Yeah I read about this earlier.
CoOp is damn good fun. I still play CoOp Operation Flashpoint to this day. Too bad this EA game is only 2-player though. Larger groups are always more enjoyable.
Nifty, EA France finally announced their secret game. Coop is good no matter what the game, as long as you are not punished for your partner's mistakes.
I'm not talking about a game that just lets you run through a singe player campaign with a friend. That's "co-op", sure, but its very basic. In Chaos Theory you get a whole other unique campaign for co-oping through, and also get a whole slew of movies and techniques that can only be done while co-oping. Contra, Serious Sam, etc. were all fun - but no where near as immersive in the co-op aspect of the game as Splintercell.
[ QUOTE ]
ARMY OF TWO will throw gamers into hot spots ripped from current day headlines...
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like a hypocrite for saying this and feeling this way, but I find it in really poor taste to use modern conflicts as a setting to be used for profit in games.
yeah astro, the concept is awesome but the setting is really lame. I hate all these 'you're going to be the one who pulls the trigger and kill sadams sons!' games.. I feel ill just looking at them
AZ, i do think that it can sometimes ride the line of good taste or cross well over (as many budget titles have). but i think it's about as appropriate as making movies that deal with wars, either current or past. so long as things are treated with some matter of dignity or respect. i didn't play the Black Hawk Down game, so i can't speak as to whether or not that's a game that really ought to have been made... but, well, a lot of games about war are probably more instructive or respectful than their filmic counterparts.
take for example Day of Defeat--i know it's been a long time since WWII, and it was "the good war," but there were still a lot of people killed in it. but i think DoD treats the subject matter appropriately, even if it doesn't make it anywhere near realistic. i know that i would never, ever want to actually be involved in fighting a war, either then or now. you're going to get shot, and you're not going to come back. I think that's always in the back of my mind when I play games like that.
or take for example a series that has been mentioned in this thread, Splinter Cell. first of all, it takes a largely apolitical stance by sticking solely to the nuts and bolts of being a super stealth guy (even though that in itself could be seen as right-wing fan fiction of the worst kind (but really not any worse than our long tradition of spy movies)) even if it is set in modern day hotspots.
i think about it like this: are games of this nature more or less inappropriate than a JERRY BRUCKHEIMER MOVIE entitled "Pearl Harbor" ? i humbly submit they are in fact a good deal better, more instructive, and more respectful.
as far as this Army of Two business, i am keen on seeing a big co-op centered game and have often thought about how that sort of business/play model might work. i'm hoping it does. one of the lynchpins of its success will be how that "PAI" works out when you don't have a buddy to play with. but then limiting it to 2-player co-op should hopefully mean that only the truly lonely will be stuck with robot backup. other than that, it's just a press release, so i think i'll forget about this game until we at least get some good screenies.
All good points, Gauss. Part of the reason I stated that I feel like a hypocrite is because I have played and enjoyed WW2 games, worked on BF:Vietnam, and, if LD was contracted to do so, I would do work on this game. It's just with games and movies set in modern times I feel like it is "too soon" to be using them for entertainment simply because the deaths of loved ones are still fresh in the minds of the families.
As for the comparison with games and movies, I feel differently about movies as a movie can be character and story driven whereas a war game is pretty much straight up just about the conflicts. I don't think any war game has ever told the story of a GI missing his young wife back home who is caring for the baby which he has never even seen. Has anyone ever felt a certain sense of loss and sadness when one of their NPC comrades in a war game is killed? Has there ever been a game cut-scene of the military officers knocking on the front door of the wife or mother of the NPC that was shot when you played through that last level? Of course not, because games as an entertainment medium are more about action (killing enemies) than about story telling and action is what makes the games fun to play.
Anyhow, I don't know how much validity any of my arguments on this subject have. This is just my (hypocritical) feelings on the subject. I do think that it makes for an interesting discussion topic, however.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think any war game has ever told the story of a GI missing his young wife back home who is caring for the baby which he has never even seen. Has anyone ever felt a certain sense of loss and sadness when one of their NPC comrades in a war game is killed?
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't that the reason why you can get away with it ?
There's aren't any feelings involved with the games. Nobody will start crying when your NPC comrades go up in pieces, nobody will call you a traitor if you shot your own comrade, and nobody will call you a monster for hitting civilians and blowing up civilian Buildings.
malcolm: i'm betting it's going to be a good looooong while before we see any.
AZ: it's a thread about a press release, how much hijacking is there to do?
you're right, but i think your comments more than anything speak to the state of war-related games as they are, not as they could be. for what it's worth, i see no reason why the videogame equivalent of Saving Private Ryan couldn't be made--which is to say, a game that involves both the "officers coming to the parents/widow's house with letter" aspect, and plenty of action (both of which are represented in Ryan). The "too soon" thing is something I definitely agree with, but i think that's an issue that applies equally to all forms of popular expression that grapple with this stuff--more or less equally to movies as it does to games. games certainly have the same if not far greater emotive and expressive potential for this sort of thing. and i think there will always be games about war, just as we've always had books and movies and comic books and cave paintings about war... it's just an unfortunate but pervasive aspect to the human condition.
so i the important question isn't whether or not the games about this kind of stuff should be made, but really how they are executed. and there i share your reticence on the subject. a lot of today's games don't really deal responsibly with the subject matter, so it's always going to be up to us (both as an industry and as people) to keep hashing this stuff out. dialogue is central.
ahahahahahaha.... yeah, i hear Titan Quest will have co-op. I also hear it was made by a team of sexiest men in the known universe.
