CliffyB: Gears of War 2 co-op will be "bigger and better" etc.
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ May 14th 2008 at 2:45PM }
That's roughly what Epic designer, CliffyB, had to say about Gears of War 2's cooperative mode when Shacknews asked about four-player action. "We're not announcing anything about co-op at this time, we'll probably get around to it around E3 time, but rest assured, it will be bigger and better," he teased.
On a related note, Bleszinski did tell us that the saw-tastic sequel's multiplayer mode would at least benefit from a party system this time around. "I think that if we were not to have a feature like that, it would probably be a pretty big f*ckup." As for missing out on four-player Locust culling? That would be a bigger and better f*ckup, surely.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dirt @ May 14th 2008 2:51PM
For what it's worth, GoW2 keeps being compared to Resistance 2. 8 Player Co-Op and 60 player deathmatches etc.
Will Gears step up to the plate?
And for the love of all, put in a capture the flag mode. Gears 1 multiplayer was terrible. Co-Op was wonderful, put two person was a bit limiting.
PojoMofo @ May 14th 2008 3:05PM
R2 will dominate GOW 2 in every possible way. Book it
JerkfacedFed @ May 14th 2008 3:11PM
i love how people just compare bullet points without taking GAMEPLAY into consideration. seriously, gears shits on resistance, even if the graphics are completely equal (which they arent). resistance is a typical fps, gears is the best 3rd person shooter around, with an amazing camera and cover system.
anyway, back to my point..
maybe if they arent including a many player coop mode that would alter the single player experience, they might do.....COUNTER OP.
who remembers perfect dark? good times.
immagine spawning as a locust officer trying to stop 2 other human players. They could implement a scoring system like halo 3's campaign metagame for achievements and unlockables. Do it on a chapter by chapter basis with less health given to locust, and if the locust team kills all the human players and there are no more revives possible, the locust team wins. if the cog team gets through the level they win.
embassy @ May 14th 2008 3:14PM
i really dont see how you can compare GOW gameplay-wise to Resistance.
at all.
2 totally different experiences.
Resistance is a pure FPS large-scale FPS experience, gears is more close-combat, brutal 2-man team style.
xFenixKnightx @ May 14th 2008 3:23PM
The only reason people are comparing GOW2 and R2 is because they are supposedly slated to release around the same time, both exclusive, and shooters.
Thats where the similarities end. Pojo and his funny comment, anybody with an ounce of intelligence will tell you Gears2 will rape the shizz outta R2 in sold units in its first week, month and overall.
PojoMofo @ May 14th 2008 3:34PM
Hey, all I was doing is commenting on a thread. If you guys are immature enough to bust out the personal slander over an opinion, thats fine with me.
My opinion will be confirmed soon enough
Vidikron (FU) @ May 14th 2008 3:40PM
I really liked both GoW and R1 and I have high hopes for both sequels. I agree with those saying that it's hard to compare the two. I am really looking forward to 8-player co-op in R2. I hope Insomniac can pull that off.
Matt B @ May 14th 2008 4:36PM
@ Embassy
THen why is Shane Kim doing it?
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=140503
Vcize @ May 14th 2008 4:55PM
Don't be retarded, Gears with big online rooms would be awful. It's a very deliberately paced tactical game and with the ability to stun, down, etc it would just be god-awful with tons of people running around. It's the type of game where by communicating with your teammates you should know where the entire other team is positioned and flanking is meant to be difficult, because its rewards are huge. Having a bunch of people running around that are too many to keep track of is the exact opposite of the way this game is meant to be played.
I was scared to death that they were going to enable 8v8 or 6v6 gameplay for Gears 2 as 4v4 was absolutely PERFECT. We'll see how 5v5 goes, it's close enough that I'm not too worried but I would have rather just left it at 4v4.
embassy @ May 14th 2008 5:15PM
cuz those are the 2 "big guns" for the fall, and hes trying to sell systems and games, and frankly, that's his job.
but after that fact, the comparisons end, i think others have pointed that out.
tmacairjordan87 @ May 14th 2008 2:54PM
So lets get it out of the way now. He's going to copy R2 with the 8 player co-op, although I doubt the co-op will be an entirely new campaign like R2's supposed to be.
Either way lets get the fanboy shit out of the way early ok?.....
