Infinity Ward says 2 is the magic number for Modern Warfare co-op
by Justin McElroy 
{ Jun 23rd 2009 at 1:00PM } 
Bowling also said that the whole game won't be playable in co-op because the developer is "crafting a very specific experience" and doesn't want to "ruin that by cramming co-op into it." While it's nice to see a company stick to its guns like that, we figure developers who sell a hojillion copies of a game can pretty much write their own menus.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
cylet @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:04PM
offline and online, right? :D
SimbaDogg @ Jun 23rd 2009 2:51PM
offline...eh, but if its online ohhhhhhhhhh gah'd...this will instantly be a day 1 purchase for me. and i never do that (only gt5p and mgs4 have been day 1 purchases thus far) in all my years of gaming
tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:05PM
I think they said they're having a seperate mode for Co-op, with a number of specific "challenge" levels for people to do instead of just doing some single player levels.
All I want from them is to get rid of that damn infinite spawning on veteran. It's a cheap way of ramping up difficulty.
zourskittles @ Jun 23rd 2009 2:36PM
I can assure you that I've read they've gotten rid of the "Walk past this line to make enemies stop spawning" problem. So your wish has been granted.
Johnny Neat @ Jun 24th 2009 9:52AM
Maybe, but what about the all knowing AI? You barely come out into view while enemy AI are looking elsewhere only to have every single enemy quickly and perfectly shoot and hit you.
Or the no one really fights till you show up issues? You know you think an area (room) is cleared by the lack of gun fire only to find your squad chilling by an also chilling enemy AI waiting just to kill you. It can only be topped by those too many instances when enemy AI and friendly AI are with arms' length of each other but nothing happens between them because you are all the enemy AI cares about. Why would anyone in the real world shoot the guy down the way when an enemy combatant is right in your face? The world will never know.
Or wait, how about the magnetized player dome syndrome? How fun is it to be out of view of enemy AI only to still have every single hand grenade on the field thrown to land right next to you?
Plus let's not forget the times you shoot a quarter of a clip into an enemy AI only to have them annoying jitter from the fire while managing to miraculously poop out the killing shot to your character?
Oh yeah, great times!!!! They've said that they are not trying to be realistic but plausible and I say bravo, but that doesn't mean be insanely implausible in how enemy AI responds. You should take hits enemies should not, at least not as much as they do in veteran. I don't want stupid easy but I don't want cheating hard either. I know it's a fine line to walk but please walk it better IW.
Anyhow whatever, I love the Modern Warfare concept & game a lot as we all do I think, but those certain flawed aspects need to desperately be addressed. It's horrible enough for IW to avoid the much wanted and requested online 4 player co-op campaign option. I know they want their story a certain way, but we still want co-op in this day and age of fast internet speeds and Xbox LIVE.
Zexion_VI @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:05PM
I like the sound of that. Keeping co-op and single player different experiences. They took the route of Uncharted 2 I guess.
JXCgunrunna @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:14PM
It looks like the devs had been thinking the same thing, not copping from one an other. Game development started 2 years ago for both the games and both devs create a "game plan" years before the games are released
joeybeast @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:16PM
You meant splinter cell: chaos theory.
Kdiggy @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:07PM
Meh COD is milked to death, just like every other Activision franchise.
“Activision Blizzard won’t pick up games that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million dollar franchises” (Bobby Kotick 11/5/08)
Kotick is bad for gaming.
Ihavepants @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:12PM
They're good games.
Heavytoka @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:17PM
COD game aren't milked to death, WW2 games are. The Modern Warfare games are a refreshing change for the series.
dolapo10 @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:28PM
you must be standing on your head
YOU ARE JUST A FOOL FOR THAT STATEMENT
SugarDaddy @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:53PM
It's a winning franchise. They're good games. People like them. They want more. That's not milking it to death. There's still plenty of milk left.
cknblade @ Jun 23rd 2009 2:11PM
Why does success and franchise potential automatically equal bad games?
Manly Mcbeefington (Mr. ESC) @ Jun 23rd 2009 4:48PM
Don't let the activision name fool you boy Call of Duty is one of the best franchises around,yes is a shame that the same publisher controls Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk owns this but still IW and Treyarch have deliver some of the best FPS.
I'm Playing World at War and let me tell you that I don't know how can anyone hate this game.The story mode on veteran is hard but interesting,it has co-op features,a horde mode and a competitive multiplayer mode.
nightmare452 @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:08PM
Wow, I have been lost on news regarding MW2. I didn't know it would have co-op, this is news to me so I am happy either way, and yeah, 2 player makes it more personal, and me and my bro were gonna do it 2 player only anyway.
Wish there was a 4 player co-op mode somewhere though, those are always fun.
Dr. steve brule @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:08PM
why cant developers just do what they did with halo CE? the story was super good and the co-op worked seamlessly IMO.
JXCgunrunna @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:21PM
Halo wasnt real heave on story(not that its not a good story), but IW is trying to develop a story that you feel like you the character. thats y they dont do cutscenes
Professor Lario @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:29PM
I agree. I like the co-op worked into the main story if possible.
