Fable II Co-Op Disappointing Gamers

[DoctorFinger]

http://www.co-optimus.com/images/upload/image/fable2_graveyard.jpg (http://www.co-optimus.com)

Our partners over at Co-Optimus (http://www.co-optimus.com/article/713/Did_Lionhead_Drop_the_Ball_on_Fable_2_Co-Op.html) point out the growing discontent many gamers are feeling in regards to Fable II's co-op play. Specifically that the character you poured a lot of time and effort into doesn't come with you when you play co-op.When Lionhead used the term "henchman" in our interview, they actually meant a henchman character - not a henchmen role. This mean that character you've worked so hard to customize, including weapons, armor, scars, and other markings all are NOT visible in your friend's game when joining. On top of this, any items you gain while in a friend's game will not transfer back to your character. The only thing that transfers is gold, experience and renown. Lionhead pumped up the co-op aspect of Fable II earlier this year, but ever since they seem to have taken it for granted. Needing a 0-day patch to play co-op isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but forcing players to essentially use a blank slate rather than their lovingly crafted character in co-op is a big disappointment.

And that doesn't even mention the other issues gamers are having with the co-op in Fable 2: namely the wonky camera and the possible save corrupting glitch.

[Widgetcraft]

They've blatantly misrepresented this feature.

[LongStepMantis]

So they never brought this up beforehand? Seriously?

All I can think of is "Go on...Take the money and run...Ooooh, ooooh, oooh!" ;)

[violent]

A tiger can't change his stripes.

[Iron Past]

Every time I saw "henchman" I knew exactly what it meant. If you misread it, that's your fault. In fact, I'm pretty sure every aspect people are complaining about has already been said, like you get experience and gold transfered to your character, if you read more into it, again your fault. They've said in every interview that coop was a way for others to experience your Albion, not show off your character.

Pardon me if that comes off bad, but this is just a case of "I thought he meant this when he said that" not "He said this and it's not true."

[National Kato]

Iron, what's your opinion on the possible save-corrupting glitch?

[SPBTooL]

Every time I saw "henchman" I knew exactly what it meant. If you misread it, that's your fault. In fact, I'm pretty sure every aspect people are complaining about has already been said, like you get experience and gold transfered to your character, if you read more into it, again your fault. They've said in every interview that coop was a way for others to experience your Albion, not show off your character.

Pardon me if that comes off bad, but this is just a case of "I thought he meant this when he said that" not "He said this and it's not true."QFT. Because he beat me to it.

Co-op was always stated the way it is, other than the couch play. Early on they did say that you could bring your character in for same system play. Later talk of it changed to just stating the henchmen approach.

[LongStepMantis]

Every time I saw "henchman" I knew exactly what it meant. If you misread it, that's your fault. In fact, I'm pretty sure every aspect people are complaining about has already been said, like you get experience and gold transfered to your character, if you read more into it, again your fault. They've said in every interview that coop was a way for others to experience your Albion, not show off your character.

Pardon me if that comes off bad, but this is just a case of "I thought he meant this when he said that" not "He said this and it's not true."

That's what I was asking. I don't have a 360, but I genuinely liked the first Fable for what it was. I haven't really been keeping up with Fable II news since I can't play it yet.

So did they expound on the "henchman" bit already, or was it something you just had to "get"?

[Iron Past]

Iron, what's your opinion on the possible save-corrupting glitch?

That and the bad camera are very obviously technical issues, not a feature that people are disapointed with because of the way it's implemented. Way off mark.

[Morratut]

Bah this is a single player game guys. I always knew it meant this though.

Was anyone really looking forward to co-oping the hell out of this game?

[Widgetcraft]

That's what I was asking. I don't have a 360, but I genuinely liked the first Fable for what it was. I haven't really been keeping up with Fable II news since I can't play it yet.

So did they expound on the "henchman" bit already, or was it something you just had to "get"?

