Modern Warfare co-op is for two players

By Robert Purchese Published 24 June, 2009

Any more would be a "clusterf***" - dev.

Infinity Ward has confirmed that Modern Warfare 2 co-op will be limited to two players, and will not be linked with the story campaign at all.

"Two player seemed to be the magic number for co-op. That's when it stayed really fun and intense without becoming a clusterf*** of things. We just found that two-players was the most fun," community manager Robert Bowling explained to VideoGamer.

"We don't do co-op in our story because we're crafting a very specific experience and we don't want to ruin that by cramming co-op into it. We take the moments that work really well with co-op, we bring them out and we put them in Special Ops."

Previous instalment Call of Duty: World at War had co-op for four people, both during the campaign and as part of a bonus Zombie Mode.

Special Ops for Bowling and Modern Warfare 2, however, is about "playing over and over again, trying to get a better time". "It's about challenging a friend," he said.

Modern Warfare 2 launches for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 on 10th November.

Check out our E3 Modern Warfare 2 preview to find out more.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (36) Latest comment 7 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Vice.Destroyer #1 3 years ago

    Is it fair to say that this game is shaping up to be another monster hit? I know that I will buy on day of release.

  • DFawkes #2 3 years ago

    Would the previous installment be Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare? Everytime I've seen someone suggest otherwise in interviews with staff, they're never happy about it. Might be off Infinity Wards Christmas Card list :p Not that I care this time, except I clearly do. Sorry.

    2 sounds right for this, the style of the game wouldn't really suit 4 people piling in and stealing each others kills as they all snipe 1 guy. Loving the sound of this seperate campaign too :)

  • pinhead #3 3 years ago

    I was hoping for Gears of war style co-op through the main campaign :-(

  • Triggerhappytel #4 3 years ago

    I still think co-op in the main campaign would be the most entertaining result - I suppose given MW's penchant for scripting, it would be harder to keep things consistent with more than one player, unlike something like Halo which is more dynamic and doesn't rely on so much scripting.

    I would have still liked campaign co-op though, as I never feel these seperate co-op modes are all that interesting. Christ, if it made Haze at the very least mildly enjoyable, it could be utterly superb in an Infinity Ward game.

  • VandelayIndustries #5 3 years ago

    "Infinity Ward has confirmed that Modern Warfare 2 co-op will be limited to two players, and will not be linked with the story campaign at all."

    \o/

  • JensonJet #6 3 years ago

    The magic number is FOUR!!!.

    Infinity Ward just don't care for co-op. Perhaps Activision forced them to put it into this game because World at War has it. Really Infinity Ward ought to get people in who both understand how to play co-op and know how to incorporate it into a game. Anyone who describes co-op of three or more players as 'clusterf***' doesn't have the skills or credentials to be working on anything co-op related. I'd suggest if Infinity Ward are struggling with the concept they should speak to some other developers who have happily managed to make a game around four co-op players. And perhaps they need to get rid of some of their games testers and employ some that understand the concept and can play co-op, so they can show them how good an experience it can be with a little communication and organisation.

    Infinity Ward, just be honest and explain that it's not that more than two-player co-op is a 'clusterf***', but when it comes to co-op you don't give a f***!!!

    This game's gone from "There's now co-op" to "Separate from the single player campaign" to "Only two-players". I'm assuming the next bit of news will be that it's actually two player split-screen only!!! For some reason I keep thinking I'm playing videogames in 2009... Clearly we're all stuck in the early nineties!



    DFawkes – co-op isn't about 'stealing each others kills'. First off, in co-op you're part of a team, so it doesn't matter who kills what or how many, as long as the team survive and complete the mission! Inevitably within an organised co-op team one person will take the lead position which could mean they get a few more kills. If this bothers you, you know which position to take up. Secondly, any military game is better suited to more than two players. That is, after all, the whole point of an army!
    Edited by 1 at 24/06/09 @ 10:19

  • Optyk #7 3 years ago

    I thought 3 was the magic number?

  • Les #8 3 years ago

    I liked part one without the co-op and have actually only played SP. It was a nice arcadey shooter but I really hated the pin point precision grenade tosses. I know in real life you can't stay in a single position for too long, but this was a bit too much.

  • Optimaximal #9 3 years ago

    3 words - Left 4 Dead...

  • Rodney #10 3 years ago

    The magic number is Seven!!!.

