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
This is a good answer, I'm still happy to play it! The kingdom formula works great for multiplayer, and I do hope to see more Two Crowns stuff. I am particularly interested in experiences that require two players. Such as needing to close two portals at the same time, or any gameplay elements that force players to work together, or split up.
Maybe a kingdom setup where you have multiple layers, like an 'underground' section that takes time to swap between through limited ladder/stairs etc, so that at times a player may need to defend the underground in the day, while the other builds above ground?
No coop, no buy. +1
My close gamer friend and I put in over 30 hours playing Two Crowns together in multiplayer. Then we played it again months later once it got DLC.
It's fine if the developer chooses not to incorporate multiplayer, but to speak like it is a "crappy" feature when it is the only way I ever played and loved it, is a rather inaccurate way to speak. If anything, the game theme is now more fitting than ever to function as multiplayer, due to the 80s setting and the typical kids usually featured as characters in such settings. Seems odd to embark on this sort of adventure alone...