surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
There are many lobbies on Xbox Live, PSN and certainly PC devoid of any players. These are the lobbies of the many games with shoehorned multiplayer that nobody plays anymore because it was shoehorned multiplayer.
Please, please no more.
Please, please no more.
http://www.siliconera.com/2012/05/12/how-would-gears-of-wars-bleszinski-design-resident-evil-and-fatal-frame/
Doesn't he have a point?
Jim Sterling, who obviously seethes with hatred for Cliffy B's magnum opus, giving it a sideways Infinity symbol as a means of teasing him with the promise of unending approval, hated Vanquish almost twice as hard as he hated Gears of War 3 which has multiplayer modes as one of its primary selling points.
Therefore, Vanquish would have been twice as good with multiplayer.
Jim Sterling, who obviously seethes with hatred for Cliffy B's magnum opus, giving it a sideways Infinity symbol as a means of teasing him with the promise of unending approval, hated Vanquish almost twice as hard as he hated Gears of War 3 which has multiplayer modes as one of its primary selling points.
Therefore, Vanquish would have been twice as good with multiplayer.
I like single player games.
I don't really need multiplayer in a lot of my games.
A multiplayer suite sounds like business talk.
Monday smells like farts.
I don't really need multiplayer in a lot of my games.
A multiplayer suite sounds like business talk.
Monday smells like farts.
For the love of god, keep him the fuck away from good single player games.
Keep his dudebro douchiness away from the games I like.
Keep his dudebro douchiness away from the games I like.
Hey Spaz, you're a retard. This picture proves it.
Both games with excellent multiplayer.
@Chris: Not many. I even liked The Darkness ONE's multiplayer as well as Turning Point: Fall of Liberty(Okay, I lied on that one, but it was a thing that existed and I really did try to like it).
Both games with excellent multiplayer.
@Chris: Not many. I even liked The Darkness ONE's multiplayer as well as Turning Point: Fall of Liberty(Okay, I lied on that one, but it was a thing that existed and I really did try to like it).
If anything he should be telling Western developers not to shoe-horn in MP all the time.
That said, I guess Japanese developers could do with being a little more open to including MP elements but I think the reasons for including it shouldn't be any different for Western or Eastern developers: If you can do something interesting with the game concept in MP or there's a big demand for it and people will enjoy it then sure, go for it. Every game doesn't need MP.
That said, I guess Japanese developers could do with being a little more open to including MP elements but I think the reasons for including it shouldn't be any different for Western or Eastern developers: If you can do something interesting with the game concept in MP or there's a big demand for it and people will enjoy it then sure, go for it. Every game doesn't need MP.
Yeah Bioshock 2 mp was tight with all the powers ITS a shame Bioshock 3 aint doing it because Levine listned to all the fangirl complainers
Yeah, this article is so negative, and paints a terrible picture for Cliff. He's a cool guy, and he's got some points.
While I don't think Shadows of the damned needed multi-player, Vanquish would have been pretty neat with it.
While I don't think Shadows of the damned needed multi-player, Vanquish would have been pretty neat with it.
Vanquish...which you stole from (don't think we didn't notice cover sliding, Cliffy Boy). Also, Binary Domain >>> Gears. That being said, BD needed a co-op campaign where you form a Rust Crew and go on missions with your friends (each plays a different class) more than multiplayer.
Also, it's not like most Japanese games have fantastic stories that would illicit that multi-player would make it any worse. Just get people to work hard, and know what they're doing.
Part of the reason we don't like "shoehorned" multi-player, is because it's "shoehorned", and not made well. That can change.
Part of the reason we don't like "shoehorned" multi-player, is because it's "shoehorned", and not made well. That can change.
@spaz it might be bullshit if it actually came from Cliffy B's mouth but it didn't. The only bullshit you are seeing is the article itself which has taken one games designers mostly positive comments and filtered them down into a complete misrepresentation of what he actually said.
"Cliffy B wants Japanese devs to shoehorn more multiplayer."
"Gears of War head Cliff Bleszinski is at it again! Not content with just criticizing honest reviews and calling 8/10s "hateful", it seems as if Cliffy B has now set his sights on a new target: the Japanese game industry and the lack of multiplayer therein."
GO! GO! HYPERBOLE!
"Gears of War head Cliff Bleszinski is at it again! Not content with just criticizing honest reviews and calling 8/10s "hateful", it seems as if Cliffy B has now set his sights on a new target: the Japanese game industry and the lack of multiplayer therein."
GO! GO! HYPERBOLE!
I don't even buy shooters if there is no multiplayer. I mean why pay $60 dollars for a game beat is 6-12 hours then never play it again? Multiplayer is where you get you value. This is what keeps me playing longer.
