building you're in. Or have another player or two take out roof sniper look-outs. There are many options. I'm just one gamer, I'm sure a games developer could come up with a dozen ideas on what to do with other team members.
Just because you can't see another solution, doesn't mean there aren't others out there. Or perhaps only one of you does the actual sniping. Personally if I were within a co-op team I'd happily let someone else do this task. And with friends we'd let however was more likely to acheive this take on the task. Clearly in a co-op game you would have insisted you do this part, and I'm sure there are plenty of co-op players that would have accomodated your demands. Personally I find sniping pretty dull, compared to close quarter battles or clearing out buildings, etc, so I'm probably not the best person to reply on this one. But I guarantee it wouldn't have been an issue that could be resolved in seconds. Perhaps even the game decides, randomly, as your AI commanding officer tells you which will take the shot.
However, this is a very small section of the game and hardly makes or breaks it for me. And is certinaly not an excuse to not have co-op in the game. The whole level was exciting, so the actual sniping part didn't really matter to me. If you failed, you did it again anyway, so it's not like it mattered that you get it right in the first place. As I mentioned before, the single player need not be changed in any way.
I savour games too. Playing the whole game through on Veteran didn't give me the chance to 'blaze through', which is why you'll never hear me complain a game is too short. When the battles require a little more skill and tatics and are too deadly to just run through, you have to take your time. And I always look around a map and take it all in because I never know when I'm going to need an escape plan. I've played through Rainbow Six with just one other friend on the toughest setting, which is very much designed for three or four, where communication, tatics, timing and a slower more methodical approach, and speed at times, has been essential. For me this is far more fun than essentially having to be the Rambo-type we often end up being in single player where AI team-mates are often completely useless... or as you would have seen in the helicopter/farm scene in Modern Warfare, are essentially Terminator like and unhurtable. But that's me. I enjoy communication, teamwork, and where needed, a little planning, with other gamers. As Left-4-Dead has proved with it's popularity, there are many of us that really enjoy playing alongside other gamers, and are even happy to only play that way.
Perhaps you find all games, regardless of difficulty, very easy but I have certainly found some quite tough going. As I was forced to replay the missile base and the amusement park on Veteran several times I often wished I had a co-op friend or two to help out and rely on rather than a team of near useless AI. Not to mention Mile High Club which I would happily have battled twice the enemy if only I could've played through that map with some co-op help.
From my experience having one life to get you through a whole co-op map usually evokes better gameplay and the use of tatics than I've seen in adversarial games. Gamers rise or lower themselves to the challenge of the game type. Having many lives means no one particularly cares whether their killed or not. I admit as essentially I'm a keyboard and mouse gamer, I cannot compete as I used to now being forced to use a joypad, so I don't play single life adversarial games. Perhaps if I were you, I'd demand they be removed from all games!
Co-op has always been a lot of fun for me. I've met some really nice online friends this way. I get a better experience and find the games more organised and teamwork more prevalent in co-op. I also enjoy chatting and learning tatics, covering others and having help completing maps. And if I chose I always have single player, as it's included in every game. So while you can only feel a sense of acheivement winning in single player, I can enjoy a game when I'm part of a team that 'gangs' up on the computer and 'own' it's AI ass! Perhaps you've had some bad co-op experiences. Funny how I've met nearly all my online friends in co-op and love it, and you dislike this type of gametype and appear to dislike other gamers!!! Oh right, you don't like coop because your too bloody good at your games, my bad. :roll: SVD you seemingly have no friends to play online co-op with, as otherwise you wouldn’t mind their chatter in your ear, what with them being your friends and all that. Or do you take gaming that seriously that you do not allow yourself to have fun? And only go for a challenge all the time? As it that’s the case I would suggest getting out more, that or just ignore the co-op feature old chap.
