Multiplayer DOES need work though. Hell my friends won't buy the game because there is no party system of any kind. Like many have posted before me, for a game that boasts cooperative play, why doesn't capcom include a party system? and once again connection issues need to be fixed.
At this point though it feels like all this is falling upon deft ears. I want this game to do good, hell i think it deserves a 9 based on how much fun the co-op story is and the amount of unlockables, oh and did i mention its beautiful looking game? But, if things don't change quick i fear Halo:Reach is going to be the focus of my online time. Its just a matter of what friends are playing, and as much as i love LP2, i hate playing alone.
The campaign is co-op, why not let buddies come together to tackle multiplayer?
Thats my 3 cents!
you can party up in multiplayer, you just cant party up in ranked multiplayer. why is it when i read people complaining about this they make general statements like not being able to party up in multiplayer with out stating spacifics like you can infact party up in unraked multiplayer, but their complaining because they want to party up in ranked multiplayer? this imo is verging on trolling.
Apparently you don't know what a party system is. A party system, like Halo's or Call of Duty's, allows you to organize your friends before battle, and then search for a match lobby, and be on the same team everytime, so that way you can work together with people you know. Lost Planet doesn't have this, so you shouldn't go around saying it has a feature when it doesn't. What we want is the ability to go into ranked, with our friends, and guarentee we will be on the same team, and then after the match, be able to stay in our party, talk about the match and what not, and then jump right back in and search for a new match.
you can set team switch, you can set private slots in unranked games. you can go back to menu at the end of game and host can reset the maps and game types...
Not even close to the same thing.
I've got three friends who were interested in LP2, and I got them to play the demos with me. Took us a few tries to get the co-op down, then we went to multiplayer. They loved the multiplayer, but we couldn't even wind up on the same team in a match of 16 people. Ever. When they asked if that was just the demo not having all the options, sadly, I had to say no, and it turned into a bit of a deal breaker.
They still may get it, but automatically after hearing that it's like they know they can't really take the multiplayer seriously.
Honestly, I think critics were crying because the game didn't hold their hand. I never had a problem with controls in the game, to me it was the opposite, I felt they were better then RE5's controls. The friend-ai for single player is indeed aweful and does drag you down since they hardly do anything to help, this is what really hurts playing episode 3 in single player, however if Capcom makes the ai vigilant, it could become a problem to where the ai does all the work, which is not what I want. I just want them to lift their weight, Remember these ai are the replacement for 3 players, if they don't do their part, they will drag down the experience.
Then there's a bunch of cheap crap, like snipers killing you on normal right at the beginning of the level. Some red lasers to show you they're aiming at you would be a nice heads up, but apparently having a warning that your about to die from one bullet is just too much for the campaign mode.
I do agree that the story is meh, but you don't need a story for a video game. Its difficult enough writing a story for a book or a movie.
Other then those gripes, the game is a solid shooter. It can last you a Godly ammount of time. I'm still leveling up my Femme Fatale which is only like level 41. I can only play for so long before taking a break, so this game will last me awhile.
For me, this game is an 8/10. Not perfect. Could use some fixing here and there, but otherwise, its one of my new favorite ps3 games.
you can set team switch, you can set private slots in unranked games. you can go back to menu at the end of game and host can reset the maps and game types...
Well that answered my last post. You don't know what a party system is. That isn't even close to a party system. Go play Uncharted 2, Halo 3, Call of Duty. THAT has a party system. Just being able to change match settings and pick what team you're on isn't a party system at all.
A party system in player match wouldn't hurt. It seems players on this side of the pond are really looking for this in shooters so they should patch it in.
But why not Ranked? This is what baffles me. It must be a Japanese thing. I don't want to go into a team game without a team I know. It's like saying it would be fairer if all NFL games were played by teams of players selected at random. That's dumb.
But why not Ranked? This is what baffles me. It must be a Japanese thing. I don't want to go into a team game without a team I know. It's like saying it would be fairer if all NFL games were played by teams of players selected at random. That's dumb.
MW2 and mgo turned me againts party teams in ranked matches. Average joes vs Team foxhound/clan isn't really a fair environment for building stats. It's like how some people consider emit smith to be the greatest RB, yet if barry sanders (an infinitly more talanted RB) had the offensive line that emit had, he'd have at least 5 rings.
But why not Ranked? This is what baffles me. It must be a Japanese thing. I don't want to go into a team game without a team I know. It's like saying it would be fairer if all NFL games were played by teams of players selected at random. That's dumb.
MW2 and mgo turned me againts party teams in ranked matches. Average joes vs Team foxhound/clan isn't really a fair environment for building stats. It's like how some people consider emit smith to be the greatest RB, yet if barry sanders (an infinitly more talanted RB) had the offensive line that emit had, he'd have at least 5 rings.
Anyway, back to LP2. Just because you can't personally beat so-and-so doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to play together. This isn't a Wii party game, it's an online shooter. Punishing teams who want to get good together is shooting yourself in the foot. Plus, they'll get together anyway, or quit out if they don't. Or they'll just sell the game and go buy a different one.
An online shooter cannot survive outside of a small niche community without parties and lobbies now. Not including them in the game is either ignorance, arrogance, or some aspect of Japanese culture of which I'm unaware.
I'm just saying that I think they wanted the field to be balanced on every level possible. This way we don't have someone who is good, getting screwed because he/she is matched against a clan team or a party group. Ranked feels like they don't give you an inch and forces you to use 100 percent of your own skill to reach the top. Thats just the feeling I get.
If they wanted to balance it in every way possible, there wouldn't be unlockable weaponry that automatically gives one person an advantage.
If you want to figure out how good you personally are, play a free-for-all type of match. But don't ruin the team aspect just because it would be more "fair" to randomize it and not let friends play together easily.
