Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Fireteam has co-op, and look how ♥♥♥♥♥♥ game is. It means nothing.
People want to be able to experience games with their friends. You either make a game that has an alternative MP mode or you lag behind severely.
OP is far from the only one who reacts this way and for good reason.
Fireteam is good, except that there isn't as much meat to the campaign. They literally made a great game with not enough playable content. Skins to Guns to classes, everything is fun about it. The card system is fun too and well worth the play. What killed it was the short campaign. even back for blood had twice the content.
it is weird that two comments have the same comment. Very... unoriginal.
This game is not Isolation quality just based on what I've seen.
And Isolation having co-op for the challenge mode would have improved it tenfold, as only the campaign interested me.
I agree, I think co-op would have been fun if it wasn't scripted that certain characters auto-died.
If you had two fire-teams then the balance is thrown off.
Which could be balanced.