Cookies and Cream has always come reccomended to me, though what i think is really crazy about that game is the single player where you control two characters with either analogue stick at the same time. my brain can't handle it!
i said it before and i'll say it again, even though it's depressing to think about since it'll never happen... but System Shock 3 made with the Doom 3 engine would be about as awesomesauce as i could possibly conceive.
heheh maybe if i had stuck with the steampunk thing more consistently. the baddies in Bioshock are some of the funkiest, coolest character designs i've seen in a while.
which is to say, KDR, i like Bioshock just fine--but there's a difference between a spiritual successor and a proper one. and Bioshock's going to have a hard time coming up with an adversary as memorable as Shodan, if you ask me
Replies
CoOp is damn good fun. I still play CoOp Operation Flashpoint to this day. Too bad this EA game is only 2-player though. Larger groups are always more enjoyable.
Splintercell Chaos Theory: Best co-op ever!
[/ QUOTE ]
one word for you: contra
one word for you: contra
[/ QUOTE ]
still haven't picked up Chaos Theory but i've heard you mention it. i should really sit down with a buddy and have at 'er
ARMY OF TWO will throw gamers into hot spots ripped from current day headlines...
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like a hypocrite for saying this and feeling this way, but I find it in really poor taste to use modern conflicts as a setting to be used for profit in games.
NOLF2 has coop play, but it's just missions with endless enemy spawners.
take for example Day of Defeat--i know it's been a long time since WWII, and it was "the good war," but there were still a lot of people killed in it. but i think DoD treats the subject matter appropriately, even if it doesn't make it anywhere near realistic. i know that i would never, ever want to actually be involved in fighting a war, either then or now. you're going to get shot, and you're not going to come back. I think that's always in the back of my mind when I play games like that.
or take for example a series that has been mentioned in this thread, Splinter Cell. first of all, it takes a largely apolitical stance by sticking solely to the nuts and bolts of being a super stealth guy (even though that in itself could be seen as right-wing fan fiction of the worst kind
i think about it like this: are games of this nature more or less inappropriate than a JERRY BRUCKHEIMER MOVIE entitled "Pearl Harbor" ? i humbly submit they are in fact a good deal better, more instructive, and more respectful.
as far as this Army of Two business, i am keen on seeing a big co-op centered game and have often thought about how that sort of business/play model might work. i'm hoping it does. one of the lynchpins of its success will be how that "PAI" works out when you don't have a buddy to play with. but then limiting it to 2-player co-op should hopefully mean that only the truly lonely will be stuck with robot backup. other than that, it's just a press release, so i think i'll forget about this game until we at least get some good screenies.
You must be thinking of EA Montreal.
-R
EA France isn't a developer branch. They don't make games there.
You must be thinking of EA Montreal.
-R
[/ QUOTE ]
He was being sarcastic :P
As for the comparison with games and movies, I feel differently about movies as a movie can be character and story driven whereas a war game is pretty much straight up just about the conflicts. I don't think any war game has ever told the story of a GI missing his young wife back home who is caring for the baby which he has never even seen. Has anyone ever felt a certain sense of loss and sadness when one of their NPC comrades in a war game is killed? Has there ever been a game cut-scene of the military officers knocking on the front door of the wife or mother of the NPC that was shot when you played through that last level? Of course not, because games as an entertainment medium are more about action (killing enemies) than about story telling and action is what makes the games fun to play.
Anyhow, I don't know how much validity any of my arguments on this subject have. This is just my (hypocritical) feelings on the subject. I do think that it makes for an interesting discussion topic, however.
(Sorry for hijacking your thread, Brome)
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think any war game has ever told the story of a GI missing his young wife back home who is caring for the baby which he has never even seen. Has anyone ever felt a certain sense of loss and sadness when one of their NPC comrades in a war game is killed?
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't that the reason why you can get away with it ?
There's aren't any feelings involved with the games. Nobody will start crying when your NPC comrades go up in pieces, nobody will call you a traitor if you shot your own comrade, and nobody will call you a monster for hitting civilians and blowing up civilian Buildings.
AZ: it's a thread about a press release, how much hijacking is there to do?
you're right, but i think your comments more than anything speak to the state of war-related games as they are, not as they could be. for what it's worth, i see no reason why the videogame equivalent of Saving Private Ryan couldn't be made--which is to say, a game that involves both the "officers coming to the parents/widow's house with letter" aspect, and plenty of action (both of which are represented in Ryan). The "too soon" thing is something I definitely agree with, but i think that's an issue that applies equally to all forms of popular expression that grapple with this stuff--more or less equally to movies as it does to games. games certainly have the same if not far greater emotive and expressive potential for this sort of thing. and i think there will always be games about war, just as we've always had books and movies and comic books and cave paintings about war... it's just an unfortunate but pervasive aspect to the human condition.
so i the important question isn't whether or not the games about this kind of stuff should be made, but really how they are executed. and there i share your reticence on the subject. a lot of today's games don't really deal responsibly with the subject matter, so it's always going to be up to us (both as an industry and as people) to keep hashing this stuff out. dialogue is central.
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/adventuresofcookiecream/review.html
Oh and I hear Titan Quest is going to have co-op.
- BoBo
Cookies and Cream has always come reccomended to me, though what i think is really crazy about that game is the single player where you control two characters with either analogue stick at the same time. my brain can't handle it!
system shock 2 is actually quite a good coop game, especially with 3.
[/ QUOTE ]That is, if it doesn't crash!
that is all.
which is to say, KDR, i like Bioshock just fine--but there's a difference between a spiritual successor and a proper one. and Bioshock's going to have a hard time coming up with an adversary as memorable as Shodan, if you ask me
Watch the EA conferance, theres about 10 seconds of footage for the game at the end.