Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games

Gearbox Boss Bemoans Superfluous Multiplayer Modes 136

Posted by Soulskill
from the i-don't-need-to-play-minesweeper-with-my-friends dept.
Speaking with Edge magazine, Gearbox Software president Randy Pitchford lamented the tendency of game publishers to force multiplayer modes into games that don't need them. Quoting: "Pitchford points to the likes of Dead Space 2 as evidence that decisions are often motivated by the desire to tick boxes on a feature list, rather than for the good of the game itself. 'Let’s forget about what the actual promise of a game is and whether it’s suited to a narrative or competitive experience,' he tells us. 'Take that off the table for a minute and just think about the concept-free feature list: campaign, co-op, how many players? How many guns? How long is the campaign? 'When you boil it down to that, you take the ability to make good decisions out of the picture. And the reason they do it is because they notice that the biggest blockbusters offer a little bit for every kind of consumer. You have people that want co-op and competitive, and players who want to immerse themselves in deep fiction. But the concept has to speak to that automatically; it can’t be forced. That’s the problem.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gearbox Boss Bemoans Superfluous Multiplayer Modes

Comments Filter:
  • by RogueyWon (735973) * on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @02:14AM (#35729952) Journal

    Oh god yes, I couldn't agree more. The real problem I have with multiplayer modes forced into games that don't need them is that they often end up forcing the game design down particular pathways, which don't always improve the experience.

    Take weapon balance, for example. Multiplayer gamers these days being too lazy to actually find and pick up weapons like we had do back in the days of Doom and Quake (yes, yes, get off my lawn etc), the trend is for game designers to try to make sure that all of the weapons in first and third person shooters are "balanced". And yet for me, part of the appeal of a decent first person shooter is upgrading my arsenal as I go along; picking up better weapons and managing the limited ammo available for them. Remember the first time you found a BFG in Doom? You don't get feelings like that too often any more, as there's an absolute terror of allowing one weapon to be "better" than any of the others. I suspect that similar considerations force the adoption of my least favorite trope of modern action gaming ever - the 2 weapons limit. This absolutely ruined the campaign in Resistance 2 (sequel to what I still maintain is the best console fps ever) by making it far riskier to actually experiment with all the weird and wacky weapons that are Insomniac's speciality - if you can only carry two weapons at a time, you're going to stick with the rifle+shotgun combo 95% of the time and trust the game to put a sniper rifle in your path if you come up on one of the obligatory sniping sections.

    Then there's the ridiculously short campaigns that are often justified on the basis of multiplayer. Look at something like Homefront; a game which is ostensibly all about its plot and setting has a ludicrous campaign that I beat in less than 4 and a half hours, which doesn't do anything to actually delve into the world they've created. And the excuse - there's multiplayer. It's noticable that Bulletstorm, which de-emphasises multiplayer as far as a modern marketing department will allow, bucks this trend and actually has a pretty decent campaign length (I brought my first playthrough home in a little under 11 hours).

    I know there are people out there who really dig multiplayer in these things. But there are a lot of us who don't; after being very, very heavily into the Counter-Strike scene 8-10 years ago, I have had enough experience of being sworn at in German by 14 year olds for this lifetime. Multiplayer these days is limited to occasional co-op with real-life friends - and that doesn't require absolutely every game to have a tagged on multiplayer modes. Besides - pick a random "yesterday's big thing" shooter - 6 months old or greater - that wasn't a massive multiplayer phenomenon like a CoD or Halo and then try to find a server with more than 2 people on it. I did this with a few games on my steam list and in most cases, it just wasn't happening.

    • For the philosophy that STYLE IS SUBSTANCE (300 not withstanding).
    • by bronney (638318)

      I have had enough experience of being sworn at in German by 14 year olds for this lifetime.

      You mad, bro?

      If you don't like a server just pick another. I live in HK and hates all the HK, Taiwan, Mainland TF2 servers because there's no talking. It feels like you're playing bots all the time. So I switched over to a great LA server despite 180ms ping, enjoying every minute of it. If kiddies gets you mad just switch. Kiddies can't deal with lag and will not bother you in the new one.

      • by tepples (727027)

        Kiddies can't deal with lag and will not bother you in the new one.

        Unless they kick you for high ping.

      • That reminds me of two things I've heard in the past week about my Dallas, TX TF2 servers:

        Last Friday on my Event TF2 server, red.ocrtf2.com:27015, one person said they liked the server "because people talked." This was during my Medieval Madness event Medieval Mode was on for all maps in addition to alltalk, nocrits, nodmgspread, and fixedweaponspread. This server is also available for when our normal server is full, but crits are enabled by default.

