Google+

The Top 7... Upcoming games that don't need multiplayer

5. Final Fantasy XIV


Above: Blacksmithery, I choose you! 

Okay, maybe FFXIV needs multiplayer – it is an MMO. Gamers, on the other hand, don’t. Hear us out: Final Fantasy XIII was announced at E3 2006 and is finally being released in the states in 2010. Final Fantasy XIV was announced at E3 ’09 and will be released in… 2010? What the f***?! How could developing an epic massively populated RPG, worthy of the Final Fantasy name, possibly have been 1/4 the task for perfectionists like Square Enix?


Above: Who need summons?!

Let’s look at Final Fantasy XI for a second. Nevermind that plenty of people played it and a monthly subscription gouge accrued enough revenue to technically be deemed a “success,” FFXI was a clunky attempt at a genre just finding its legs, but was sold upon one of the most respected pedigrees in all gaming. Furthermore, most Final Fantasy fans were none too happy that a main entry in the series strayed so far from convention and required additional fees to play.

Dull XP grinds and a lack of PvP were just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to why FF fans have written off the eleventh entry in a series known for epic stories with a definitive beginning, middle, and end. FFXI’s greatest offense is the resources it sucked out of Square Enix, making FFXII as the only traditional Final Fantasy offering during the NINE YEARS in between FFX and FFXIII.


Above: Hey kids, remember Final Fantasy XII? It was a great RPG unceremoniously dumped onto the PS2 within days of the launch of the PlayStation 3 

Could you imagine having to wait for Super Mario Galaxy 2 to be released so Nintendo could fix bugs in Mario Party 9? Square will most certainly have to allocate an ongoing and sizable amount of resources to keep FFXIV, so what of the million or so Final Fantasy fans who don’t want to play an MMO and have to hold out for the nebulous FFXV?


4. Red Dead Redemption

We haven’t confirmed that Red Dead Redemption will have multiplayer, but you can bet that Rockstar isn’t going to not use their Social Club. Was that a double negative? Yes it wasn’t not.

Redemption is a massive single-player experience, and a multiplayer mode would only serve to diminish its epicness. Multiplayer modes kill mood… they’re like anthrax for ambiance. Thrilling stories are deconstructed, rebalanced, and smooshed into robotically emotionless competition. Even GTA’s multiplayer, despite being very competent, didn’t really grab us. Oh, and if any degree of realism is maintained, how fun can a multiplayer Western be?


Above: Can this really translate to entertaining multiplayer?

The Western genre is all about lone wolves, dangerous convicts, and shitty old guns that jam all the time and are as accurate as Tom Cruise’s world view. So… what? Stick a bunch of rough-n-tough western characters in a town and let them have an old west style showdown… in which they run around aimlessly, respawn, and spend half their time trying to jump on polygon outcroppings to find glitchy high ground? Sounds brilliant.

Topics

Top 7

We Recommend By ZergNet

67 comments

  • poosmacker - August 12, 2010 5:26 p.m.

    red dead multiplayer is the best part of the game
  • bazman05 - February 14, 2010 2:45 p.m.

    Great Article. I'm surprised Arkhum Asylum wasn't mentioned. I'd hate multi-player with multiple batman's running around, SACRILEGE!
  • acdcrock - February 7, 2010 12:28 a.m.

    Loved the Tom Cruise comment lol
  • TheWebSwinger - February 6, 2010 11:38 p.m.

    "they’re like anthrax for ambiance" That's a beautifully written line.
  • drunkenrobot23 - February 6, 2010 7:15 a.m.

    hey good job games radar of bashing US armed forces and amputees (they had it coming), because im sure all of your editors have extensive experience of being in a firefight with US and anti coalition forces, right?... right?
  • TedDidlio - February 6, 2010 3:28 a.m.

    While I still trust your journalistic credibility and still dearly love you, I must take issue with the fact that you didn't mention that you can easily change the display settings during a Netflix party to not include the stupid avatar theater.
  • soren7550 - February 5, 2010 10:08 p.m.

    "Did anybody, ANYBODY, really want to experience death matches in a dark, drab tomb, within a game where the most iconic weapons are, arguably, a wrench and a fistful of bees?!" Uh, yeah a lot of people did. (See Game Informer issue 173 & 175 for some of the want for a multiplayer)
  • JakCass47 - February 5, 2010 4:37 a.m.

    sometimes it seems like you guys are really searching to come up with critics of games or trends that are a bit of a stretch really just to have another clever article to put out. Or maybe its just me but I for one was totally stoked to hear that Bioshock 2 was going to include multiplayer and even more so after seeing the previews of it in action. Looks like its going to be a blast to me !!
  • gmilf71 - February 5, 2010 4:02 a.m.

