Google+

105 comments

  • DevonOO7 - December 2, 2012 1:31 a.m.

    I agree with what your saying. I find the multiplayer that I like the least is when the game tries to emulate Call of Duty. I can just imagine someone from the publisher talking to the developer and saying "Call of Duty is selling like crazy, do something like that". That said I think any multiplayer can be fun, especially when you play with friends. I have so many fond memories of staying up late playing games like Condemned 2, Red Faction, Splinter Cell DA, and Far Cry 2 online with friends.
  • FreezeRay - December 2, 2012 12:42 a.m.

    This article talks about the need to have tacked on multiplayer to increase the "play time" of a single player game. But what most people fail to see is that unless the game is a super popular AAA title the multiplayer portion is usually shallow and boring, which causes it to dry up in a month. This then leads to an unplayable portion of a game. So in essence, the game has come full circle. The devs spent a bunch of resources making a portion of the game that a month after release is no longer even an option to play. Has anyone ever gone back to play their old single player games? Sure, lots of people do that. However, with tacked on multiplayer you can;t do that. So the tacked on multiplayer portion ends up being a worse choice than if they just made more single player content. Examples - DeadSpace 2, Overlord, Quantum Theory, etc.
  • nintendo365 - December 2, 2012 12:21 a.m.

    I cant really think of a game that has multiplayer that ruins the experience. Now I can think of games with unbalanced MP, but not bad. Theres not a game that I own where I wish I couldnt play online with it, but I sure wish that Skyrim had at least 2 player co-op, beating a dragons ass solo is challenging and fun though it would be pretty entertaining to see me and a buddy try to kill one with only Flames and a Dagger. But back to the point. In EVERY game I own from Rock Band 3 to Red Dead, If its MP capable I spend at least 60% of my time in MP over SP.
  • FreezeRay - December 2, 2012 12:46 a.m.

    skyrim coop is going to about as fun as Dead Island Co-op or Borderlands Co-op. Fun with someone you know but a royal mess with anyone else. since Skyrim as more downtime between fights and is more RPG focused how would players handle that aspect?
  • nintendo365 - December 2, 2012 1:58 a.m.

    Simple, add a battle request aspect like every other MPRPG, or some type of co-op exclusive sidequests. I just love the concept of travelling across Skyrim with a buddy, straight up dominating everything. Im just tired of being tied up with Lydia...
  • larkan - December 1, 2012 9:35 p.m.

    Games that weren't necessarily made worse by a tacked on multiplayer, but the time invested would've been better spent giving us a better single player experience, and/or more content: Mass Effect 3 Max Payne 3 I'm guessing Far Cry 3 Any Assassin's Creed game with it Bioshock 2 Dead Space 2 Red Faction Guerilla or Armageddon Transformers Cybertron games Warhammer 40k Space Marine Homefront There are several others I can't think of. I'm sure Rocksteady will find a way to incorporate MP into their next Batman game, and it will be terrible. The problems with most of these wasn't that they didn't have the capacity to be fun, it's just that the developers made it an afterthought, and also made balancing/patching an afterthought as well. Mass Effect 3 IS fun, for a few rounds, but it gets old quick. Max Payne 3 would be fun, but after you hit rank 7 you're thrown to the wolves that would be higher ranks with extremely unbalanced and overpowered weapons, which makes for a frustrating match set up.
  • GR HollanderCooper - December 1, 2012 10:04 p.m.

    I don't see your point. Several of those games (ME3, MP3, AC, DS2, RFG) have great multiplayer and single-player. The others either had great SP, or the SP wasn't actually encumbered by MP.
  • Bloodstorm - December 1, 2012 10:29 p.m.

    I wouldn't say RFG had good single player, at least not any where near the level that it could be said it wouldn't have benefited from extra development that was spent on it's average multiplayer. It had little to no plot, and mostly involved driving around a mostly empty world destroying the few building's that were actually in it. Then the multiplayer suffered because the maps would become just barren arenas after all the building's were destroyed in the first 2 minutes of the game. Mediocre in both accounts.
  • GR HollanderCooper - December 2, 2012 1:08 p.m.

    FACTUALLY WRONG.
  • Bloodstorm - December 2, 2012 1:21 p.m.

    Opinions can't be fact, even if the overwhelming opinion is positive and mine is to the contrary, it is still an opinion. Therefore, I can't be factually wrong about anything I said. I described the game to the best of it merits.
  • HamsterGutz - December 1, 2012 10:48 p.m.

    Of the games listed, I've only played Dead Space 2 and WH40k Space Marine. I didn't play the MP of DS2, but I didn't feel like the game was worse for having it. With Space marine, I actually had more fun playing the multiplayer, mainly Exterminatus mode, than the single player campaign. I probably put 50 hours or so into Exterminatus. "and/or more content"? Multiplayer IS 'more content'. tl;dr I don't see his point either.
  • ParagonT - December 2, 2012 6:57 a.m.

