I'm kind of the opposite. It's annoying to me that many games feel they either need to be built with co-op in mind from the ground up or just leave it out entirely (or create some separate mode that has no legs to it. I'm looking at you, Mass Effect 3).
Co-op doesn't have to be a make or break thing, it can just be there as an option for people that want it. It doesn't have to be integrated into the story and gameplay like Gears or Army of Two. I don't know why more games don't take the Saints Row approach and just leave everything exactly the same as it would be in a single player game, but with a second player playing. I'm pretty sure the second player isn't even in any of the cutscenes or anything, and the story doesn't even acknowledge that he exists.
Adding co-op doesn't have to ruin everything for the people that just want a streamlined single player game, nor does it have to require some huge re-work for the developers to add. Games like Modern Warfare and Mass Effect are great examples. Running through the Modern Warfare campaign would be a blast with a friend, but there's no co-op. Why? Because it would be too hard to integrate those little set pieces (like Price tossing the gun, etc) and the story doesn't support it. Screw that, I'd be more than willing to sit and watch for 4 seconds while the main player caps the bad guy in the head in that slow-motion set-piece so that I can run around with him and shoot stuff for the other 6 hours. Likewise in Mass Effect. I have my own story save, if I jump into a buddy's game and play as a squadmate through their campaign that would be a lot of fun, and I'd be fine with just sitting and watching while they go through the convos.




Reply With Quote