        I saw someone yesterday playing on my normal TF2 server

        • by bronney (638318)

          Yeppers, for us veterans TF2, CS whatnot is really secondary. It's the funny convo, smart ass remarks that's addictive. These fps's you know, once you mastered one, they're all the same, relax headshots lols.

    • by Nursie (632944)

      Agreed, for the most part.

      R2 pissed me off more because of the removal of the ability to play through the game in split-screen.

      R1 had been great fun to play through with a friend and few beers. The two gun thing, to me, was them trying to be Gears of War.

      • by RogueyWon (735973) *

        The good news is that it seems Insomniac have heard this loud and clear. The third game is bringing back the weapon-wheel and, I believe, split-screen modes (though would need to check the latter).

        I think you're right about Gears of War. They probably compared R1's sales to GoW's and felt envious, forgetting that GoW was released for a mature platform which already had a large installed base, while R1 was a launch title for a system that proved a bit of a slow-starter.

        • by Nursie (632944)

          Unfortunately life has moved on since then, and I now live a couple of continents away from my gaming buddy, rather than in the same house.

          Timezones are as much an impediment to online gaming as distance, too.

    • by homb (82455)

      The 2-weapon limit is utterly moronic and problematic for any game that doesn't try to be "realistic". And that's about 90% of the FPSes that should NOT have the weapon limit. I just finished Bulletstorm (had a bucketload of fun, first time in years with an FPS), and even with the myriad ways to switch weapons after pretty much each encounter, I still felt like if they'd given you all the weapons all the time it could have been even more fun.
      "Kill with skill" is good, but killing with skill by drilling a gu

      • by RogueyWon (735973) *

        Bulletstorm does at least allow you three weapons (albeit with one of them always locked to the assault rifle - which is at least useful). But yes, it would have been even better if you could have done longer multi-weapon chains.

        I wonder if there's a consolisation issue here. A keyboard has lots of buttons for quick weapon selection - a console controller doesn't, so designers tend to retreat to a single "switch weapons" button. The original Resistance and the likes of Ratchet & Clank have shown that we

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      I demand multiplayer. I also demand a good singleplayer experience. Any FPS which cannot deliver both does not need to be purchased. I am remarkably unlikely to buy any FPS which does not have co-op, which to me is the best thing in FPS.

      I don't see why gamers don't expect a game to not suck any more. Just another lame game that doesn't build on the past? Throw it back!

      • by skids (119237)

        Couch co-op is important to me. Multiplayer is not -- for the simple fact that there are only so many players out there and pick-up lobbies get emptier the more game titles they are spread over.

        I'd prefer if the game companies left multiplayer for a limited number of games specifically designed/playtested for it. Speaking of which, why no 3D first-person Joust? You'd think...

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          Speaking of which, why no 3D first-person Joust? You'd think...

          That actually sounds like something you could pull off relatively easily as a mod for some other game... I bet somebody crafty could do it in Garry's Mod.

          • by skids (119237)

            Could be good for a proof of concept. Everquest had a little fun with it but from a 3rd person perspective. IMO it needs to be first person with the combined feel of a fast multiplayer FPS and a dogfight flight simulator. Some folks with more art talent than coding skill drew up some models a decade or so ago, and IIRC there were unvetted screenshots of a supposedly scrubbed attempt by a game company.

            Probably it would require more than just modding an FPS to really bring it to life -- there'd need to be

        • by dadioflex (854298)

          Speaking of which, why no 3D first-person Joust? You'd think...

          You never played Mount and Blade?

        • by Dr Max (1696200)
          if you make the ai good enough you don't need any other players to have a good quick game in multi player.
    • by Rossman (593924)

      I largely agree with your post, but, one correction: the BFG was actually balanced. Sure, it was powerful as shit, but it was also super slow, comparatively.

    • You have some valid points, however I would like to add another 2 perspectives as a game programmer and game designer.

      - Single Player vs Multi-Player. You must consider the audience. For a single player game, a linear increase in power works great! In multiplayer not so great .. which dovetails into my next point:

      - "Proper" Weapon Balance has become a Rock-Paper-Scissor approach.. Otherwise what happens is that you [literally] get a death-spiral for who can find, for the sake of argument lets say the We

    • Take weapon balance, for example. Multiplayer gamers these days being too lazy to actually find and pick up weapons like we had do back in the days of Doom and Quake (yes, yes, get off my lawn etc), the trend is for game designers to try to make sure that all of the weapons in first and third person shooters are "balanced". And yet for me, part of the appeal of a decent first person shooter is upgrading my arsenal as I go along; picking up better weapons and managing the limited ammo available for them.

