So everyone is raging over no Multiplayer in the Order

I don't consider a bunch of jackasses at NeoGAF to representative of "everyone." Single player games should stick to being single player; that being said, it's a tad silly that they didn't incorporate co-op. The first trailer of the game strongly implied that it was a four player co-op style game. Doesn't really matter though: it'll turn out to be a 8-10 hour movie game with generic gameplay, which will of course be ignored because of its graphics. It was never even on my radar as something worth buying for $60. Maybe in 3-4 years I'll pick it up when it's like $10 at gamestop.

To be completely fair.

This game does seem to be the kind of game that would benefit for Multiplayer. Santa Monica isn't exactly new to Multiplayer either.

Now The Last of Us on the other hand, didn't need a Multiplayer option at all.

Did tomb raider need Multiplayer?

the game would have gained more than it would have to at-least have some form of co-op.

people talk as if you can't have a good SP and MP, it has to be or the other, ridiculous notion

Maybe....

'IF' the game is 6-8h long and has no multiplayer it'll be an epic failure and you can bitch as much as you want about it. But if the game is 20h long (longer than TLOU) then multiplayer isn't needed at all. At the same time a 2 players co-op would be absolutely amazing and should be in the game.

Tomb Raider is all about Lara Croft. Did any of the previous Tomb Raider games have multiplayer? This is one of the reasons gamers were baffled that Uncharted 2 had multiplayer. It definitely didn't need it. That game was obviously being represented as a single play game.

The Order 1886 on the other hand had 4 other characters in the trailer ready to battle.Obviously you are expecting that other players would be controlling these other characters. It seems like they may rotate which players you will use in each Act or something. Not exactly sure how they will incorporate all these characters into the game. Maybe some of them will be AI bots that assist you like in Gears of War single player game.

Gamers who are saying "it's not needed" is just damage controlling the negative response people are having toward it not having multiplayer or co-op.

in the interwebs you see everybody hating on the COD series left and right yet it's one of the best selling video game franchises of all times.

That guy is a huge drama queen. He said it himself in the video - "Not every game needs multiplayer".. End of discussion there.

System Wars hypocrisy at its best.

Im sure the same people that are saying that multiplayer isn't needed for a single player focused game, are the same ones saying single player is needed in a multiplayer game like Titanfall.

And it goes both ways. If you were defending Titanfalls no single player and are bashing the Order for not having multiplayer, your a tool.

The game will have to justify its position. Is the multiplayer is good enough, or if the single player is good enough, then they will not need the other. The Order hasn't been released yet, we will not know any of the information until it is released. If its single player is stellar and has decent replay value and or length, no one will remember it didn't have multiplayer.

I do not get at all why people are even mad about this

I could care less about no multiplayer. In fact, I'm pleased by the news of no multiplayer so long as the campaign is worth the price of admission.

I don't mind any multiplayer. Sometimes I don't even play the multiplayer in a game.

Cool! Don't care about MP anyway! Same reason why I'm not upgrading to PSN+ and Gold member of live with my 360!

@Mkavanaugh77: Why do we even talk about Gears anymore? That IP went down the drain after 3. And it is a good thing. Games like Uncharted, TLOU, GOW:A, AC, are some good examples of games that have MP that shouldn't. Those resources could have been put somewhere else. Even if you do disagree, this whole argument is absurd anyways. Only SW could make this such a big deal.

save the resources to use elsewhere? the game runs at 30 fps and doesnt even have local co op, much less multiplayer O_o

smh

Cool.

Developers shouldn't have to resort to adding things that don't actually make the game better. Slapping on MP and Co-Op adds value in relationship to the cost of the game BUT it does not make it a better game. I personally don't give a shit about God of War MP or Assassins Creed MP or The Last of Us MP but I'm be more than happy to $60 for SP.

I'm surprised that there is no co-op but If they can make the game a great experience well worth the $60, then I'm game. But if they have no multiplayer and the game is only 4 hours of linearity, then I'm not touching it.

Bad news is abundant for Sony fans. Delays pushed well over a year away and no multiplayer options on several new titles coming out. How do they expect to make money on PSN+ with no damn MP games?

I'm not worried about the multiplayer really. I have heard a rumor that the game is very linear, that is what would kill it for me. We shall see.

@Foxbatalpha: care to elaborate on "well over a year away"?

his ass lips aren't as fast as his fingers and half as articulate

I used to be hurt that gears was on xbox only,

until I played uncharted 3 last week,

I had it for a year (it was a pack in that is worthless to trade)

I popped it in, been playing steady since it is no foe pussies.

my cousin brought his 360 over because I wanted to play gears 3 in 3d,

and I don't know,

I feel out of it mayne,

gears is fucking stale compared to uc3 mp mayne,

and please to don't use gears story as barometer of story telling

nah brah, mp has to be top notch,

even games with well thought out mp turn out terrible

gta online,

sometimes games just shouldn't have it

@Mkavanaugh77: Not every game. We need amazing games that can stand without multiplayer.