    Infinity Ward just don't care for co-op. Anyone who describes co-op of six or more players as 'clusterf***' doesn't have the skills or credentials to be working on anything co-op related. I'd suggest if Infinity Ward are struggling with the concept they should speak to some other developers......

    blah blah blah
    Edited by 1 at 24/06/09 @ 10:48

  • AliRay #11 3 years ago

    Precisely. If you want co-op, play L4D, Halo 3, etc etc, all the games that are made for co-op play with 4 players.

    If you want a tight, cinematic single player and amazing DM, team DM, etc, get Modern Warfare 2. I know that's why I'm getting it : )

  • TheTingler #12 3 years ago

    While I know the game will still be great, I can't help but be disappointed. I really enjoyed four player co-op in World At War, and it always felt perfectly implemented.

  • S.J.Rogers #13 3 years ago

    I am really looking forward to this and we all know that it will be the biggest game of the year, no matter what they do.

    I have pre ordered a copy from Blockbuster for me and my friend and cant wait. :-)

    4 player Co-op for the whole game would have been great and i was really hoping it would be in the game... :-(

  • Jay-ITFC #14 3 years ago

    TheTingler:

    "While I know the game will still be great, I can't help but be disappointed. I really enjoyed four player co-op in World At War, and it always felt perfectly implemented."

    Couldn't disagree more. I thought it felt tacked on as an afterthought and didn't play well at all. I'm very happy with the route Infinity Ward are taking.

  • knightmt #15 3 years ago

    It must be getting easier to make coop, really enjoy this style of play,
    a pleasure shared. I am starting to find human gameplay quite interesting and my ADSL is marginal.
    At least I won't go blind?

  • IneptPercy #16 3 years ago

    If it is a seperate co-op form the main mission it could be interesting if it pushes you to work together.

    The greatest example I think think of was splinter cell chaos theory, literally you couldn't do the missions as a single person and had to work together, is a great play if you know anybody with the game who is online.

  • Rangerwave #17 3 years ago

    I got annoyed by the way some recent games, such as Resident Evil 5, have been focused on two-player co-op, and for someone who only plays single player, you feel the gameplay suffers because the AI partner is terrible.

  • Raziel #18 3 years ago

    I thought this was common knowledge by now...
    I'd like to have seen 2 or 4 player co-op storyline, but this might be for the best.

    Who cares anyway? Multiplayer is where it's at anyway.

  • Brianstorm #19 3 years ago

    The new zombie map on Waw is excellent for 4 players, would like to see IW do something olong these lines for 4 players....

  • carlitoswagon #20 3 years ago

    L4D is a lesson in co-op and thats what I'll play for a proper co-op experience.

    MW2 will be about the multiplayer. It's nice they're offering a variety of gameplay but the real competition starts on multiplayer.

    (my spastic typing & spelling is the only reason for edits)
    Edited by 2 at 24/06/09 @ 12:33

  • clockworkzombie #21 3 years ago

    I am happy as I am not interested in co-op for the main story, and the amount of tossers hassling me whilst playing fable2 was insane. Find someone else to get your silly multiplayer achievements. I had the interaction turned off but still the requests came.

  • riz23 #22 3 years ago

    If IW say it's a clusterf*** I'm inclined to believe them. Yes it works for other games but IW games are tightly scripted and ultimately some of the best fun around. If the co-op ends up like a 2 man terrorist hunt in R6V then that's fine by me. I suspect it will be even better than that though. 4 man co-op is not the holy grail of multiplayer gaming. I have trouble geting three other friends all organised for stuff like that anyway, and playing with 3 online randoms would probably end up in a tirade of homophobic and racist swearing from some shell suit wearing knuckle dragger, and i dont want to experience that!

  • MikeN #23 3 years ago

    I thought co-op worked pretty well in WaW but maybe that's because I was playing in a squad with my mates. I don't mind the main story not having co-op but just having 2 players in the 'bonus' co-op seems like IW can't be arsed to implement it. Plenty of games have 4p co-op without turning into a 'clusterf***'.
    Edited by 1 at 24/06/09 @ 13:09

  • sneetch #24 3 years ago

    I still think 4 players would be better, I mean a lot of it depends on the maps and modes and so on, but in the campaign in COD MW you were never really without at least 3 other guys (apart from the sniper mission). Now of course this won't have a co-op campaign but their special ops or survival mode or whatnot could have been designed for more than two players.

    I don't really buy the "we just found that two-players was the most fun" line really: personally I find 4 player co-op to *always* be better because I'm able to play with more of my friends. Playing through R6 Vegas with two old friends was a blast, this would also have been.