Plus the AI on Halo is pretty good, less predictable than most, plus Gears certainly needs tactics on Insane, as otherwise you’ll get killed immediately by just running and gunning. Though, that is course only my opinion, less exalted than your own. Unless anyone else agrees? »
no because its a single player experience. adding in more playes, as i and others have said, turns it into a race.
a race against what? theres no clock. a race against each other in a bid to look smart in front of others. you dont ramp through it at that pace if your only playing it yourself, do you?!
playing it with others wrecks the tension of lone wolf status. it also give you less people to shoot.
if you are going to use team tactics, dont do it against a computer that doesnt know any better or cant respond accordingly. pointless mate.
your tactics online against another team MEANS something. offline co-op, does not. other than acting smart. as i said. I agree, if you are playing with someone who just tries to be the first to kill everyone then it ruins the experience, but when I play with a mate we work together to kill the enemies, share ammo evenly etc. and I enjoy it far more than playing alone. playing against AI will never be half as good as playing against people who know what they are doing.
up the difficulty and it becomes cheap. its not down to "clever" AI. the bullets just make a B-line for you as some as you break cover.
and i dont own a headset. and never will, i get by in team games without. and i always place in the top 3, usually top 2.
i would feel like a ****ing embarrased loser sitting in my gaff, on my todd with that thing strapped to my ear shouting at a computer screen.
cringe aint the word. doesnt matter if noone was in the house. id rather hang myself. »
jesus christ. share the ammo, share the kills next?!
and what is this "working together"?!
i'll repeat: IT AINT HARD. not in the slightest.
you would jump on a dying hedgehog with your mates i think. stamps each. Grasshopper's a little confused!
On the one hand he loves single player, plays the hardest setting, takes his time and finds it relatively easy, but is always left behind in co-op and gets less kills than 'show-offs'.
He hates other gamers in co-op, but enjoys playing adversarial games because the outcome is unknown, but of course plays with others.
Finds adversarial games better organised with teamwork, but doesn't care to talk to others online.
In another forum argument complained Bioshock didn't need co-op and is all about the single player experience, which we can only assume is also very easy for him, but clearly not satisfying as 'owning' computer characters isn't satisfying.
I'm sure many of us dislike certain games, or don't care for game types we don't play. It's fortunate that we don't all jump on a forum and let everyone know what we hate... imagine how much time that would take, and how many messages we'd have to leave? I'm not one to go about insulting others, and this isn't meant to be an insult, so much as a theory based on observation, but I think Grasshopper is a young, slightly confused gamer who's happy when everything goes his way, but when other people have an opinion he disagrees with, all hell breaks loose. And of course, regardless of our individual tastes he wants features left out of games if he doesn't benefit from them or enjoy them!?!? Grassy, I think your attitude is a little selfish, not to mention unsociable. Gaming doesn't have to be that way... it can be... but there are alternatives. That says it all 'mate', you don't play these games to have a bit of fun with your friends, you play them to beat the other idiots you play against at all costs, and if you are being honest that's probably one of the reasons why you don't like coop, because you think the person you are playing with is an idiot. It says alot about you really.Oh and believe it or not the headset can be used to talk to your friends in a civilised manner, you know share a laugh and a joke, although i'm not surprised that you think it's solely for shouting at your computer screen.
