Jinkster

Agreed.

Now THATS jumping to a conclusion!

@ doyomomma4me

PSP Gran Turismo doesn't have "more content" than Froza 3, thats just flat out FALSE.

Ok...it has more cars....but thats not saying anything. The QUALITY of the cars are obviously nowhere near that of Forza 3. GT4 has over 700 cars...doesn't that mean its better? Of course not.

Why do Sony fanboys only point out irrelevant numbers when they are trying to argue a point is beyond me. Actually, I think I know why....most of them are 15 years old and under, and have never driven a car in real life, so they think the GT series is realistic.

@Scooter

" Forza 2's damage is not very good in my opinion... they simply swap textures and pieces of the model out, as opposed to deforming the actual model itself. It's nice that it's THERE, but really I've never considered it a selling point of the game... "

FALSE

Have you even played Forza 2?

The actual model can lose the front bumper and rear bumpers and the car will actually be shorter because of it. I'm not going into all of the other things, but the car does get crushed and a number of peices can fall off...and there are on the track for the remainder of the race. If anyone hits them, they go flying!

I have all of the GT's from 1-4 and GT:Prologue....

I have only Forza 2...but I've played my brothers copy of Forza 1 when it came out....

Forza 2 is by far the better game between it and GT:P.

GT:P may look good...but it has no substance...no damage...ONLINE SUCKS....there is not even a LOBBY SYSTEM.

That brings me to another point...Forza has REAL ONLINE functionality that the GT series sorely lacks. Hopefully GT: 5 will have it...but GT 1- 4 didn't.


GT
Can you trade/auction cars? No
Can you put custom paint jobs? No
Damage to cars model? No
Damage to cars parts? No
Physics running at 360 ticks per second? No
Tire deformation? No

The list goes on and on...

Don't get me wrong GT:P looks great...but that all it really has. BTW, the more of the above that you add to a game...the slower it will run and the graphics will have to be reduced.

@Vidikron

I mentioned the sniper mission because it wouldn't have the same impact if there were 4 players or even 2. There are MUCH more examples through out the game, but I don't have the time or patience to list them all. That is the easiest example for people to understand.

"And why can't you still have to have someone carry the wounded?"

Please tell me HOW you can can do that scene with 3 people???? Its a 2 person scene! The 2 people (the mentor and the protege) is a HUGE reason that makes such an impact! Sure, you could change it around a little....but THEN IT WOULDN'T BE THE SAME.

Dude, you just don't get it.
Making a game with an intense story REQUIRES you to control so many aspects of it, otherwise you will NOT be able to deliver the same experience to everyone. Thats why sandbox type games CANNOT deliver the same intense experience to everyone....its IMPOSSIBLE. Sandbox games can still be fun, but each player will experience different things while playing it. Its Game Development 101.The very nature of a sandbox game, it makes the experience unique for everyone.

IW wants everyone to experience the SAME when they play it...so guess what? They control how it plays out. With 2-4 people it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to MAKE all the players experience the same thing.


Why don't the include a co-op that is missing a few levels?
1. When you can play with friends you MISS A LOT of things, as I mentioned earlier...that makes it LESS story driven.

2. Rainbow Six: Vegas was missing ALL of the important cutscenes and it SUCKED playing the game by myself, then playing it with my brother and 2 friends and the co-op experience was SORELY LACKING. Vegas 2 did better with only 2 people because the cutscenes where there....but then again Vegas 2 was really Vegas 1.5.

3. Don't questioned what I played and what I didn't. I CLEARLY mentioned that I played it by myself all the way thru AND I played it 4 player co-op...is that HARD TO BELIEVE?????

4. You are talking like things are "so easy" in game development. I've MADE games, I understand what the issues are. You obviously are looking at it from a "why can't I have this, because that game has it" perspective. Yet, you don't realize what are some of the reasons what made COD4 such a compelling experience.

Like I said, some of the things with scripted single player vs co-op are subtle...very subtle, but when its put together it makes a HUGE difference.

6. I know so many people that believe COD4's (including myself) single player experience was one of the best story mode FPS ever. That includes the original half-life (which was also awesome). I've never heard ANYONE say COD:WAW story mode was the Best ever. And there is a REASON FOR IT. It was very good, but not mindblowing.

7. Techincally, 4 player co-op is NOT HARD. The game already has network code in it. Thats not the point here, so stop saying "Its not like the can't do it because blah blah blah."

Its a matter of delivering the SAME focused story to everyone that plays it. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE to do in co-op.

I don't understand how YOU don't get it.

Trust me, as I'VE SAID already....

I WISH 4 player co-op could be as good for EVERYONE as an exceptional single player campaign, but the reality is that it is an either OR type of thing.


BTW, my brother and countless friends have NO IDEA what they missed in the single player game for COD:WAW, cause they didnt play it. So I can never ask my them about the sniper mission, or the gunner (plane sequence)...but in COD4...I can ask them about ANY of it.

OK, here is a concrete example of a single player element that cannot be done co-op.

