the five reasons why being forced to use one character per mission is a bad idea.

i realize it's to late to redesign the levels, so this is just me contemplating the possibilities and blowing off steam.

1: every one here has a favorite character and it's disappointing we can only use that certain character for lets say 30 minutes or when ever that missions over. (actually less then that. from what i understand from gameinformer, you switch between jazz and cliffjumper depending on the story being told with in the mission.)

2: because we keep switching characters, we never get attached to any of the them.

3: this game loses replayability. you can only play a mission so often before getting bored if there is only one solution to beating it. the story ends up being forgettable, if story mode is only good the first time through. people usually play a game a second time through because of gameplay, not because of the story.

4: multiplayer games have better replayability, because of their community and co-op games aren't any different. i mean, i have played many games i have been bored of just to hang out with friends. i feel it hurts story mode, because there just isn't an online community.

5: with no split screen, this game just isn't a party game. so it is less likely to be played if family or friends are hanging out in front of the TV

my dream mission would be if missions had multiple routes to get through depending on characters and the skills they bring with them, possibly even multiple exits. that's what i liked about exploring the core in WFC. 3 characters using three separate routes and helping each other open gates to get further through the area, until they meet up.

 

have to say that i agree with ya here

while i do appreciate the approach in DOTM, some of the specialized missions were indeed pretty cool. Mirage's level was awesome, playing laserbeak within the soundwave level was neat, and in a way it does give way for a tighter story. So it was alright.

But I think the cons definitely outweigh the pros. I'm all for a great story but if DOTM is any indication, it wasnt really anything to write home about

One of the great draws of WFC was being able to play co-operatively with friends. Experiencing the campaign together. And then being able to re-play it again with different characters.

Heck, i'd like it if they could figure a way to mix the two types. Go Gears of War-ish and have seperate paths of the same level that are tailored to certain characters. Like say you have a squad of Prime, Jazz and a couple other guys. Prime and one guy goes the street route right, Jazz and the other guy go a top-side route left and make use of some grapplers. You still retain that tailored feel but you also keep whats fun about co-op play

tbh, i dunno if i have faith enough in High Moon to take full advantage of the tailored play/story route. It COULD be awesome, but story is not one of their strong points judging by the last couple games

But if they wanna prove me wrong, im all for it

 

so is that how its been confirmed? i havnt read to much about it yet

 

I would not use DOTM as a good example. That game was half-assed in every respect, no reason to think different of the campaign.

No Co-op means the campaign can be a more cohesive, unique and genuinely entertaining experience without having to keep in mind that there will be three people. The player can have more freedom, be exposed to character-specific challenges and problems and use abilities that would otherwise be unfeasible with three characters who share them. It can be fun without having to fall back on the crutch of multiplayer, as WFC was. Plus it can more easily blend story and gameplay in interesting ways. Replayability shouldn't really be a factor if the core gameplay is genuinely fun. If the actual mechanics of combat are well done it doesn't matter, because that's what's fun.

However co-op campaign in WFC was fun, even if it was cheap fun. And it had it's share of interesting concepts, like the into the core level where all three players are split up. An entire game like that would be hella fun, but it would be difficult to make and keep the option open for single player.

The real dividing point for me is, while on paper no co-op campaign sounds good to me, I foolishly consider these concepts in the hands of good developers, and honestly I don't think so highly of High Moon to expect the level of quality I imagine. I would love to be proven wrong, but War For Cybertron.

 

I actually believe they haven't gone far enough. We really need a rich, diverse story, and I think the campaign should be witnessed directly from one primary protagonist. Now, co-op should be easy to put in, just that player two would have to be a carbon copy of player one so the levels would be approachable.

Unfortunately, with a franchise like TF, you have such a large, wonderful assortment of characters, that it's difficult to make the cut and say, either; we're going to tell this story from this character's point of view only, as they interact with all of these other beloved characters, and then deciding solely on Decepticon or Autobot. It's certainly a very thin line.

I think we would be better for it, though.

 

I totally agree with the OP, and I see no reason why co-op play couldn't be added now. Being able to tell a better story with single player is bull-shit--they did just fine with three characters in WFC interacting with one another. Sure it could have been better, but it was good enough as it was. Being able to change characters, while playing the same story was also a nice treat, but what's better than being able to play with friends or making new friends while playing the game? It most certainly isn't single player play!

 

I can't help but feel much like dotm without character selection it may be a small cast with a short campaign. The level structure is even the same doing away with the two campaigns and only having one with bot levels being first then cons then bots for final mission .

 

They could keep the single player as it's own thing, but have co-op too. Second and third players spawn as their multiplayer character if the level has no NPCs to take command of, or the NPCs themselves if they are present.

 

Co-op was half assed anyway...and well the singleplayer in general wasn't spectacular.

A focus on one person playing can make a lot of elements more dynamic as you only have to account for one player witnessing or playing through the event. For example take Combiners. How do you make that work so that everyone is having fun and two people aren't just riding bitch?

If you're only going to play as one character there is no reason for a large cast in the first place. Seeing as in WFC, there were only a few times where you could play the same character outside of one specific mission anyway, like the mainsays Optimus or Megatron. You'll be switching regardless. Even then it wasn't like it added that much replay value.

I don't see the issue with dropping co-op if they were just going to half ass it again over making a much better singleplayer experience. If the improvements are marginal then yeah, I would feel a bit cheating. If the single player is vastly superior then I would abide by what I have said.

It all depends on how this one plays out.

 

I couldn't agree more!!!! I HATED DOTM because of the single-bot aspect of the story mode. I love having as many options as possible...and I think they should have a whole group of bots that you can choose from on every level. I want to be able to experience being as many of my favorite Tf's as possible! Not being forced to only play the ones that High Moon Likes... And taking out the co-op just takes away replay value and party value...wtf?

 

That's pretty easy...You can't play as a combiner in co-op....There are plenty of other TF's to be. And how was co-op half-assed in WFC? You could play any of the levels as any of three characters, at any time....what more did you want? That's the whole point of co-op...

 

The game was exactly the same whether you had somebody with a pulse controlling one of the three bots or not. Cooperation was completely unnecessary to completing the game, as every character could do everything that was required to keep going. When Scouts can rip huge guns from the floor and lug them about, and Soldiers can hack into locked doors, what's the point of teamwork?

 

nah, the AI were only serviceable. ratchet sucked as a healer and they only did 25% damage then a player. and they sucked at flanking enemies with weak backs. and now we have more intelligent enemies, so we need all the help we can get.

 

You also have new mechanics that are balanced around a single player experience so that should not be an issue.

You don't just scrap a combiner segment if you have more than one person either. What's the point of adding co-op when it will be the inferior experience at that point?

 

The one thing I don't like. The campaign isn't going to be like a one man army, is it? Just you against hundreds of decepticons/autobots? Hate games like that.

 

It was pretty much like that anyway. You against an army while your teammates just kinda stood there, or walked into walls.

 

I never played campaign co-op in WfC anyway, so I won't miss it.

Looking forward to FoC.

 

maybe his point is, why do all games have to be clones? where is the variety?