The Full Story On Warhawk PS3

TimC writes "1up has up a really fantastic interview with Dylan Jobe, the director of Warhawk for PS3. He addresses why they went multiplayer, and why people shouldn't be worried about it being downloadable. 'We had a few really fun missions. But a few missions don't make a competitive single player game. They don't. The bar is set, and it's set really, really high. And we can hit and exceed that bar in a multiplayer ... Just because iTunes is available now doesn't mean that music producers say oh, now we can do crummy music. Convenience is great, but quality always wins out.'"

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because iTunes is available now doesn't mean that music producers say oh, now we can do crummy music.

Seriously, what? I mean, what he's saying is supposed to make some kind of sense, right?

Re:

[ifrag]

Perhaps this is what he was getting at...

Just because iTunes is available now doesn't mean that music producers say oh, now we should stop making crummy music.

Translation

[AKAImBatman]

We had a few really fun missions. But a few missions don't make a competitive single player game. They don't. The bar is set, and it's set really, really high. And we can hit and exceed that bar in a multiplayer

Translation: Doing single player really well was going to cost too much time and money. So we took the multiplayer shortcut that is so popular these days.

Sometimes I really miss the computer games of the 90's. They provided such an outstanding single-player experience. :(

Re:

[danlock4]

I would definitely include the most-creative of the single-player games from the 80s in that list. ...and some of the multiplayer games from the 80s: although M.U.L.E. was an awesome multiplayer game, however, it wasn't multiplayer in the same way as the multiplayer games nowadays... same for W.O.R.M.S., et. al... (this post, while responding to its parent, also refers directly to the gp, the article: "But a few missions don't make a competitive single player game.")

Re:

[AKAImBatman]

I would definitely include the most-creative of the single-player games from the 80s in that list

There were definitely some good games of the 80's. However, they didn't quite get that "Wow" impact until the 90's. You know, the impact you got just starting the game and taking in the movie-like intros before jumping into the fray/cockpit/story/whatever. Origin was probably the company that most pushed the idea that a great game and a great looking game are not mutually exclusive. That idea was later picked up

Re:

[MikeBabcock]

I really miss some of the 'good old' game studios like Origin. They made fantastic games and tried to push the envelope in story telling, plot and self-directed game play as well as graphics and sound capabilities.

Re:

[kenny0]

multiplayer wasn't available back then...

Re:

[fistfullast33l]

Actually, the rumor on the Internets is that singleplayer just didn't work out well at all, and wasn't fun. I'd rather they cut it then give us a crappy version of it. I'm also completely confused on why it's going to be a Blu-ray title. It sounds like the game is going to be smaller than expected, so why go the full out retail route? I think that's going to hurt sales.

They have promised a demo for late spring. If that plays out well, then it might justify the retail release I guess. The game looks fu

Money isn't the only factor...

[Herak]

Translation: Doing single player really well was going to cost too much time and money.

So you think that just throwing more resources at the project would improve it? That isn't usually true for software engineering in general, and it's CERTAINLY not the case for game development. A larger budget won't turn a typical designer into Miyamoto.

If it wasn't working, it wasn't working. I think it's cool that they have enough pride in their work to not release something if they don't think it's good enough. If more developers took this attitude, I think we'd have a much healthier game industr

Re:

[AKAImBatman]

So you think that just throwing more resources at the project would improve it?

I love it when people put words into my mouth. Not. :-/

Time == Money

Therefore, if they need more time to get the single player to a "fun" state, then it's going to cost more money. Whereas if they've already got the multiplayer up and running, they can cheat on a lot of the game content by using HI rather than AI to do fun things like setup ambushes, provide a challenging dogfight, guard the embankments, etc.

Re:

[Herak]

I apologize if I put words in your mouth, but you missed my point. Spending more time won't necessarily improve the game, either. Your view is oversimplifying. Some games are not meant to be single player, just as some are not meant to be multiplayer - why force it?