COD4.
Mission: "All Guillied Up"

Do you remember when you were with the sniper and he got hurt by the Helicopter after it got shot down and you had to carry him to be rescued by the Chopter, while being attacked?

How can you replicate that in 4 player co-op? There is no way to do it, because one of the key elements is that its ONLY YOU TWO and he got hurt now YOU have to save both of your a$$es.

Those are the kinds of story elements that IW wants to have.

@Vidikron

COD4 and COD:WAW are only 2 examples, of the what I'm talking about, but I've experienced this with every FPS I've ever played that had co-op/ didn't have co-op. And I've played almost every FPS since the genre began (all the way back to wolfenstien 3D.)

Like I said, WAW and other games have very good co-op, but it cannot draw you INTO THE STORY like a single player game can. I'm not saying that it can't be fun...there is a difference.

I've played both Halo 3 and Gears, both by myself and with friends....and they both are perfect examples of what I've talking about. Although, since Gears is only 2 player co-op, the "kill and not really pay attention to the story" effect is definetly less.

Halo 1 was similar to Gears...since it was 2 player co-op also.

One more thing, I'm not talking about creating strategies with AI bots on your side, I'm talking about being FORCED to make tactical decisions, such as should you go thru the door or thru the window to storm the house.

Yes, you can do that with 4 players, but lets be honest, when you play with friends, MOST of the time is spent killing the enemy or with the other 3 players following or catching up to the guy who went the right way. Very little time time is deciding on tactical things because people tend to move ahead with, or without you.


Its a very subtle thing, but one that Iinfinity Ward obiviously is concerned about...and I understand it totally.

To all that don't understand about "Breaking the narrative".

Ok, 1st off, yes co-op can be fun...I do enjoy it and its cool to play with friends, BUT i've noticed every 4 player co-op game I've played, is only fun to a certain degree.

Let me explain...

When you play co-op, YOU may not see everything or be involved in the story as much as if you were by yourself. Think about it for a second, when you play solo, YOU have to decide where to go, what levers to push, combat tactics, and even in game cut scenes are directly related to what YOU are doing. This makes the experience seem much more like you are actually there, because you feel like they are happening to YOU.

In 4 player co-op that means that you have less to do when it comes to critical parts of the game. Lets say that the "experience" is split evenly between the 4 players, that means that only 25% of the time, you are performing something at a critical moment. At that point, you are less into the story and more into "shooting the next enemy you see". It also, means that the story is secondary to the shooting, which can get repetative.

I don't know about you guys, but I LOVED COD4's single player. Its story was excellent, that action well paced and the locations and gameplay varied. COD:WAW single player was Very good, but it was not to the level of COD4. I played it solo and with 3 other players all the way thru. When I played it with 3 other players, I noticed that nobody cares about the finer parts of the story or objectives. Every just wants to "shoot the bad guys". So they follow the guy who "when the right way" with no thought as to why they are going there or what got them into the situation. In essense, they are not following the story.

And there lies the problem. Since you didn't do it yourself, you are mindless moving along thru the game, level by level. It becomes more about getting there and less about the experience.


Do I wish someone would figure out how to create a 4 player co-op that feels like a tightly knitted single player experience? HELL YEA! But no one has been able to do it as yet. And thats why Infinity Ward doesn't want to include 4 player co-op. They want the single player to be focused so much, that the player feel extremely immersed in the experience.

Remember, this is a design decision...one that when you make games, you have to make. Will some people not like it? Sure, but you have to understand, its an either or kind of deal. Its very similar to trade off's made with other things in life. One example is a sports car verses a luxury car. Sports cars handle much better than luxury cars, but the ride in much bumpier. You can't get extremley smooth ride and great handling at the same time, its impossible. Yes, some cars do a nice balance between the two, but NONE do both exceptionally well.

I hope this all made sense.

I trust me, I feel your pain! :).

And you sound like the typical PS3 owner that doesnt own a 360.Well I have a 360 and a PS3 and I bought the PS3 mainly for the blu ray and the webbrowsing is a plus. When it comes to games though, the 360 wins hands down. I've played the Killzone Demo...and its unplayable with the controller...not fun at all.For one, the controller on the PS3 is not that great. It was good when the PS2 was out, but they never moved it forward. Sure it has motion controls and now has rumble, but its shape and analog sticks suck.Also PS3 owners do really get this...but it SUCKS playing a game without a headset and friends to play with. Sony made it too difficult to meet friends online and they dont include a headset with each machine. How many people will actually go out and get a blutooth headset to play games? Not many unfortunately.

I need them because my girl complains to me about having gunfire, explosions and harsh language blasting at 70 dB's 2:00 AM in the morning.

Oh, and it would help if my 2 year old could get some sleep :-).

Oh, one last thing. I agree Microswirl...they all have bandwidth associated with them, therefore as I said before, Solid state read speed isn't what it was cracked up to be. It won't give you "instant read", as LaughingTarget mentioned.

We will always have this problem of transfer speed, unless a solution is found to instantly transfer data is found. So what you are both discussing is a moot point.