Google+

105 comments

  • Aarononymous - December 4, 2012 2:15 p.m.

    Splinter Cell's multiplayer was mediocre and super tacked on and I suspect that it hurt the franchise. Then again, the thing that really hurt was drifting from the hardcore, slow-paced, stealth gameplay that fans loved and everyone else hated. Also chaos theory's co-op mode was awesome, so mixed bag I guess?
  • awesomesauce - December 4, 2012 10:31 p.m.

    Well the way i see it is like extra credit on a test. Taking some time to do the extra work won't ruin the rest the of the test even if you get it wrong. However if you do the extra credit "multiplayer" right it can make up for most main portion "single player's" short comings. So it's multiplayer isn't ruining the game, some people just use it as a scapegoat because the single player didn't rise up to their expectations. Because most of the time if a game isn't ready it just gets delayed or updated. (Or in Mass Effect's case DLC'ed)
  • elilupe - December 11, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    I agree that sometimes multiplayer components of games can be surprisingly entertaining, but I'm part of the school of thought that thinks "tacked on" ANYTHING should never be defended as a good thing.
  • deceasedxo - December 12, 2012 7:20 a.m.

    I believe that since the popularity of COD all devs are relying way too much on multiplayer to sell a game nowadays when really most people outside of the hardcore COD fans want a great single player campaign over any form of multiplayer.
  • trikeman - December 16, 2012 5:54 a.m.

    From a developer's standpoint, the issue isn't the existence of multiplayer in a primarily-single player experience, it's two things: 1) the near-necessity of multiplayer components of a game for a major publisher to even *think* of touching it, and 2) the diversion of resources towards making that multiplayer work. If the publisher wants to shell out money to some other company to have them tack on some multiplayer to my team's game, I'm a little annoyed as an "artistic integrity" sort of thing, but whatever, I can live with it; if the publisher expects us to make the multiplayer ourselves, that automatically means that the single player experience will suffer - we have limited resources, and limited people on the team, so if we need to dedicate some level design guys to designing multiplayer maps for the extent of the project, that means we'll have less people designing the campaign levels, and they'll probably be worse for that.

Showing 101-105 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.