Japanese devs must not ignore multiplayer - Gears of War designer

after getting smoked an obscene amount of times in tactical challenge, coop (local @ the very least) would've been neat. that's all.

especially considering your AI teamates are nothing more than potential ammo dispensers, if u can get there in time.

Arrogance...

Fact is, I finished Vanquish and barely played the first GOW.

Good marketing doesn't mean better game careful on who you're giving advices to.

-cough Pokemon cough- Seriously. A co-op adventure would be awesome. Just make all trainer battles double battles. Not that hard. =l

I believe it goes both ways. While JP devs might be ignoring multiplayer, all the rest of the devs are ignoring single player. Most no JP games that I see have so-so SP just so they can have something of a decent multiplayer.

Nothing really innovative about MP. We've had MP for a good decade or so, often in better forms. (LAN for one)

Besides, like others have said - I'd rather have a GREAT SP experience than a decent MP one. Do not EVER sacrifice the SP for the MP. Ever.

i think that the japanese culture isn't big on multiplayer as of right now aside from your mmo's....or at least the type of multiplayer that westeners like, so its a bit harder to develop to the western market if the eastern market has a different taste

He's right in some cases but wrong in many others every other generation did fine without multiplayer

get your grubby multiplayer hands out of my old fashion singleplayer experience.

But i would rather they make a good singleplayer then put in a half arsed multiplayer. I wouldnt expect skyrim to have a multiplayer. When i want to play multiplayer games i mainly play games that are designed for it. Halo, call of duty, world of warcraft. These games that are not big multiplayer contenders always end up the same way. A big new game comes out, The multiplayer will get played around with for a few months then everyone will go back to their proper multiplayer games leaving the servers dead and making it hard to find a game. Making the whole thing pointless. Uncharted 3.

It's like his word is the law. I mean if he says so it must be done. *** devs have angered the Law.

He's right. People may not like it, but a game without any form of connectivity is dead in the water in today's market. Games don't necessarily need a PvP element, but some sort of trading system, or co-op is a must to succeed in the western market.

As Cliffy said, it shouldn't be tacked on, but rather should be something that works alongside the game to make it better.

Forcing multiplayer into games is a cancer that has killed franchises and does more harm than good.

Build a new franchise from the ground up to focus on multiplayer (Battlefield)? Great. Don't shoehorn in a tacky single player either though.

Create an expansive, well-known and renowned single player RPG (Mass Effect)? Great, but don't take resources away to slap on a half-arsed MP so EA can make money off Spectre Packs.

He's right, some games must have a multiplayer, like Vanquish, the campaign isn't that long and the history isn't so good, so it should have a multiplayer, i know that there're a lot of people who don't care or like multiplayer... but what do you do when you finish the game??

You know Cliff, not everyone likes multiplayer, like me. Quit trying to delve into other people's business.

I don't care for multiplayer.

Cliff might have had a point if he hadn't quoted one of the games that really would have suffered had multiplayer been implemented. The essence of Vanquish relies on time manipulation, which for obvious reasons is not feasible in multiplayer. Had this focus element been removed, you would have been left with a bog-standard run-and-gun game...like Gears of War.

I see plenty of people screaming "multiplayer" is the future but I can only refer them to the thousands of games out there whose multiplayer servers are dead these days. And I'm not talking ancient games like Unreal Tournament. I'm talking about games like Everybody's Golf 2 on the PSP, which is barely 3 years old. There are perhaps only a couple of hundred games these days with an active online community, while there are hundreds of thousands of games you can still play without such an online element

Multiplayer is great if you're trying to make money, but single player is where it's at if you're trying to make a game.

@Legrieme Stop posting that blogspot link everything you say on their is fucking stupid.

