Games Discussion Thread

[SirOni]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

I have a challenge for you guys. Rattle off some co-op games you know of that aren't actually online. In other words, ones that you need a buddy next to you to take player 2.

Yo' momma

 

[Kusanagi]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance
Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel
Dynasty Warriors 3
any of the Guitar Heros
Half Life on the PS2
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon
Metal Slug (I have the Anthology on PS2)
X-men 2: The Clone Wars
T2 Arcade Game: Judgement Day
Sonic 2
any of the Smash Bros games
Gauntlet Legends: Dark Legacy
Battletanx

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Perfect Dark. With the practically exclusive option of "Counter-operative" as well
Time Splitters series?

 

[Newbie]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

X-men 2: The Clone Wars

What?

That said:
360 has The Halo series, L4D, Street Fighter, Soul Caliber, Mortal Kombat titles, Lego Games, Sports games.

PS3 has Call of Duty, Little Big Planet, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Resistance: Fall of Man.

Many of those are not console exclusive.

The Wii has Smash Bros, Metal Slug, NSMBW, Mario Kart, and more, I'm sure.

Racing, fighting, and sports games usually have offline multiplayer. Shooters often do, but it's dropping off in popularity.
Few of these titles are co-op, most are competitive. Especially the fighting games.

 

[Kusanagi]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

X-men 2: The Clone Wars

What?

It's a game on the Sega Genesis.

 

[Obeliskos]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Perfect Dark. With the practically exclusive option of "Counter-operative" as well
Time Splitters series?

This. I don't care if you were only talking about more recent games. THIS.

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

I assure you I wasn't but I thank you for the support.

 

[Obeliskos]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

I was referring to dark. I assumed he was talking about recent games because he's on drugs if he thinks we can't think of games like goldeneye or perfect dark.

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

I was referring to dark. I assumed he was talking about recent games because he's on drugs if he thinks we can't think of games like goldeneye or perfect dark.

Oh my bad, I had thought you were referring to the fact Perfect Dark had been prequelized for the 360 and somehow that you didn't like the later TS games in the series.

For the latter part, I thought you were just insane, but I was just happy you agreed, even if you were crazy. Alas, I was wrong. But to be fair, Future Perfect isn't too old

*edit* but goldeneye didnt have co-op, I dont think

 

[SirOni]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

The Timesplitters series is a fucking masterpiece. All you Halo and Gears faggots can go suck each others dicks if you think otherwise.

I know none of you actually dislike it

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

My only gripe is the story kinda pussy-footed its way into the games. First one? Not really a story. Second one? Like half a story. Third one? FINALLY We're getting somewhere and it kind of but not really explains the other two.

Someone could tell me the games were just remakes, I'd be convinced.
*edit* well maybe 2 to 3 wouldn't be a "true" remake, but like an evil dead type remake/sequel, ya know

 

[Zoto]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

The timesplitter series was a far as i remember great, maybe that was because i only played at my friends house but the capture the flag or briefcase/whatever was really good, done before but still really good, i remember saying, when i got the flag/ briefcase, "Protect me! i'm currently the most important person in this game"
it is good because it has bots. any game that doesnt have bots sucks, unless it has some reeeaaaal good gameplay. but bots are essential.

....did that make sense?

also sorry for rant ....

 

[handofdoz]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Perfect Dark. With the practically exclusive option of "Counter-operative" as well
Time Splitters series?

how far did you get in that game?

The timesplitter series was a far as i remember great, maybe that was because i only played at my friends house but the capture the flag or briefcase/whatever was really good, done before but still really good, i remember saying, when i got the flag/ briefcase, "Protect me! I'm currently the most important person in this game"
it is good because it has bots. any game that doesn't have bots sucks, unless it has some reeeaaaal good gameplay. but bots are essential.

....did that make sense?

also sorry for rant ....

Agreed.

My only gripe is the story kinda pussy-footed its way into the games. First one? Not really a story. Second one? Like half a story. Third one? FINALLY We're getting somewhere and it kind of but not really explains the other two.

Someone could tell me the games were just remakes, I'd be convinced.
*edit* well maybe 2 to 3 wouldn't be a "true" remake, but like an evil dead type remake/sequel, ya know

The single story was that you were taking control of people all across time to stop the timesplitters from screwing it up. in future perfect you were going back in time to stop the timesplitters from existing, like they tried to do to you in the first 2.

and since these haven't been mentioned starcraft 64- though somewhat laggy- resident evil 5, borderlands... ect ect ect.....

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

how far did you get in that game?

In perfect dark? I must have restarted and finished through a few times over.

I understood the basic concept behind timesplitters, but the first one, to my knowledge, had no sgt cortez, and indirectly, no story. The story of it had been sort of retconned into existence by having the second one do the same thing, except with a character now taking the place of the people we had once played. (Like I said, almost a evil dead type remake/sequel) It was practically the same thing with some notion of a to-do now. Then the third one, for absolutely no reason that I recall, has him NOT taking the place of other people when he travels through time now, having the same adventures, except now following someone

 

[Obeliskos]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

*edit* but goldeneye didnt have co-op, I dont think

There was definitely a competitive thing, but I thought I remembered co-op. Maybe that was just Perfect Dark.

 

[handofdoz]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

In perfect dark? I must have restarted and finished through a few times over.

I understood the basic concept behind timesplitters, but the first one, to my knowledge, had no sgt cortez, and indirectly, no story. The story of it had been sort of retconned into existence by having the second one do the same thing, except with a character now taking the place of the people we had once played. (Like I said, almost a evil dead type remake/sequel) It was practically the same thing with some notion of a to-do now. Then the third one, for absolutely no reason that I recall, has him NOT taking the place of other people when he travels through time now, having the same adventures, except now following someone

int he second one they were using the timesplitter time machine, if a timesplitter went into the past then people would have freaked out, so it makes since that they splitters would use host bodys, as Cortez did in that game. in future perfect they were using a human time machine, which didn't find a host for Cortez, just plopped him 5 feet above the water.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Only Call of Duty World at War has co-op for the campaign, and Modern Warfare 2 had its Spec-Ops mode. Rainbow Six: Vegas 1 and 2 both had co-op.

 

[Copper]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

I have a challenge for you guys. Rattle off some co-op games you know of that aren't actually online. In other words, ones that you need a buddy next to you to take player 2.

Any of the ones listed in my post at the top of the page. There are also the X-men games that can be two player, not to mention party style games/gaming collections like Tetris, Sega Collection, DDR, Rock Band/Guitar Hero, etc. etc.

Also, which system? Though a lot of good stuff has been mentioned so far.

 

[Mirchie]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

I have a challenge for you guys. Rattle off some co-op games you know of that aren't actually online. In other words, ones that you need a buddy next to you to take player 2.

Dynasty Warriors, 4 and possibly 5? I dunno about counting Star Wars Battlefront games, since you could be online with them, but you could go through campaign or Galactic Conquest in co-op.

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Dynasty Warriors 6. Me and my roommate have been 50'ing every character since last year and we're going through chaos musou modes. Redonkulous