SugarDaddy @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:56PM
Halo wasn't heavy on story? What? It's a major story. The Call of Duty games' stories are basically a combat delivery system. There's really nothing there. I played through CoD 4 and I couldn't tell you what the hell was going on other than you have to kill the guy at the end whose arm you sniped off in the middle. The whole specific role as a soldier thing is real, but there's really not much of a story.
JXCgunrunna @ Jun 23rd 2009 2:11PM
And i played a story that spanned 3 halo games and all i got out of it was u kill aliens that are trying to over take the human race with the most powerful human ever made and a traitor alien. and theres a flood of little shit u shoot a lot of to get a dude in a ball.
I realize the halo universe is huge and there is a good story but I do not recall 1 moment in Halo that i felt like i was part of a movie. Just in one scene in CoD4 there are half a dozen parts where i go "Wow, this should be a movie" like when u play price and the downed chopper almost takes off ur captains head. or when the nuclear bomb goes off and you DIE
The Dark Wayne @ Jun 23rd 2009 2:46PM
God, that is such a cop out JXC, not for you, but IW. The "you are the character" thing has never worked for FPS', it's just an excuse for developers not to put any time or thought into a compelling character. The worst part is when you actually have a name and history instead of just being a total random, because then their IS a story behind the character, but it's completely wasted. I know I'll get flamed for it, but I didnt even think it worked in Half life 2. Gordon had a name, a face, a history, a PhD for god sakes! There was even a picture of him in the game! But absolutely zero character development or interaction.
Familyguyrokz @ Jun 23rd 2009 3:36PM
@The Dark Wayne
>The "you are the character" thing has never worked for FPS
Half-Life. That is all.
JXCgunrunna @ Jun 23rd 2009 3:40PM
I have actually had conflicting thoughts on CoD games' stories. CoD4 had a story that was amazing and emotional and not until i saw the trailer for MW2 did i really feel connected to Soap. when you see him lead they way price did, i feel like that was me and i had been trained and hardened by the events in CoD4. I actually feel more of a connection with the characters that died in CoD4 than i did with Soap.
On the other hand, CoD1 and 2 took place in the past and i didnt know the characters at all. i knew y they were fighting cuz we all knew they were trying to save the world from oppression but that was it. i dont even remember the names of who i played as.
At least in Zelda/Mario im know y im trying to save the princess
Elmoogle @ Jun 23rd 2009 4:28PM
While I won't deny that Halo co-op is incredibly fun, it also is exactly what IW is talking about with the whole cramming in thing. That is unless you actually have a reasonable explanation for why Master Chief can split into two identical people who merge together again for cut scenes.
No, he's not a ninja.
The Dark Wayne @ Jun 23rd 2009 4:29PM
@familyguyrokz, no, that isnt all. First off I laready mentioned that, and second your post didnt explain anything. Why did it work in Half life? Gordon was just as blank and devoid as any other "make the story yourself" character. Just because Alyx and Eli looked directly at you when he spoke didnt make it good. Go ahead vote me down, but that doesnt make it any better
MN Guy @ Jun 23rd 2009 5:00PM
Not to hate on Modern Warfare because I loved the first one deeply (more than Halo 3) but the story was nothing special. It was like any other pure action movie or pure action game. Not a single element of any of the story was any surprise or anything not completely cliche'.
Halo had a very good story (not to mention there are like a half a dozen books going along with it). Sure, you technically ran around and killed aliens. But there was a hell of a lot more to it than COD story. The Flood thing and the halos that destroy everything to Cortana and the Arbitor and the prophets and artifacts and blah blah. I mean, sure that is all kind of standard fare for sci fi movies but it was all unique to that franchise. No element of the COD story was non-cliche except for that one super badass moment where you get nuked and die, which really was more of a super badass moment than a great story twist since I wasn't even sure which guy "I" was at the time.
But neither game compares to something like Mass Effect or Half Life in my opinion. In those games I actually started to care for or dislike or felt like I "got to know" many of those characters. My point being that talking about great story in games should probably exclude Halo and COD, though I did think Halo's story was pretty good. I enjoyed "seeing how it would end" in Halo 3. In COD you are kicking ass on a bridge and then all the sudden numnuts is there and you shoot him and that's it. Yeah, awesome story.
JXCgunrunna @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:10PM
I love this fucking developer. Captain Price is the ingame incarnation of IW as a whole.
Ihavepants @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:16PM
Aww damn I just realised this will be Infinity Wards first game without Captain Walrus Moustache Man...
He will be missed, but I hated the mission to save the bastard in the original Call of Duty..
JXCgunrunna @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:22PM
haha yea. he is such a badass in 4 but in 1 you are the recruit sent in to save the high and mighty.
goboColossus (LIVE, PSN - gobopop) @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:16PM
I hated how the NPCs in 4 held your hand the entire way. Always taking the lead and exclusively interacting with the environment (you couldn't even open a door...). All games with NPCs on your side should have a co-op option. Who cares if it isn't a story made for 2-4 characters, it will help alleviate the problem of developers scripting terrible squad AI.
The separate co-op mode sounds fun, but it shouldn't be a replacement for story mode co-op.
