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 : : :
46.
 
Re: Excellent!
Aug 9, 2005, 18:56
46.
Re: Excellent! Aug 9, 2005, 18:56
Aug 9, 2005, 18:56
 
Chill man, i don't appreciate the holier-than-thou attitude. We spent 3 months working on the design for coop before finally deciding to scrap it. I think those 3 months lends just tiny a bit of credibility to my point. Personally, i don't even see how you can apply the coop implementation of a single game to all others, unless they play exactly the same. Design just doesn't work like that.

Now, don't get me wrong, i never said it couldn't be done. Every game COULD do it, but there are games that SHOULDN'T. NOLF 2 was not an FPS/RPG. It was an FPS, and not a very deep one at that. First point, saving the game was an issue with us because we're talking about a 30+ hour game, where not every player in your original coop team might be available to play with you to the end. Having the host save was what we had originally chosen. However, if you wanted to play the game start to finish in coop, you basically had to get the same group of people together at exactly the same time and all play through it together. Furthermore, we considered that one would probably want to play through some of the game coop, and some of it single-player, because it was a long game. We can't award that ability only to the host, so we couldn't have those kinds of requirements.

Your "lesser of two evils" argument is NOT valid in this case (nor should it be in many others), because in game design you don't choose the method that pisses the player off the least, you choose the method that doesn't piss the player off at all. If someone wants to wander around a town, they should be allowed to. That's what that town is there for. They shouldn't be forced to exit the town because 3 other people decided they should. See, what you call "1 player spoiling the game for the other 3" i see as "3 other players spoiling the game for 1." That's just not how an FPS/RPG is played.

Like i said, the deeper you get, the less practical coop becomes. I felt we made a realistic judgment call and removed the coop because it was detrimental to gameplay. I still don't see exactly what point you're trying to argue with me, anyway, unless you're trying to argue that all FPS games should have coop. And that's just silly.

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
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