Chill man, i don't appreciate the holier-than-thou attitude.
I couldn't care less about your personal opinion of me, and by telling me that you are the one with the "holier-than-thou" attiitude.
I think those 3 months lends just tiny a bit of credibility to my point.
Based upon your description of the problems, I don't.
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.
All others, maybe not, but to your so-called problems, yes.
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.
No, you wouldn't. You save the states for the players you have at the time, and you either substitute an incoming player or a bot/NPC for one which left, or you simply don't reuse the state for a pleyer once he is gone if he is not at the same part of the game/map as the rest of the party.
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.
Here's a real novel idea: don't make the co-op game the same as the single-player one. Have separate maps/missions which are co-op only and others which are single-player.
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...what you call "1 player spoiling the game for the other 3" i see as "3 other players spoiling the game for 1."
LOL! Life and games are about compromise especially in group situations. You can't please everyone all the time nor will everyone always get what they want, or you simply will have no game (which is exactly what you ended up with. Go figure.)
I still don't see exactly what point you're trying to argue with me
LOL! Judging by your response, that is certainly no surprise.
unless you're trying to argue that all FPS games should have coop. And that's just silly.
All FPS games could have co-op. However, the co-op mode may or need not be identical to the single-player version.This comment was edited on Aug 10, 06:30.