Journal Sylver Dragon's Journal: Co-Op Multi-Player LAN Games. 14
I'm one of those people that own a computer for one reason, to play computer games. I spend lots of money to keep my hardware up to date. So I like to get a fair amout of use out of it.
And, as much fun as rampaging through virtual environments blasting baddies can be, it eventually bores me. Moreover, I actually have friends, real ones. you know the kind that you actually shake hands with on a regular basis. And what do you do when you have 6 or 7 friends, who all like computer games; a decent hub; and a few hundred meters of CAT-5?
LAN party!
Ok, so the word party may be streaching the truth a bit. I wouldn't exactly call 6 to 8 people slamming soda and chips, glued to thier keyboards, and not bathing for an entire weekend, a party. But it is fun.
Which gets me to the point of this whole thing, what good Co-Op LAN games are out there? What makes them good or bad?
First, some ground rules:
1. Co-Op games only! - I've said Co-Op, meaning cooperative, several times alreday. This is because I hate Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, (insert adjective here) Deathmatch. Actually hate might be the wrong term, it fails to caputre the true loathing I have for the whole thing. So please, Co-Op only in my Journal, if you want DM go start your own journal.
2. MMORPG's need not apply. - I still don't understand what it is about these things that makes them worth ~$40 to buy the client, then ~$10/Month to play. I tried UO, it was fun for a while, but just never went anywhere. I like some plot, even a thin one, to hold all of the hacking and slashing together. Character building is nice for a while, but there needs to be something more. Plus if I was going to play an MMORPG why would I bother having all of my friends down to my place?
3. RTS games are right out. - This is really just because the group I play with doesn't care for them.
That's about it for ground rules, thanks for taking the time to read my ranting on them. So please, post away, I'm always looking for a good Co-Op LAN game.
And, as much fun as rampaging through virtual environments blasting baddies can be, it eventually bores me. Moreover, I actually have friends, real ones. you know the kind that you actually shake hands with on a regular basis. And what do you do when you have 6 or 7 friends, who all like computer games; a decent hub; and a few hundred meters of CAT-5?
LAN party!
Ok, so the word party may be streaching the truth a bit. I wouldn't exactly call 6 to 8 people slamming soda and chips, glued to thier keyboards, and not bathing for an entire weekend, a party. But it is fun.
Which gets me to the point of this whole thing, what good Co-Op LAN games are out there? What makes them good or bad?
First, some ground rules:
1. Co-Op games only! - I've said Co-Op, meaning cooperative, several times alreday. This is because I hate Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, (insert adjective here) Deathmatch. Actually hate might be the wrong term, it fails to caputre the true loathing I have for the whole thing. So please, Co-Op only in my Journal, if you want DM go start your own journal.
2. MMORPG's need not apply. - I still don't understand what it is about these things that makes them worth ~$40 to buy the client, then ~$10/Month to play. I tried UO, it was fun for a while, but just never went anywhere. I like some plot, even a thin one, to hold all of the hacking and slashing together. Character building is nice for a while, but there needs to be something more. Plus if I was going to play an MMORPG why would I bother having all of my friends down to my place?
3. RTS games are right out. - This is really just because the group I play with doesn't care for them.
That's about it for ground rules, thanks for taking the time to read my ranting on them. So please, post away, I'm always looking for a good Co-Op LAN game.
Diablo II (Score:2)
Where to begin? The variety of classes made it easy to have a varied party. The skill system made for a nice way to customize your character as it progressed. The item system didn't fall into the repeditivness trap. Great if you want to hack and slash with a minimum of fuss.
Bad
The item system is random, and it shows. A large portion of the game is trying to find just the right items to compliment each other.
The magic in the game needs a little work, balance wise. I played an Ice based Sorceress, and did ok. Though seeing a Lightning based Sorceress made me realize that I had missed the boat. I don't immediatly recall the spell name, but there was one of the middleing Lit. spells that sucked 1/3 or so HP off of any enemy it hit. Including Diablo himself!
Power balance, or a lack thereof. As I mentioned above the Sorceress could be overwelming, if done right. On the opposite end, we had an Amazon in our party. Which seemed totally outclassed by everyone else.
Conclusion
This is probably the standard by which I'll judge LAN games from now on. It was great, had lots of action, enough character building to make a character your own, not just a collection of stats. The power balance problems were a bit of a problem, but we adapted to them. Overall, a great LAN game.
Rating: 9 of 10
Dungeon Siege (Score:2)
Nothing really stands out, its another 3rd person hack fest. The graphics are nice.
Bad
Its repeditive, it also is very repeditive. You basically run from town to town killing all of the baddies in between. Stop long enough to refill potions, get pointed at the next town and start hacking your way there.
Game balancing sucked. When you get right down to it, games have about 2 ways to deal with more players: 1. More monsters. 2. More HP per monster. This game went with option #2. Ok fine, so they are harder to kill, but this means that you spend longer just standing around whacking the same monster, gets boring quick. For example, one of our players would regularly set his character to attack a creature, then get up, go get a soda, chat with the other players for a bit, then come back to watch the creature fall. More HP can be an ok way to deal with more characters, but you have to be careful not to over-do it.
