Nicely said!
Yeah, I still shudder when recalling The Orange Box.... especially TF2 with it's bastardized unsupported servers. That poor game, to have fallen so far.
I rather wonder about the console QA. Does quality assurance not happen at all anymore? Can even a highly anticipated exclusive game like UT3 when it came out for the PS3 actually get past the QA with flaky voice chat? Battlefield 1943 had broken voice chat that never did get fixed.
Regarding Call of Duty... I've only tried the multiplayer more recently with Modern Warfare 3 and I will say one thing for the game - everything works! Also, I don't think that multiplayer games will take over from single player games any time soon. There really are only a handful of multiplayer games that manage to maintain a longer term audience (and COD is one of those). Other games seem to have a tacked on multiplayer mode that manages to stay alive for only a few months after the games release (Assassin's Creed!) and yes, I do agree that maybe the devs are better to concentrate on what they want the game to be.
I like games that are multiplayer ONLY. Games that don't try to tack on a useless single player campaign. MAG, Warhawk - those ended up being fairly good games because the entire concentration was on the multiplayer. Single player games should do the same thing - concentrate on serving the customer with the best single player game they can develop (though I do like some of the co-op add ons or some of the newer online things they are doing with games like Journey, Demon's Souls and even the upcoming Dragon's Dogma and the pawns being accessible online). Actually, Call of Duty is one of the few game series that manage to get both the single player and multiplayer components right - though I think most would never doubt that the main draw of the game is multiplayer.
Quality though. To bring it back to your main point, it should be about quality. If games can't do quality with both single and multiplayer they should decide what they want to be and simply do it right.
Yeah, I still shudder when recalling The Orange Box.... especially TF2 with it's bastardized unsupported servers. That poor game, to have fallen so far.
I rather wonder about the console QA. Does quality assurance not happen at all anymore? Can even a highly anticipated exclusive game like UT3 when it came out for the PS3 actually get past the QA with flaky voice chat? Battlefield 1943 had broken voice chat that never did get fixed.
Regarding Call of Duty... I've only tried the multiplayer more recently with Modern Warfare 3 and I will say one thing for the game - everything works! Also, I don't think that multiplayer games will take over from single player games any time soon. There really are only a handful of multiplayer games that manage to maintain a longer term audience (and COD is one of those). Other games seem to have a tacked on multiplayer mode that manages to stay alive for only a few months after the games release (Assassin's Creed!) and yes, I do agree that maybe the devs are better to concentrate on what they want the game to be.
I like games that are multiplayer ONLY. Games that don't try to tack on a useless single player campaign. MAG, Warhawk - those ended up being fairly good games because the entire concentration was on the multiplayer. Single player games should do the same thing - concentrate on serving the customer with the best single player game they can develop (though I do like some of the co-op add ons or some of the newer online things they are doing with games like Journey, Demon's Souls and even the upcoming Dragon's Dogma and the pawns being accessible online). Actually, Call of Duty is one of the few game series that manage to get both the single player and multiplayer components right - though I think most would never doubt that the main draw of the game is multiplayer.
Quality though. To bring it back to your main point, it should be about quality. If games can't do quality with both single and multiplayer they should decide what they want to be and simply do it right.
@Elsa
Glad to see you liked it and managed to survive it in one piece(I know it was a bit long) I'm fine with multiplayer only games as they can have their own nuances that make it feel unique and one could say the details of singleplayer that otherwise vanish when a game trys juggling both. And with Dev's if you remember the interview of Jasper Byrne (The Maker of Lone Survivor) he hated AAA companies, developers just don't get the decisions they like, and I feel that when a game has multiplayerm and singleplayer, a lot of the time now with the 'Cash Cow' example of COD many games are feeling they can reach the same success with multiplayer, and as a consequence, neglect singleplayer completely, on that note perhaps I should have questioned the Deus Ex Boss Fights, but that's for another day.
Glad to see you liked it and managed to survive it in one piece(I know it was a bit long) I'm fine with multiplayer only games as they can have their own nuances that make it feel unique and one could say the details of singleplayer that otherwise vanish when a game trys juggling both. And with Dev's if you remember the interview of Jasper Byrne (The Maker of Lone Survivor) he hated AAA companies, developers just don't get the decisions they like, and I feel that when a game has multiplayerm and singleplayer, a lot of the time now with the 'Cash Cow' example of COD many games are feeling they can reach the same success with multiplayer, and as a consequence, neglect singleplayer completely, on that note perhaps I should have questioned the Deus Ex Boss Fights, but that's for another day.

surf dtoid with 






Rising (10+)
People you follow













send message
follow
followers