    We'll, multi-player could be considered less for some, because what does it take for mutli-player on most games? Map, other players, guns, and ranking system. Then what happens when the match is over? Same map, guns, players, new rank number, etc... Depends who you are I guess.
  • clearlight20 - December 2, 2012 10:02 a.m.

    I am typically unfazed MP content and see it as an optional aspect of the game. I guess many individuals could go as far as thinking that because MP content is widely optional in most games (in the sense that it has no impact on SP content), that it could be considered less content; they are not required to play it nor do they usually do. In a crude example, let us say you had four apples and one kiwi. You go ahead and the eat the four apples, but leave the one kiwi alone because your mother is not requiring you to eat it. You effectively ate 80% of the entire meal vs. 100%. The only qualms I ever have with games adding MP content is if: 1.) MP content is required to unlock SP content (One IPhone game comes to mind: Bike Race Free by Top Free Games) 2.) Online coop seems almost forced in order to make the game incredibly easier (Borderlands 2 to me feels this way) 3.) SP content felt less solid than it should have and the game had MP (the ending of Rage was incredibly anticlimactic and felt rushed. In this sense, I felt MP could have been scratched to devote time and resources to a stronger SP)
  • bass88 - December 2, 2012 4:54 a.m.

    I guess this is coming down to opinion. You think these games are good even with their multiplayer. I think Dead Space 2 is worse than the first because of multiplayer. In the first game I could explore freely. Dead Space 2 is a linear experience, which I believe is because they wasted their time on multiplayer instead of creating different pathways. Point is, your point is as irrelevant as mine (sorry to sound so harsh). But the fact we're actually discussing this illustrates that there is a problem with "tacked-on multiplayer".
  • ParagonT - December 2, 2012 7 a.m.

    I suppose he means that although the multi-player didn't make the games worse, the resources in his opinion, could have been used better for other aspects.
  • BaraChat - December 1, 2012 8:45 p.m.

    What single player game was compromised by multiplayer? Well it's very hard to pinpoint exactly which games could have been, as we're not in the developer's office when the decisions are taken and the work is actually done. Although, when we see 5-hour-long FPS campaigns with a nonsensical plot (I'm looking at you, Modern Warfare 2) and multiplayer features numerous enough to fill a library, you'd think they sacrificied a decent camaign in the name of multiplayer. Again, this is mere speculation as I don't attend developer's meetings. I don't mind multiplayer options, even if I often ignore them altogether (Singularity, Max Payne 3, RDR, Mass Effect 3, etc.) or I try them for less than an hour only out of curiosity (Bioshock 2, Uncharted 3, Future Soldier, Crysis 2, etc.). I prefer single-player games or "features" over multiplayer games or "features" any day, except for a single game (this gen) which I bought only for the multiplayer, and that's Battlefield 3. Overall, I don't mind a multiplayer component "tacked-on" in a single-player-focused game, as long as they don't sacrifice anything in the main campaign.
  • Green_Shade - December 1, 2012 8:29 p.m.

    It really depends on the game and what kind of multiplayer, for example The Elder Scrolls does not have conventional multiplayer (I am ignoring Battlespire and Shadowkey.) but makes up for it with modding, it allows players to interact with each other while still keeping the singleplayer feel, besides I wouldn't hold any hope of Bethesda Studios making a non-glitchy multiplayer. On a related note I am tentatively looking forward to The Elder Scrolls Online.
  • shawksta - December 1, 2012 8:09 p.m.

    Interesting article, although it doesnt seem to hit all the major nails. The point is clear and you did it well Cooper but it seems more people are just bawking at how some games's single player portion is ruined when the focus comes in Multiplayer. At times it does it well, as you said, other times it does not which is why people make such a hubbub. I personally dont mind, i give doubt to be sure they know what their doing with the outcomes working well, my only pet peeve is when other people bawk at Single Player games entirely and think their crap unless they add multiplayer.
  • GR HollanderCooper - December 1, 2012 10:05 p.m.

    But no one has pointed out a game that was actually ruined by MP. Everyone just says "I'm sure the SP would have been better without MP," but it's much more complicated than that.
  • Redeater - December 2, 2012 1:19 a.m.

    Production cost + time = development of MP with an average shelf life of a month or two. Funds which could be better spent adding SP elements...or just saved and not spent on sub par MP...considering how companies are complaining about the ridiculous budgets of games you think the latter would be a no brainer. It doesn't seem that complicated to me. Besides, using "no one has pointed out a game that was actually ruined by MP." as an argument is fucking retarded. We don't have access to production budgets so we can't see what resources were spent where.

Showing 41-60 of 105 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.