I guess if you read every preview, and filled in the blanks for yourself, you might have understood Molyneux's lame-ass "vision", but this sure as hell isn't what I was sold on. I mean, I guess I just assume that people won't do incredibly stupid things. Running out into a busy highway, sticking your dick in the toaster, removing the characters people made from co-op play in an RPG... it's just something I take for granted.

[Goronmon]

I am completely shocked that a major feature added with a Day 0 patch isn't working as people hoped and has issues.

[National Kato]

Was anyone really looking forward to co-oping the hell out of this game?

That's what Saint's Row 2 is for. :D Seriously, I'm continuously impressed by SR2's means of implementing co-op gameplay. For example, typically an Escort mission has you driving a prostitute around while she does her 'business' in the back seat with a client. Your job is to stay away from the TV camera crews. But in co-op gameplay, one of you sits in the back and must pleasure the client using the analog sticks.

Which usually ends up with me yelling at my co-op partner to hurry up and get sexy back there! :p

[Savok]

I don't see why they did it this way, I mean how fucking hard is it to have a line of code that says player two's avatar uses X hair that's X colour with X armour, it's painfully fucking simple.

ZOMG even a forum can do it.

[Yeti2005]

It's disappointing but I suspected this a while ago. It would be weird to be the hero but your sidekick looks like a bigger bad ass. I'm sure there would be tons of exploits if your sidekick could give or take items from your world.

[CptTripps]

Was anyone really looking forward to co-oping the hell out of this game?


I sure was, it was my "get the wife to play" game. She has always liked games but we have completely different tastes. The only game we ever played together was DAOC, I figured the fantasy universe with with the option to play together would be right up her alley.

[quidmonkey]

http://www.wiifanboys.com/images/uploads/peter_molyneux.jpg

[Telefrog]

I don't see why they did it this way, I mean how fucking hard is it to have a line of code that says player two's avatar uses X hair that's X colour with X armour, it's painfully fucking simple.

I don't understand it either, since other games seem to be able to pull it off.

As to the disappointment, I thought the "henchman" role was clearly explained before. I agree with Iron in that I think a lot of people just assumed a lot of stuff that wasn't there.

[Deunnero]

My LE has missing DLC card. After 30 minutes arguing with the client service rep, about this problem, she finally figured out I was telling the truth and said, check the site, October 28 will be issueing codes to people like you. :(

[Kielaran]

I can see why they don't let items transfer, but the henchman model is silly. Even worse, how can you talk up your co-op and have a save corruption glitch. As for those who say the co-op doesn't matter, many people were looking forward to the co-op. If it is stated as a co-op game, then the co-op should work.

For some reason I am getting a Castle Crashers vibe here and I can't say I like it.

[digitalErich]

I never thought it was anything more than what we got, but then again co-op was never a huge selling point for me with Fable 2 so I never fawned over it. I'm buying it for a SP RPG. Sure, I'll play some co-op, but not close to the number of hours I'll invest in the SP side.

[Johan]

A tiger can't change his stripes.

All I could think of was "too true" and "They're grrrrreeeeeaaat!" :)

This is unfortunate for people looking forward to this feature. Too many games promise more than they deliver. I'm thinking of online play with Castle Crashers, and many others. It's very, very unfortunate, and a reason, I would add, to wait a week or two to make new game purchases.

[violent]

All I could think of was "too true" and "They're grrrrreeeeeaaat!" :)

This is unfortunate for people looking forward to this feature. Too many games promise more than they deliver. I'm thinking of online play with Castle Crashers, and many others. It's very, very unfortunate, and a reason, I would add, to wait a week or two to make new game purchases.

Funny thing is that earlier I had posted in a thread mentioning the ongoing issues with proper co-op lately. Something in the water I suppose. Honestly though, I can't say I'm too surprised at this one. It's Molyneux after all.

[MagGnome]

I was set to pick this today, but I think it would be wise to wait a bit and see how things shake out.

I need to play more Dead Space anyway.

[Restlessavenger]

I seem to remember them stating quite clearly after the co-op reveal at GDC that you wouldn't be playing your own character when you did co-op. I'm still looking forward to the game and can't wait to play it tonight when I get home.

