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 : : :
56 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
36.
 
Re: Excellent!
Aug 9, 2005, 15:19
36.
Re: Excellent! Aug 9, 2005, 15:19
Aug 9, 2005, 15:19
 
Can you imagine being in a 4-person coop game, spending 5 minutes buying what you needed, then having to wait 30 minutes for the explorer of the group to finish talking to everyone? I wouldn't. I'd leave the map.
That is why you make the progression dependent on either a single player or a majority of players, e.g. if 3 of 4 are in the map exit zone, you exit anyway or call a vote to exit where >=50% progresses.

35.
 
No subject
Aug 9, 2005, 14:56
35.
No subject Aug 9, 2005, 14:56
Aug 9, 2005, 14:56
 
I'm really glad they kept coop in, it's my favorite online game type. Serious Sam and Operation Flashpoint are the two greatest coop games ever, though for very different reasons.

34.
 
Hell yeah.
Aug 9, 2005, 14:49
34.
Hell yeah. Aug 9, 2005, 14:49
Aug 9, 2005, 14:49
 
I want to send out a big thank you to the few companies that still support Coop modes. Or, as I still like to call it from when almost every game supported the mode: two player.

Remember the good ol' days when two player existed in what now would be considered "single player" games? Even if you simply took turns, it was a way for two players to sit down and enjoy a game together -- instead of just letting one simply watch.

My girlfriend and I wish there were more two player games.

-- K-rig

33.
 
Re: Excellent!
Aug 9, 2005, 14:49
33.
Re: Excellent! Aug 9, 2005, 14:49
Aug 9, 2005, 14:49
 
I see that people mentioned Deus Ex a couple times, too. Coop doesn't work in a game like Deus Ex, because there's too much NPC interaction. Originally, in the design document for an upcoming game of ours, we had laid out ideas for coop... but once we started planning out city areas and NPC's, it was clear that it was just not going to work. There are areas where the player might spend up to an hour engaging with NPC's, such as shopkeepers, quest givers, trainers, etc. Can you imagine being in a 4-person coop game, spending 5 minutes buying what you needed, then having to wait 30 minutes for the explorer of the group to finish talking to everyone? I wouldn't. I'd leave the map.

And like Beamer says, what happens when that one person leaves the map? To be able to keep track of everyone, the server host would have to create a new instance of each map occupied by another player. First of all then it's no longer really coop anymore, second of all if it's a linear storyline and one person goes off and completes some events this now disables those events for the rest, and third most computers would not be able to handle multiple map instances and still maintain adequate performance.

So Serious Sam is perfect for coop, whereas games like System Shock, Deus Ex, and even Doom 3 (there's a fair amount of level-switching and NPC interaction in D3) are not so perfect. I'm sure when iD was designing D3, they had to consider these kinds of things. It's not that they were technically unable to do a coop mode, it's just that it doesn't work out so well in practice in some situations, like the beginning of the game. The more depth and non-combat interaction you add to an FPS, the less practical coop becomes.

32.
 
Re: Excellent!
Aug 9, 2005, 14:48
32.
Re: Excellent! Aug 9, 2005, 14:48
Aug 9, 2005, 14:48
 
What this announcement really was is a vieled announcement that co-op would be the ONLY multiplayer mode (i.e. no deathmatch) supported out of the box

Oh Noes!!1!!!one!1
A game without Deathmatch! The world is ending!

I'm glad one developer finally ditched that same old tired deathmatch bullshit. (if true)

Creston

Edit : Its amazing that a little Croatian team can do in their game what the mighty "id" could not...

Right, because Id didn't CHOOSE not to include coop, they actually wanted to but were technically UNABLE to...

October 13th, great, right when every other game comes out too. Welcome to the horde of Developers Without Much Sense, croteam.

This comment was edited on Aug 9, 14:49.
Avatar 15604
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.
30.
 