      I p

      • er... sorry, the last line should have said "move faster but be restricted to melee only during the duration, which is 10 seconds. It also makes you deal and receive mini-crits (TF2 has two levels of critical hits)."

  • I rarely play multiplayer modes for single-player games, but I got DS2 off of Steam at the beginning of the month and poked at the multiplayer maps after finishing the campaign the first time. All of them corresponded to sequences in the game where there would have been armed soldiers battling through endless(ly respawning) waves of necromorphs and against the clock. As for weapon potency and wackiness-- come on, Jesus. There's a gun that lets you hold a spinning circular sawblade at the end of a tractor be
  • Not just games. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Xtravar (725372) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @02:39AM (#35730052) Homepage Journal

    It's not just games. Everything is ruined by bullet-points; from software to politics to porn. I don't know how we can solve this problem as a society. People want quick summaries, sound bytes, standardized tests, but they never tell the whole story. It's easier to produce to the bullet points, just like it's easier to teach students to the test.

    • ideas.ppt (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      * Teach critical thinking, starting at a young age.
      * Actively promote deep and creative behaviors.
      * Promote your ideas through subtle irony.

    • by ynp7 (1786468)

      If you don't like bullet-points in porn you're clearly not watching the right stuff.

    • Dunno if it's just the summaries a bullet points, as just the idea that the more stuff there is in, the better. That if a game/car/phone/product has X and Y, it's obviously worse than one which has X, Y and Z. Something with just two bullet points is worse than something with three bullet points, and both are worse than something with four bullet points. You're getting less for your money, right?

      Basically the difference I'm getting at is that people often don't even as much care what those bullet points are

    • If by porn bullet points, you mean boob jobs that jut out like Madonna's bra, then I agree. Otherwise, I don't follow you.

    • by Locke2005 (849178)

      Everything is ruined by bullet-points; from software to politics to porn.

      I don't know, for some people, porn is improved by bullet-points [urbandictionary.com] !

  • I don't care if it's balanced; it can be slapped together for all I care, just as long as I don't lose connection with the other player(s). That's a multiplayer mode that I can get into. Can't say I like all the weak competitive multiplayer in games that don't need it.
  • Co-op? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gaygirlie (1657131) <gaygirlie AT hotmail DOT com> on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @02:50AM (#35730100) Homepage

    How many games these days really do offer co-op gaming? I mean, so far I haven't seen a SINGLE game in years that offers the ability for you to play through the story mode with a friend/spouse/etc. No, they're all just rehashes of CTF or deathmatch, and those are stuffed in every single god damn game, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. But why, oh, why no co-op, ever?

    Some of us aren't interested in competitive gaming against random *sshats, instead some of us wish to be able to share the story campaing with a close person. There's plenty of games that actually would offer huge amounts of fun if there was co-op included. A great, deep and insightful story is all the more worth it if you can share the tale with someone, but you don't always even need that; I remember back in the days when Unreal 1 was still new. The story was nothing too fancy or epic, it was mostly just a straight-forward FPS game. But when you set the difficulty level up a notch and joined in a co-op game it felt like a totally new experience compared to single-player. I think we eventually played it through something like 5 or 6 times, simply because it was fun every time.

    Or am I just the odd one in the bunch again for wishing for good ol' co-op mode in games?

    • Re:Co-op? (Score:4, Informative)

      by TechnoFrood (1292478) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @03:00AM (#35730150)

      I mean, so far I haven't seen a SINGLE game in years that offers the ability for you to play through the story mode with a friend/spouse/etc.

      A quick look at my library of games in steam reveals the following games that allow co-op through the story line.

      Alien Swarm (admittedly only one fairly short campaign by default, but there are community made maps).
      Borderlands.
      Left 4 Dead.
      Left 4 Dead 2.
      Magicka.
      Serious Sam HD First and second encounter (Technically re-releases of games from 2000)
      Sol Survivor.

      I'm sure there are others out there.

      • Call of Duty World at War.

        And then there's other games which offer non-campaign co-op modes like Splinter Cell: Conviction, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 etc.