[Gwinny]

I remember reading that a co-op partner would bring gold, exp, and renown back to their own game, but then I remember reading stuff about if they didn't have Fable II themselves, they'd make a generic henchman before starting play. That suggested to me that the henchman would be much more robust if one had an existing character. I can see both points of view, I guess - they never explicitly stated your entire character would jump into another person's game, but they certainly talked up that aspect in a way that was easy to misinterpret. Who's at fault? I guess both sides.

I can't buy the game until next week anyway, so I'll see how this plays out. It's far from a deal-breaker for me, just interested in seeing the response.

[National Kato]

...but then I remember reading stuff about if they didn't have Fable II themselves, they'd make a generic henchman before starting play. That suggested to me that the henchman would be much more robust if one had an existing character.

This. This is what I remember understanding the online co-op to be.

[Orca]

They've blatantly misrepresented this feature.

Only they never said you'd be your Hero in another person's game, or that you'd gather loot to take back to your game - just experience and money. You're 'blatantly misrepresenting' what they said the feature was.

There's really no 'loot' in the game anyway. One of four grades of weapons, with no real distinction between weapons within a grade other than the number of augment slots.

[Victorvonviolence]

I was extremely disappointed with Co-op.

I understood this to be that you would make a preset character if you didn't already have one.

Not only that, remember what Molyneux said before? About having your partner kill your wife and have the son run out in the wildnerness? Yeah, can't happen unless you let the "safety off".

[Orca]

I was extremely disappointed with Co-op.

I understood this to be that you would make a preset character if you didn't already have one.

Not only that, remember what Molyneux said before? About having your partner kill your wife and have the son run out in the wildnerness? Yeah, can't happen unless you let the "safety off".

They mentioned that as well. The safety is there for a reason...

[Deadend]

Well, I no longer feel as bad about not having the game now. I guess I will rent it later, since co-op doesn't really exist as it should.

[Squidbot]

I put on my I told you so robe and hat.

This should not put anyone off buying Fable II. It's a bloody awesome game, that deserves to be played by a lot of people. I keep saying it but it is GOTY in my book. It just has a crappy tacked on Co-Op.

[Shieldmaiden]

Sorry guys, but they never, EVER said that you'd be able to play your own character. I did read something recently that implied that if you were doing local co-op the henchman could take on the characteristics of another Hero on the same console, but I've only seen it the once.

[bapenguin]

Sorry guys, but they never, EVER said that you'd be able to play your own character. I did read something recently that implied that if you were doing local co-op the henchman could take on the characteristics of another Hero on the same console, but I've only seen it the once.

They shouldn't have to explicitly say you play your own character. Why? People are assuming you do because that's the right thing to do. There's simply no logical reason to not let you play your character. Even if it's just looks of the character.

[Psykoboy2]

You know, when you play Saints Row 2 Co-Op...EVERYGODDAMNTHING carries over.

Why not here?

[Goronmon]

They shouldn't have to explicitly say you play your own character. Why? People are assuming you do because that's the right thing to do. There's simply no logical reason to not let you play your character. Even if it's just looks of the character.This.

When most people here "Online co-op" for an RPG they don't hear "One player playing his character while the other person lends assistance with some temporary henchman".

[violent]

They may not have said explicitly that the stuff will be coming over but then they should have explicitly said that the stuff wouldn't be coming over. By not saying anything, everyone who points a finger feels they have a point.

[Norse]

They shouldn't have included co-op at all. No need for it.

[National Kato]

You know, when you play Saints Row 2 Co-Op...EVERYGODDAMNTHING carries over.

Exactly. SR2's co-op is a complete experience, with added functionality and game mechanics that you cannot experience unless you're playing co-op.

And yet there's still a full, robust SP game.

[Orca]

They may not have said explicitly that the stuff will be coming over but then they should have explicitly said that the stuff wouldn't be coming over. By not saying anything, everyone who points a finger feels they have a point.

