Google+

We Recommend By ZergNet

105 comments

  • Zeta789 - December 2, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    I think this article could have been pretty good, but the examples are all wrong. The only tacked on multiplayer of the games mentioned were the ones on Deade Space 2 and BioShock 2. Mass Effect 3, Uncharted 2 and Assassin's creed: Brotherhood all had top notch teams working for a lot of time on their multiplayer modes, so it's not really surprising they turned out quite good. Not to be an asshole, but I'll urge you to read this excellent piece by Ben Kuchera to know what happens when multiplayer modes are REALLY tacked on to games that didn't need them: http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/we-play-alone-together-why-conventional-wisdom-about-single-player-games-is That's what really happens when you put multiplayer on a game that doesn't need it. It takes time off development of the single player modes just to get another item to tick on the back of the box, but then nobody plays it, and it was time wasted that could've gone to polishing the single player experience.
  • GR HollanderCooper - December 2, 2012 5:11 p.m.

    I'm working more under the idea that many consider any MP additions to SP games to be "tacked-on"
  • Z-man427 - December 2, 2012 6:26 p.m.

    That's not what tacked on means at all. Tacked on really refers to welding when you just quickly tack the pieces of metal together just to hold them while you do the real weld that will bond the two pieces. A tack weld is an unfinished weld. By that token, tacked on multiplayer is nothing to be defended. It's unfinished, poorly made, not thought out. Most of your examples buck that. Most games start as singleplayer affair with multiplayer. So what you just said makes it seem like all multiplayer is tacked on (read: poorly made, unfinished). But that's not the case. The trend I'm seeing more seems to be the reverse with games starting as multiplayer and then the developers realize that they need something to market and it's hard to produce trailers without a story. As a singleplayer gamer, that's very frustrating and annoying. Singleplayer more and more feels tacked on more than multiplayer does.
  • Meleedragon27 - December 3, 2012 4:11 p.m.

    In all fairness towards Mr. Cooper, when multiplayer is announced for a game that previously didn't have it (such as the examples Coop provided above), a lot of gamers are gonna assume it's tacked on and/or will compromise the single player significantly. Kind of justified, really, since the MP for a lot of these games, even if they're deemed pretty good, will often die within a year, making the whole thing feel like a waste.
  • Iamsam3 - December 2, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    I mostly buy games for the single player campaign so it does not bother me if they have a multiplayer mode. I think that Dynasty Warriors type games would benefit the most from having multiplayer modes. One downside to a game's multiplayer is that it has a habit of becoming irrelevant long before the game does. I doubt that anyone who is still playing Overlord II and Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2, like i am, will be able to find that many people to play against online .
  • Z-man427 - December 2, 2012 6:17 p.m.

    The problem with tacked on multiplayer is that it's tacked on. It's not well thought out. It's not well developed. Don't defend poorly made multiplayer.
  • clearlight20 - December 3, 2012 9:55 a.m.

    What are some examples of "poorly made multiplayer" that is "tacked on"?
  • Pwnz0r3d - December 2, 2012 7:22 p.m.

    Big budget games that are SURE to be a critical and financial hit never have tacked on MP (for the most part). Tacked on meaning "throw in team deathmatch and free for all and call it a day." The MP is usually on par or very slightly below the single-player offering. The only games that really have a detrimental effect when it comes to MP are FPS's as their main focus IS multiplayer, and even then the singleplayer is still enjoyable to a degree. With such a huge budget, they wouldn't ever just half ass a MP offering if that meant wasting money on something that no one would play because it was terrible instead of perfecting what you focused on in the first place. The same could be said for smaller budget games (which do have "tacked on" MP) but those kind of games are risks in today's gaming market (which is disappointing, considering all we really get nowadays are sequels.)
  • avantguardian - December 2, 2012 11:32 p.m.

    damn gr, is this the start of your: 'things you hate aren't really that bad' editorials? like moths to a flame.
  • DarthPunk - December 3, 2012 3:12 a.m.

    What a specific example? Fine, Resident Evil 5
  • clearlight20 - December 3, 2012 8:08 a.m.

    A specific example for what exactly?
  • DarthPunk - December 3, 2012 9:21 a.m.

    Gah this was meant to be a response to Hollander's comment but logging back in just made it a regular comment. I mean specific example of a game that had it's single player ruined by multiplayer
  • clearlight20 - December 3, 2012 9:53 a.m.

    I guess that comes to down opinion really. I rather enjoyed RE5 MP considering how much of a shitty job Capcom did with the AI. Then again this whole defense by Hollander comes down to opinion and there are very few facts to be presented.
  • DarthPunk - December 3, 2012 11:56 a.m.

    Admittedly Resident Evil 5 isn’t the best example for this article given it’s about tacked on multiplayer where as Resi 5 was very clearly designed to be a predominately co-op game It’s just Resi 5 is the most obvious example I can think of for single player suffering due to game developers focusing more on multiplayer.
  • clearlight20 - December 3, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    The only game I can really think of that could have been better off if the resources and time were used to develop the SP more thoroughly would have been Rage. The ending was so ungodly anticlimactic that it felt like ID software just dumped it off without any thought of a final, epic boss. However, it becomes almost a sneaking suspicion that even if the game was a SP game, that little would have been changed. Developing a final boss would have probably taken a minute amount of time compared to developing the engine and the game in its entirety and yet ID felt it was unnecessary to put in a final boss. In short, the developer's will do whatever they want.
  • AuthorityFigure - December 3, 2012 3:41 a.m.

    I thought the current trend was to 'tack-on' campaign mode. Why? Because developers want to socialize their work as much as possible to cater to the always connected facebook generation.
  • MyCoolWhiteLies - December 3, 2012 8:57 a.m.

    Nice article, but I have to ask, who the hell considered the first Uncharted to be a "proving point for the Games as Art movement"?
  • zombi3grim - December 3, 2012 9:56 p.m.

    Man, this enitre comment thread is nothing but people who confuse their very poorly thought out opinion with fact. My god, I could pick apart any of these posts and thurn this into a 50 page shit storm. And theres so many to choose from! Its...its like a buffet of idiocy! What to pick, what to pick.....

Showing 81-100 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.