AZ Greg
Member
NeoGAF
Interactions with NPCs in 50 hour JRPGs is about all the social interaction some around here want. 
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EEDAR: Fewer games including multiplayer, 41% of PS3/360 retail games don't have it
- Thread starter Guevara
- Start date
NeoGAF
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Good. I have nothing against multiplayer in and of itself, but I'm sick of seeing it shoehorned into every franchise without any regard for whether it actually makes sense. Especially when its inclusion has a blatant detrimental effect on the development of the single player portion of a game. *cough*deadspace3*cough*
Agent Ironside
Member
Good feels all around with this trend. Hoping it continues.
aliencowz7
Member
I am all for less stuff like competitive multiplayer or side modes like survival and what not.
Give me way more games with full coop of the storyline as an option though, there is a painful lack of good online coop in story based games that drives me crazy.
Give me way more games with full coop of the storyline as an option though, there is a painful lack of good online coop in story based games that drives me crazy.
Well, when they start including it in games for the sake of having it so they can sell an online pass, and the community is dead in 2-3 months yet they still continue to try to push MP in every game when that money could of gone to the single player budget..you can see why where my hate for it comes from.
Exactly, I couldn't believe it when I first bought a racing game that had online multi-player but no split-screen mode, I've hardly bought any racing games since.
Other games allow a two-player local game but don't allow bots which is just as stupid.
Uno Venova
Banned
I hope cases like bioshock 2, dead space 2 and tomb raider happen less and less, bioshock infinite is the way to go.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
But every vested-interest industry type told me the SP-only model was dead! How could the echo chamber lie to me like this!?!?!?!?!
SafeinSound
Member
Multiplayer is shoe horned into too many games. When it's actually done correctly and well, then there isn't a problem. But games like Dead Space having competitive multiplayer, come on.
Acquiescence
Member
Sick to death of tacked-on multiplayer in games that blantantly do not need it and would benefit from having that time and those resources spent on making the single player campaign the best it can possibly be.
.
On one hand, I'm happy. On the other, I don't think people have yet figured out that substantive single-player modes will help games sell really well (see: Arkham City, Skyrim, Fallout 3, etc).
It's about forcing MP into games where it isn't needed. Remember the big stink about Bioshock 2's (which was actually pretty good aside from the awful FOV)?
It's about forcing MP into games where it isn't needed. Remember the big stink about Bioshock 2's (which was actually pretty good aside from the awful FOV)?
Canis lupus
Member
I hate multiplayer that is forced on single player centric games. Who still plays and remembers the sequels to Dead Space or Bioshock for their mp?
As covered by others here it's a problem because some games really aren't meant for it, so at best it's an inoffensive extra that was a waste of time and money given how quickly it ends up dying, at worst it completely and undeniably changes the game's overall design, this was a significant issue with Resident Evil 5 and 6, and despite Dead Space initially being a reprieve from that they jumped into it with Dead Space 3 as well, and while they tried to handle it so it didn't have the same effect there were still compromises like removing save points in favor of fully going checkpoint based, a separate issue of mine.
When games are MEANT for multiplayer it can be amazing, and there is potential in some games that avoided it (Vanquish if it can deal with the lag, and Bioshock's core gameplay can work well for multiplayer, though with 2 I just grew tired of needing to unlock everything), but many publishers seem to insist on just slapping it on because apparently they think EVERY DAMN GAME needs it and it ends up not really working out too hot, and even in better cases it seems to come at the expense of single player design (ME3's co-op is very easily ignorable, and while the Galactic Readiness was a concern it ended up not really being a big deal given the endings quality and that you can get ENOUGH via SP, but it seemed to me quite a few side missions were just solo versions of the MP maps rather than something more interesting like in ME2.)
DukeTogo1300
Member
I wonder if this trend has been reflected with game review criteria, multi used to be a pretty important bullet-point.
NeoGAF
Interactions with NPCs in 50 hour JRPGs is about all the social interaction some around here want.
What the hell..
AZ Greg
Member
But is the MP bad because it is forced on? Or is it bad because the developers simply weren't good enough to do the mode justice?
While there are examples like you mentioned, on the flip side there is also stuff like Red Dead Redemption where neither mode detracts from the other.
