The one thing that will make GTA V a masterpiece.

  • 83 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Baillie (4247 posts) -

Co-op. I can't even begin to describe to you how much I would absolutely adore it if the game was fully co-op. 2-4 players preferable, but 2 is just fine. Imagine being able to have a chase scene where you're not fighting the controls by having to drive and shoot at the same time.

I don't really care if they even implement it into the story, having another dude with you, in this huge open-world game, would be absolutely fantastic. I really can't find any faults with this idea.

#2 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -
@Baillie: Destroy All Humans 2 was amazing because of the co-op. AND IT WAS SPLIT SCREEN!
#3 Posted by Baillie (4247 posts) -

@MikeGosot: I would have never really got into Crackdown 1/2 if it wasn't for the co-op, same with Borderlands, Halos' Campaigns, Saints Row 2, Castle Crashers, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six...

The list goes on, these games are all better due to co-op.

#4 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -
@Baillie: Co-op makes every game better.
#5 Edited by Snail (8617 posts) -

Okay you people should stop and think why on earth you want co-op so badly.

I guess I never though I'd say this, but I feel tempted to make an argument as to why co-op is overrated. Especially these days, it just seems that the only kind of co-op multiplayer that you see in a game is that generic and formulaic co-op that suits pretty much any third person game. You know, in essence you just add another player. No added perks. Nothing is different from the single-player experience, aside from someone else being there - even with all the potential for two-player features most games could explore. And everyone seems to be cool with that for some reason.

What I'm trying to say is that you just see co-op done in the same exact way so often that it's devalorized, at least to me.

If GTA V had split-screen co-op, the amount of visibility you would lose (in a game that needs that visibility so badly, with so much happening so often around you), would not be justifiable just for the sheer inclusion of another player in the same game I'm playing. Really: so that me and my friend could do what? Yell out "COVER ME!" as we'd essentially shoot at different people through a level that's the exact same as any single-player level, but more populated with enemies?

I've done that countless times already. I certainly wish that if Rockstar puts co-op in that game, they make it a unique and diverse experience. Otherwise, they could probably use up disc space more wisely.

#6 Posted by Marcsman (3239 posts) -

Getting STDs from hookers

#7 Posted by eunao2 (117 posts) -

I don't care about co-op...

#8 Posted by morrelloman (608 posts) -

See if ME3 is able to get noticeably positive press from their co-op venture. This game will probably follow suit, or scrap it depending on that information.

#9 Posted by Baillie (4247 posts) -

@Snail: It's more from the perspective that doing things with someone else is always more fun, be that gaming, sports, etc. Sure, split-screen is a bit of a nuisance, but this is why I play over Xbox Live or on PSN.

I don't really get why you are against it, that's all I want, someone else there. Playing by myself isn't nearly as fun as playing with a friend.

#10 Posted by Shuborno (938 posts) -

Just play Saints Row 3.

#11 Posted by Baillie (4247 posts) -

@morrelloman: The problem with the ME3 co-op, is that it's not fully co-op. I don't want to play a side story, which will probably not be that great, just to play with another person. I want to enjoy the story, the full game with another person. That's what I don't understand about developers who build co-op modes for their games.

Another good example of co-op done well is Left 4 Dead.

#12 Posted by Snail (8617 posts) -

@Baillie: I want it done right, not lazy. Don't you think that if games keep following the same co-op formula eventually it gets old?

#13 Posted by Nottle (1917 posts) -

Yes Co-op would be awesome as long as it is done well. There needs to be a story reason for having two guys run around, the characters should interact with each other. It should be like Gears of War (where Dom and Marcus are two distinct characters) but on a much larger scale. I don't like it when player 2 is just palette swap guy like in Dead Rising 2.

Saints Row 2 is awesome because of co-op. But the other player never appears in the story so its kind of weird.

#14 Posted by theodacourt (545 posts) -

A greed.

#15 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5147 posts) -

@Baillie said:

I really can't find any faults with this idea.

Open world games are janky enough without adding another player to mess around in them, the only way to do it right is to embrace the jank and go the Saints Row way but it would be a shame if GTA V did that.

#16 Posted by Baillie (4247 posts) -

@Shuborno: I probably will play Saints Row 3, just as I did it's predecessor. Good game, but not as good as GTA IV. All I want is to have another dude to play with me. It could have been easily implemented in GTA IV, as shown with the multiplayer aspect.

#17 Posted by morrelloman (608 posts) -

@Baillie: Thanks for your comment. I am linking the two games in that it would be a single player franchise suddenly deciding to add in co-op. For ME3 it is even more of a stretch considering it is part of a continued story. I am sure Rockstar has their own ideas, but if it can be proven that it increased sales/buzz, it will be in this game. Re: The potential of Social Gaming still gives everyone with a wallet and a game to sell a boner.

