Tue, Jun 09, 2009 | 13:46 BST
Crackdown 2 to provide “ultimate co-op and competitive multiplayer experience”
This isn’t looking good for the single-player massive. Microsoft just put out some Crackdown 2 blurb that only makes mention of online and multiplayer features.
The full thing:
The sequel to the award-winning vertical-world adventure, Crackdown 2 is the ultimate open-ended world action experience, only available on Xbox 360. The game lets you be judge, jury, and executioner for a huge, fully explorable city. Crackdown 2 takes multiplayer gaming to unprecedented levels for the ultimate co-op and competitive multiplayer experience, providing you and your friends with the complete freedom to explore, destroy, and play your way as you restore justice and peace to Pacific City—by any means necessary.
The game was rumoured to be online-only earlier this year.
We’ve asked for comment. It’s out in 2010.
15 
Posted in: Action, Hot, Microsoft, Xbox 360, Xbox Live
Tags: crackdown 2, ruffian games
15 comments
#1
Blerk
09/06/09, 1:36 pm
No single-player, no sale.
#2
No_PUDding
09/06/09, 1:41 pm
No MP, no sale.
Not to me, I am talking about inFamous. And I don’t even like MP that much.
#3
Blerk
09/06/09, 1:42 pm
You really are mental, aren’t you?
#4
Gekidami
09/06/09, 1:44 pm
Dosnt co-op imply that it has atleast some sort of mode where you fight the AI?
#5
Patrick Garratt
09/06/09, 1:47 pm
I’ve just got some more on it. Going to do another piece.
#6
Hunam
09/06/09, 1:49 pm
Yawn.
#7
No_PUDding
09/06/09, 1:51 pm
Blerk, I am just not like you.
I want co-op for inFamous. And Crackdown is Crackdown, so play that for SP, and play Crackdown 2 for MP, perfect!
#8
evilashchris
09/06/09, 1:56 pm
Crackdown has both, I want Crackdown 2 to have both, or I will not be best pleased, and nobody wants that.
#9
Robo_1
09/06/09, 1:57 pm
No single player would be a massive let down. No sale, as I don’t have or want Live.
#10
Michael O'Connor
09/06/09, 1:57 pm
Why the hell would Crackdown 2 *not* have both?
Talk about reading into stuff too much…
#11
NiceFellow
09/06/09, 1:59 pm
Pudding, just curious – do you think developers should always try and squeeze in coop just for fun?
I don’t personally but I’m beginning to suspect many do and am curious about it.
For example in inFamous there is no narrative need for coop – you and you alone get the superpowers. Therefore the only way to do it would be to simply ignore logic and allow another player to join in with superpowers too.
I guess games could deliberately skew their narrative (like Gears) to make a companion more likely, but that seems limiting.
On the other hand it’s only a game, so why not just add co-op as a separate mode? If I’m just thinking of fun then I don’t care why there’s two Cole’s running around.
Although committing to co-op has engine ramifications too, particularly for open world games.
#12
Patrick Garratt
09/06/09, 2:00 pm
There you go.
#13
No_PUDding
09/06/09, 2:07 pm
NiceFellow, I don’t care about online-coop to be honest.
That’s useless to me. I just want my friends to be able to come round and not have to watch me play.
In inFamous it would be really awesome, to be able to have one evil charcter and oen good character, and you could either work together or against each other.
#14
NiceFellow
09/06/09, 2:16 pm
That’s what I meant Pud – offline with a buddy. I tend to figure games whose setting doesn’t logically lend itself to coop don’t need it – but then thinking about it I saw it doesn’t really matter.
If I’m having fun with a friend do I care we’re both running around as Cole?
#15
No_PUDding
09/06/09, 5:16 pm
Not really. It’s just that, as a consumer, it’s the option I miss the most. Online multiplyer is kind of shit.