I notice some reviewers will take off points and sight a negative if a game does not include MP. Have we become so addicted fps that no IP can be a complete game without including MP or co-op?
I notice some reviewers will take off points and sight a negative if a game does not include MP. Have we become so addicted fps that no IP can be a complete game without including MP or co-op?MyShiningPanda
I'm assuming that your referring to the Splinter Cell HD Trilogy, yes you are correct about people being addicted FPS multiplayer that games without multiplayer will be bashed.
I would prefer it if games were even single player only like half life or multiplayer like counter strike, focus on what you're best at and its got to be better than getting 2 half arsed games on one disc. Why Mass Effect needs multiplayer I don't know, oh wait yes I do its coming from EA and they are obsessed with CoD :roll:.
MP isn't a necessity but sadly now it seems to be the norm yet look at the titles which were argueably the 3 best games released last year and didn't have MP - Skyrim, Deus Ex, Batman AC. We don't need MP to add longevity to a game, offline bots and co-op are a viable option and as for DLC I'd rather they spend their time and money on creating another game. In my many years of gaming one thing I've noticed is with my own collection I always tend to go back to games that are primarily single player or have no MP at all.
Yes I agree with the obsesssion with MP, especially online MP. My wife and I are always on the lookout for a good offline co-op game, which don't come out very often. In forza 4 they even took out offline drag racing and made it online only.
A vast majority of gamers today almost exclusively play multiplayer games. Series like Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect, which have no business with it, introduced MP to cater to those people. Other games Deus Ex HR, Skyrim, Fallout 3 have the balls not to waste resources on shallow multiplayer and target a more refined audience. Unless a game is scarce on single player content, reviewers who point at lack of multiplayer as a flaw are extremely unprofessional.
That's one of the many, many reasons I don't pay attention to review scores.
There are games that are primarily multiplayer, like Call of Duty etc. That's fine. But why do they have to take games that have traditionally been single player only and tack on some online component? I'm no game developer, but I imagine it must take a pretty large chunk of time to create the online portion of a game, and that's large chunk of time that's not being spent on the single player portion. It quite often makes the difference between an outstanding single player experience and one that's merely average. So they've ruined the single player experience and added a multiplayer portion that nobody even cares about. Brilliant! That's what you get when you put profits ahead of good game design.
I don't mind multiplayer in certain games, like Starcraft or Battlefield, but I hate when developers try to stuff it in games that don't need it, like Mass Effect.
It's seen as a way to market to the COD/Halo crowd who won't play anything that doesn't have multi-player. However slapping on multi player onto a game that doesn't even need it, like Mass Effect, Dead Space, Bioshock and more, ends up being a waste of resources since the multi player either goes dead after a short while or it's ignored by those they are marketing it towards since it isn't another COD/Halo. I hope that the Elder Scrolls and Fallout games never have such a feature, and I hope that the Saints Row series resumes with being strictly single player and leaving out multi player completely. I would happily spend the money on a more refined single player - with gender choice please instead of generio male 5000 - than on a game where the blunt of the resources went towards a pointless multi player and the single player suffering for it.
It isnt a necessity but some gamers & reviewers now have it in their head that it is. Weird, especially when alot of games just dont lend themselves to competetive MP, or even coop. It can be a welcome addition but its nothing more than a added mode
The real beef of a game is in its single player. This is what im looking at spending my money on. It's the only thing that matters, the rest you could call the cherry on top.
Since Xbox live launched way back in the dark ages of 2002. Muliplayer has become a necessity. I have not become addicted to Muliplayer so I personally can enjoy a videogame that does not have it. Since a lot of people like it. Then it is included in the hope of selling more games.
I notice some reviewers will take off points and sight a negative if a game does not include MP. Have we become so addicted fps that no IP can be a complete game without including MP or co-op?MyShiningPanda
Yes, look at the vicious beating critics gave games like Skyrim and Arkham City and how they were shunned by gamers. Clearly there is a monomaniacal focus on multiplayer.