#18 Posted by Baillie (4247 posts) -

@Nottle said:

I don't like it when player 2 is just palette swap guy like in Dead Rising 2.

Saints Row 2 is awesome because of co-op. But the other player never appears in the story so its kind of weird.

The problem with the co-op in Dead Rising 2 is the fact that Dead Rising 2 wasn't that exciting. I would say some games can get away with just the tacked-on co-op. GTA V would be one I wouldn't mind either way. They are a talented enough team to find a way to implement it well.

A good method could be something like, someone playing the protagonist from TLAD and another TBOGT, and have the stories intertwine concurrently, instead of different DLCs. I'm not a designer, so obviously that doesn't sound that great.

The reason co-op would work so well in GTA is just the possibilites with an open world so masterfully crafted like Liberty City was, it'd just had a whole new element on how to play the game. Having one guy go rob a bank in a mission while the other serves as the getaway driver... Having to assassinate two targets at the same time, I don't know. Having one dude stand on top of a car while another drives!

#19 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4851 posts) -

@Baillie: No. Just. No.

GTA has never been about co-op. It's about mayhem and absurdity. Even the direction GTA4 took, you really think all of those poignant scenes would have been more affecting if you had another person there saying "Man that fart smells gnarly, pass the nachos"? GTA is a single player experience. Always has been, always will be. Saints Row managed to do co-op and do it well, but it's not necessary and it's not something to write home about. Unless a game is designed from the ground up to be played cooperatively, there's no point to having it. The fact that you see this in Mass Effect 3's planned cooperative mode leads me to believe you know this to be true. There's no point in having two Niko Bellics, the same as there's no point in having two Chuck Greens. What you're chasing is a figment of your imagination, a fantasy that since GTA is so much fun, having a buddy around to cause mayhem with you would be even better. That's just not true. If anything, your buddy would just get in your way and ruin good moments for you.

#20 Posted by supermike6 (3586 posts) -

I agree. Co-op is awesome.

#21 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

@KingWilly: I assume you've never actually played Saints Row?

The story in the game still works because the other player is ignored for the cut-scenes, and the mayhem and crazyness is only made better. You can still go off on your own and mess about, but you can also team up and do things that wouldn't be possible otherwise. If you think the experience is really better by yourself, fine, play it on single player.. but I agree with the OP, now that GTA is seriously competing with Saint's Row, it's a feature they absolutely need to have, even if the game sticks to the much more serious tone.

#22 Posted by Baillie (4247 posts) -

@KingWilly: I'm going to have to disagree, the amount of times I've played GTA and said to myself, or my friend in a party chat, "Man, this game would be so much more fun if you were playing." I'm not chasing a figment of my imagination, I guarantee you I would have played GTA IV to death if it was co-op, I would have played Mass Effect 1 and 2 more than the 200+ hours I played already.

#23 Posted by beeftothetaco (425 posts) -

@Snail said:

Okay you people should stop and think why on earth you want co-op so badly.

I guess I never though I'd say this, but I feel tempted to make an argument as to why co-op is overrated. Especially these days, it just seems that the only kind of co-op multiplayer that you see in a game is that generic and in a formulaic co-op that suits pretty much any third person game. You know, in essence you just add another player. No added perks. Nothing is different from the single-player experience, aside from someone else being there - even with all the potential for two-player features most games could explore. And everyone seems to be cool with that for some reason.

What I'm trying to say is that you just see co-op done in the same exact way so often that it's devalorized, at least to me.

If GTA V had split-screen co-op, the amount of visibility you would lose (in a game that needs that visibility so badly, with so much happening so often around you), would not be justifiable just for the sheer inclusion of another player in the same game I'm playing. Really: so that me and my friend could do what? Yell out "COVER ME!" as we'd essentially shoot at different people through a level that's the exact same as any single-player level, but more populated with enemies?

I've done that countless times already. I certainly wish that if Rockstar puts co-op in that game, they make it a unique and diverse experience. Otherwise, they could probably use up disc space more wisely.

This.

#24 Posted by Shuborno (938 posts) -

@Baillie said:

@Shuborno: I probably will play Saints Row 3, just as I did it's predecessor. Good game, but not as good as GTA IV. All I want is to have another dude to play with me. It could have been easily implemented in GTA IV, as shown with the multiplayer aspect.

Well, what's good about GTA IV is the atmosphere and story. Putting in co-op would (in my opinion) take away focus from the story and put it in to the mechanics.

At that point, you're just playing for fun. I've only played Saints Row 1, but it is mechanically superior to GTA, so I'd assume Saints Row 3 will be far more playable than any GTA game.

#25 Posted by rentfn (1282 posts) -

People who don't care about co-op have no friends...Fact ;)

Online
#26 Posted by avidwriter (667 posts) -

Might be hard to do co-op through what have been mostly very story driven single player games. Unless they keep the cutscences and story stuff the same but you have both players doing the missions?

