Serious Sam 2 Dated - Coop Support Announced

Take 2 Germany has posted a release date for Serious Sam 2, listing October 14 as when to expect the upcoming follow-up to Croteam's rapid-fire shooter. Thanks SeriousSamFr. Also, publisher 2K Games reveals that the game will feature the oft-requested support for cooperative multiplayer action. There are new multiplayer screenshots on ToTheGame, and here's word:
2K Games, a publishing label of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTWO), today announced the exciting multiplayer features of Serious Sam II. The multiplayer features in Serious Sam II will allow for full co-operative gameplay on both PC and the Xbox® video game and entertainment system from Microsoft. The PC version will allow up to eight gamers to fight their way through the complete game via LAN and online, with the Xbox version allowing up to four players via Xbox Live or system link.
View : : :
31.
 
Re: No subject
Aug 9, 2005, 14:43
31.
Re: No subject Aug 9, 2005, 14:43
Aug 9, 2005, 14:43
 
That excuse doesn't work as well when you consider doom 3 and halo for the xbox had coop. Can you tell me why the halo port to the pc had no coop? Figure that out and you will know why pc games have no coop anymore, it sure as hell ain't any technical reason.

I haven't played Doom 3 coop on xbox, can you play it coop over xbox live?

If I remember right you could only coop halo on the same console right? As in not networked. Only supported PvP over the network correct?

It is insanely easy to make a multiplayer coop game when there is no networking involved, which is mostly the case in split screen games. There are extra levels of complexity when doing it over an actual network. This is why they canned coop in PC Halo, because there was next to no re-use of code possible between how coop is implemented on the console do how it's implemented on. It boils down to developer lazyness and not wanting to spend the time to get AI working well in a multiplayer environment. Single player AI is often riddled with lazy shortcuts in the code and assumptions about player positions, not to mention most coop console games enforce players to be in the same areas. This is something most PC users might get annoyed at.

Either way it's completely wrong to say there's no technical reasons why more developers don't do it. It's more like most developers don't think it would add significant value to the game to justify significant extra time/effort/money.

Edit: plus, coop would work alot differently as an online game. With DM, CTF, etc.. you can hop on a server and just play. With a coop game you join a coop game in progress then what? You spawn at whatever point at the level the people are already at, potentially missing most of the level? The 'arena' nature of Serious Sam made it a little more tolerable but still if you join late you spawn with your buddies and missed half the level. Perhaps devs consider that a bad point of coop gaming(I don't) Typically coop games imply some sort of objective, complete a mission or something, otherwise you are essentially playing with bots(Quake3, Unreal, countless other bots out there) If someone can join mid-mission would that fuck up the experience?

This comment was edited on Aug 9, 14:48.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
2.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
3.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
4.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
5.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
6.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
8.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
12.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
13.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
15.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
16.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
18.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
14.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
19.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
21.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
22.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
29.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
35.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
         No subject
43.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
9.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
11.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
32.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
33.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
     Re: Excellent!
36.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
      Re: Excellent!
37.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
       Re: Excellent!
38.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
       Re: Excellent!
39.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
        Re: Excellent!
42.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
        Re: Excellent!
45.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
         Re: Excellent!
47.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
          Re: Excellent!
48.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
           Re: Excellent!
46.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
         Re: Excellent!
49.
Aug 10, 2005Aug 10 2005
          Re: Excellent!
50.
Aug 10, 2005Aug 10 2005
           Re: Excellent!
51.
Aug 10, 2005Aug 10 2005
7.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
10.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
17.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
20.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
23.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
44.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
25.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
41.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
24.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
26.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
27.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
28.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
30.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
 31.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
 Re: No subject
34.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
40.
Aug 9, 2005Aug 9 2005
52.
Aug 10, 2005Aug 10 2005
53.
Aug 10, 2005Aug 10 2005
54.
Aug 10, 2005Aug 10 2005
55.
Aug 10, 2005Aug 10 2005
56.
Aug 10, 2005Aug 10 2005