Co-op: A good idea?

EXACTLY.
Nintendo has a good thing going with four swords being their main co-op function. That's something they're good at. Simply shove it into 3D.
Cheers,
~MARU~

Originally Posted by Double A

Games like Zelda and Mario are amazing sing;e-player experiences, and giving a second player a large part would hurt it. That's why I disagree with you. Galaxy's co-op was the perfect way to introduce someone to Galaxy while helping them.

I just don't see wiimote-waggling as a fully fledged co-op mode, compared to a mode where the second player would be Luigi. You can help your friends or family with it, sure, but its not anything like bouncing together, messing things up and having a blast.

And I don't know how making an optional co-op would hurt the single player, if the said single player doesn't contain any of the co-op elements.


I think it would be fun if only the 'main player' would be Link, and the others could choose from different races, like being a goron, a zora etc. They could all do different tasks; like the zora taking care of all the water-enemies, the goron rollin' around and punching people in the face, heh.

Has everyone forgotten about the Tingle Tuner?

Anyway, if its for a Zelda game, either use something like the Tingle Tunner, or just Four Swords

Sigh... here we go again, Otuz

Originally Posted by Otuz

I just don't see wiimote-waggling as a fully fledged co-op mode, compared to a mode where the second player would be Luigi. You can help your friends or family with it, sure, but its not anything like bouncing together, messing things up and having a blast.

And I don't know how making an optional co-op would hurt the single player, if the said single player doesn't contain any of the co-op elements.


I think it would be fun if only the 'main player' would be Link, and the others could choose from different races, like being a goron, a zora etc. They could all do different tasks; like the zora taking care of all the water-enemies, the goron rollin' around and punching people in the face, heh.

Galaxy's Co-op wasn't "waggling", infact there was no waggling involved at all. You could use the pointer to stun enemies and certain obstacles, you could save Mario from the brink of death by clicking on him, you could even shoot starbits. It was pretty damn interactive considering they only used a pointer and two buttons! I'd like to see how they would be able to use the entire remote.


First, you have to think of a way a "fully fledged co-op (by your standards)" would work.


Would it be split-screen? That would make it really hard for P1 to play normally, as he gets half the screen he normally had without the co-op (either that or Link becomes far too annoyingly small). Plus, having only half of the screen to aim in would be awkward.
I was playing Mario Kart Wii last night with a couple friends on my small SDTV (I have a 46-inch LCD, but my parents were using it for something), and one of the things I noticed, even though me and my friends were only a metre away from the TV, was that how small the environment (and ourselves) was on each of our quarter-screens was a slight disturbance.


Would they both be on the same screen (full-screen)? This would ruin the Z-Targeting physic, because during Z-targeting, the camera usually changes to accomodate only Link and the Targeted NPC (and anything that happens to wander into the camera range). Heck, even if P1 presses the Target button when there's nothing to target, the camera moves relative to Link, infact, behind him.


Secondly, what if the two people that want to play co-op only have two remotes and one nunchuk? Obviously, the nunchuk goes to P1. Do they have to buy another nunchuk just to play co-op on one game?

Originally Posted by Maru Nui

EXACTLY.
Nintendo has a good thing going with four swords being their main co-op function. That's something they're good at. Simply shove it into 3D.
Cheers,
~MARU~

That's such a good idea... I want to see Vaati in 3D!!! Looking at what nintendo did with Zant and Ganondorf in TP, I'd love to see Vaati like that. They could make the temples and bosses a lot harder too

I honestly think it would be fun to have a co-op OoT game.

Originally Posted by Double A

Sigh... here we go again, Otuz

First, I said that I felt that the Galaxy's co-op was a gimmick. See the I in there, I had no fun trying it out with my friend even though the single player was superb, and we have been having great time with other co-ops (like the old PS2 game Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance).

Second:

Originally Posted by Otuz

-When starting the online-play, one player must load an already existing save file or start a new game. He then decides if it's a friends only game or a public game. Other player(s) then join the game, with a random search or with a friend-code.