#27 Posted by FilipHolm (669 posts) -

I've always hated co-op... Especially with split screen, god I hate split-screen...

#28 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4851 posts) -

@WinterSnowblind said:

@KingWilly: I assume you've never actually played Saints Row?

The story in the game still works because the other player is ignored for the cut-scenes, and the mayhem and crazyness is only made better. You can still go off on your own and mess about, but you can also team up and do things that wouldn't be possible otherwise. If you think the experience is really better by yourself, fine, play it on single player.. but I agree with the OP, now that GTA is seriously competing with Saint's Row, it's a feature they absolutely need to have, even if the game sticks to the much more serious tone.

I was touting the merits of Saints Row while everyone else was calling it a shitty GTA clone. I'm not trying to brag, but it is frustrating when the only possible explanation for differing opinions must be "Oh well you never played it, obviously."

I didn't like the co-op in Saints Row because it ignored the other player entirely. I don't play sandbox games to muck about with my retard friends, I play them to enjoy the sandbox. If I want multiplayer mayhem, I play Gears or any of the other gajillion mulitplayer games on the market. That being said, I never once said there was an issue with co-op in these games. The only thing I have said is that I find them pointless. And they are. There's no reason to have them aside from the aforementioned "oh dude that was so siiiiiiiiiick you saw that right you totally saw that you weren't looking the other way right?" type of experience these kinds of co-op games offer. Army of Two, Kane & Lynch, Gears of War, and a myriad of other games that were designed from the ground up to be co-op experiences can fill the niche the OP is looking for quite nicely. Why he feels that this needs to pollute and divert resources from a single player game is beyond me.

#29 Posted by Baillie (4247 posts) -

@Shuborno said:

@Baillie said:

@Shuborno: I probably will play Saints Row 3, just as I did it's predecessor. Good game, but not as good as GTA IV. All I want is to have another dude to play with me. It could have been easily implemented in GTA IV, as shown with the multiplayer aspect.

Well, what's good about GTA IV is the atmosphere and story. Putting in co-op would (in my opinion) take away focus from the story and put it in to the mechanics.

At that point, you're just playing for fun. I've only played Saints Row 1, but it is mechanically superior to GTA, so I'd assume Saints Row 3 will be far more playable than any GTA game.

I don't see how adding another player into the gameplay will detract any of the atmosphere and story. The cutscenes don't NEED to have the co-op player involved, just the gameplay itself. I also don't understand what you mean the mechanics? I really don't see what needs to change, to have another person tag along with you. Just think of the missions where an AI tagged along with you. It'd just be like that, but with another person there.

#30 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

@KingWilly: I'm not sure I understand the difference of "playing around in a single player sandbox" and "mucking about with a friend on co-op".

I'm generally not someone who enjoys multiplayer games, I haven't played anything with "deathmatch" on the end in a very long time and don't intend to again for the foreseeable future, but co-op does add an element of fun, and doesn't have to detract from the single player at all. Again, in Saints Row 2, the co-op was just the single player mode with another player to do things with. A lot of the missions and activities were changed to make the two players work together and it didn't detract or limit the single player in any way.

#31 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4851 posts) -

@WinterSnowblind: The problem lies when one of your "friends" is trying to actively break the game, or disable achievements by using cheats on your save. Maybe I just have shitty friends, but I doubt this a problem localized to just me.

#32 Posted by Baillie (4247 posts) -

@WinterSnowblind said:

@KingWilly: I'm not sure I understand the difference of "playing around in a single player sandbox" and "mucking about with a friend on co-op".

I'm generally not someone who enjoys multiplayer games, I haven't played anything with "deathmatch" on the end in a very long time and don't intend to again for the foreseeable future, but co-op does add an element of fun, and doesn't have to detract from the single player at all. Again, in Saints Row 2, the co-op was just the single player mode with another player to do things with. A lot of the missions and activities were changed to make the two players work together and it didn't detract or limit the single player in any way.

Exactly my sentiments.

#33 Posted by Baillie (4247 posts) -

@KingWilly said:

@WinterSnowblind: The problem lies when one of your "friends" is trying to actively break the game, or disable achievements by using cheats on your save. Maybe I just have shitty friends, but I doubt this a problem localized to just me.

Get friends who enjoy the same kind of games as you, and how you play them, or find them on a forum, like me. Also, everyone complaining about split-screen... That is not what I meant.

#34 Posted by Jimbo (9872 posts) -

Saints Row 2 co-op was fucking outstanding. Really smartly executed.

#35 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

You can adjust the rear view mirror

#36 Posted by Subjugation (4725 posts) -

The shenanigans made possible by co-op with a buddy; the sheer spontaneity that can happen from adding in a friend in an open world is so attractive. Some of the most fun I've had has been goofing around with buddies and creating our own fun in games. Well done co-op would be a nice addition.