Every game in the world could go without multiplayer and it wouldn't bother me, But I do kind of wish Skyrim had MP am I the only one who wants to fight other Skyrim players or just free roam the map with another player?
MP isn't a necessity but sadly now it seems to be the norm yet look at the titles which were argueably the 3 best games released last year and didn't have MP - Skyrim, Deus Ex, Batman AC. We don't need MP to add longevity to a game, offline bots and co-op are a viable option and as for DLC I'd rather they spend their time and money on creating another game. In my many years of gaming one thing I've noticed is with my own collection I always tend to go back to games that are primarily single player or have no MP at all.
187umKILLAH
I could have used more DLC for Deus Ex HR. (my personal 2011 GOTY)
[QUOTE="MyShiningPanda"]I notice some reviewers will take off points and sight a negative if a game does not include MP. Have we become so addicted fps that no IP can be a complete game without including MP or co-op?CarnageHeart
Yes, look at the vicious beating critics gave games like Skyrim and Arkham City and how they were shunned by gamers. Clearly there is a monomaniacal focus on multiplayer.
No Skryim was just outright the worst Elder Scrolls game ever. Even dragons couldn't save it from it's repetitive side quests and bad plot...
[QUOTE="187umKILLAH"] I could have used more DLC for Deus Ex HR. (my personal 2011 GOTY)[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]
[QUOTE="MyShiningPanda"]I notice some reviewers will take off points and sight a negative if a game does not include MP. Have we become so addicted fps that no IP can be a complete game without including MP or co-op?chilly-chill
Yes, look at the vicious beating critics gave games like Skyrim and Arkham City and how they were shunned by gamers. Clearly there is a monomaniacal focus on multiplayer.
No Skryim was just outright the worst Elder Scrolls game ever. Even dragons couldn't save it from it's repetitive side quests and bad plot...
The point is neither game suffered critically or commercially for lacking MP.
Some games don't hold up very well with just single player or their gameplay has the potential to make for a quality, fun multiplayer. Vanquish comes to mind.
I'm glad that a lot of developers are putting in a multiplayer component to their games. Personally I don't subscribe to this notion that there's games that don't need an mp aspect to them. I've had quite a lot of fun with some games that supposedly don't need mp such as Bioshock 2, Dead Space 2, and now Mass Effect 3.
Some games don't hold up very well with just single player or their gameplay has the potential to make for a quality, fun multiplayer. Vanquish comes to mind.meetroid8
Do you think its a coicedence that Vanquish is the best pure shooter this gen and the only one that doesnt have a multiplayer?
Of course having a great developer helped, but you are not going to see a multiplayer game with the same quality as Vanquish, im extremelly happy they didnt waste time putting a MP on it.
http://au.gamespot.com/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-classic-trilogy-hd/ proof that it apparently is, i hated how that game got bashed for not having multiplayer.
I wouldn't say it's become a necessity, per say. More like it's the latest fad to conform to. Only this one has legs because a lot of people really like multiplayer. It'll eventually die down in a few years or so, I imagine.
I'm assuming that your referring to the Splinter Cell HD Trilogy, yes you are correct about people being addicted FPS multiplayer that games without multiplayer will be bashed.ps3gameplayer
In the case of Splinter Cell HD, the complaints were because the multiplayer that was in the original non-HD versions, which was well-received by critics and fans, as I understand it, was removed in the remastered versions. I'd say that's a pretty valid complaint. Hard to justify content removal when they were simple conversion jobs.
I wouldn't say it's become a necessity, per say. More like it's the latest fad to conform to. Only this one has legs because a lot of people really like multiplayer. It'll eventually die down in a few years or so, I imagine.
[QUOTE="ps3gameplayer"] I'm assuming that your referring to the Splinter Cell HD Trilogy, yes you are correct about people being addicted FPS multiplayer that games without multiplayer will be bashed.c_rake
In the case of Splinter Cell HD, the complaints were because the multiplayer that was in the original non-HD versions, which was well-received by critics and fans, as I understand it, was removed in the remastered versions. I'd say that's a pretty valid complaint. Hard to justify content removal when they were simple conversion jobs.
