1. If you going after bosses do the time trials. Both people get the achievement and you can always try to beat your fastest time (some bosses can be beaten in under 6 seconds)

Posted at 7:42PM on Feb 26th 2007 by KineticOnline

2. Oh boohoo. It's easy and quick to do once your stats are raised. People should stop complaining about actually having to play themselves.

Posted at 8:04PM on Feb 26th 2007 by Zac LaCombe

3. Man, I'm glad this got explained. I couldn't even play the game knowing I might not get an achievement when I play co-op. What's the point in playing if you can't piggy back someone else anyway?

Posted at 9:09PM on Feb 26th 2007 by Gemini Ace

4. There's still a problem with this method.

A friend entered my session and basically defeated all the end bosses, and I received the achievement and he did not.

I'm thinking Microsoft's logic on this matter is flawed. It should be the person who completes the achievement, receives the achievement, or both people receive the achievement.

Posted at 9:28PM on Feb 26th 2007 by nick

5. I really dont understand why so many people are complaining about this. It makes perfect sense to me, especially if you do think of it in the realm of the video game. You enter someone else's city, their bad guys get killed, the ones from your city don't. Simple. And it's not even particularly hard to kill the bosses.

Posted at 9:43PM on Feb 26th 2007 by BowserUSC

6. This is a pretty simple concept to get our heads around, yes? It's not a perfect situation but likely the most practical for RTW to implement.

Posted at 9:55PM on Feb 26th 2007 by Clinton

7. +1 to microsoft for making the policy like this. and sorry to dustin for not gettin the achievements.

Posted at 9:56PM on Feb 26th 2007 by DjDATZ

8. If you start with your friend and play the whole way through with them, it should give you all the achievements. My buddy and I like to play Co op. Dont want to do it twice, and dont want to do it alone.

Co-Op is the only reason we rent (crackdown) or buy (gears) games anymore. Now that it's so critical to some people, a few options might have to be worked out.

Yeah the issue is simple, and yeah it makes sense. Unless you just want to go through with your friend and that's it, meaning it would be "our" city rather than "my" (host) city.

Posted at 10:04PM on Feb 26th 2007 by Tim

9. If I dont like playing online, and an achievment for a game calls for me playing online, I shouldn't be able to get the achievment without playing online. Simple idea, do I seem a little stupid for actually saying that all? Yeah, but you have to do what the achievment calls for. Don't complain because you don't want to do what it calls for.

Posted at 10:14PM on Feb 26th 2007 by BowserUSC

10. Also if its your city, meaning the both of you, what happens when you play with someone else, or play by yourself. You'd have to have an individual city for each person you play with as well as when you play yourself. Every time you wanted to play with someone new you'd have to start all over. It seems a lot easier to me to just join the hosts city and not get the achievment than to start over every time you start a new game with someone.

Posted at 10:21PM on Feb 26th 2007 by BowserUSC

11. No, it's not simple.

If you complete the achievement and don't receive it, there's a problem.

If you complete the achievement together, you should both benefit, not just the host, and if the host didn't contribute, and is still the only one who receives the achievement, how is that fair?

Why are we excusing a poor design? And saying that you can play it again on your own is beside the point. It's actually avoiding the point. I could have played it alone to begin with-- why offer co-op (which is a great feature) but then introduce weird restrictions that you only discover afterwards which ONLY benefits the host!?

Posted at 10:23PM on Feb 26th 2007 by LR

12. This isn't poor design! It makes COMPLETE sense. Your saying you should get SINGLE PLAYER achievements for a COOP session. You still get the coop points, right? So whats the big deal? Are you that lazy? People bitch about all the bosses being so easy anyway, kill them again. The entire point of coop is to screw around with your buddy, not complete a nonexistent story line. When you start a coop game, it says,"Joining (soandso's) city." How is that confusing?

Posted at 11:15PM on Feb 26th 2007 by Matthew Mac

13. Isn't that obvious? I don't mean to sound rude or anything, but how could you not know that? If you are hosting, then your game advances. If you play on your friend's game, theirs advances. Sorry if I sounded rude, it's just that I thought this was obvious. In my eyes, this is a great feature, because I know I would not want my friend to suddenly get a few achievements for me, since that would detract from the awesome experience that Crackdown supplies for its players.

Posted at 11:23PM on Feb 26th 2007 by robby2009

14. It's not a poor design. It's just fine. Why do you people have to nit pick every little detail about these games. First Gears, now Crackdown. Crackdown has some really cool achievements. I plan on playing through on my silver gamertag just to get them again for the hell of it. Why don't you people that are complaining either go trade the game in or just have fun. It's a freaking game. Just because it's not perfect in your eyes doesn't mean it's not exactly what the developers envisioned. Jeez.

Posted at 12:32AM on Feb 27th 2007 by Gemini Ace

15. Why didn't they just put in two sets of achievemnts for killing the bosses? Rainbow Six Vegas could do it...

Posted at 1:45AM on Feb 27th 2007 by geebs

16. "15. Why didn't they just put in two sets of achievemnts for killing the bosses? Rainbow Six Vegas could do it... "

Well becuase that would be a boring waste of about half the achievements (which are limited in number by MS)

Posted at 3:07AM on Feb 27th 2007 by mike

17. Just to check (because I've not tried yet), can you still get the Double Trouble ("complete your first mission in Co-op mode") and Tag Team ("Partner up and complete every mission in Co-op mode") achievements by joining someone else's game? Surely that's the point of these achievements?

Posted at 7:12AM on Feb 27th 2007 by Studley

18. I'm happy with the set up. If you're hosting then they enter your world. If you're joining then you enter their world, and yours is unaffected.

I can see how SOME people might be confused as in co-op it seems there's one rule for the boss/enemy achievements and another for all the others.

But now that it's been explained on here no-one can complain!

...But they will!

Posted at 9:01AM on Feb 27th 2007 by Boff

19. You know ... When my boss and I played a co-op game; it was just understood by us that we were in the hoster's "world". It wasn't even questioned. And, frankly, I would prefer it this way.

The only thing that the visitor can see from his version of Pacific City is the orbs. If you see an orb in a co-op game, grab it. Your buddy doesn't see your orbs, and you don't see his.

Posted at 9:22AM on Feb 27th 2007 by Lion

20. anyone who couldn't figure this out on their own needs a switch head check.

Anyone who ranted on a radio show over this needs their microphone taken away and to go back to "GET A BRAIN" school.

People are fucking RETARDED.

Posted at 10:34AM on Feb 27th 2007 by eRECTUS