No subject
Aug 9, 2005, 14:34
30.
No subject Aug 9, 2005, 14:34
Aug 9, 2005, 14:34
 
I'm glad SS 2 will have coop, but why wasn't anyone excited when the same feature was mentioned for the Starship Troopers game? Instead there was a hatefest for the Starship Troopers movie, which I couldn't care less about.

29.
 
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing.
Aug 9, 2005, 14:32
29.
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing. Aug 9, 2005, 14:32
Aug 9, 2005, 14:32
 
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.

There was a technical reason - the coop scripting in Halo was set up to take place on a single box, with no packets being sent to a second machine. This was believable, since Halo didn't support coop over system link, much less Live, even though it would have massively benefited from the feature.

Still sucked, though. It was totally the make or break feature for me, and not having it = no sale for me.

28.
 
Re: No subject
Aug 9, 2005, 14:25
28.
Re: No subject Aug 9, 2005, 14:25
Aug 9, 2005, 14:25
 
I don't think the problem is AI.

Think about the games we're mentioning with co-op. Each level was simply a map. When that started changing co-op started disappearing. Putting co-op in a Build engine game was simply creating another spawn point. The levels functioned identically to DM levels.

Think about HL. The levels are tiny with no real beginning or end. If player A walks into a new level, what happens to players B and C? Can they still see him? Do they get taken to that level as well?


Obviously not all games have this, especially with levels getting bigger, but I imagine they have their own issues.




Did anyone ever try one of those Far Cry co-op mods? Now that sounds like fun.

27.
 
No subject
Aug 9, 2005, 14:19
27.
No subject Aug 9, 2005, 14:19
Aug 9, 2005, 14:19
 
Q1 had coop. Half Life had it with a mod (Sven Coop).

I'd rather coop than deathmatch, so this game is starting to interest me..

Avatar 18037
26.
 
Re: No subject
Aug 9, 2005, 13:53
26.
Re: No subject Aug 9, 2005, 13:53
Aug 9, 2005, 13:53
 
Speaking of wearing thin, some of us are tired of the same old graphics/physics/AI FPS formula that has nothing else to take the gaming experience to the next level. After playing FPS #35 with better graphics, better physics, and better AI, you begin to wonder if we've reached the boundaries of FPS game evolution. Vehicles are a nice recent addition and that gives me hope that developers are looking at adding some new ingredients. PvP multiplayer becoming varied and supporting more players is also great. However, I think giving up on coop for the sake of making release dates was a step back. I understand that not everyone enjoys coop, but it wouldn't hurt to come out with one new coop FPS every 2 years or so. As this coop drought goes on, maybe a successful SS2 will get the attention of the industry again.

25.
 
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing.
Aug 9, 2005, 13:29
25.
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing. Aug 9, 2005, 13:29
Aug 9, 2005, 13:29
 
Your pretty sure... HUH...Hey everyone Hellbinder is pretty sure. I know for fact Duke , Blood , most build games had co-op I played all those games on TEN . Never played Nolf. Did DOOM have co-op, dude are you for real. Never played Quake 1 but I know for a fact Q2 had it and it was released in 98, unreal had it too. Games like Deus EX, Thief , Jedi Knight ,ect didnt have it. I'm not sure if Half-Life had it but I thought I palyed co-op with buds threw that game.

24.
 
No subject
Aug 9, 2005, 13:27
24.
No subject Aug 9, 2005, 13:27
Aug 9, 2005, 13:27
 
They already mentioned that Co-Op would be in. From what I understood there was supposed to be additional gameplay for MP besides Co-op. Suck. I know everyone likes co-op but your essentially replaying the game over, just with others. It wears thin pretty quickly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburgers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."

- Jim Goad
Avatar 10137
23.
 
Re: No subject
Aug 9, 2005, 13:24
23.
Re: No subject Aug 9, 2005, 13:24
Aug 9, 2005, 13:24
 
Nolf had Coop???

NOLF2 did.

did doom have coop?