Online being the operative term.

Originally Posted by Otuz

Online being the operative term.

Wait a minute... you never post in the daytime (where I'm from)... You usually post before I wake up.

So you're imagining an online-based co-op? It's a pretty good idea if there's only one to four partner/s (too many partners causes a nuisance)

But what about co-op with someone physically beside you? How would that work, considering it would probably be used far more than the online co-op, and it's probably more likely to be implemented?

Originally Posted by Double A

Wait a minute... you never post in the daytime (where I'm from)... You usually post before I wake up.

But what about co-op with someone physically beside you? How would that work, considering it would probably be used far more than the online co-op, and it's probably more likely to be implemented?

Well, it's Sunday 0:30 here in Finland. I don't usually post this late, uh. . . early?

And yes, something like 4 would be nice. I mean, 12 people running around, blocking paths and throwing bombs at each other would be horrible.

And to be honest, I haven't seen a lot of 3D co-ops where the camera is 'behind you', played on the same sofa, without a top-down view (like Dark Alliance).
I mean, FPS's work well enough, but I can't think of anything Zelda-like. . . It could be a tad hard to make the characters big enough, especially for a small screen.

Originally Posted by Otuz

Well, it's Sunday 0:30 here in Finland. I don't usually post this late, uh. . . early?

And yes, something like 4 would be nice. I mean, 12 people running around, blocking paths and throwing bombs at each other would be horrible.

And to be honest, I haven't seen a lot of 3D co-ops where the camera is 'behind you', played on the same sofa, without a top-down view (like Dark Alliance).
I mean, FPS's work well enough, but I can't think of anything Zelda-like. . . It could be a tad hard to make the characters big enough, especially for a small screen.

Oh I get it! WIN-land!

And here, it's actually half past twelve midday, so we're on opposite sides of the world or something.

So even you don't have anything for non-online-based multiplayer, huh? Galaxy's style it is then.

Originally Posted by Double A

Galaxy's style it is then.

One of the reasons why Galaxy's co-op felt like a gimmick was that the other player was basically just a 'cursor'.
If he had been that star-dude that helped Mario it would've been better; you could have actually seen the other player then, maybe dragging Mario a little higher when you press him, maybe slapping enemies when you press them. Also, it would've been fun to collect coins by dragging them to Mario with the starman, heh.
So it isn't the actual idea of that kind of co-op, rather the poor execution on Galaxy.

And for example in TP, I can totally imagine Midna being Link's helper; in her shadow form the shadow would move with your cursor, and you could maybe drag rupees to Link or distract enemies with a little shadow-hand. In Link's wolf form you could maybe use some wicked magic while hanging on his back.

And a fairy like Navi could be fun too, maybe you could use some magic to harm enemies or help Link etc.

Originally Posted by Otuz

One of the reasons why Galaxy's co-op felt like a gimmick was that the other player was basically just a 'cursor'.
If he had been that star-dude that helped Mario it would've been better; you could have actually seen the other player then, maybe dragging Mario a little higher when you press him, maybe slapping enemies when you press them. Also, it would've been fun to collect coins by dragging them to Mario with the starman, heh.
So it isn't the actual idea of that kind of co-op, rather the poor execution on Galaxy.

Again, you have to think about how it would work. If P2 only had a remote, which controlled an actual character, how would z-axis movement (outwards from and into the screen) be represented? If you pointed at the top half of the screen, would P2's character still be on the screen, or would it be far away from Mario, but at the same size? This is why I think a Pointer was the best option.

Maybe they could have another fairy pointer in the next Zelda.

I think that CO-OP in a zelda game would be okay up to a certain point. Like maybe they could make it so that you can go into battle mode like on Four-Swords. But thats it. If it were to be in 3-d then I think that it should be in first person veiw.