No one's mad except for lems pretending to be mad because they're slowly realising that MP is over rated and that's the only thing that Xbone has going for it.

Hey guys...

....not every game needs multiplayer.

Hold on a damn minute. When I say something like Mario 3D World doesn't need online (which I'm still a believer of), I'm considered an apologist, but some of the same people who blasted that game for lacking such a feature is giving Order a pass? From what I saw of the game, it looks like a co-op WOULD be ideal, but like 3D World lacking online, it doesn't bother me, but what DOES bother me is the logic of some people here.

only fake boy lemmings are mad

good move by RAD keep those tacked on lame Xbone mp trash away from The PlayStation 4™

Noone is mad, only PC people that also play a lot of MMOs

Noone else cares for resolutions/fps and online really, single player games are usually 10 million billion times better than the best MMO, so thank god it has not got multplayer, now it may actually be a good game

As for 30fps, it is more than fine, like 720p is more than fine too

I dont reemember enjoying Zelda, Bravely Default, Demons Souls, Dark Souls, FF7-9, Ultima, Baldurs Gate 2 etc etc etc any bit less because of frame rate or resolution, this is again only something non gamer PC people talk about to justify selling three houses to keep their PC upgrading habbit and bragging rights

Such people rarely play games, because even the strongest PC will never play a new next gen game at its best, usually you need to wait years and years to play maxed properly

In fact it is new games that focus on resolution, 3D effects and graphics that fail miserably, like FF13 series

@The_Last_Ride: It's not everyone, it's just this stupid bell-end. For the 30 FPS thing it doesn't matter; as long it doesn't chug to around 25 you'll get a nice experience.

@R4gn4r0k: I know I'd love to see some. :)

and yet last gen we all went out and bought lots of single player shooters :S I mean so Tomb Raider is a buy and not a rent because that has multiplayer :S I buy a game because of the quality of the game not because i get loads for my money, we don't even know what it's truly about yet we've seen a small snippet of it, its a third person shooter not every third person shooter needs a tacked on multiplayer just because you think it should.

Co-op is probably the only argument for this game.

but people forget it takes time and man power to put a multiplayer aspect in a game, already the cost of just making the game have gone up, companies are struggling, but yet people still want more even if it's a crappy MP part. I never bought gears of war because of the multiplayer, I never played the first 2 halo's because i thought about multiplayer,

• I never played uncharted because of the multiplayer.
• I never played the last of us bescause of the multiplayer.
• I never played metal gear solid because of the multiplayer.
• I never played Hitman because of the multiplayer.
• I never played GTA 1,2,3,4,5 because of the multiplayer.
• I never played resident evil 1,2,3,4,5,6 because of the multiplayer.
• I never played super metriod because of the multiplayer.
• I never played lego marvel or any lego game because of a multiplayer.

There has been no point in my life where i went into a game shop for a game i wanted and thought hold on, has it got multiplayer. What i'm not understanding is why it's strange all of a sudden that a game is single player :S I mean we just been through a whole 3/4 gens of consoles without being that bothered about a game not having multiplayer.

So of course this uproar is because we have nothing better to talk about because non of these systems have any games,

maybe some considered it the spiritual competitor to gears? Though i can see why people would be upset that sony only releases one and done single player games while MS focuses on multiplayer games that have years worth of replayability.

People obviously prefer multiplayer based games these days.

They couldn't put in multiplayer in if they wanted. They cant even fill the whole screen with pixels. Black bars with every game purchase!

"I like to eat shit therefore everyone should have the chance to eat shit"

Lemmings.

I rather they focus on the SP.

No multiplayer in a game: That's great, now they can focus on making an amazing single player game!!

No single player in a game: That's a ripoff!! Who would pay for that pos!!

MP focused games tend to suck anyway.

No one said they did. Some games got MP that didn't need it at all. This game was showcased like it would be a multiplayer game. That's really the only issue I have with it. I'm just curious as to how the other 3 characters will be involved within the story, if it's just a single player game. We still need more info. Is the game open world or closed and linear? How do the other characters get involved? Who will be the lead character we play as? How long in the campaign?

*******************************************************

A lot of people bought Warhawk & MAG which were multiplayer online only.

Hm seemed great for some co-op action, but whatever, if the SP is a wonderful experience then it won't be a big deal, and better having no MP than a tacked on one.

I was just pointing out Titanfall hypocrisy. I don't think games need both.

The announcement trailer and the concept scream coop mp like left 4 dead. My hype for the game had now plummeted with a lack of coop.

That's what i think aswell. People are raging over nothing