GO
Cal @ May 14th 2008 2:59PM
I'd expect more along the lines of 5 players...
syrik zero @ May 14th 2008 3:08PM
Enough with the fanboy stuff indeed. They are different games for different consoles. One is cover and shoot and the other is an FPS. Both will be fun. Lets all just be friends =)
PojoMofo @ May 14th 2008 3:09PM
that way they could break out into a game of pick-up basketball if they felt so inclined.
xFenixKnightx @ May 14th 2008 3:13PM
Ill bet some $$$ its 4 player co-op. Fenix and Dom with some missions based on splitting up into groups with a partner each like in the first one, but only this time with 4 co-op players.
Where does anyone get the idea that more players is better? That is whats so unique about Gears, its up close, personal and in your face. Not...die respawn, die respawn, die respawn. End match. You actually make a great effort to stay alive, communicate and help your team win.
Hala Madrid!! @ May 14th 2008 3:57PM
I think 20 players in multiplayer is the way to go
more than that is just annoying and laggy.
Vcize @ May 14th 2008 5:00PM
Well said Fenix, at least somebody gets it. Gears with a ton of players would completely ruin the game.
But, unfortunately most around would rather look at some bullet points on a sheet of paper than actually play the game and think about how that would work with it.
Saying that Gears lacks enough players is just as fanboyishly retarded as saying that the 360 version of GTA4 is graphically superior because it has more pixels when we all know that it has no real world effect. But some hypocrites still choose to castrate people making one of those arguements while joining in with people making the other.
Roxxorsmash @ May 14th 2008 7:16PM
I think 8v8 multiplayer would be great. I hated how matches were so short in the first one. And I think the destructible scenery will really add to the experience too.
Esat Dedezade @ May 14th 2008 2:55PM
I don't understand, is'nt all of this information about 4 articles further down?
Bar the picture, what's the point?
Ryan @ May 14th 2008 3:18PM
Exactly, Chris posted this exact interview basically...
Ludwig Kietzmann @ May 14th 2008 4:46PM
Chris' interview didn't address 4-player co-op specifically. This was CliffyB's nudge-wink answer to whether it would be in the sequel.
D_Average @ May 14th 2008 2:58PM
Thanks Ludwig, I too was ready to vomit from the "bigger, better, badass" montra.
browntown @ May 14th 2008 3:06PM
Y does he keep saying badass, its getting annoying, i hope this game has 4 player co-op, cuz id love to play with friends.
SoulBlade @ May 14th 2008 3:30PM
If you say something is badass, then the teeny bopper target audience will eat it up in a heartbeat.
Obie @ May 14th 2008 3:07PM
Gears' co-op mode was a blast with a buddy by your side. I enjoyed it more than the unbalanced multiplayer.
But hey, thats just me.
theturtle363 @ May 14th 2008 3:07PM
My game is more existential and thought provoking!
qbix @ May 14th 2008 3:11PM
I got dibs on Cole Train. 4-player co-op would be sick, but they'd have to make enemies as tough as General RAAM.
Hala Madrid!! @ May 14th 2008 3:42PM
Can I haz 4 player co-op in story mode?
rafoca2008 @ May 14th 2008 3:51PM
Gimme 4 players co-op and I will be happy 4ever
Vamp @ May 14th 2008 4:23PM
I am expecting 4 player co-op, and that's probably it.
finaldarklord @ May 14th 2008 5:33PM
All I ask is that they fix the cover system, because that shit RUINED multiplayer in the first game.
ToRo @ May 14th 2008 10:06PM
I'm still going to rent this one for the story. But I will not even consider buying it if the multiplayer DOES NOT have client side hit detection. In other words, If it has host advantage then it's a rent. If it doesn't, its a buy.
xGeneral DEATHx @ May 15th 2008 8:46AM
Sadly, host advantage will always be a problem to some extent due to Xbox Live's P2P setup...although I will say that it can be lessened if the code is tightened up. Regardless, four-player co-op possibility has me stoked like no other for this game. I still play 2-player co-op with my brother every now and then just because the action is so visceral...it's like playing a cheesy Hollywood blockbuster with some semi-realistic elements thrown in. Bring on the 4-player co-op!
ToRo @ May 15th 2008 6:47PM
Well, I don't see Halo with host advantage. And even if it does, it's not that big of a problem as it is in gears. Seriously, when I'm host, i shoot someone in the stomach at point blank range and their fucking head explodes.
Yes, it looks awesome, but i pisses people off to the point that they start glitching and use the excuse "I can glitch because your host!" It's ridiculous if you ask me.
faithispoder @ Jul 1st 2008 9:03AM
When people commented on how a certain person had "host" i thought it was nonsense. I played the original and thought things were pretty even but considering that maybe the connection speeds had something to do with this.