Yes the multiplayer was removed but Ubisoft announced it, and did the really expect the that Ubisoft would put servers up for 10-6 year old games.
Yes the multiplayer was removed but Ubisoft announced it, and did the really expect the that Ubisoft would put servers up for 10-6 year old games.ps3gameplayer
Still doesn't mean they should have.
I mean, I never played Splinter Cell's multiplayer (never had my PS2 connected to the Web). But I can understand the disappointment of the HD versions not having that mode if it was as good as everyone makes it out to be. It just makes those versions less valauble. Might as well get them on the PC. Probably still some serves active there somewhere. Least that way you'd get the game as it was intended to be and still in HD.
[QUOTE="ps3gameplayer"] Yes the multiplayer was removed but Ubisoft announced it, and did the really expect the that Ubisoft would put servers up for 10-6 year old games.c_rake
Still doesn't mean they should have.
I mean, I never played Splinter Cell's multiplayer (never had my PS2 connected to the Web). But I can understand the disappointment of the HD versions not having that mode if it was as good as everyone makes it out to be.
But still it's not the end of the world (oh wait it is 2012 now), I personally think it is better with no multiplayer because it shows off how good the single player campaigns are, most FPSs will focus so much on multiplayer that the campaigns are just filler and turn out like junk.
But still it's not the end of the world (oh wait it is 2012 now), I personally think it is better with no multiplayer because it shows off how good the single player campaigns are, most FPSs will focus so much on multiplayer that the campaigns are just filler and turn out like junk.ps3gameplayer
I agree. The games are still great on the single-player end. But still. It's easy to understand why some would be disappointed by the exclusion of the multiplayer. I think the reviewers were within their right to decry it. But I digress. Most of the people looking to buy that collection were probably planning on checking out the single-player portion first and foremost, anyway.
[QUOTE="ps3gameplayer"] But still it's not the end of the world (oh wait it is 2012 now), I personally think it is better with no multiplayer because it shows off how good the single player campaigns are, most FPSs will focus so much on multiplayer that the campaigns are just filler and turn out like junk.c_rake
I agree. The games are still great on the single-player end. But still. It's easy to understand why some would be disappointed by the exclusion of the multiplayer. I think the reviewers were within their right to decry it. But I digress. Most of the people looking to buy that collection were probably planning on checking out the single-player portion first and foremost, anyway.
I understand the complaints but a 6.0 was way to harsh (i didn't even know that the originals had multiplayer until I saw the review, I bought the collection and I am very happy I didn't listen to the review.
I understand the complaints but a 6.0 was way to harsh (i didn't even know that the originals had multiplayer until I saw the review, I bought the collection and I am very happy I didn't listen to the review.ps3gameplayer
It was probably the reported frame rate issues and occasional freezing that resulted in the score.
But hey -- you're enjoying it, and that's all that matters, right?
[QUOTE="ps3gameplayer"]I understand the complaints but a 6.0 was way to harsh (i didn't even know that the originals had multiplayer until I saw the review, I bought the collection and I am very happy I didn't listen to the review.c_rake
It was probably the reported frame rate issues and occasional freezing that resulted in the score.
But hey -- you're enjoying it, and that's all that matters, right?
Yeah (it's on pause now) but those frame rate issues and freezing issues are BULLSH*T
Most people will return to games like CoD or Halo anyway so it matters not whether a new game has a multiplayer game play. But in some casses it is possible for multiplayer to make a game better. If a game that comes from a series that has been using multiplayer for there most recent games stops. People who play these games for that multiplayer will be dissapointed and mark the game down for inconsistancy.
[QUOTE="rzepak"]If a game costs $60 and the campaign lasts less than 10 hours then it better have multiplayer.ps3gameplayer
Even if it has good replay value? Most games have very little replay value. Single player FPS games have no replay value, action adventure games like Uncharted have no replay value, jrps have no replay value, but theyre lengthy. Point based arcade games have replay value, wrpgs have replay value and theyre long.