      • Re:Co-op? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by indiechild (541156) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @03:25AM (#35730252)

        Call of Duty World at War.
        Rainbow Six Vegas
        Rainbow Six Vegas 2
        Resident Evil 5

        And then there's other games which offer non-campaign co-op modes like Splinter Cell: Conviction, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 etc.

        There's surprisingly numerous co-op games out there if one bothers to look.

      • by Briareos (21163) *

        DeathSpank
        Shank
        Lara Croft And The Guardian Of Light
        Trine

      • by DeadboltX (751907)
        saying that any of those games have a story mode is a stretch
        • That's odd I distinctly remember a story line in Borderlands and Magicka.

          • As much as I enjoy Borderlands, the story is kinda non-existent beyond "go here, do this". I love the game, but calling it's "plot" and story line is being dishonest.
      • Re:Co-op? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Buggz (1187173) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @06:18AM (#35730918)
        Ok, but BESIDES Alien Swarm, Borderlands, Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, Magicka, Serious Sam HD First and second encounter, Sol Survivor, Call of Duty World at War, Rainbow Six Vegas, Rainbow Six Vegas 2, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, Shank, Deathspank, Trine and Resident Evil 5... WHAT have the Rehashes Of Manshoots And Needforspeeds ever done for US?
      • Halo 3 and Halo 3 ODST

    • I agree, and what the fuck happened to counter-op? To my knowledge Perfect Dark is still the only game with it.
      • by Ihmhi (1206036)

        There are lots of things Perfect Dark did right that I miss in modern games, like interesting weapons and a main female character who didn't dress like a whore.

        • by tepples (727027)

          There are lots of things Perfect Dark did right that I miss in modern games, like interesting weapons and a main female character who didn't dress like a whore.

          Since when does Samus Aran of Metroid series dress like a prostitute outside rule 34?

          • by Ihmhi (1206036)

            Disclaimer: all of the following linked pictures showcase absolutely no nudity; however, you probably wouldn't want to have someone looking over your shoulder when you open them regardless.

            Since the Zero Suit [smashbros.com]. Compare to this [atlantabondage.com]. (As an aside, it is damn hard to find a SFW picture of a woman in a catsuit... probably more about my search parameters than anything.

            Hell, even in the NES era - the first friggin' game! - they had her running around in a one piece [metroid-database.com].

      • by rekenner (849871)
        Splinter Cell. Especially Conviction.
        • by Tolkien (664315)
          God I miss Splinter Cell. I LOVED the first one and played through it many times using different styles (ghosting, full assault, etc). I had a ritual where when a new Splinter Cell would come out I would play through all the previous ones one by one just to remind myself of the storyline, then I would play through the newest one completely up to date and aware of the history and characters. Then came Splinter Cell: Double Agent which ruined the series completely because of how show-stoppingly buggy it was.
    • by Zironic (1112127)

      There's plenty of Coop in the FPS genre I find, just look at Halo, Gears of War, Army of Two, Splinter Cell etc, Call of Duty also has coop although there the coop missions are seperate.

      There's some coop in the RPG genre, but I find it all lackluster, especially Fable.

      Generally it feels like I have to wait atleast 6 months between a game with decent coop to come out (Usually a sequel to Halo/Gears/Army)

      • There's plenty of Coop in the FPS genre I find, just look at Halo, Gears of War, Army of Two, Splinter Cell etc, Call of Duty also has coop although there the coop missions are seperate.

        Do you actually get to play the single-player campaing co-operatively with another player? If not then I atleast don't count those as co-op.

        • Do you actually get to play the single-player campaing co-operatively with another player? If not then I atleast don't count those as co-op.

          Gears of War and Left4Dead were built with Co-Op campaign first and foremost in mind. It really shows and they're great fun to play.

          Halo isn't DESIGNED around being a co-op game, but it's co-op campaign is still pretty fun.

          Army of Two I really didn't like, and Call of Duty doesn't have a co-op campaign.

        • by Warma (1220342)

          Army of Two effectively does not have a single player campaign, as the mechanics and design of the game emphasize co-operative play with another male human, with whom you have a healthy, intimate relationship (ie. the aggro/baiting/diversion combat, stage design with split routes, and the blatantly homosexual themes). It plays very well, as both planning and synchronous effort are mandatory to survive most scenes. Having also played Gears of War, which had a much worse mission design, I would specifically r

      • by jonwil (467024)

        Diablo 2 had some good co-op (and it definatly was co-op in that you could have multiple players in your party all wandering around the world with you and fighting the same bad guys as in the SP campaign, only harder)

    • by Sibko (1036168)

      How many games these days really do offer co-op gaming? I mean, so far I haven't seen a SINGLE game in years that offers the ability for you to play through the story mode with a friend/spouse/etc. No, they're all just rehashes of CTF or deathmatch, and those are stuffed in every single god damn game, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. But why, oh, why no co-op, ever?

