Variety writes:
"I'll have my full review of Watchmen: The End is Nigh online tomorrow, but playing the game the last couple of days brought an issue to the forefront of my mind: Shipping a game with offline-only co-op in the year 2009 is an abomination.
When you play a game like Watchmen or, to bring up the last major release that spring to mind, Kane and Lynch, in which co-op is key and there's no online component. It's almost like the publisher is giving you the finger. 'We recognize that playing with a friend is key to enjoying this game," they seem to be saying to you. 'But we were just too cheap or too rushed to hit our release date to bother making it possible in the way most people play with their friends today. Enjoy this game in the same way you would have if it had come out in 1985.'"
Warner Brother's DC Entertainment has been known for putting out (mostly) consistent content for years, and that includes forays into video games. Given that DC focuses a lot more on their solo characters, particularly Batman, Superman and Green Lantern, than Marvel does, its no wonder that DC has had an easier time adapting their IP's to other trans-media proprieties. While Marvel's team movie effort The Avengers has proven wildly successful, DC's Dark Knight trilogy, recent Man of Steel film and the entire animated universe helmed by DC animation veteran Bruce Timm has defined an era of superhero cartoons and direct-to-dvd animated features.
Man, DC Comics hasn't had great luck with games, has it? They had to resort to a few pretty average games to fill out the list.
A list of five classic graphic novels that could make outstanding video games, including works by Frank Miller, Alan Moore, and Jeph Loeb.
Watchmen co-creator Dave Gibbons revealed that he was paid a hefty sum to be a consultant on the critically-panned Watchmen: The End Is Nigh game even though he wasn’t heavily involved. Gibbons also says the game is not canon, and because of that, he was actually fine with liking and disliking parts of the game.
completely disagree with the article. The only game I've really played a lot online out of my almost 30 PS3 games is Streetfighter 4. I would take split screen on same machine anyday over online play.
Not everyone is a massive online gamer. I played KZ2 online for about an hour and although I'd like to go back to it at some point I'm MUCH more interested in playing the single player. Again even more so if a split screen option was available.
I appreciate there are a hell of a lot of online players but I for one would much rather share a game in the same room on the same machine. Games do not NEED to have an online aspect. It's one of the reasons why the 360 hasn't appealed to me and why I have no problems with the PSN. Horses for courses...
I imagine a lot of people will disagree but I'm sure there are at least a few people out there who feel the same way I do.
I feel the option to do both is a must, While having one rather then the other can be good just for live games it should be both automatically. Especially if we are paying 20 bucks.
That doesn't mean it isn't acceptable.
I've always hated split screen because I never like sharing have my screen (thereby cutting off some of my vision) with others. Not to mention in a competitive game, you can try to cheat each other and watch each others moves. So when consoles introduced online gaming I was happy.
But like I said, that's my own personal dislike of split screen. I say if people like split screen, then give it to them
offline co-op should make a return to games especially FPS games I miss the nights of playing games like timesplitters 2 on 4 players split screen offlin with some mates and a few beers. Thats great fun and what gamings all about rather than playing online against people who are way out of my league and make the game no fun. Some people play games way to much and become way too good at the games because of that and ruin it for casual gamers like myself.