If you want old school stuff, the commandos games also work. The Warhammer 40k dawn of war is good too. Well, if you want games with just 3+ players that are not turned based rpgs, there are many options. However, the specific issue of "syncronization" is already a solved problem in the game as provided. My hard drive is littered with the dying husks of "easy" game projects. * PLEASE NOTE: In no way am I daring to say it's "easy." That's the height of hubris, and I wouldn't want to imply that. I want us all working toward a goal at the same time. Co-operative games, not just sandboxes (Minecraft) or shooters (Shooters). PONTIFICATING OFF: I'm still open to suggestions for multiplayer games with at least 3 slots. If the game has 7 characters, why can't I invite 6 friends to play the game? The culture of the Lan Party has disappeared with the Internet, and that's sad. That makes most co-op games pointless.īaldur's Gate at least allows you to bring as many people to the table as you have characters, and that's awesome. Modern games are locked into the console limitation of splitscreen and, except for pile-on shooters, everyone always gets locked into two player co-op. All three of us love Saints Row III, but only two of us can play with each other in Co-op. Heck, we could play "multiplayer" by sharing a screen session, with the only loss being nobody can check their own inventories/character sheets without locking up the whole session.Īnother problem is "Co-op." I have TWO friends. What's really startling to me is that a game like Wasteland 2, or any other "Pseudo Tabletop Games" are already designed in such a way that "syncronization" is a non-issue*. But some times, I just want to kick back with friends and waltz through the wasteland ya know? Shaigunjoe wrote:For some reason, multi-player seems absent in more casual game fair like WL2, and reserved for much more difficult games.
0 kommentar(er)