      Some of us aren't interested in competitive gaming against random *sshats, instead some of us wish to be able to share the story campaing with a close person. There's plenty of games that actually would offer huge amounts of fun if there was co-op included. A great, deep and insightful story is all the more worth it if you can share the tale with someone, but you don't always even need that; I remember back in the days when Unreal 1 was still new. The story was nothing too fancy or epic, it was mostly just a straight-forward FPS game. But when you set the difficulty level up a notch and joined in a co-op game it felt like a totally new experience compared to single-player. I think we eventually played it through something like 5 or 6 times, simply because it was fun every time.

      Or am I just the odd one in the bunch again for wishing for good ol' co-op mode in games?

      Um, Halo?

      I mean, pretty much every single thing you're pining for is in every Halo game. Shit I can't even count the number of hours I've spent playing co-op through all five of them. On a bang/buck point alone those games have been the single best entertainment purchases I have ever made.

      • by rwv (1636355)
        Borderlands comes to mind. I played through that with a buddy. Good times. Funny game, too. Very entertaining. A bit repetitive, but what FPS isn't?
    • by thrash242 (697169)

      How many games these days really do offer co-op gaming? I mean, so far I haven't seen a SINGLE game in years that offers the ability for you to play through the story mode with a friend/spouse/etc.

      Then quite honestly, you haven't played many games in the last several years.

      There are several very popular games designed from the ground up for co-op: Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, Resident Evil 5, etc. In these games, even in single-player, you have AI team-mates. You literally can't play them solo.

      I have no idea what you've been playing if you think no modern games have co-op. Co-op was pretty dead in the early 2000s, but it's been back more than ever for the last five or so years.

    • by rekenner (849871)
      Resident Evil 5 and Splinter Cell: Conviction. Well, the latter's story mode, not so much, but there's an entirely separate co-op campaign.
    • How many games these days really do offer co-op gaming? I mean, so far I haven't seen a SINGLE game in years that offers the ability for you to play through the story mode with a friend/spouse/etc. No, they're all just rehashes of CTF or deathmatch, and those are stuffed in every single god damn game, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. But why, oh, why no co-op, ever?

      Umm, Halo series, Gears of War, OFP Dragon Rising and upcoming Red River, Armored Core For Answer, Borderland, Saints Row 2 all say hello. You can play full story mode co-op in all those, and that just on 360 and just off the top of my head.

    • by mordred99 (895063)
      Army of Two .. both of them. The premise has you and your best friend as Mercenaries doing missions. You have to do a lot of "you do this, I do that to get past this obstacle." It is not the best game from a graphics perspective, but it is actually a good play and you can get it used for under 15 bucks.
    • by glassware (195317)

      Interestingly enough, Randy Pitchford's super successful game Borderlands was probably partly successful due to its multiplayer co-op, which was tons of fun.

    • by seigniory (89942)

      so far I haven't seen a SINGLE game in years that offers the ability for you to play through the story mode with a friend/spouse/etc.

      Gears of War series. This is how CoOp should be done.

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      How many games these days really do offer co-op gaming? I mean, so far I haven't seen a SINGLE game in years that offers the ability for you to play through the story mode with a friend/spouse/etc. No, they're all just rehashes of CTF or deathmatch, and those are stuffed in every single god damn game, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. But why, oh, why no co-op, ever?

      Halo, for one, on all games. Some of my friends went through story mode on harder settings because of it.

      Halo 3 ODST and Halo Reach

    • How many games these days really do offer co-op gaming? I mean, so far I haven't seen a SINGLE game in years that offers the ability for you to play through the story mode with a friend/spouse/etc. No, they're all just rehashes of CTF or deathmatch, and those are stuffed in every single god damn game, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. But why, oh, why no co-op, ever?

      There's a big budget game right around the corner that, while it doesn't have you go through the single-player campaign in co-op, it

    • by MoriaOrc (822758)
      A few more for the list in this thread:

      Monster Hunter
      Doesn't have a story really, but basically all content can be played with up to 4 players. My experience is with the PSP versions, which are very fun with three friends in the same room doing ad-hoc wireless multiplayer.