Character balance was a pain. The fighters killed everything, the mages ran from everything. If you played a more mage like character you didn't do much killing. Reason, the monsters HP went up by a large factor, but your spells still did the same damage, and sucked the same amount of mana. And the lag between casting was horrible. By the time you actually blasted off enough spells to drop 1 creature, you had chewed through half your mana potions, and the fighters had killed everything else and probably helped you down your 1 kill. Also, since killing a creature was such a pain for a mage, or archer for that matter, you quickly lost the 1 main advantage you had, range. And, of course, having not spent too much time building your strength up, you couldn't wear any good armor.
3 Stats, 4 Skills. This is just weak. Customizing your character is almost non-existant. You are either a generic fighter, a generic mage, or an generic archer. Technically the magic is broken into two halves, Nature and Combat, though this basically means that you either get healing power early and blasting power later, or blasting power early and healing power later.
Conclusion
Considering the lack of Co-Op LAN games out there at the moment, this one is worth a look. Though, my recommendation, have everyone play a fighter with one or two levels in Nature magic, for Healing Hands. And don't waste your time on ranged weapons until you get a hold of the goblin guns. In the end this game gave a very lack luster performance in the LAN end of things. It involved way too many battles with creatures that had way too many hit points. It didn't even have any sort of "Find Widget Use Widget" puzzles, let alone anything more complex.
Rating: 4 of 10
Quake2 (Score:1)
You can beat the whole thing in a few hours once you know what you're doing, but with a group its so much funner.
Re:Quake2 (Score:2)
Actually I have given Co-Op Quake 2 a go. Enjoyed it. And would recommend it to people as another good choice.
Sadly though, like most of the good games I have run across, my group has played this one out as well.
Quake II (Score:2)
Nice, fast paced action with a solid game engine. Easy to get going, makes for a good blast fest.
Bad
At this point the graphics are getting a bit dated. Plus the game can be a bit repeditive (i.e. Strafe out from corner, shoot at badies, strafe back, wash rinse, repeate). Also, the re-play vaule is low, you are going to get the same weapons, they are going to be in the same spots, etc.
Conclusion
On the whole a good Co-Op game. Though I would try and keep the party size down a bit. I found that for 2 people it was tons of fun. Most of the bad stuff I mentioned is really minor, and doesn't detract from the game the first time through it. Though one thing I really wish they had done differently was the auto-switching weapons when you pick up a new one. I tend to back up when fighting an enemy that relies on contact to do damage, my partner in the game didn't. As I was backpededling I ran over the gernade launcher, auto switch and instead of firing another shotgun blast at the badie, I lobbed a gernade, killed the hell out of the badie, my partner was a bit miffed about being fraged though.
If you haven't already tried it, give this game a go at your next LAN party, just keep a close eye on the weapon you are shooting.
Rating: 6 of 10
Good coop (Score:2)
System Shock 2 (By far the best coop experience ever, but not good for a large group)
Serious Sam 2
I coop game primarily with one friend and we enjoyed the following games
Re:Good coop (Score:2)
Re:Good coop (Score:2)
Halo (Score:1)
Any game from red storm (Score:1)
Rogue Spear, Ghost Recon and now soon Raven Shield!
Eventually me and my friends always get back to RS or GR when we want some serious LAN fun, simply because of the COOP modes, they're so much fun.
ArmyOps/America's Army (Score:2)
Based on the Unreal engine, this is way more realistic than CS.
And did I mention it's free?
Re:ArmyOps/America's Army (Score:2)
I downloaded this one and gave it a try, in so far as I was able. I played through the Rifle Training scenario, but did not proceed any farther. Reason: I don't really want to register with the US Army to play a game. I've received more than enough advertising from the military to clog the intake on an F-16. I was a military brat, and they really seemed hot on the idea of me "following in my father's footsteps". I don't need the extra junk mail.
From what I've seen this does have the makings a a decent game. The only problem I saw was that the User Interface (UI) needed some polishing. I have my screen set for 1024x768, and tried playing the game in that same resolution. The bottom of the game got cut off by my task bar. Turned on auto-hide to get it out of the way, damn thing would still come up on top of the game window when I was pointing my rifle near the bottom of the screen.
Again, thanks for the idea. Other than a few minor problems, looks to be a good game.
Re:ArmyOps/America's Army (Score:2)
Well, there is an opt-out from mailings option when registering a username. I opted-out, and happy to say that I haven't received a single piece of email from the US Army.
Anyway, if it does bother you that they might email you any army-related info, just register using a fake country, Iran would be just lovely
As for the taskbar that keeps popping out thingy, are you sure you're playing the game in full-screen mode? I never had such problems, ever.
Re:ArmyOps/America's Army (Score:2)
As for registering with a fake email, that would probably work out ok. I'll probably have to re-visit this game again eventually.