SugarDaddy @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:59PM
Word. I agree. 2 play co-op is weak. And here Infinity Ward is saying that this is going to be the biggest release ever. Boo. It's going to be a lukewarm release for me. I'll enjoy it, but no way is it going to have the impact that Halo 3 had for me. I got home that night and played 4-player co-op with 3 of my friends. It was legendary. MW2 is not going to have that impact at all.
goboColossus (LIVE, PSN - gobopop) @ Jun 23rd 2009 2:08PM
Two player co-op is fine, as long as it is implemented in a meaningful way. It seems like that is what they are doing here, and kudos to them for it. That's still a completely BS excuse to not have a two or four player co-op mode for the main story though. Just because they want the story to be impactful is rubbish.
With Halo 3, my friends were hounding me to play online co-op. And I refused until I completed the story myself/locally because I knew they'd skip the cutscenes/story. After that, I must have completed that game in online co-op at least ten times. So it's just unreasonable to think that not even having the option to bend the rules for a cooperative campaign is the right way to go. Play it the way it's "meant" to be played once, have actual fun with it later.
Missed opportunity is this.
Adriaan @ Jun 23rd 2009 9:25PM
I couldn't agree more. Especially since the "story" in MW2 is unlikely to be anything but what has already been mentioned before: a combat delivery system. There's no huge "impact" the game is going to have. It's going to be really fun, but it could be amazing with friends.
It's really a shame, because I heard that WaW's co-op options were great.
Paul Benson @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:17PM
Now if only you'll be able to take at least two people online from the same box for multiplayer on this one, like in L4D, Gears and other games...
Hunt @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:27PM
I second that. I actually have friends (and a fiance) that come over and would love to play online multiplayer with me on the same system/screen. It was a big disappoinment that COD4 didn't do that.
Azbulldog @ Jun 23rd 2009 2:06PM
Yes, I am always very annoyed you can't do split screen online, as well as any combination of split screen and online at the same time. You can do split screen coop, and you can do coop with friends online, but not both simultaneously. You can do multiplayer games with split screen, and you can do online multiplayer, but not both simultaneously. As for the Xbox, it would be nice for them to utilize the guest Xbox Live accounts that friends can use.
Anthony M. @ Jun 23rd 2009 6:21PM
I haven't really thought about it till now, but I'm sure not having split-screen online multiplayer is a decent component as to why CoD 4 doesn't lag like Halo 3 does.
I don't remember the last halo game I played that felt as smooth as 90% of the CoD4 games I play, and this is why I don't play halo 3 anymore.
As sad as it is to have to pass-off the controller to your buddy every other round, I'd rather do that all day than have glitchy "I melee'd you first 3 times but you didn't die" scenarios.
salmoncannon @ Jun 24th 2009 4:52AM
Seriously, I actually like to be with my friends in person when we play games. Therefore I never play supposedly good multiplayer games like CoD because I don't like playing by myself or making my friends stay at home so I can play with them...
Halo, however, has kept me and my friend's attention since day one.
beanpie01 @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:18PM
--announcement of IW putting co-op in MW2, Captain Price responds with the following--
Price: Macgreggor!!!!
ChristmasBeard @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:21PM
Give us split-screen system link so we can go 2 vs. 2, dammit!
EGOvoruhk @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:26PM
If the whole game isn't playable in co-op mode, then what's the point in limiting co-op to only 2 players when co-op is available? I'm sure there will be plenty of missions with 3+ AI players, such as the screenshot for this article. Why not let those moments be co-op as well?
HitNRun @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:57PM
Because it would be slightly retarded for someone to be forced to stop playing every hour or so?
EGOvoruhk @ Jun 23rd 2009 2:14PM
HitNRun: That's already happening. "Bowling also said that the whole game won't be playable in co-op"
J is for me @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:27PM
Why does everybody lick infinity wards arse? They've only made one game so far and a lot people are too ignorant to try anything new.
LordToastington @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:28PM
Because it's delicious.
JXCgunrunna @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:31PM
they have made 3 games so far and they are all amazing. you know all those games where you can look down the sight of your gun? IW started that with CoD. dont be so ignorant.
Jon D @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:33PM
the same reason everyone kisses Bungies ass. And yes they made Marathon, but what game really CREATED Bungie as the beast they are today?
i'm glad they didn't go into 4-player online co-op. co-op is good for games that don't have competitive multiplayer, but i've never really seen the need for a game to have a full-blown compelling Single Player story, competitive multiplayer for dozens of people, and more than 4 people playing co-operatively. R2 does all of this and while it is great and is executed nearly flawlessly, the whole thing looks bonkers if you don't know what you're doing.
besides, It's Modern Warfare....2. They could package MW1 all over again with even more maps and i'd shut up...oh wait they already did that.
J is for me @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:48PM
Oh, sorry I didn't realise Infinity Ward made the first ones, oops. I liked those ones, but I didn't like Modern Warfare. Why did they alternate between developers for every game?
JXCgunrunna @ Jun 23rd 2009 1:57PM
Because Activision doesn't feel like they have enough money. I would rather see the games 2 or more years apart but I'm not in charge of Activision