D: < I prefer a room with friends who may not have the console at home, rather than them not having it and not being able to play with them online. (Not that I have the console myself yet, but thats not the point. I will some day)

Also 1080i? Why not 1080p? Just wondering - if a game runs at 1080p, but your TV does only 1080i, does it get downscaled to 1080i?

The game runs in 1080p as well.

Ah okay, thanks.

I dunno if it'll run in 1080p but if someone owns a TV with ONLY 1080i, it'll get downscaled to 480p. Some PS3 games have this issue (LBP), and owners of older HDTVs gets screwed.

haha what a pointless comment. Especially like the use of the word "meh"

If you aren't buying it because of that then its your loss.

No split screen....

ehhh... that really bothers me. I'm not saying it means i won't buy it.... but i doubt i'll get it day one.

I mean i'm I only have one other friend with a PS3. Trading a controller back and forth between online matches isn't nearly as fun.

As much as they spent on this game... they could of afforded it.

No co-op is a bit dissapointing.

No split-screen is a big ouch.

There's a reason I switched from PC gaming to console - it really sucks when friends come over and you all gotta take turns on a PC. Social features are extremely important in this gen. MS has focused so much on it and I think that's part of the reason why they're in a strong position now. I know plenty of people that don't even really do very much gaming when they're alone. I personally think a lack of splitscreen has a bigger impact that most people think. I hope they weren't able to add it just because they focused so much on graphics. Honestly, if I didn't already have a few games for my PS3, I'd be really tempted to refund it for a 360.

I won't say too much though - the game isn't out yet and it's too early to talk. The campaign has a chance of being something more massive than MGS4, but it could also end up being pure junk. From what I've heard, the online is great.....well, the graphics at least. God needs to start killing a kitten everytime someone ignores gameplay and praises graphics first.

It is absolutely possible but where are they going to get the time?  You do realize it takes A LOT of time to make something like that correct?

I'm not saying they can't offer it later, but they might as well make another game at that point.

I read about this a few months ago, was pretty disappointed, was hoping they'd 'surprise' us but that seems unlikely. I remember halo 3's co op being announced fairly late in development. Before the guy never really said no, he just said that they 'never said they were doing co op.' and kind of danced around the question. But now it seems he's saying no directly to the question, it's probably too late now, or whatever they were working on didn't pan out.

The co op campaign in resistance 2 is pretty cool, but would have really liked splitscreen in the single player campaign like the first game, It felt like the game was missing something cause they left it out. I'm assuming they just didn't have enough time to do it and figured the co op mode would cover it.

Now I don't think anyone complained last year when Call of Duty 4 came out with no co op just like the way killzone 2 is, yet that game went on to be huge. You still can do 'online coop' in a way by playing on the same team online. Theres alot of similarities with that game, because let's face it CoD4 did very well mostly because of it's graphics. It makes me wonder if they used the game as a model late in development.

I dont own a PS3 but in general why do these game companies make shooters without Coop and split screens? That should be part of their design from the beginning. They all should just have 4 player split screen with system link available so a room full of friends can be a great night of gaming. That is so much better then sitting home alone with a headset on.