The Co-Opticast can legally drink this week, and the lack of campaign co-op in Ghostbusters might just drive us to doing so! Speaking of that, Mike rants at great length about misplaced resources and Nick chimes in with his hands-on impressions of Ghostbusters: The Video Game. Mix in a liberal amount of co-op news and you've got our latest episode.

Hit the Podcast Page to Listen or Download

Great cast guys. I must say, this was the best-sounding one, in that the volume was maintained the same throughout the entire cast, and I didnt have to blast the ipod!

I TOTALLY agree with you on the fact that certain games that dont have co-op campaigns should. Ghostbusters is, of course, a prime example. There is ALWAYS 2-4 characters on screen at all times. IMO there was no not to have co-op campaign in that game. If it was me, I would have tossed the "rookie" and stuck with just the four original Ghostbusters. Basically, you would just have to switch between them to keep the story going. So for example, you wouldnt be able to pick Venkman every time, and you wouldnt be able to avoid being Winston. They really dropped the ball.

I also dont like the excuse that games dont have co-op because of the moments when theres only one character on screen. A perfect example is the first Fantastic 4 game. My friend and I played it (though we never finished it), and you dont get to play as the team until later in the game. So for the first couple of levels, it centers around only one character. However, to allow for the co-op, the second player is thrown in as a droid of some sort, so you can actually move around and do stuff, thus maintaining co-opy goodness.

'Nuff said.

Hey, can you list the cast names with the podcast description?

The Ghostbusters game was good, but a felt it edged on remaking the 1st movie instead an experience evolving from the both movies.

On the topic of games that should have co-op or dropped it. Prototype had co-op planned, but word from the developers was that it turned into a cluster**** mess.

Which is interesting cause at times the single player game feels like that myself and I wish it did have co-op.

Unfortunately in Prototype's defense, the game seemed to suffer from probably what was feature creep. They seemed to have co-op and all these powers, but I think they needed to remove co-op otherwise the game would have been a mess.

I think the development suffered from a lot of hands wanting to do this and that, and just lacked a central vision.

Personally, I'd rather use Activision as a scape goat. The game completely changed from when Sierra was publishing to Activision. Removal of co-op is probably just one thing among many that Activision makes companies scrap. I'm pretty sure I've read that Activision isn't letting the developers work on the game any more. Which is a shame because it keeps constantly freezing. Releasing a buggy game is one thing, but one that can't even run? And then not letting the developers fix it? Activision needs to die.