Yes, as did Doom2, Heretic, and Hexen.

I am pretty sure that Quake did not have coop

He didn't say Quake. He said "Quake engine" games. I don't recall in particular whether or not this is true, but kindly quit twisting people's words and start reading them.

or some of the other games you mentioned

He mentioned:
  • All build games( blood,Duke3d, shadow warrior) ]
    Yup, all had it.

    • Hertic, Doom, ]
      Yup, both had it.

      • most Quake enigne games]
        Sufficiently nebulous as to be unprovable.

22.
 
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing.
Aug 9, 2005, 13:23
22.
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing. Aug 9, 2005, 13:23
Aug 9, 2005, 13:23
 
That's because AI in those days was: See player. Run at player. Scripted AI and squad based AI, starting with Half Life (and continued by most games since then) is way harder to get squads and scripted actors to respond convincingly to more than one player.

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.

21.
 
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing.
Aug 9, 2005, 13:15
21.
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing. Aug 9, 2005, 13:15
Aug 9, 2005, 13:15
 
Lets be real here the AI in games today isnt that great. I can see how co-op might be hard to do with Scripted AI, but games like Rune , Unreal, WillRock, ect have scpripted events but they still have co-op. I would think if players are at different ponits in a level and player 1 sets script off to bad for player 2.

20.
 
No subject
Aug 9, 2005, 13:15
20.
No subject Aug 9, 2005, 13:15
Aug 9, 2005, 13:15
 
hmmm...

Nolf had Coop???

The Duke engine games had coop.

did doom have coop?

I am pretty sure that Quake did not have coop or some of the other games you mentioned.
The Whales name is Bob.
19.
 
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing.
Aug 9, 2005, 12:49
19.
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing. Aug 9, 2005, 12:49
Aug 9, 2005, 12:49
 
Dude back in 96-98 all FPS had co-op. All build games( blood,Duke3d, shadow warrior) Hertic, Doom, most Quake enigne games ect,ect had co-op, matter of fact I cant think of any big name FPS that didnt have it back then.
That's because AI in those days was: See player. Run at player. Scripted AI and squad based AI, starting with Half Life (and continued by most games since then) is way harder to get squads and scripted actors to respond convincingly to more than one player. They all either head off to hit the first person they see, or the middle one in the group, etc. It's hard enough programming a squad to react to one player, his movements, cover, weapons etc.

Admittedly, games like HL2 (and a bunch of others) have you fighting with ally NPCs and so on, but they themselves are AI controlled and aren't likely to act as unpredictably as players.

Serious Sam, on the other hand, relies (ok, relied - I haven't played the new one) on fairly simplistic AI made up for by loads going on at once. Don't get me wrong, that's not a criticism (I loved the first one) but those exploding screaming kamikazes are the definition of "see player, run at player." Thus, arcade style games like SS are more easily adapted to co-operative.


Avatar 18712
18.
 
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing.
Aug 9, 2005, 12:47
18.
Re: Fine...I read the damn thing. Aug 9, 2005, 12:47
Aug 9, 2005, 12:47
 
THE KING OF MINDLESS FUN MULTIPLAYER CO-OP IS BACK!

All hail Serious Sam 2! The first 2 games didn't have much of a story or depth, but my god the mindless multiplayer co-op was worth every single penny. Not to mention I won a contest on gathering of developers site and got Serious Same The First Encounter free.
They took 1 aspect the PC Community loves to have and rarely gets, and made it in my mind the best co-op game to date. And I won't even go into how horrible Doom 3 Xbox Co-Op was, let alone all the editing they had to do to levels, and plain uglyness of it all compaired to the PC version.

Avatar 12670
17.
 
More Co-Op Orgy!!
Aug 9, 2005, 12:44
17.
More Co-Op Orgy!! Aug 9, 2005, 12:44
Aug 9, 2005, 12:44
 
YEEEEE HAWWW!!!
Consoles are schwag.
56 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older