Comments on: Soapbox #1: Play gamers, not games?

By: Soapbox #2: To co-op, or not to co-op... - AnalogHype

Soapbox #2: To co-op, or not to co-op... - AnalogHype — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:45:23 +0000

[...] I begin, allow me to give credit where it is due. Regular AnalogHype visitor otherZinc responded to Sunday Soapbox #1 and gave me the focal point for this installment of Sunday Soapbox. You could even say we "co-oped" [...]

By: Khalid

Khalid — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:24:45 +0000

This may pretty soon lead to companies charging us for features that are on the disc. Even though it has already happened, I mean huge features like actual gameplay co-op or the online aspect for a game.

EA have pissed me off this year with the whole Fifa10 thing. The reason why is because, initially they had a great idea and concept for the whole “create your virtual pro” thing and take him online, or career mode where he would continue to progress. Sounds good, but the micro transactions defeated the whole purpose. It pissed me off to the point I don’t even play manager mode or anything. I don’t even feel the need to work hard for my player when others can pay for a stat boost and progress that way.

Great post man. More people should check this out.

By: otherZinc

otherZinc — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:04:32 +0000

Well Mike it isn’t an excuse for Gears incompetence, it was a selfish comment for me, as I dont play multi player that much anymore. I’m not selfish & that was a critical error committed by Epic, I want players to get the most from games today, that wasn’t the case initially with Gears 2 multi.

I sure as hell hope someone asks Infinity Ward a co-op question & hold their feet to the fire. I’ve said this for months just after Infinity Ward said it would be to much of a graphical hit to add co-op to MW 2’s campaign. Same for Killzone 2, GG made the decision to omit co-op, claiming the single player would be compromised, elaborate please?

However, there is co-op in MW 2 in the hidden form of side missions, no!, you have time to do the campaign in co-op mode, Halo, Gears, Rainbow Six, & others give us a complete game. If Infinity Ward, EA, GG, Insomniac & other developers are all that, lets see the co-op through the campaign & maintain this graphical power that’s made them famous!

I’ll anxiously await your “soapbox” on co-op, look at it this way: we’ve had co-op since Contra in the 80’s, something or someone is holding the gaming industry back! Or, the Nintendo Entertainment System is more powerful than some machines today?

By: Michael Ajibade

Michael Ajibade — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:59:57 +0000

Well said otherZinc. The thing is, I see your points on Gears of War 2 as an excuse. Multiplayer is a huge aspect of Gears of War 2. Proof of this can be seen in the achievement lists and the fact that the DLC, sans the one extra level in the Dark Corners pack, has been maps for play in multiplayer. The amount of glitches in the game was inexcusable. The game was pretty much unplayable online pre-patches due to them.

Your points on EA are right on the money. I didn’t mention most of them since they are independent of dlc and microtransactions, but points well made.

The Star wars gimick used to push Soul Calibur was disgusting. I found it funny that the characters in SC4 were extremely unbalanced. I wonder why? Then they had the audacity to charge PS3 users for Yoda and 360 users for Darth Vader. Come on now.

The Co-Op point is a great one. Hmmm! I, perhaps, have found a contender for the topic of my next Soapbox installment; Why are developers skimping out on Co-Op in games it should be in. I find it funny that MW2 gets all this hype and blind love yet has no co-op at all when it clearly should.

By: otherZinc

otherZinc — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:38:13 +0000

With the added cost of gaming today, I understand most DLC, if its quality DLC. For instance, I played the hell out of the Gears DLC, the multi problems many experienced had no effect on me, as I played the single player, Horde, & co-op modes 99% of the time. Money well spent for me! Now EA is some ********! EA is ruining competition with their nonsense, we had leagues of created teams in NCAA Football with “D” rated teams only, using a memory card & built a dynasty from scratch! That was great.

There are many reasons I’m “voting with my wallet” in regards to EA, 1) the NFL Contract! I’m not buying another EA sports game or any EA game until there’s free competition in the NFL arena. 2) NCAA Football, I wont purchase until all NCAA teams that are available in the reg. XBOX & PS2 versions are available for next gen consoles.

I didnt buy Soul Caliber at all, due to the stunt Namco pulled with Vader & Yoda.

You mentioned Battlefield: Bad Company, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 better come with co-op through the mission, if it doesn’t I’ll “vote with my wallet”! Army games or games where you play with a squad or others present most of the time, needs have co-op. Companies omit co-op through the campaign because they have to sacrifice graphical beauty, graphical beauty is the war cry of many on boards today. From what I understand, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is beautiful, I dont care, I’d like game play with 4 player co-op before beauty.

Themes & Avatars are extras to make your machine look nice for your wife or kids. Again, this generation is very expensive & they subsidise other functions of the companies involved.

“Quore” is paying for the R&D (research & development) of PSN & Home.

As for the whereabouts of your “ladder”, I had it, for my “soapbox” on the omission of co-op, for the beauty of graphics. You can have it back now.