They CLEARLY SAID that experience, money, and renown would be carried back to your game. That's it.

Everything else was people reading what they wanted, and now blaming the developers for not doing what they didn't say they were going to do.

[DeathtollWRX]

This thread is making me want to get Saint's Row 2. ( I was a huuuge fan)

[Goronmon]

They CLEARLY SAID that experience, money, and renown would be carried back to your game. That's it.Not mentioning something is much different than stating it's not going to happen.

[Psykoboy2]

Didn't they show off the co-op at E3?

Can someone go back and look at that to see what happened?

[Orca]

Not mentioning something is much different than stating it's not going to happen.

When they give you a list of the things that carry over, is it really rational to assume that things they didn't mention will ALSO carry over - much less get upset when they don't?

[Goronmon]

When they give you a list of the things that carry over, is it really rational to assume that things they didn't mention will ALSO carry over - much less get upset when they don't?Most people aren't going to big through interviews to pick out details of how things are going to work. I never saw that list of specifics to what would carry over before this thread.

[Shieldmaiden]

Okay, Fable 2 co-op is crappy compared to Saint's Row 2 co-op. Fair enough. Does this mean that we have to compare every feature in every game to every similar feature in every other game from now on?

How many RPGs have actually had co-up prior to Fable 2? I mean proper RPGs and not top-down action games with XP and levels. I remember Baldur's Gate having co-op, but one person was still the central character and the others were basically player-controlled henchmen.

The way I see it, Fable 2 is actually raising co-op expectations for the RPG genre.

[violent]

They CLEARLY SAID that experience, money, and renown would be carried back to your game. That's it.

That seems to me as if anything gained in co-op will affect your single player character. It' doesn't really specify that you won't be using that very character in the first place. Not that I care either way, but I see how this could be misconstrued. If that is in fact exactly how they worded it of course.

Everything else was people reading what they wanted, and now blaming the developers for not doing what they didn't say they were going to do.

If the developers didn't say something, it shouldn't be used against them. Of that much I agree. It seems to be up in the air though how specific they've been with the fact that you will be unable to use your single player character at all in co-op.

Personally? Looking at this thread it seems that more than a few were mislead. I think that some failed to look at the writing on the wall but all of them? At some point I have to start believing that something greater may be occurring. Again, I'm not on either side of the fence. I'm not purchasing this one any time soon.

[DeathtollWRX]

Why don't we just pretend the multiplayer does not exist? There was a time when an action RPG did not need any multiplayer and it was still great. I have a feeling the multiplayer will draw down the score of this game for reviewers just as Battle Field Bad Companies "free" single player campaign brought the score down although I enjoyed it.

[violent]

Why don't we just pretend the multiplayer does not exist? There was a time when an action RPG did not need any multiplayer and it was still great. I have a feeling the multiplayer will draw down the score of this game for reviewers just as Battle Field Bad Companies "free" single player campaign brought the score down although I enjoyed it.

Can't ignore an aspect of a game when it comes to reviews and criticisms.

[Goronmon]

There was a time when an action RPG did not need any multiplayer and it was still great.Multiplayer RPGs have been around longer than personal computers. :p

[MagGnome]

This.

When most people here "Online co-op" for an RPG they don't hear "One player playing his character while the other person lends assistance with some temporary henchman".

I agree. I don't really understand what the point of this co-op mode is now. Why would I want to run around as someone's crappy little assistant? Would it be that hard to let me play as my own character? No, of course it wouldn't be, and it would make the game that much better.

[Johan]

I don't understand why co-op has become such a selling point for seemingly every freaking game under the sun. Single-player games are just fine and have their place. If co-op is going to be a borked tack-on, it should be skipped entirely.

I agree. I don't really understand what the point of this co-op mode is now.

Did you buy the game? If so, that was the point! :D

[Food Nipple]

They CLEARLY SAID that experience, money, and renown would be carried back to your game. That's it.

Everything else was people reading what they wanted, and now blaming the developers for not doing what they didn't say they were going to do.