    GR, you're too picky. Bioshock multi looks awsome.
  • GrandMoffBubbles - February 4, 2010 11:38 p.m.

    I'm kind of a Bioshock purist so I don't think that Bioshock 2 needs a multiplayer mode. I'll still check it out thought (it might be good).
  • FreekinIdiot - February 3, 2010 3:58 p.m.

    Red Dead Revolver - Cowboys Vs Indians?? What's not to love as a multiplayer experience??!
  • killemall - February 3, 2010 3:57 p.m.

    Honestly, i'm only interested in multiplayer that's not online. I don't want to have to send my friends home to play video games with them, and i live in a group house, in a college town so i know i'm not the only one with that predicament. I would love to be able to play a game with one of my roommates, without having to send them back to their own rooms or have each one of us with an x-box. When are those games coming out? reCaptcha: three than
  • MaynardJ - February 3, 2010 1:58 p.m.

    That last screenshot should have had the word "What" underneath it.:-)
  • Samael - February 3, 2010 4:13 a.m.

    The US military thing was just a crappy joke. Nothing to get worked up about. Good article all around. 60% of the reason I bought Halo 3 was for the story though.
  • TheTrooper424 - February 3, 2010 2:06 a.m.

    @Magician & Starhaw After I posted my comment I read through and saw you all's comments. I agree fully with you guys lol
  • TheTrooper424 - February 3, 2010 2:01 a.m.

    Great article but was the comment about the United States Military necessary? There are soldiers dying every day to protect the rights we have today and the last thing they need is little slandering remarks like that.
  • lovinmyps3 - February 3, 2010 1:59 a.m.

    I think Assassin's Creed multiplayer could work. If the players were lowly assassins that looked like civilians and were confined to a small area it would be cool. The players aren't sure who's an assassin and who is a civilian and your looking for signs like someone running through a crowd, and then you chase them down or sneak up on them once they're identified and kill them. That's basically the same idea I came up with when thinking of ideas for Hitman multiplayer. But even that idea could fail miserably.
  • SpaZ - February 2, 2010 10:53 p.m.

    assassins creed 2 was definatly one of the most unique and awesome games to come out last year but i think that if you could run around the city with a friend and just have fun would be an EPIC experiance...also it would be sick go into a fight with TWO assassins
  • Tasty_Pasta - February 2, 2010 10:29 p.m.

    Well I liked all of the entries aside from Red Dead Redemption. Seriously, I've put 400+ hours into GTA IV, where at LEAST 200 hours was all in Free Roam with my friends. Now I'll be the first to say, the competitive multiplayer in GTA IV was garbage, BUT I got soooooooooooooooooo much play time out of the Free Roam. Now I don't really care about them adding a lot of competitive modes to Red Dead Redemption (although I did love the split-screen quick draws from Red Dead Revolver), but if they don't at least have Free Roam, I'm gonna be outraged! (And multiplayer is confirmed for it. If you go to the RDR website, there's a big banner saying "Multiplayer info coming soon")
  • starhaw - February 2, 2010 10:26 p.m.

    I AGREE WITH TheMagician WTH!!!!! NO REALLY WTH GAMES RADAR? "if we wanted to engage in losing firefights with missing limbs, we’d join the US military." WHAT IN THE WORLD DO YOU MEAN BY THAT HUH?...IDC WHO THE HECK YOU ARE OR YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE WAR, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO SUPPORTING MY COUNTRIES TROOPS I SUPPORT THEM 1000000%....YOU SAY THAT AS IF THEIR LIVES DON'T MATTER! THAT IS HONESTLY THE MOST DISRESPECTFUL THING I HAVE EVER HEARD GR SAY AND FROM GR US ...WTH!?!?!?!?!?!!? IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR THATS FINE WITH ME ( I DON'T SUPPORT IT EITHER) BUT IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS THEN PLEASE BY ALL MEANS STAND INFRONT OF THEM. I'm just expressing my freedom of speech as you guys do with this site...I like this site don't get me wrong but what you said I found to be the most disrespectful thing I have ever read on this site.....PLEASE why don't you join the army or the marines and go to IRAQ or Afghanistan and serve a few tours THEN COME BACK AND SAY THAT....JEEZE I HAVE GOOD friends putting their lives on the line, not because anyone asked them to but because they felt it was their duty and I do EVERYTHING I can to show them as much respect and thanks......the comment you made.. "if we wanted to engage in losing firefights with missing limbs, we’d join the US military." ......wth is all I really have to say to it. TheMagician...I agree with you 100%

Showing 1-20 of 67 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.