The one thing that will make GTA V a masterpiece.

  • 83 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for baillie
#1 Posted by Baillie (4708 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.

Avatar image for mikegosot
#2 Posted by MikeGosot (3237 posts) -
@Baillie: Destroy All Humans 2 was amazing because of the co-op. AND IT WAS SPLIT SCREEN!
Avatar image for baillie
#3 Posted by Baillie (4708 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.

Avatar image for mikegosot
#4 Posted by MikeGosot (3237 posts) -
@Baillie: Co-op makes every game better.
Avatar image for snail
#5 Edited by Snail (8885 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.

Avatar image for marcsman
#6 Posted by Marcsman (3597 posts) -

Getting STDs from hookers

Avatar image for lfiolhais
#7 Posted by lfiolhais (129 posts) -

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

Avatar image for morrelloman
#8 Posted by morrelloman (639 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.

Avatar image for baillie
#9 Posted by Baillie (4708 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.

Avatar image for shabs
#10 Posted by Shabs (905 posts) -

Just play Saints Row 3.

Avatar image for baillie
#11 Posted by Baillie (4708 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.

Avatar image for snail
#12 Posted by Snail (8885 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?

Avatar image for nottle
#13 Posted by Nottle (1933 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.

Avatar image for theodacourt
#14 Posted by theodacourt (590 posts) -

A greed.

Avatar image for mr_skeleton
#15 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5195 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.

Avatar image for baillie
#16 Posted by Baillie (4708 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.

Avatar image for morrelloman
#17 Posted by morrelloman (639 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.

Avatar image for baillie
#18 Posted by Baillie (4708 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!

Avatar image for oldirtybearon
#19 Posted by Oldirtybearon (5626 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.

Avatar image for wickedcestus
#20 Posted by WickedCestus (3781 posts) -

I agree. Co-op is awesome.

Avatar image for wintersnowblind
#21 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7598 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.

Avatar image for baillie
#22 Posted by Baillie (4708 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.

Avatar image for beeftothetaco
#23 Posted by beeftothetaco (437 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.

Avatar image for shabs
#24 Posted by Shabs (905 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.

Avatar image for rentfn
#25 Posted by rentfn (1393 posts) -

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

Avatar image for avidwriter
#26 Posted by avidwriter (704 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?

Avatar image for filipholm
#27 Posted by FilipHolm (689 posts) -

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

Avatar image for oldirtybearon
#28 Posted by Oldirtybearon (5626 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.

Avatar image for baillie
#29 Posted by Baillie (4708 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.

Avatar image for wintersnowblind
#30 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7598 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.

Avatar image for oldirtybearon
#31 Posted by Oldirtybearon (5626 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.

Avatar image for baillie
#32 Posted by Baillie (4708 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.

Avatar image for baillie
#33 Posted by Baillie (4708 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.

Avatar image for jimbo
#34 Posted by Jimbo (10472 posts) -

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

Avatar image for jack268
#35 Posted by Jack268 (3370 posts) -

You can adjust the rear view mirror

Avatar image for subjugation
#36 Posted by Subjugation (4963 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.

Avatar image for valrog
#37 Edited by valrog (3741 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
Avatar image for tim_the_corsair
#38 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3053 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).

Avatar image for redbliss
#39 Posted by redbliss (669 posts) -

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

Avatar image for baillie
#40 Posted by Baillie (4708 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.

Avatar image for oscar__explosion
#41 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2951 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.

Avatar image for babblinmule
#42 Posted by babblinmule (1280 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.

Avatar image for mikkaq
#43 Posted by MikkaQ (10296 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.

Avatar image for librarydues
#44 Posted by LibraryDues (343 posts) -

No, it needs dedicated servers

Avatar image for spankmealotus
#45 Posted by Spankmealotus (321 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

Avatar image for baillie
#46 Posted by Baillie (4708 posts) -

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

Avatar image for shabs
#47 Posted by Shabs (905 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.

Avatar image for klaimore
#48 Posted by Klaimore (1006 posts) -

What about dialogue trees?

Avatar image for hitchenson
#49 Posted by Hitchenson (4708 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.

Avatar image for uniform
#50 Posted by uniform (1842 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.