They never explicitly said the game wouldn't erase your save, or that the camera would be any good, so you guys have no right to complain about those things either.

[Orca]

They never explicitly said the game wouldn't erase your save, or that the camera would be any good, so you guys have no right to complain about those things either.

Yeah, there's no difference between a bug and what a feature actually is. :rolleyes:

[DeathtollWRX]

Not exactly thread related but I just played a minute or two of it at PlayandTrade in Pasadena.

I just rescued the dog and I noticed something very cool. The dog's reaction and facial expression are some of the best i've seen in a videogame. The first time he licked his lips I was like "Wow, that's some nice details there."

Judging by what I've read I'm thinking Peter should have just forgotten about multiplayer althogether. Maybe item trading through XBoxlive would have been cooler (like Viva Pinata). I'm thinking it was a wasted effort... on this day I also found out that Gears of War 2 doesn't have four player campaign... but i'll live.

[Johan]

Yeah, there's no difference between a bug and what a feature actually is. :rolleyes:

I'm thinking your sarcasm detector broke, Orca! :)

[SPBTooL]

Not exactly thread related but I just played a minute or two of it at PlayandTrade in Pasadena.

I just rescued the dog and I noticed something very cool. The dog's reaction and facial expression are some of the best i've seen in a videogame. The first time he licked his lips I was like "Wow, that's some nice details there."

Judging by what I've read I'm thinking Peter should have just forgotten about multiplayer althogether. Maybe item trading through XBoxlive would have been cooler (like Viva Pinata). I'm thinking it was a wasted effort... on this day I also found out that Gears of War 2 doesn't have four player campaign... but i'll live.After thatmy dog, Deohgee, has suprised me several times with simple dog like things he does. Napping, peeing and rolling in the leaves all caught me off guard with how real it looked the first time he did them.

I'm ok with the limited co-op and am glad it is in. This allows me to let my wife play the game the way shee wants but I still get to play too.

[Food Nipple]

Yeah, there's no difference between a bug and what a feature actually is. :rolleyes:

You may have read enough previews for the co-op limitations to be apparent to you, but the preponderance of negative reactions proves that Lionhead didn't do a good job of clearly communicating this to those of us that didn't read every single preview released.

[Shieldmaiden]

I agree. I don't really understand what the point of this co-op mode is now. Why would I want to run around as someone's crappy little assistant? Would it be that hard to let me play as my own character? No, of course it wouldn't be, and it would make the game that much better.

My wife and I have recently been playing the original through together. She enjoys the game, but can't play console games for long before her hands start to cramp up. With this co-op system, she can play when she wants to, but can just watch when she can't play anymore.

It's also a great system for when my lodger/friends/brother want to play.

I guess it's better as a local co-op system than online and I'm not really interested in the latter.

[DeathtollWRX]

After thatmy dog, Deohgee, has suprised me several times with simple dog like things he does. Napping, peeing and rolling in the leaves all caught me off guard with how real it looked the first time he did them.

I'm ok with the limited co-op and am glad it is in. This allows me to let my wife play the game the way shee wants but I still get to play too.
Looks like this will agree with dog lovers everywhere.

How about patching it so one person can control the dog? How much harder would that be? Then maybe we could have some DLC.. you know like Dog Armor, Items? =)

[Orca]

You may have read enough previews for the co-op limitations to be apparent to you, but the preponderance of negative reactions proves that Lionhead didn't do a good job of clearly communicating this to those of us that didn't read every single preview released.

I could have told Johan my detector wasn't broken, but you did it for me.

The communication was clear enough. Anyone following along closely enough to know there was co-op play could easily have read what they said about it as well.

The problem isn't communication from the developers, it's consumer hype. People here a game is going to do [x] and immediately assume that means [y] as well. Put two people who believe in [x] and [y] together and all of a sudden the game does [z] as well.

There are very few highly anticipated games where the hype hasn't exceeded what the game delivers. Usually it's because the developers never promised to deliver what the over-hyped expected.

