Araanor said:Would be tough on balancing... we're not talking D&D here.
Pseudo said:Would it really, though? I'd have thought it'd be just like having another PC in your party, except this character happens to be played by another human. You'd still have to take turns in combat (except in RT, I suppose) and what not. The way I see it, the game should still apply all rules as though it was a single player and his posse of PCs.
Dan said:<blockquote>Cooperative Multi-play = Yes
MMO = No </blockquote>Link: Thread
Fair point. But even now, say in F2, you could start a new char, run off and recruit a few NPCs and load them up with uber weaponry and armour (simply steal these) and then the game would be a cakewalk. If people want to make cookie-cutter characters that will waltz through the game, as far as I'm concerned, that's their loss.JJ86 said:I know that I for one play ten times better than any of my NPCs. The same would go for a friend. Being able to coordinate a combat strategy would shift the balance in most situations. And then there is the fact that you don't start the game with an NPC. Playing the game with two PCs would give you a distinct advantage that would need addressing in some way.
[PCE said:el_Prez]maybe they'll make an alternate story for co-op play.
No, at best, Dungeon Siege offered two half-assed stories/plots. No, it was more like two big maps, with stuff to kill scattered around.lilfyffedawg said:Dungeon Siege did it if I remember correct but Microsoft has more dollar bills to throw around than interplay.
Well, if you liked the singleplayer portion, and found it to be a gripping, entertaining adventure, then I guess you could say it's more of the same. If you found the SP somewhat lacking, well, join the club.lilfyffedawg said:ah, so I guess I never missed much by not loading the game online .