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
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
My friend and I had just come of the back of the excellent Ashes game (No that knows how to do co op) and we were looking for another team work based souls game. Thought this would be it and then were very surprised by the developer decisions for running co op :(
Shame nothing has changed... But HEY developer if you happen to read this... Ashes should be your benchmark for co op... Watch and learn x
it absolutly is.
And also, i dont understand OP, since his friend has 0 risk, if he is on his way to regain his lost axiom after death, why not let his friend do all the work until he have regained them?
Weird if you ask me. Just a way to not say stupid. Or just plain trolling. (wich is stupid too, so we went full circle)
Also saying that Ashe is a good game is somewhat discutable, as much as telling a dev what to do with his own game.
Maybe you like the idea of boringly sitting back whilst your partner has all of the fun and clears the way for you each and every time you die in game but not me. They didn't want to play a game with no risk to them either. We wanted to have an equal experience and it should be an equal experience like in the Ashes game :P Still each to their own x
Oh did you mean debatable BTW? I think you absolutely did :P
Also and I can tell the developer what to do with their game in the same way as they don't have to listen :)
I mean, rushing headlong and risking losing all, actually doing it, blaming the game for it and whining when you knew the risks (and had a solution to avoid it + the knowledge of the zone and ennemies) is clearly illogical.
It absolutely and utterly kills the feeling of co-op in this game, instead it's more of a - "come and hold my hand pls" feature.
Jumping puzzle? Let friend do it.
Boss? Host just kites it around.
You're heavily encouraged to play like a coward if you're the host in a co-op session. Which is a shame because co-op in this game, when played "properly" is amazing fun.
So yeah, shame it's very, very poorly implemented. But at least it does exist...
he...plays.
I agree on the boss point tho, they are trivialized in coop, same as the souls series..they truly lack some sort of AE attack, only monster hunter in my opinion kinda nailed it, when they react to multiplle presence, sweep, etc.
Sounds more like an issue with your friend than the game, despite the game having rather poor co-op. :p
Yes, co-op does make it easier - but you can also up the difficulty using the effigies. But the whole host dies = game over thing just kills the overall experience.
The revive system works, it has risks and rewards to it since you lose health and remain vulnerable whilst doing it. Why that only works for the client, I have no clue. They really shot themselves in the foot here.
What you're describing is akin to every souls-like game though, and even when we discover games together, host or not, we take risks if needed. We are just playing, not refraining ourselves because some virtual currencies might be lost. who care anyway, when you level up your world / go into NG, monsters will just give you more than your total actual pool so who care.
you're just restricting yourselves with fear of....losing? welp. have fun with games with 100% certainty to win. Hope you don't play competitive games then, nor i think that souls likes game are for you then.
What me and the OP dislike is the way co-op is implemented here, I couldn't care less what Dark Souls does or didn't do. This isn't Dark Souls, even though it draws like 90% of its inspiration from that franchise.
The point is, the fact that the host dying equals game over removes any and all feeling of there actually being a co-operative experience(keep in mind this game blatantly advertises there being online co-op). Essentially you have this little guardian that can go and die left and right with no fear of loss (whether that be currency or progress). All while the host knows that failing a jumping puzzle or getting 1-hit by something could mean a large setback.
I fully understand the issue of the client potentially losing their money if they join someone else's world and dies/disconnects - but this can be resolved in so many various ways without it hampering the gameplay. Host would just need to keep track of who has joined them(SteamID) and then how much currency the client had upon disconnecting.
Then add to this the fact the client can barely interact with anything, can't read any of the lore, can't interact or listen to NPCs.
This is just a really bad way of doing co-op, and doing it like this just because maybe Dark Souls did - is shooting themselves in the foot. I understand only the host will get actual progress, but that is fine - such is the case in many co-op games.
As we've already mentioned several times, the main culprit is the way they decided to do the revival system. If it wasn't a one-way thing, it wouldn't be as bad. That small thing alone would make co-op a far better experience.
Also, stop trying to assume the way I play the game. Because you're utterly wrong. Me and the OP are entitled to have our own opinions of the game - stop trying to enforce your opinion upon us.
Exactly! +1
I can see where OP and co are coming from but again Hellpoint took inspiration from Dark Souls hence the whole > Phantom isn't a part of your world hence he can't interact with important things and doesn't get story progress also... Any of the DArk Souls games also blatantly tell you they have coop so *shrug*.
You may not like this but thats just how it works.
Also don't take this the wrong way frankly i can see why you don't like it but ... at the same time thats just how the game works and it won't bee changing any time soon especially so when a "change" is being made to phantom revival.
And no i won't go into this more i already said more than i should.
I am a massive Souls fan and I have won all of them, I even had a review printed in Games Master for Demon's Souls (go me). I very much knew what I wanted from the co op experiencein those games. I would help people beat bosses and ask for help in turn. My friend and I played the Ashes game to death and (maybe wrongly) though that this game had the same type of co op but alas nope. We wanted to be equal partners and take equal risks just like in Ashes. Hellpoint would be awesome if it had proper co op :)
No you both do. You're clearly telling a soul clone that you don't like it to be be one because you dont want to, despite being a souls fan.
Seriously non sense. Also man up, who care if the host die..;you come back. It's all about the risk and in coop there is none for both anyway. Just fussing for nothing. Sorry for y'all if you think that i'm "enforcing my opinion" (what? lol. you for real though).