Guys like Molyneux promise a lot - that was very clear in his Fable 1 rhetoric. He was very careful to avoid doing that for Fable 2, but - as you can see - it didn't much matter in the end. People still believe he promised all kinds of things that he never did.

[Food Nipple]

The problem isn't communication from the developers, it's consumer hype.

The number one rule of marketing is: You control the message. If people aren't getting it, you're not explaining it right.

[MagGnome]

IDid you buy the game? If so, that was the point! :D

Nope, I actually haven't bought the game yet! :p

[Orca]

The number one rule of marketing is: You control the message. If people aren't getting it, you're not explaining it right.

Again, there's nothing they can do when they explain what transfers across and people run with it.

They could chisel the message in stone and put it on public display, but it doesn't matter when people read that experience, gold, and renown will transfer across then mentally add "AND OTHER STUFF!" to that list.

You can control the message all you like. You can't control the thoughts people get into their heads - and that's what happened here. They said one thing, people decided to believe another.

[Food Nipple]

You can control the message all you like. You can't control the thoughts people get into their heads - and that's what happened here. They said one thing, people decided to believe another.

Well, Doctor Finger must have figured out some kind of amazing communication breakthrough, because it sure seems a lot clearer for people now than it was when Lionhead explained it.

[Widgetcraft]

Only they never said you'd be your Hero in another person's game, or that you'd gather loot to take back to your game - just experience and money. You're 'blatantly misrepresenting' what they said the feature was.

There's really no 'loot' in the game anyway. One of four grades of weapons, with no real distinction between weapons within a grade other than the number of augment slots.

Okay, well we all know that Gears of War 2 is going to have a competitive online mode, right? Now, what if this deathmatch mode turned out to be a port of the battle mode from Mario Kart 64? Sure, they didn't say that it wasn't that, but it certainly isn't what a logical person would conclude after hearing about said mode.

[MagGnome]

Gears of War 2 is going to have the battle mode from Mario Kart 64 in it? I didn't know that!

Damn, I'm going to pre-order the game tomorrow after work - thanks Heretic!

[Rune_74]

So bottome line....the game is fun and coop is not what people expected....nothing to see here move on.

[KingGorilla]

So they never brought this up beforehand? Seriously?


At least since E3 the media has spoken about this.

Once I heard how it worked, I wondered why the bothered to have it at all. It is the Fable equivalent of being the Mario Galaxy Star Bitch, and touting it as a full co-op mode.

[Siraris]

I bought this game to play co-op with friends. I bought it so that I could play my game, and if a friend wanted to get together and advance our characters, we could do so.

Now, I'm guessing the issue here is balance. How do you handle a level 75 character playing with a level 20? How do you prevent me from dumping all the best armor on my level 5 friend? The logistics would have to be mind numbing. That being said, I can't think of a less enjoyable experience than wandering around with a friend, fighting creatures, and gaining little to nothing from it. I can gain just as much experience, fame, and gold playing my own single player game, while advancing my character, and potentially starting a new one for a second playthrough.

I think Lionhead feels that I have so much free time, that I can just spend it wandering around helping a friend with their game. I don't have that much free time, and even if I did, there are plenty of other games out, and coming out, that will allow me to feel a sense of progress.

I'd much rather they have not included co-op, because this was just a huge tease. It's funny that Peter said in EGM recently that he felt that when we look back on games in the future, we will not be able to understand how we lived without co-op. I agree with Peter, but only when the co-op isn't "Waste Of Time Co-Op", like what Fable 2 has.

[KingGorilla]

I think the issue is less that, than the overall linearity of the game. Every time you drop into Diablo, Phantasy Star, Titan Quest, Guild Wars, is a brand new game, and a distinct game. Fable is not designed with this in mind. You have to now concern yourself with working on how to share quests. You are also talking about something that Xbox Live has never offered, server infastructure. Even something like Battle.Net or ArenaNet is an immense undertaking, and risk.

Which gets to the elephant in the room again: If you cannot do it as good as the predecessors, why bother?