#37 Edited by valrog (3671 posts) -

I'm not a huge fan of Co-op (Especially in my Grand Theft Auto!), so I'll have to go with this.

@Marcsman said:

Getting STDs from hookers
#38 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -

The thing that would make GTA V awesome would be if it was immediately scrapped and all effort was put into Red Dead Retribution (or whatever they want to call it) instead.

I have little faith in Rockstar to make a compelling GTA game (for myellf of course, I understand I'm a minority opinion on this).

#39 Posted by redbliss (648 posts) -

The story. There hasnt been a single bad story in GTA. I dont expect any different in GTA5.

#40 Posted by Baillie (4247 posts) -

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

The thing that would make GTA V awesome would be if it was immediately scrapped and all effort was put into Red Dead Retribution

I would also love this.

#41 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2363 posts) -

Co-op makes any game better. Having another dude or dudes in the game to talk to and play with is an awesome time for everyone. How can you disagree with that? Also the days of split screen gaming is slowly diying out eventually so people need to stop bitching about that.

Online
#42 Posted by babblinmule (1262 posts) -

I was perfectly happy tearing round Liberty City in freestyle mode with a buddy in GTA4. Our last stands at the statue of liberty against the legions of the 5 stars are still the stuff of infamy between us.

#43 Posted by MikkaQ (10318 posts) -

@KingWilly said:

@Baillie: No. Just. No.

GTA has never been about co-op. It's about mayhem and absurdity. Even the direction GTA4 took, you really think all of those poignant scenes would have been more affecting if you had another person there saying "Man that fart smells gnarly, pass the nachos"? GTA is a single player experience. Always has been, always will be. Saints Row managed to do co-op and do it well, but it's not necessary and it's not something to write home about. Unless a game is designed from the ground up to be played cooperatively, there's no point to having it. The fact that you see this in Mass Effect 3's planned cooperative mode leads me to believe you know this to be true. There's no point in having two Niko Bellics, the same as there's no point in having two Chuck Greens. What you're chasing is a figment of your imagination, a fantasy that since GTA is so much fun, having a buddy around to cause mayhem with you would be even better. That's just not true. If anything, your buddy would just get in your way and ruin good moments for you.

Wouldn't all that mayhem and absurdity be more fun with a friend? Anytime I've played GTA, there was someone else with me usually. Someone I'd have to pass the controller to once in a while. And I don't like that, no sir.

#44 Posted by LibraryDues (343 posts) -

No, it needs dedicated servers

#45 Posted by Spankmealotus (290 posts) -

Co-op is fun in a light hearted sense and just direct gameplay. GTA is about story and character development, adding co-op would only take away from what Rockstar does best in the series, the story. IMO

#46 Posted by Baillie (4247 posts) -

@LibraryDues: Dedicated servers? Why? For the awful, awful multiplayer?

#47 Posted by Shuborno (938 posts) -

@Baillie said:

@Shuborno said:

@Baillie said:

@Shuborno: I probably will play Saints Row 3, just as I did it's predecessor. Good game, but not as good as GTA IV. All I want is to have another dude to play with me. It could have been easily implemented in GTA IV, as shown with the multiplayer aspect.

Well, what's good about GTA IV is the atmosphere and story. Putting in co-op would (in my opinion) take away focus from the story and put it in to the mechanics.

At that point, you're just playing for fun. I've only played Saints Row 1, but it is mechanically superior to GTA, so I'd assume Saints Row 3 will be far more playable than any GTA game.

I don't see how adding another player into the gameplay will detract any of the atmosphere and story. The cutscenes don't NEED to have the co-op player involved, just the gameplay itself. I also don't understand what you mean the mechanics? I really don't see what needs to change, to have another person tag along with you. Just think of the missions where an AI tagged along with you. It'd just be like that, but with another person there.

I feel like not having the co-op player acknowledged in cutscenes fundamentally breaks the immersion of the story. It means the co-op partner is not a character in the story, just a player along for the ride. GTA IV takes itself too seriously for that.

By "mechanics", put simply, I don't think GTA controls well on foot. I think those games are fun in spite of the controls. Co-op would just mean two players awkwardly fighting the controls to coordinate instead of one.

#48 Posted by Klaimore (948 posts) -

What about dialogue trees?

#49 Posted by Hitchenson (4682 posts) -

I dunno, I like to listen to all the ads and dialogue, not just during cutscenes but when going about. Co-op would ruin the hell out of that for me. If anything, I'd like them to expand upon the free-mode so there's activities and stuff to do there.

#50 Posted by uniform (1836 posts) -

Kevin Bacon as the female protagonist. Ron Perlman as her sidekick.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.