And i'll finish with my main point again seeing as you seem to keep missing it, IF YOU DON'T LIKE COOP, DON'T PLAY IT BUT STOP CRITICISING THOSE OF US WHO LIKE IT. Soap is in the game as a "grizzled vet" NPC.Single player enemies will have "customized" weapons similar to the multiplayer component of COD4.The ice mission shown to GI demonstrated the game's open-ended approach to combat, showing how stealth can be implemented if the player chooses. While the gameplay is open-ended, the story is "on-rails".Infinity Ward realizes that the "invisible line" where enemies will stop coming in COD4 wasn't great, so they're trying hard to eliminate that. Also, they are lengthening the single player past the 6-10 hour mark of COD4."Special Forces Mode" is a major part of MW2, a series of missions in the spirit of the Mile High Club from COD4. It will also have co-op in this mode. Gears-style bleed-out-and-partner-revive will be used.Co-op apparently won't exist in Story Mode.Riot shields will be implemented in the game.Zakhaev's former associate, Makarov, is the "new face of global terrorism."Snowmobiles are used as a form of escape in the demonstration. Unclear whether or not the player will drive, shoot, or both.Players will alternate using the two triggers to climb ice-walls.Movable turrets will be used in SF mode and Single Player, no official word on online use.IW wants to implement an accomplishment system to online, as they want to make their players famous.Online mode will use a "Live-Patching" system, where IW can manipulate spawn logic or certain parts of a multiplayer map without doing a full-blown patch.Another demoed area shows an enormous desert setting where Task Force 141 drops into a wasteland and must navigate a "lengthy trek" to a fully-rendered valley with scattered caves, reminiscent of Iron Man.IW is focusing on details for the COD4 sequel, citing iced-up tire treads in the Russian level.The game will run in 60fps (duh)." :D :D :D :D Sounds very promising to me, fix the few problems CoD 4 had and your onto another GOTY imo :D Wow SVD your a sad sad man.
okay Resident Evil 5 is probably the best example for this, that game is so fun in co-op, you have to share ammo and work as a team but you also can have a right laugh.
the point of Co-op is to play with a friend (look it up in a dictionary if you are unsureas to what that is) and make the experience more enjoyable, or in some cases easier.
i for one enjoy Co-op more than Competetive in some games, R6V2 Terrorist hunt was much better than the Competetive mode imo, even though it was near impossible to win the levels it was still a good laugh.
and if you play to just get up on the leaderboards you obviously cant be a team player so im guessing you never played much sports as a kid, either that or you were always the **** who never passed because you thought people werent as good as you. Forgot to add...
Grasshopper hates other gamers, but is happy to converse with us in a forum!
Ok, my little noisey legged nemesis, Grasshopper. Seeing as how Gullied-Up was such an easy example of how co-op could work, I have an idea. Your argument for co-op not working in single player shooter's is so weak, I'll explain how it could work in any shooter, map, or scenario you can possibly think of! I guarantee there is absolutely no argument for co-op not being included in any FPS. And while you struggle to see how it could work in some games I'm happy to explain how a solution can be found. Or do you want to admit you just hate co-op and because of that you don't want other gamers to be able to play it? Well I just look forward to another awesome on-line multiplayer. Co-op is ok for a bit but I think I had a couple of nights of it on WAW, on the other hand multiplayer has filled months and months. I like a good single player first and, if feasible, a co-op is a nice addition. I am far more interested in more diverse environments, new weapons, deep story, more perks and stuff like that which all costs space on the agenda and in my mind pushes co-op further down the list of priorities. Not sure COD4 would have been improved with co-op anyway, particularly not with certain missions, 'Guilled up' been the obvious one but also War Pig and the final level, but again it is nice to have I guess.
You may now return to your petulant bi**ching contest....... I`ve got to say i would be well fecked off if it came to light the single player campaign had suffered due to the shoehorning in of a co-op mode. It has turned into a complete bitchfest and I apologise for adding to it, but idiots like svd get on my tits so much I can't help but reply to his idiotic comments.
I'll know better in future. Lawless, a co-op game doesn't impact on a single player game. Many games have had co-op and I don't think they're any worse for it.
Headcharge, if you'd read my, ok rather long posts I've explained several solutions to how this map could work co-op.
I actually don't think we're in a 'bi^^ching contest' at all. Grasshopper has openly admitted he dislikes gamers who play co-op and feels co-op should never be in games. I think that's a fair excuse to argue why we feel he's selfish for wanting us to go without a game feature we enjoy.
Ok, having re-read through some of your comments Grasshopper something has occurred to me...
You've had a few bad experiences in co-op. You've played with people who have selfishly taken all the ammo leaving you no chance to have a decent game. The easiest solution is just leave that game. Trust me, there are many who play co-op who enjoy teamwork.