[Victorvonviolence]

Looks like this will agree with dog lovers everywhere.

How about patching it so one person can control the dog? How much harder would that be? Then maybe we could have some DLC.. you know like Dog Armor, Items? =)

I don't know about dog-lovers. That dog takes alot of abuse, not even from your character if you choose.

I agree with Foodnipple, if THIS many people are disappointed then Lionhead clearly was not clear on the features. Not only that, it's not like Peter Molyneux is known for promising the world in his games *cough*

[Siraris]

I think the issue is less that, than the overall linearity of the game. Every time you drop into Diablo, Phantasy Star, Titan Quest, Guild Wars, is a brand new game, and a distinct game. Fable is not designed with this in mind. You have to now concern yourself with working on how to share quests. You are also talking about something that Xbox Live has never offered, server infastructure. Even something like Battle.Net or ArenaNet is an immense undertaking, and risk.

Which gets to the elephant in the room again: If you cannot do it as good as the predecessors, why bother?

It would not be difficult to create another object in the world, with a specific set of parameters based on your game, and have those parameters update on your local HDD as they are changed.

[KingGorilla]

I am no programmer, I will not make assessments on how easy that is. We all know Co-Op was on the design doc. I doubt this co-op was the intended feature. I have to seriously wonder if Microsoft was worried about first party sales, compared to Sony, with just Gears and Fable got pushed out too early. This really speaks of compromise between feature and release date.

[mister slim]

The number one rule of marketing is: You control the message. If people aren't getting it, you're not explaining it right.

I agree that Lionhead didn't communicate this well. I can understand how they went wrong though. Reading about this feature in previews it was always explained that the visiting player would be a henchman. It wasn't explained that in Fable 2 a 'henchman' wasn't just a hired hand but a specific class of boring hirelings. It's one of those common mistakes where someone forgets that their special use of some word is different than everyone else's use and the difference needs to be communicated.


They could chisel the message in stone and put it on public display, but it doesn't matter when people read that experience, gold, and renown will transfer across then mentally add "AND OTHER STUFF!" to that list.

No one's asking for that. We just want to be able to play with the abilities and skills we've spent time leveling up.

[Widgetcraft]

No one's asking for that. We just want to be able to play with the abilities and skills we've spent time leveling up.

You do... you keep the same skill levels as you normally have. Only two things change: Your equipment, and your appearance. This means that it really isn't a balance issue, and I'm betting that all of it was done just to play around Molyneux's idea of what a hero should be.

[mister slim]

You do... you keep the same skill levels as you normally have. Only two things change: Your equipment, and your appearance. This means that it really isn't a balance issue, and I'm betting that all of it was done just to play around Molyneux's idea of what a hero should be.

Okay, so Lionhead just made a complete mess of the messaging?

[Orca]

No one's asking for that. We just want to be able to play with the abilities and skills we've spent time leveling up.

You still have all those. Any other complaints?

[KingGorilla]

You still have all those. Any other complaints?

I have a pair of pants that tend to ride up a bit when I sit down.

[mister slim]

You still have all those. Any other complaints?

Well, Lionhead's PR is completely incompetent.

[Johan]

I have a pair of pants that tend to ride up a bit when I sit down.

Why are you wearing pants? ;)

[KingGorilla]

Why are you wearing pants? ;)

Not now, they are khakis, for work. Coprorate America is prejudiced against the pants-less revolution.

[Primus]

The co-op sucks, and Lionhead didn't detail it enough, period. They shouldn't of even included the mode. I can see everyone and their mother running around Bowerstone, even talk to them like it is some MMO with a built in chat server, but I can't bring their character to my game? Way to focus on bullshit I don't care about, and can everything that could of made co-op worthwile in this game!

How hard is it to bring in another character that consists of parts already on each copy of the game? There is no excuse for this, it is bullshit.

Pair this with the fact that GoW2 is only 2 player co-op, and I am really disappointed with the games I have eagerly awaited, the more I learn about them.