Japan is stuck in the old days, they need to realize the American market is where the cash is at... MP isn't going anywhere,

its hardly in the Alpha Stage in the gaming timeline. Japanese devs are stubborn

American devs greedier, & smarter

go fvck yourself cliff!!! i am sooooooo fvcking SICK of videogames being ruined by stupid @ss dumb fvcking multiplayer! it needs to stop! nearly every videogame sucks balls nowadays thanks to annoying mp having to be shoved in EVERY GAME to satisfy the multi-geeks! its redicules!!! the ONLY reason vanquish did as well as it did was BECAUSE it wasn't plaqued with multiplayer! had they forced mp into it like every other game the story would have been an hour long, gameplay would have sucked, and it would've been a mediocre piece of sh!t to be forgotten in less than a month, game designers- STOP FORCING MULTIPLAYER ON US!!!!!

**** that, there have been enough games with unnecessary multiplayer.

The only good japanese good multiplayer is the arcade and that shit have like 25 years.

It funny how people curse Call of duty for it short campaign but when Vanquish does it , oh it brilliant. Got to love the gamers today.

While not every game needs multiplayer, I kind of thought the same thing about Vanquish. My friends and I at least wanted to play that kind of game co-op. The "option" would be good to have. Not Resident Evil 5 co-op where you'd have a constant partner but Halo-ish where you're just a clone!

I think his talking about this commercially not the actual quality which is understandable. Even though I don't really care if a game contains online or not.

SHUT UP, Cliff. Every time you open your mouth, you illustrate what a giant blowhard you are. Not every game needs multiplayer. I'd rather have a company focus on providing a great singleplayer experience than waste time cramming in a multiplayer mode "just cause Cliffy B said so."

Keep in mind he's talking about eastern games, not western.

To you gamers voicing concerns about devs shoehorning MP into games, you're absolutely correct; but my friends and I have noticed a very distinct lack of Multiplayer coming from Japanese studios. Consider recent, or soon to be released games from Japan, such as the FF series, Tomb Raider and Deus Ex.

All AAA titles, yet no MP. Would these games be better with MP? Not necessarily (probably not), but still . . . It's almost as if Japanese studios have an aversion to letting people sit down and play with friends.

Also, 'gamers' is indeed a word, Google Chrome. Stop underlining it.

There's enough excellent multiplayer, disc based titles on the market. Waht the market needs , and most gamers want, is more great co-op play and co-op play development

done in titles. Look how good Hunted The Demon's Forge was in Co-op mode. Some titles do both very well. Infinity ward perfected the two in MW 2!

Vanquish is such a brilliant game and yet Cliff's totally right. The lack of multiplayer was a complete travesty. The sheer potential of a Vanquish multiplayer experience is mind-boggeling.

I have to agree with him. Multiplayer, be it versus or coop, is a good way to extend the life of a game's replayability. Its not universally applicable, but it should be considered. Japanese developers don't seem to "get" online like Western or Korean developers. And honestly? The following:

"but at the same time made the game "[handicapped] by the fact that it was seen by many gamers as a campaign rental or a used game, and not the $60, day-one, gotta-have-it game."

Really nails it for me. Games make their money on sales of new games and DLC. In the current economy, spending $60 for a game I can beat in a short period of time means I'm going to rent or simply buy used and cheaper. If you don't have multiplayer, then you should at least have a year's worth of DLC (free or paid) planned. The only thing I see for Vanquish is a weapon pack, and that's it.

Screw online multiplayer. Bring us more splitscreen capable titles and stop ruining the great single player games with sad multiplayer excuses.

This is a load of bullsh't. This gen has seen way too many games being nerfed by devs shoehorning in MP instead of focusing on making the SP as solid as possible. Don't get me wrong, MP can be a good thing if a game is focused around it(or if there's resources to make both parts equally good) but this trend than every god damn game has to have MP is ridiculous and has to stop.

I was fine with vanquisher being SP.

Not every game needs multiplayer! Make a game with a solid single player story with good game play that lasts more than 8 hours and I will be happy. Is that so hard?

Games with sloppy, tacked on multiplayer or singleplayer are a crime, not a lack of multiplayer (imo, a singleplayer focused gamer).

I liked Gears of War 1 I feel that Epic and Cliff just blasted through making Gears 2 and 3 without EVER fixing Gears 1's mistakes(Glitches,Exploits etc)all show up in later sequels of the game. So for him to be telling other developers how to make THEIR games is LAUGHABLE...simply LAUGHABLE.....