      Lost Planet 2
      Didn't play the first one so I can't comment on it. Second one had full campaign coop by again up to 4 players at a time. Boss fights reminded me somewhat of Monster Hunter with guns, otherwise more a gears-of-war s
  • by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @03:58AM (#35730386) Homepage
    Back in the VGA gaming days, games were all single-player. We had modems that could talk to other players, and if you had access to an office you could use a network to play. That is, if any dang games ever had multiplayer capability. Game designers didn't like the idea of multiplayer and said it would never sell. One famous game designer stated, quite bluntly, that his customers didn't have friends. Now, the idea that gamers would play alone is heresy and gamers are complaining about the lack of good single-player games. One thing hasn't changed: game companies are usually moronic and 95% of games are still crap.
    • by venril (905197)

      Back in the VGA gaming days, games were all single-player.

      The original Doom game had multiplayer support over a LAN - coop. Was a bit unstable though...

      • Yeah, and it used broadcast packets and flooded any network it was attached to. Got banned from university networks as a result and hindered multiplayer games for years afterwards.
  • The entire software industry suffers from box-checking syndrome.

  • by cvtan (752695) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @05:37AM (#35730764)
    A dozen players wandering around in complete silence trying not to bump into each other. OR A dozen people slinking around in a circle trying to pick each other's pockets. It could work.

    Waiting for Thi4f...

    • by grumbel (592662)

      Isn't Assassins Creed: Brotherhood's multiplayer kind of like this?

    • Dontcha mean "Thi4f"?

      Now there is Thievery, a Unreal Tournament (the original) mod that does a guards vs thieves thing. There's also the modification to Thief 2 to make that co-op. It's not a bad idea but it does seem like one that could be easily, easily, implemented poorly and, ultimately, waste time and effort that could have been used to flesh out and polish up other areas of the game. Add in the disappoints of Thief 3 (small levels, no rope arrows, no water, "body awareness", third person perspectiv

    • I believe Splinter Cell had a multiplayer mode where one player was the infiltrator and everyone else played guards trying to catch him.. that would be perfectly fitting for Thief 4.

    • Oh, nvm. You did spell Thi4f.

  • ...but I hate the recent trend of having different game mechanics and controls for single player and multiplayer. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of Starcraft 2, Medal of Honor, and I know there's others.

    All I can think when I play those kinds of games is that the game was cobbled together from a broken set of priorities. It ruins the experience for me, I expect the single player be training for multiplayer. I would never dream of playing the multiplayer first, even in a game series I was intimat
  • by Necreia (954727) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @09:30AM (#35732106)

    Purely conjecture, but I believe it's less to do with "checking off a feature" and more to do with the following:
    - Save time & money on content generation, since people who play multiplayer will use the same map over and over.
    - Form of DRM / Piracy Protection, if there is 'server validation' then there's an indirect 'purchase validation'

    Personally, I don't buy a game for multiplayer unless it's split screen, and those are few and far between. I'd play an older game like Goldeneye 64 with 3 buds long before playing any shooter over xbox live.

  • ...because I like to feel somehow social.

    And I find there aren't that many multiplayer only games... especially games designed specifically only for multiplayer; they tend to be mods & community driven

  • by PortHaven (242123) on Wednesday April 06, 2011 @11:48AM (#35733894) Homepage

    Nearly every game for the Xbox 360 is single-player (or online frag fest).

    Damn, where the hell are the Baldur's Gates, the Dungeon Heroes, the multi-player co-op dungeon crawlers. The platform has been out for years and there's practically nada for it.

    Seriously, I am sick of single-player + fragfest. Why? Well, I'm married. I've got kids. I can't find the time to play through a super long campaign. And I sure as heck can't find the time to hone my death match skills. So not much fun there to be had.

    I want a game I can play the campaign through in a a day or two of being sick. Better yet, I want a game with a good co-op campaign that my wife and I can play and that doesn't immediately become super-repetitive and boring.

    When I look at the shelves....90% of the games on the shelf are single-player + online deathmatch or online co-op. Of the few remaining games with co-op, it's basically sports, racing, or crap.

    I WANT BALDUR'S GATE III

  • There was a period, in the late nineties and most of the 2000s that every game had to have multiplayer to be cool. You would be hard-pressed to find a game from that era that didn't have a multiplayer mode, even if it was just tacked on, buggy as hell and unbalanced. Even Myst [wikipedia.org] had a multiplayer spin-off! That was a time when we started seeing multiplayer-only games, like Quake III and Unreal Tournament.

    These days I think it has become acceptable to release games without multiplayer. Games have become more c

Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.

Working...