Multiplayer games have an entirely different design process, and very different goals from single-player games. Taking on multiplayer to single-player games will usually result in some novelty mode that not many people will try or enjoy. The same is true for the reverse case, though it is more rare (e.g. Battlefield 3). There are exceptions, but usually they are games that simply have the luxury of more development time or budget than most (e.g. Starcraft 2).
yurinka
Member
I prefer single player and play local multiplayer in very rare cases. Online multiplayer use to be fustrating in most games because I use to lose.
Designers need to check Motorstorm Apocalypse to see how to make somehting enjoyable for everybody in non-coop games : giving each player a different goal even if it's more or less secondary.
In addition to this, I find that several games don't need multiplayer. And I prefer always to complete the single player campaign before trying the multi just to have a certain competitive level. But often I'm bored with the game before completing so I use to skip the title before starting with the multi.
And if I try the multi I feel like a crap before starting because everybody is level 30948234 and I'm level 1 even if I spent 100 hours in the single player campaign.
Designers need to check Motorstorm Apocalypse to see how to make somehting enjoyable for everybody in non-coop games : giving each player a different goal even if it's more or less secondary.
In addition to this, I find that several games don't need multiplayer. And I prefer always to complete the single player campaign before trying the multi just to have a certain competitive level. But often I'm bored with the game before completing so I use to skip the title before starting with the multi.
And if I try the multi I feel like a crap before starting because everybody is level 30948234 and I'm level 1 even if I spent 100 hours in the single player campaign.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Good...
Ratchet and clankdid not need multiplayer, the game suffered immensely for having it included.
Dead space did not need multiplayer
Mirror's edge does not need multiplayer
Sonic games don't need multiplayer
I hope they stop shoehorning it into games it's a detriment to.
It even ruined racing games because online multiplayer replaced splitscreen multiplayer...
dirt / grid games and half the nfs games don't have splitscreen anymore , what a load of bullshit, same for SSX.
Ratchet and clankdid not need multiplayer, the game suffered immensely for having it included.
Dead space did not need multiplayer
Mirror's edge does not need multiplayer
Sonic games don't need multiplayer
I hope they stop shoehorning it into games it's a detriment to.
It even ruined racing games because online multiplayer replaced splitscreen multiplayer...
dirt / grid games and half the nfs games don't have splitscreen anymore , what a load of bullshit, same for SSX.
it's not that MP is a bad thing it's that there are too many publishers who tack MP onto a game just to say it has replay value. and in those cases, that's manpower and time that could have gone into the SP experience instead
grosvenor_92
Member
Hopefully that trend continues next gen
I'm actually playing dead space 3 because of the co op but I've never been a big horror game fan, so I'm actually enjoying it.
Manmademan
Member
Telltale's walking dead game doesn't either- plenty of people cheered that one. (Did that get a retail release? i thought I saw one).
Of the Ps3 games I own, there are several notable ones with no multiplayer, including Fallout 3 and NV, Vanquish, Dragon age I and II, Heavy Rain, Heavenly Sword, Alpha Protocol, FFXIII and XIII-2, Shadow of the Damned, Nier, Mass Effect 2, Dead Space, Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, Silent Hill homecoming and Downpour, 3D dot game heroes, Valkyria Chronicles, Red Dead Redemption, Bayonetta, El Shaddai, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, Enslaved, Darksiders 1 and 2, Deus Ex: HR, Lollipop Chainsaw and Dragon's Dogma (sorta).
That's a LOT of games with no multiplayer at all- most of which are pretty highly regarded here. Though some of these games (dead space, mass effect) got sequels with multiplayer, those modes tended to be kind of tacked on, not well thought out and aren't really the focus. (especially in dead space 2's case. haven't played 3.) I'd say my personal collection is maybe 60:40 in favor of games with multiplayer, but there's a lot of fighters and racers in there skewing the total a bit.
I think a lot of times it's actually a bit of both. Upper management wants to force it in, and while they have the drive for a great single player game they don't for MP, and so they phone it in or let someone else do it (ok that may be a case of just bad developers.) Nevermind that they may specialize in good SP design but have no idea how to approach MP.
Of course the flip side of this is that very occasionally we get a Mass Effect 3.