Grasshopper,
This is where a lot of your complaints stem from. If you play co-op on anything but the very hardest level you will always get players who are good enough to not need anyone's help.
Only ever play co-op on the toughest setting with friendly fire on. This ensures people cannot rush on without the rest of the team. You are forced to work together. But complaining about how the AI is then deadly accurate is the fault of the developers, not ours, the co-op loving gamers. But within a co-op group regardless of how accurate the enemy AI is, with a little planning it's possible to overcome and beat even the toughest AI.
I bought WAW for only one reason, co-op. I played with perhaps 40 others over several games on the toughest setting, and literally all but one player was any good. People were continually pushing forward as fast as they could, and failing constantly. While I would attempt to find a good spot in cover and take out as many baddies as I could, it was impossible to cover everyone, and games ultimately failed. Playing alongside the decent guy, we did better together than I had done with three headless chickens! But what was essential was that we used our headsets to communicate so we could work together. At times while he covered me, he'd suggest I move forward. He wasn't screaming at me, and perhaps it could be argued he was telling me what to do, but he knew the gamer better than me, and I knew we could advance through the game this way. And I was learning his tatic for completing that part of the map. Other times, I would suggest to him, if I was pinned down, for him to move in order to take out the enemy causing me troubles. That session was the best time I had playing the game.
I'm not sure why you're bothered about what outside people think of you talking on a headset, but for me it's no more embarrassing than using a telephone. And while some chat is game-related, when someone's friendly, the conversation can wonder to any subject.
On another occasion I played the Zombie mode. Had a lot of fun with this because it's co-op at it's best... people really are forced to help each other and work together. But in one game a kid came in and started barking orders. Normally people would discuss who's covering which area, but on this occasion a kid thought he knew it all. So where I would normally cover or help a team mate in trouble, you can guess what I did for this guy. He soon left when he realised no would listen to him.
I think your hatred for co-op gamers is based on the type of players who actually aren't good at teamwork. If only you'd been lucky enough to meet people that are skilled at co-op, talkative and friendly you'd understand how much fun it can be.
In an old Xbox game, which separated adversarial and co-op scores, I was rated very highly in the leaderboard. I knew the game well, and loved it. I met several very good friends in the game. I always played on the toughest setting with friendly fire on and one life. Gamers rise to the challenge. But sure occasionally you get teamkilled. I don't have an issue with it as I geniunely believe gamers play better when the stakes are higher.
I always hosted so I could ensure the settings were at their hardest, and always asked people to plug in their microphone or leave. Like yourself, I've no time for selfish gamers, but unlike you, I'll give people who want to play co-op as best as possible all the time in the world.
When forced to join other peoples servers, I'd inevitably find them playing on easy settings. Then I would do the thing you hate most. I'd rush forward clearing the map, but always let the host know "Playing on this difficutly is too easy... knock it up, turn on friendly fire, knock down the life to one, then we can have a proper game". And if that happened, I did my best to be a teamplayer.
The difficulty setting is key to getting the most from co-op. That and having a headset. CALL OF DUTY 4, is co op anyway u have bad squadmates ran by the a i ?!!!!
so what really does it matter that u have human counterparts taking over the roles of captain prices etc? really, most of the time there stupidity gets u killed or themselves and its game over, so if human take the roles, then maybe a little more planning can take place for the tactical shooter, i understand u may not like co op but i hopoe they include itas an option cos i think a lot more people willenjoy it than boycott it. I know I'm opening myself up wide in the "Ask a stupid question..." catagory, but for someone who likes to see where their feet are at in a game, are there any rumours or reports of third person playability in this game? Just asking... who needs it, story co-op is ok but nothing that specail although extra missions that you cant do on single player will force those hardcore gamers to get some freinds if they want their acheivements or tropies. also i hope they put in splitscreen online it worked so well on halo and i see no reason why they shouldnt........
(this drible continues for 2.64565 hours but the person i was dictationg it to only servived this far)
R.I.P Edwin |