I guess not too many studios are up to Bungie's level, I mean the 4 player co-op was perfect in Halo 3. It has set a new standard for me that these other developers are failing to meet. Bungie rocks, and the fact they actually deliver with a multitude of modes, with a large group of people in consideration, and keep adding content makes me feel they deserve all the hype they get. Their ability really makes these other developers pale in comparison.

There is no reason for us not to be able to bring each others characters to each others games. The patch is glaring evidence that co-op was rushed and half baked and perhaps the game should of remained in development longer so that they could of made a decent co-op experience.

The single player game is good, but it really let me down as co-op was a selling point for me.

[archon]

It reminds me of the first time that this same situation had ever happened to me. Back when Blood 2 first came out, I hadn't been following it very closely because I didn't play the first one, but at the time Blood 2 looked pretty kick ass and when I picked up the box, claimed to have "co-op". So, even though I hadn't been following its development, I bought it and brought it home so I could play some co-op, thinking erroneously that it would be in the same style as Doom or Quake. What the box referred to as co-op however, was just playing on the same team in multiplayer non-campaign modes.

Basically, nothing has changed.

[DeathtollWRX]

Primus, I think you hit the nail on the head.

If Halo 3 can do 4 player co-op I would figure that Epic could have that for Gears of War 2. I'm no expert on programming but why couldn't you just have players jump in and control the other guys in the squad? Playing Gears 1 the first thing I dreamed was that it could be four player co-op instead of two especially since there are usually 4 squad members at any given time. I would not have cared if they were just the Carmine skins with different colors. when I found that Gears was only 2 players co-op I was saddened.

Are we asking too much for four player coop in our campaigns now?

Gears being a higher multiplayer game and not having four playing coop is a little weak.

I sincerly hope that HORDE mode makes up for not having four player coop.

[Savok]

Probably their network code couldn't handle 4 players or something.

[archon]

Internet tough guys often like to give Bungie shit for all sorts of different reasons, but 4 player co-op in Halo 3 is one of the most impressive game features I've seen in a major FPS game released in a while, not because it hadn't been done before, but because it was done so well. It took them almost right up to the finish date to get it done, but it works and is one of the best experiences you can have on the 360.

[Telefrog]

Primus, I think you hit the nail on the head.

If Halo 3 can do 4 player co-op I would figure that Epic could have that for Gears of War 2. I'm no expert on programming but why couldn't you just have players jump in and control the other guys in the squad? Playing Gears 1 the first thing I dreamed was that it could be four player co-op instead of two especially since there are usually 4 squad members at any given time. I would not have cared if they were just the Carmine skins with different colors. when I found that Gears was only 2 players co-op I was saddened.

Are we asking too much for four player coop in our campaigns now?

Quite frankly, yes. ;)

Remind me why Gears of War 2 must have 4 player co-op? Did they promise it before? Is it even feasible in the narrative of the game? (Don't try to answer that because unless you're playing a pirated copy, you don't know what the story is in the game.) Did Epic ever say they were going to do 4 player co-op?

I get that people are mad over Fable II's version of co-op (although for offline co-op, it's perfectly serviceable) but how did Gears and every other game get lumped into this complaint?

I liked Halo 3's co-op as much as anybody else, but to ask every other game to come up to that standard is ridiculous. I mean, why not just just ask why every game doesn't have the kind of multiplayer co-op that World of Warcraft or Warhammer Online currently offers? If 4 player co-op is great, why not 6/8/12/24/etc?

[National Kato]

I can see everyone and their mother running around Bowerstone, even talk to them like it is some MMO with a built in chat server, but I can't bring their character to my game? Way to focus on bullshit I don't care about, and can everything that could of made co-op worthwile in this game!

This. Last night, I was in Bowerstone and I started hearing people talking to their roomates or other friends. I was confused until I realized it's the orbs (which I had as 'Friends Only). In order to silence them, you have to turn them off entirely.

So we get that stupid 'feature' yet we can't have our avatars show up in each other's games? Really?