Uncharted 2 falters, no local co-op for Uncharted 2

Forums - Sony Discussion - Uncharted 2 falters, no local co-op for Uncharted 2

huh? didn't we know this already? At least I didn't expect any kind of splitscreen gameplay....what for?


Uncharted is a single-player experience, everything else is just extra. Sorry to take some jabs at other games but it's not like Uncharted's main game is as lame as the ones in Gears of War, Call of Duty or Halo to "require" extensive multiplayer to make up for their short and average campaigns....

Around the Network
selnor said:
Vetteman94 said:
@ selnor

I cant agree with your last statement, not every FPS and TPS should have co-op. Too many great games would actually be ruined with the introduction of co-op into them.

The first Resistance is a perfect example of this, Nathan Hale was almost always on his own throughout the entire game, but they tacked on co-op. Now during co-op he had some random soldier following him, who oddly never showed up in the cutscenes.

How does that ruin the game? You complete it single player don't you? So you get the experience as intended. Just because when your mates there it has an extra soldier which doesn't show up in cutscenes has no bearing on your single player experience. I'm sure the mate that gets to play the awesome game with you wont complain. In fact you both will probably have a laugh and get tactical.

So you would rather have just the single player. Rather than have the same single player ( with less graphics ) and the addition of coop. You get the same game, just with added awesomeness. Thats the point. It doesn't ruin anything for your experience. It enhances it when your mates come round. Because they dont have to sit there twiddling their thumbs. Going "yeah looks great. Can we please play a 2 player game now?" The amount of times I sat there watching KZ2 at my mates getting bored was to many. Thats exactly why I still havent finished it yet. If it was Coop I would've finished in 4 sittings at my mates. Instead we have played many other games that are coop much more than KZ2 or Uncharted for example.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.  Because for me, it does ruin the experience, because its not part of the story and its tacked on just so it can say it has co-op.  So yes, I would rather have just a single player game, IF they are going to just tack on a co-op.   Now if it is done like Gears for example, then I welcome it, because its part of the story and the second character is right there with you the whole time.

Vetteman94 said:
selnor said:

Well we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.  Because for me, it does ruin the experience, because its not part of the story and its tacked on just so it can say it has co-op.  So yes, I would rather have just a single player game, IF they are going to just tack on a co-op.   Now if it is done like Gears for example, then I welcome it, because its part of the story and the second character is right there with you the whole time.

I am going to disagree with both of you.  I played Gears 2 by myself, and it was a little annoying at parts.  It seemed like Dom was always crawling around looking for me to revive him.  I could tell the game would have been a lot more fun with another person, but by myself I felt like I needed to babysit Dom.  Same thing with RE5.  I had a hard time with the Wesker fight because I would need to revive Sheva or save her from Jill.   I like the Uncharted/Resistance approach of a dedicated coop.  The levels make better sense, there is improved enemy balancing, and I really appreciate the extra effort.  It sucks that there is no local splitscreen, but I really don't care.

Thanks for the input, Jeff.



Hardly a reason to whine. Uncharted purpose isn't the same as games like Resistance, Halo or Gears. The game focuses on a very cinematic story, well paced action segments and puzzles/platforming. I'd much rather have a more polished game + online coop than split screen. On the other hand, I doubt naughtydog decided to leave out SS for graphics alone since SS a reasonable excuse for toned down graphics. The reason they chose not to add it is because they are on a strict holiday deadline and probably don't have the time to make the option function with quality.

Regardless, most nitpickers in this thread seem to be blowing it out of proportion, probably because their loyalty lies elsewhere. You know who you are...

Oh, guess I can't play with any of my friends then.
Not everyone has a PS3 these days.....

Around the Network

@ Squilliam - What games do you actually own? Must be boring to only play RE5 24/7

selnor said:
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.


As said by everyone, the reason that they have not designed their engine around co-op is because it is not a military shooter, so you don't have a bunch of goons running around with you, and every moment in Gears had you with somebody else, because it was designed that way. Uncharted is a very cinematic game, and it is mostly about Nate, most of the game is only played with Nate. Anyway, since when was co-op platforming fun when it is not 2D platforming with coins etc?

Now they decided to add MP to the second game as one of the main criticisms of the first was lack of replayability. While they were adding online, they decided to add in special co-op stages. Now while doing this, they would have had to do a lot of extra work for the online, and of course more design work in the main campaign (it is longer) and designing the co-op stages.

Squilliam said:
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.

So basically, your criteria on buying a game is; does it have local co-op? Not the quality of the game

Damn I was really hoping that there was going to be local multiplayer. But its still a must buy.

It seems like the belief that online multiplayer is sufficient to address longevity issues with games has resulted in the following:
1. The elimination of bots.
2. The elimination of split-screen.