Customer Discussions > Dragon Age 2 - Playstation 3 forum

no co-op again :(


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 65 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 24, 2011 12:04:35 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2011 3:19:39 PM PDT]

Posted on Feb 24, 2011 1:38:20 PM PST
S. Kinel says:
online or offline? because if it was offline on the same console, it would most likely push the console a good deal more.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2011 1:42:49 PM PST
S. Sigle says:
This game is not begging for co-op, no bioware game is begging for co-op.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2011 6:37:56 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2011 3:19:40 PM PDT]

Posted on Feb 24, 2011 7:01:11 PM PST
It sadden me that this game lack Phasers, flying DeLorean powered by nuclear fusion, and not set at Planet Pandora. Especially a game like Dragon Age where it's begging to have all these non-sense. Why is Bioware so anti Star Trek, Back to the Future, and Avatar?

Oh I know, I know. BECAUSE IT'S NOT F*** 'ING SUPPOSE TO BE!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 24, 2011 11:06:43 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2011 3:19:40 PM PDT]

Posted on Feb 25, 2011 6:03:31 AM PST
Robert Daicy says:
I don't feel Dragon Age 2 needs co-op at all. For the battles I can see how that could work, but who picks the dialogue? Navigating the menus would be a nightmare with two people because you're constantly using them. It's just not viable. Plus, although co-op and multiplayer is great, I like playing some games by myself now and then. Sometimes you need a break from some of the people on the networks who either don't know how to play, purposely like to mess around and kill their partners, or is a thirteen-year-old who has a swear word screaming into my headset every five seconds.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 25, 2011 7:22:12 AM PST
S. Sigle says:
So you have multiple people following you? Big deal, great many RPG's have companions, doesn't mean every RPG ever needs co-op. This is a story driven game through and through, no need to muck it up with co-op.

Posted on Feb 25, 2011 9:00:52 AM PST
My post makes as much sense as yours. And by the way, I already got more positive vote than you do. I only have ONE!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 25, 2011 10:58:10 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2011 3:19:41 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 25, 2011 4:42:32 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 25, 2011 4:43:04 PM PST
S. Sigle says:
The reason I have a problem is not really if I wanna do it and you don't how does it hurt you thing. The reason I have a problem is the games, have limited resources, and they get spent out the butt to make great games. The more they take away for an optional feature such as co-op the shorter the game is.

Look at Fable II and III, epic games cut short cause of co-op. Look at all FPS's 15 years ago compared to now, most of them don't nearly have the epic factor cause multiplayer and co op began to overthrow making a kick butt game. When you start taking limited resources and spread it throughout the game the overall product is cut short. If DA:O had co-op but was 15 hours long would you have liked it more? I know I wouldn't have.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 25, 2011 6:07:05 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2011 3:19:42 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 25, 2011 7:23:24 PM PST
S. Sigle says:
Yes they do cut cause of co-op, co-op takes time and money, if you have to divert that time and money to another feature you will loose features on the main one cause the simple fact EA is always going to have to have deadlines. Every game company has to do deadlines, no matter who they are... so if you have to have this deadline then you have to decide what is most important, a long game single player or a shortened one with multiplayer.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 25, 2011 7:38:49 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2011 3:19:42 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 25, 2011 7:52:01 PM PST
S. Sigle says:
You feel shortened is better, but most hardcore RPG players like longer games. I love much longer games in RPG's. I don't want it shortened cause it is not entertainment, and I never found DA:O or any bioware game long and boring, they all had lots of pluses for me. The games that made the genre of this game is stuff like baulders gate, nwn and such, which are much longer games.

In the end I can respect a good co-op game, I have many I enjoy, but RPG's will never seem like the place to me for co-op.

Posted on Feb 25, 2011 9:59:25 PM PST
S. Kinel says:
the length is what a lot of people love about RPG's. a FPS campaign takes me like 6 hours, whereas i've spent over a hundred hours on a single game of oblivion. i know i wouldn't have even bought oblivion if it was a short game. its the same with this game, i think a lot of people would be very upset if they cut the length of the game in any way.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2011 1:23:38 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2011 3:19:42 PM PDT]

Posted on Feb 26, 2011 5:10:06 AM PST
I don't think anyone's going to get through to Derek. He's either a troll, or he doesn't grasp the appeal of a long single player RPG experience. I can respect the latter.
Having a second person in a game like DA2 with you would cause all sorts of logistical trouble (unless you're romancing Isabella!!!), and ruin the sense of immersion one gets with the typical Bioware game.

Posted on Feb 26, 2011 7:35:24 AM PST
S. Kinel says:
It would either screw up the camera, or make it split screen. But what about when the player fights alone, like when you're bhelen or harrowmonts champion fighting for them? there might be spots where it's impossible for multi-player. I agree that for some games, co-op is a great feature, but i don't know about it for dragon age. If they do it, it should be released as a dlc, so they don't have to use the resources they're using for single player now. Then people can get it if they want to, but don't have to. thats IF they do it, which is very unlikely.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2011 8:33:55 AM PST
S. Sigle says:
If a developer has the time to make a BONUS feature like co op or multiplayer and takes nothing away from the time they have to make the MAIN game, the single player game, then yes they should by all means cram as much as they think people would like. If though they divert resources and cut the main game down by having to add in said bonus content then I am fully against it in a game like this.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2011 11:40:29 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2011 3:19:42 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2011 4:20:37 PM PST
Ser Derek, a troll is someone who comes to stir up trouble. You suggesting co-op in DA2 is the equivalent to someone marching into an FPS thread and suggesting a mode for turn-based combat.
This game isn't built for co-op, there's a LOT of time spent not in combat.

Posted on Feb 26, 2011 4:44:13 PM PST
S. Kinel says:
that reminds me of SOCOM: tactical strike

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2011 4:48:33 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2011 3:19:43 PM PDT]

Posted on Feb 26, 2011 5:17:15 PM PST
sirdan357 says:
If you want co-op play an mmo. No other roleplaying game will work with coop play like everyone here has said. Adding coop to a game with any kind of story or atmosphere is a terrible idea in my opinion. It should be left to the generic shooters.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  15
Total posts:  65
Initial post:  Feb 24, 2011
Latest post:  Mar 9, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Dragon Age 2 - Playstation 3
Dragon Age 2 - Playstation 3 by Electronic Arts (PlayStation 3)
3.7 out of 5 stars   (238)