Enemy Territory is ok, but Planetside is free to play too and is much higher quality, so is America's Army. America's Army has the highest Co-Op gameplay in any game I've ever played.

But is America's Army Co-op or is it Team Deathmatch?

I have always been an avid fan of Co-op. Some of the Rainbow Six series had co-op. Same with Ghost Recon (not sure about the latest one though). I would much rather play co-op than simply by myself or a regular deathmatch/team deathmatch.

Two games that had notable co-op play were Armourines (a FPS) and Gauntlet Legends (an RPG), both for Nintendo 64.

It makes me wonder how well an RPG would play out in co-op mode, done over a LAN or something. I guess there is only one way to find out - code one!

I love co-op, and I see no reason for an FPS game to exist without it. Co-op Farcry would be a dream come true for me.

America's Army is Team Deathmatch. Coop implies that it is a few versus computer opponents. MMO's can be argued that they are or at least have elements of coop. Such as WoW's instances. But I find that MMO's don't have the thrill factor that FPS's or even RPG's like Diablo has. (Although I'm not looking for anything other than FPS right now).

The better coop has just a few player spots with many many opponents all computer controlled.

LoL RAZORUNREAL. In my effort to explain myself, i forgot to ask a question.

I guess it's already been answered anyway. I was wondering how / if i should go with seamless maps and having a server handle players spread across several maps is a good thing.


I don't like linear playing. Having maps that have several ways of completing or at least maps that don't show their linear are better. I'm often peeved at the whole locked door scenario.

So here's my question:
Given a modern modable engine, (Unreal 2/3, Half-life 2, ID's, etc. The type doesn't matter.) should I pursue the following:
1. Seamless maps. Many small maps that load in the background and allow the players to walk where-ever. This would require the server to handle when player(s) are split on to several different maps and still coordinate world events such as switches that affect a different map (think turning the power on in a complex).
2. Large maps. Having everyone on one map at a time forcing all to enter an "elevator" or something for every level they go on. This may break some of the immersion. It also requires loading areas where the player can go to and be safe from any mobs.
3. A blend of both. Large maps or at least smaller maps seperated by "loading zones". But instead of forcing all players to be on the same map, they can spread out and be across several maps and the server handles all of them.

I guess it depends on the engine I choose to use and if it supports what I choose but whatever gives the best result may be how I choose the engine.

Note: The question is which path should I take :)



P.S.

It would be interesting, although in my game it would be something added in a ?Version 2? instead of the initial release:
A Coop game where some AI are controlled via other players not part of the main squad. Almost like what a Dungeon master does in D&D games. They can choose to have some mobs fight each other instead of the players if it's too tough, or maybe ambush them etc for the fun of it.

Of course the target market of this kind of mod would be for LAN players so you could always stand up and smack the "DM" if they are acting like this. Online it would be more so that the good DM's get noticed and you would only want to play with them as DM or with no DM at all.