  • Bravestinsane #25 3 years ago

    Sound's like a good move... was hard to find people to play with on Veteren in WaW and the easy diffiulcties are well.. easy and i just blitzed through them seemed a waste of time.

    So would be nice to see a genuine game designed for co - op play.

  • Kikizosan #26 3 years ago

    All sounds good, but does anyone yet know if it's split-screen co-op or only over Live?

  • autogunner #27 3 years ago

    just make sure the singleplayer is a blast IW, then i can still love you.

  • DrRobotnik #28 3 years ago

    I've not got a problem with 2 player co-op, but having a 'special ops' mode instead of a 2-player full campaign is weak-sauce.

    I'll reserve total judgement until I've played it, but the balance was never spoilt in GoW2, RE5 or any other single player campaign I've played with two people, so I don't buy the excuse at all.

  • skillian #29 3 years ago

    Well, presumably competitive co-op as is mentioned here and was in WaW is meant to be a race to get the most kills?

  • JensonJet #30 3 years ago

    Totally agree with farticusmaximus. Co-op shouldn't even allow the option to be played on anything but the most challenging difficulty. Anything else is a total waste of time. He's right, that the quality of the co-op experience is entirely down to who you play with. Playing with a bunch of strangers who neither care to look out for teammates, run into open areas before clearing them from safety, or run past rooms and doors without checking them are best left well alone. Left 4 Dead, for example, while amazing fun with organised people who communicate, is one of the least fun games when played with the wrong people. Admittedly finding the right people to play co-op with is a bit like fishing in near empty seas, once you do have decent co-op players in your friends list, this game type can be the most social and fun experience. While there's merit in working through maps quickly, they have to be approached efficiently too.

    Personally I think any gamer who rushes on ahead, leaving team mates behind in a desperate attempt to prove themselves with a higher kill ratio are best left to their own devices. Four guns on any given area has to be more efficient than just one gun, regardless of how skillful the player thinks they are. It amazes me how many co-op players think they're in a deathmatch. If looking out for weaker team members isn't your thing, then sure, co-op probably is unbearable.

  • superdelphinus #31 3 years ago

    co-op in terms of racing against each other sounds shit

  • kenbrilliant #32 3 years ago

    Clusterfish?

  • JensonJet #33 3 years ago

    svd_grasshopper, I'm not sure why you keep referring to 'offline co-op'. Who plays that? All the co-op I've ever played is online with other gamers. That's what I assume everybody means whenever they talk of co-op. As previously stated co-op, for me, is a waste of time on anything but the hardest difficulty. I understand why you like adversarial multiplayer team games. I enjoy them too when I'm in the mood, but for me those game types are far less tatical, much more frenetic, with less attempt at teamwork and more players out to prove themselves with the highest kill ratio (even at the cost of also having high death rates!). Each to their own but co-op is as different as adversarial is to single player. Each has it's merits, and each offers a different experience.

    You're wrong that co-op players always win. Because co-op games, by their very nature are longer campaigns than the continual short rounds of adversarial, not every game is completed, so co-op doesn't automatically mean gamers win all the time.

    For me co-op is the best way to meet online friends. I'd rather play through a game with friends co-op than alone in single player. And I'd rather have the teamwork and conversation found within co-op games than the adversarial headless-chickenfests those games often turn out to be. Co-op's generally a far less bitchy, whiney place to game than team deathmatches too.

  • YourMessageHere #34 3 years ago

    For me, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory defines how to do co-op. It's two-player, it's narrative-driven and linked to but seperate from the single player, and it expands on the things that you can do in single player by actually making you work literally co-operatively. What it absolutely doesn't do is make you beat your time. I hate working against a clock, because not only is it like a giant immersion-killing "HELLO YOU ARE PLAYING A GAME" banner, it stops me enjoying the qualitative experience of simply playing the game. Just as long as there's no requirement to do things inside a timelimit and plenty of options to do things in different ways on different playthroughs, I'll be satisfied.

  • DrRobotnik #35 3 years ago

    "I'm not sure why you keep referring to 'offline co-op'. Who plays that? All the co-op I've ever played is online with other gamers. That's what I assume everybody means whenever they talk of co-op."
    --

    Some of us have real friends that we play co-op with in the same room, not just over 'teh interwebs'.

  • james-mw3-mw3 #36 7 months ago

    MW3 will see the return of Task Force 141 Captain John "Soap" MacTavish and SAS Captain John Price! Call of Duty games have always had a great cast, weaponry and perks, I'm sure MW3 will continue that line. To think that Activision has slated Modern Warfare 3 for a November 8, 2011 release.