As long as they made a way for you to still play the game alone and make it fun, (FSA in my opinion just isn't that fun alone) then I'm all for co-op. It would really bring new light into the Zelda series.

I like the idea and every thing. Sounds like a good a idea but, wasn't there already a co-op Zelda game? The 4 Swords Adventure for the GameCube. Wasn't that a multilayer Zelda game?

Originally Posted by MrGame&Watch

I like the idea and every thing. Sounds like a good a idea but, wasn't there already a co-op Zelda game? The 4 Swords Adventure for the GameCube. Wasn't that a multilayer Zelda game?

That game was in 2Ds

Originally Posted by Double A

Again, you have to think about how it would work. If P2 only had a remote, which controlled an actual character, how would z-axis movement (outwards from and into the screen) be represented? If you pointed at the top half of the screen, would P2's character still be on the screen, or would it be far away from Mario, but at the same size? This is why I think a Pointer was the best option.

By creating a 3D 'sphere' around Mario, where the stardude floats according to the wiimote's pointer. Then, when you do an action (like help Mario to jump higher, slap enemy etc.) the stardude does it on screen by actually moving to the spot of the action.
It's not ideal, but I think it's better than just slapping an obscure cursor to the screen that can only move in 2D, instead of really creating something that exists in the 3D gameworld.

And for example, with Link's normal form Midna could've been a shadow of certain size, 'floating' above the ground according to the wiimote. When the wiimote is pointed too far or to air, Midna would return to Link. When under an enemy, jar, item or something, you could perform various actions.
On Link's wolf form Midna would've been fixed to Link's back, but able to slap enemies and carry objects with her magical hand etc.
Both of these ideas contain a cursor for the other player, sure, but they aren't really the cursor themselves, heh.

And I'd still value an online co-op over it.

In order for this to work I think that this would have to be something where it would be online, or some friends would have to lan for it to work. The issue of screen splitting and Z-targeting came up, and i think that those are absolutely brilliant points.
And while online would be one of the more practical ways to play I don't enjoy that as much as sitting down by a good buddy and sharing a bunch of laughs along the way. So while the lan would be harder to set up, I think it would be a heck of a lot more fun.
As for the importance of the 2nd player I deffinantly like the whole "henchman" idea... I don't think we should have more than 1 extra player, and that extra player, i don't think should have very much importance (if any) in terms of the story line. And Otuz's idea of being able to choose race (zora, goron, etc) would be a really interesting twist in the entire Zelda series.
Or finally the whole cursor thing could work (I think), but not quite to the same extent as Galaxy. I think if the cursor proved to be something like a crosshair, and it shot arrows each time, that would be kind of neat... but I can't really think of any other good uses for the cursor idea...
Well these are just my thoughts on the subject. And I think that I would be all in on a good coop zelda game.

Originally Posted by Otuz

By creating a 3D 'sphere' around Mario, where the stardude floats according to the wiimote's pointer. Then, when you do an action (like help Mario to jump higher, slap enemy etc.) the stardude does it on screen by actually moving to the spot of the action.
It's not ideal, but I think it's better than just slapping an obscure cursor to the screen that can only move in 2D, instead of really creating something that exists in the 3D gameworld.

... again, Z-axis movement. Think about it like this. Pretend that there's a easy enemy right above Mario, that Mario could easily take care of. Now pretend that there's a much harder enemy whose view is being blocked by the first enemy. P1 tells P2 to stun enemy 2. When P2 points at enemy 2, enemy one is in the way, and P2 stuns enemy 1. Does the stardude float backwards and stun enemy 1? Atleast, with a pointer, you know that whatever happens hits the first enemy it touches.

Originally Posted by Double A

... again, Z-axis movement - - - Atleast, with a pointer, you know that whatever happens hits the first enemy it touches.

Oh, I think you got me wrong. The other player would still control the stardude with a cursor. It's just that instead of being literally a cursor, there would be a 3D model in the gameworld to represent his actions.