Lol, it's not like I really wanna know who, I'm just expressing my opinion of indifference.

Uncharted 1 doesn't even have a Co-op, why is everyone making a big deal out of this. Uncharted was not meant for Co-op. It's more of a single player campaign so if you enjoyed uncharted 1, a lack of local Co-op won't stop you from enjoying the game.
Not every game needs a Co-op. There are other games that offer this why not play those. So instead of bitching why not give props for Naughtydog for making a great series and just enjoy it when the games comes out.

At least they put a online Co-op campaign. Just let the game stay at it is.

It's kinda telling. Whenever a PS3 game is talked about being amazing graphics, they always are single player no splitscreen. They dont design the engines with that in mind. If it did, it would have to sacrifice some graphics. Was GT5P split screen? I only played it online.

They really need to concentrate on features just as much as graphics. Gears of War or Halo would not be as good as they are without splitscreen coop. PGR4 and Forza 2 also had splitscreen. Even Lost Planet 2 has 4 player split screen.

Personally Uncharted 1 was a good game, splitscreen coop would have made it much better. It's a shame they have not designed there engine to handle it for number 2.

Munkeh111 said: Squilliam said: Cactus said: This is actually disappointing. I never play online, and after having so much fun with RE5, I was looking forward to playing this coop with my brother. Oh well, I'm still buying it I was always going to rent it, but local multiplayer would have put me over the edge for a purchase. Its a difference of content really, with a pretty picture and little content I have to reason to not just play through it once and then discard it. $5 is what a single playthrough is worth to me. With local multiplayer I would have had a reason to keep it because its a difference of 1 play through compared to 3-4. With the former a rental can cover it, with the latter a purchase is warranted. Okay, so they have a longer single player campaign, with good replayability because of trophies and and internal reward system giving you stuff like new costumes. They then give you multiplayer, which is great fun to play {I played the beta}. They also give you online co-op, which is designed to encourage proper co-op play, and is great fun. The main single player campaign is quite story driven, and the characters accompanying you are likely to change like they did in the first one, so it would not work to just stick you in the SP campaign with some extra players. Oh and it is probably the best looking game of this generation, as I proved to Selnor, with the exception of gamespy, all the major sites gave it best looking game of E3. Now, you say that it is not worth a purchase because it doesn't offer enough replayability, so do you just not buy single player only games? Do you not think, this game is great to play, even if it is for only 10 hours, rather than, this will give me 50 hours of less entertaining gameplay, but because it is longer, I must buy it. If so, I would reccomend you stick to jRPGs Naughty Dog have pretty much improved everything from the first game, but yet they get nothing but complaints because they are missing about 1 feature. They have already had to do a lot of work to get online into this game, and now you want them to have to rework the game to include split screen.

I don't care about trophies, I don't care about online multiplayer as I don't know anyone in my country with a PS3, I don't care about costumes and any improvements in the campaign and length just means I rent it for 3 days rather than overnight. I rent pretty much all of my games, its the rare game that I actually purchase. Don't take it personally, but thats the only criteria by which I would have purchased the game. No split screen = no continual playtime = no purchase.

@MAFKKA: "So Fallout 3, Call of Duty series, inFamous, MGS4, Assassins Creed, Uncharted.. etc is not worth buying?"

I rented every single one of those games. I didn't feel the need to play them again so no purchase. Though, I probably will get Infamous 2nd hand when its down to a little less than half price either new or used.

i expected this

I'm sorry but this is utter BS,  it wouldnt have made sense to the Story for it to be co-op.  And you do realize the co-op portion in Uncharted 2 is a completely separate part of the game like Resistance 2 was?  So again what are you losing? 

As for your other comments,  I guess that why SC: Conviction and Alan Wake look so good,  no splitscreen. 

I agree with you about Conviction and Alan Wake. Coop doesnt have to fit in with a story. Halo 1 had 2 Masterchiefs. You finish it on your own for the story. But ramp the difficulty right up and enjoy doing the normal campaign with 2 people. It's great for when your mates are together. Often makes it more fun. Graphics aren't a problem either. Gears 2 looks fantastic. Halo 3 looked fantastic considering 4 player splitscreen and 60 odd enemies on the battlefield. Lost Planet 2 is another example, as is Resistance 2.

3rd person shooters and FPS shooters IMO should always have Coop. I seriously give a game and extra 10/100 if it has coop. I regularly have my mates around, and we will not play anything that doesnt have coop when they are here. One of the reasons we rarely play my mates PS3.

Time to start an uncharted 2 doom thread ? Unsurprisingly, people complaining are mostly 360 worshippers.

If there was local coop in anyway, people on MS fanboy websites would say it's doomed because it means the single player will be bad. Local coop is present in very few games anyway, and uncharted 1 was great being single player only, so the addition of online multiplayer and coop is more than enough for me. Personnally, I don't need local coop at all, my gf unfortunately doesn't like video games at all.

In my opinion, the main default of Uncharted 2 is it's exclusive to the PS3.

Since when has anyone ever complained about COOP. Reviewers may give the game a hard review now due to lack of local coop. Every game I know with coop ( games I ve already mentioned ) have been praised for the coop. And probably lifted the score due to the local coop. Gaming with others in the room cannot be beaten. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark are still addictive now if you get your mates together. It's not that Uncharted 2 doesnt have coop. It's that the creators have sacrificed a feature for the graphics. Because the engine would have to be toned down for them to have local coop. That Naughty Dog have already admitted.

I love the way you say that, they 'sacrificed a feature'. They just decided to put some features in, and to let some other features out... Not a big deal in my opinion, every dev does that. Then again as I said I have nobody wanting to play with me at home, otherwise local coop would be cool too I guess (but by no means necessary).

Online coop is in, I think it's already a nice plus... I agree coop is a nice addition, even though i still think the core single player experience is what makes uncharted so great. After all, it's a bit like an action / adventure movie. A bit like MGS4 in a way, it's mostly a single-player only experience.