Re:Translation

[Shadowlore]

On the other hand, it's refreshing. Nobody should have any illusions that Warhawk is a decent or even good single player game. I've got no problems with companies releasing MP game sonly, just as I have no problem with companies releasing SP only games. Why does every game have to be ultimate MP and ultimate SP?

Neither style of play is inherently better or easier. We complicate things by demanding they be both.

The onus is on the next gen consoles to have more networked games, for better or worse. IN a global gaming network (Xbox, PS3, PC), multiplayer becomes much more feasible and wlil naturally increase in occurrence. It only becomes a problem if single player games go away.

Shadowrun was never a singleplayer experience

[MMaestro]

Except in the case of Shadowrun, you could argue that going multiplayer-only is remaining true to its roots. With the exception on the SNES and Genesis games, the Shadowrun series was just another paper-and-pen table top game meant to be played with friends.

Multiplayer only may not be so bad

[DrXym]

Wolfenstein ET, America's Army and UT2003 have zero or not significant single player modes. They have no issues attracting players. I reckon a good multiplayer game can sell itself if its any good. Even better for console users is that Warhawk doesn't even require a disc meaning you can fire it up in half the time. Which is no bad thing.

Re:

[2008]

There aren't any successful multiplayer-combat only console games though, are there? Aside from the Final Fantasy MMORPG.

Anyway, the real reason I posted was this - developer, describing his game:

...it's this big group hug of war, basically.

Put that on the advertising and I'll buy it!

Re:

[taxman_10m]

America's Army and Wolfenstein: ET are also free.

Re:

[DrXym]

And UT isn't and neither is RTCW, BF1942 or a number of multiplayer games including most MMOs you care to mention. Sure some of them have "please insert disc" requirements, but not all. And I bet you that if their users had the choice, they'd choose not to have to insert a disc everytime if given the choice.

Hence why I think Warhawk might actually prove quite popular. Assuming the game is any good, I believe the low barrier (say $20), plus fast game loads ensures it will become enormously popular. Substan

Re:

[bigred85]

"Wolfenstein ET, America's Army and UT2003 have zero or not significant single player modes."

You're talking about games that are either multiplayer expansions, free, or were never touted as truly single-player in the first place. It's understandable in those cases, in which case they can spend their time and development cash entirely on building truly great multiplayer experiences (of course I've heard pretty lackluster things about U2TK3, but that's beside the point).

In the case of a game like Warhawk

Downloadable?

[HalAtWork]

He addresses why they went multiplayer, and why people shouldn't be worried about it being downloadable.

I didn't see the part about where you could transfer ownership to someone else after you purchase it. Then again, they did say "I would agree. I mean, speaking hypothetically [smiles], I think there's a much bigger opportunity -- it's more than just high quality titles." so maybe they acknowledge the raping they can give consumers' wallets with this. Games you can never re-sell, that you can never bri

Re:

[TB]

Actulay you can share PS3 Downloadable games with upto 5 others aparently.

Re:Downloadable?

[DarkJC]

You can download any of the Playstation Store titles on up to 5 different PS3s. On GameFAQs for example, people are already trading a download of a certain game for others. Trading money for a game share would work just as well.

End of the used Game Store???

[jzarling]

How gamers will finance thier next game purchase when you can't sell the used one at the local shop?

The problem with this article is Dylan Jobe

[donglekey]

Dylan Jobe is the reason the project went down, Dylan Jobe is the reason the project wasted millions over the course of 5 years. He is giving interviews after he has been demoted severly because of his complete failure as a producer.

To add to that, Sony "finished" their firmware only two or three weeks before the PS3 release. They changed it non-stop and they keep changing it. Imagine working on a platform that has bare bones development tools and everything is changing out from under you. Now throw Dylan Jobe into the mix and you have failure despite a hugely talented team.

Re:

[heinousjay]

I'm guessing you don't get too many kids yet because of the price. Should the PS3 take off, they will come. Enjoy it while you can.