[QUOTE="ps3gameplayer"][QUOTE="rzepak"]If a game costs $60 and the campaign lasts less than 10 hours then it better have multiplayer.rzepak
Even if it has good replay value? Most games have very little replay value. Single player FPS games have no replay value, action adventure games like Uncharted have no replay value, jrps have no replay value, but theyre lengthy. Point based arcade games have replay value, wrpgs have replay value and theyre long. Your spot on about FPSs (but they always have multiplayer), Uncharted has great replay value for me
I would love to see a functional FPS that has a 4 player splitscreen, 15-20 hr campaign. And has offline multiplayer bots that has bots in all game modes and 4 player splitscreen with a lot of different match cusomizations. Something like this would have a ton attention to these modes that would be developed pretty good if the actual online multiplayer was taken out.
I would love to see a functional FPS that has a 4 player splitscreen, 15-20 hr campaign. And has offline multiplayer bots that has bots in all game modes and 4 player splitscreen with a lot of different match cusomizations. Something like this would have a ton attention to these modes that would be developed pretty good if the actual online multiplayer was taken out.
ristactionjakso
That would be great but these days will Call of Duty it won't happen :(
I would love to see a functional FPS that has a 4 player splitscreen, 15-20 hr campaign. And has offline multiplayer bots that has bots in all game modes and 4 player splitscreen with a lot of different match cusomizations. Something like this would have a ton attention to these modes that would be developed pretty good if the actual online multiplayer was taken out.
ps3gameplayer
That would be great but these days will Call of Duty it won't happen :(I know, it's all about the payout with these devs.
[QUOTE="ps3gameplayer"][QUOTE="rzepak"]If a game costs $60 and the campaign lasts less than 10 hours then it better have multiplayer.rzepak
Even if it has good replay value? Most games have very little replay value. Single player FPS games have no replay value, action adventure games like Uncharted have no replay value, jrps have no replay value, but theyre lengthy. Point based arcade games have replay value, wrpgs have replay value and theyre long.
I have a completely different stand point.
I try to play multiplayer but they are just too repetitive for me and add no replay value.
I have replayed a number of action games.
JRPG are the games I replay the most.
WRPG are the less replayed game. Which have gotten worse with the currents ones.
Tacking multiplayer on is just a scam ideal like EA many ideals lately.
I would love to see a functional FPS that has a 4 player splitscreen, 15-20 hr campaign. And has offline multiplayer bots that has bots in all game modes and 4 player splitscreen with a lot of different match cusomizations. Something like this would have a ton attention to these modes that would be developed pretty good if the actual online multiplayer was taken out.
ristactionjakso
That would be great but these days will Call of Duty it won't happen :(I know, it's all about the payout with these devs. Yeah, this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5dsOn06w1s shows how much effort went into MW3, it's nothing more than a paycheck for Activi$ion.
I have no problem with them adding in MP but I do have a problem when theyjust add it to increase sales. If you are going to add it then they should work on it.
[QUOTE="ps3gameplayer"] That would be great but these days will Call of Duty it won't happen :(ps3gameplayer
I know, it's all about the payout with these devs. Yeah, this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5dsOn06w1s shows how much effort went into MW3, it's nothing more than a paycheck for Activi$ion.O ya, I watched that before. Lazy azz devs. The campaign was utter sh*t too.
[QUOTE="ps3gameplayer"][QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]I know, it's all about the payout with these devs.
ristactionjakso
Yeah, this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5dsOn06w1s shows how much effort went into MW3, it's nothing more than a paycheck for Activi$ion.O ya, I watched that before. Lazy azz devs. The campaign was utter sh*t too. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole campaign was made up of parts of previous games, fanboys say it is only one building but the message is clear, no effort put into that game.
I don't think multiplayer is a necessity-- in fact, I mostly play a game for its single player experience. Unfortunately, online leaderboards can be made meaningless by cheaters and hackers. I vastly prefer a game's story, characters, and settings over blowing people up online.
Log in to comment