Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Hey everyone, Haegemonia here; I'm sure that you're all super jazzed about DS3 coming up (note to self: Find less gay way of expressing excitement).
These days, apart from being pimp and waiting for my damn copy of Deus Ex: HR to arrive in the mail, I've been cogitating on Dead Space 3's Co-Op and Co-Op in general when it comes to games. Now, first off, I've already made my thoughts known when it comes to multiplayer-only achievements such that I'll simply say if there is no way to get some of DS3's achievements unless I get a Gold Membership (and, yes, I did look over the achievement list, so I know there are Co-Op achievements) then that is complete bollocks and will leave me more than a little pissed with the creators of the game (seriously guys, I thought you had figured this out with Dead Space 2).
What bothers me more, though, is that they decided to make entire MISSIONS and other information only obtainable via Co-Op. Now, unless there is some way to do these things without a Co-Op partner (or at the very least locally with another person [and yes, once again, I do know the Co-Op is supposed to only be online]), this is something which is catastrophically stupid to me. Unless you are dealing with a multiplayer-oriented game, the focus is invariably on single-player; i.e. ALL aspects of single-player should be fully accessible to one person. If you want to add Co-Op, that's fine, but don't make it such that one HAS to do Co-Op to experience certain missions or get certain bits of information in the game. Fable knew this. Fear 3 knew this. Even Dead Island knew this. That's why they didn't actively restrict what content you could access just by whether or not you were playing Co-Op. Particularly when certain companies try and charge you for full online access (I can only imagine how much more market share Microsoft would gain if they made Xbox Live Gold free for people), this is kinda a dick move.
What makes it most annoying, though, is that this situation is easily remedied; all they have to do is, if they want to force Co-Op like this, to allow local Co-Op and/or allow you to play the game with the other character being an AI character. Think about it: At certain points in the game, you can bring in Carver (or just have him meet up with you) and, if you REALLY wanted to impress players, make it so you could switch control between Isaac and Carver. It would make just as much sense as Drop-In/Drop-Out Co-Op and would be much more friendly for the users who don't necessarily want to play online (I can only imagine the hell that will be trying to complete all of Carver's missions if you have to join up with another online player at specific points in the game to do it).
Hell, at this point, if they would just give us Split-Screen Local Co-Op that would be serviceable; I played Half-Life Decay. I can deal with having to control two characters at once (or, more accurately, leaving one character in an area while the other does most of the work and then switching controls whenever I need to make the two meet up again). That would take virtually no work on the part of the creators and make alot of fans happy (though why it wouldn't be an option from the get-go is beyond me).
ANYWAYS, sorry for my bitching, just wanted to air out some thoughts. Either way, I'm looking forward to Dead Space 3; still, hopefully, someone at EA has enough common sense to realize that forcing online play to access everything in a game series that has always overwhelmingly been single-player is a catastrophically poor idea.