Multiplayer actually shouldn't be added on to every shooter... it's a waste of resources. It's better to concentrate on creating a good game and I personally prefer that if they can't do both really, really well... just do one or the other.
In fact, UT3 for the PS3 is a fantastic online game... but there almost is no single player component and they could have just skipped it and instead concentrated on making sure that voice chat actually worked when the game was released (it took them months to fix this!). The "campaign" was nothing more than multiplayer with bots and a bunch of cutscenes that told some sort of story. It was a total waste given that the game allows you to set up a bot game in the context of multiplayer to learn how to play.
Cliffy might want to look at his own advice and reverse it... not every game needs a campaign (and not every game needs multiplayer).
In fact, UT3 for the PS3 is a fantastic online game... but there almost is no single player component and they could have just skipped it and instead concentrated on making sure that voice chat actually worked when the game was released (it took them months to fix this!). The "campaign" was nothing more than multiplayer with bots and a bunch of cutscenes that told some sort of story. It was a total waste given that the game allows you to set up a bot game in the context of multiplayer to learn how to play.
Cliffy might want to look at his own advice and reverse it... not every game needs a campaign (and not every game needs multiplayer).
@ringwaldhaze
"The difference in tone between this and the Siliconera article on the same subject is amazing."
The Siliconera article doesn't really give a tone -- it kind of just re-iterates what was already said in the interview.
I look beyond that and see "developers need to find more ways to monetize their games". I think developers can do just fine with solid single player experiences. I like that Platinum Games has stated that they aren't the biggest fans of DLC, because they like their games to be complete. To me, this is the antithesis of online passes, complete customer over-saturation, and droves of DLC.
Judging from the comments here, some people think Cliffy B is justified here, and that he was mostly positive regarding his views -- some people think he represents the typical Publisher monetization mindset. I don't think it's fair to give him a free pass on this, and to be fair, I didn't demonize him. I just don't like his point of view. I may be in the minority on that, but that's just how I feel <3
"The difference in tone between this and the Siliconera article on the same subject is amazing."
The Siliconera article doesn't really give a tone -- it kind of just re-iterates what was already said in the interview.
I look beyond that and see "developers need to find more ways to monetize their games". I think developers can do just fine with solid single player experiences. I like that Platinum Games has stated that they aren't the biggest fans of DLC, because they like their games to be complete. To me, this is the antithesis of online passes, complete customer over-saturation, and droves of DLC.
Judging from the comments here, some people think Cliffy B is justified here, and that he was mostly positive regarding his views -- some people think he represents the typical Publisher monetization mindset. I don't think it's fair to give him a free pass on this, and to be fair, I didn't demonize him. I just don't like his point of view. I may be in the minority on that, but that's just how I feel <3
@Undertow9x you're not a very smart consumer if you're paying $60.00 for any game period, much less a short title, with the number of deals and price drops. It is absolutely foolish to buy games first day at retail, that is a fools errand. There is no reason in the year 2012 anyone should be paying $60.00. You either wait a few months and survive off your back-log, assuming you are hardcore gamer that buys more than eight titles every three months, or sometimes most games simply dip in price drastically after their first month. I payed $25.00, brand new for Vanquish, and the six hours of game play was deeper, more intricate than all three of God of Wars campaigns combined and I don't regret a single minute because it was a quality title.
@Elsa: I don't know when you decided to start playing shooters but that's historically what PC(and some console) shooters have always been! Singleplayer ==(for the most part) multiplayer with bots.
@Ramm... my point was simply why bother? Why put the money into a crappy single player experience? The opposite is also true... why put money into a tacked on multiplayer experience.
To some degree I think it makes sense that a game decide what it is and spend the money to make it the best it can be - whether it's multiplayer only or single player only. There are very few games that can successfully do both well.
To some degree I think it makes sense that a game decide what it is and spend the money to make it the best it can be - whether it's multiplayer only or single player only. There are very few games that can successfully do both well.
Yes, because that's exactly what we need in the industry. More Multiplayer software. I rather Japan keep a low profile in the MP area since they're more of the story telling SP experience and that's what I love out Japan games. Stay Japan, Japan, and not in the weird way this time.
@Elsa: The point is that back in the day™ budgets were closer to zero than to the multi-millions we see today and putting in a singleplayer-with-bots option was to both a) tick another check on the back of the box and b) not everyone had/liked internet multiplayer. Quake, Unreal Tournament, Counter-Strike. This was how 99% of shooters were.
No offense but you're coming off kinda high-and-mighty with the whole "WELL IF IT'S NOT A FULL-FLEDGED SEPARATELY-DEVELOPED SINGLEPLAYER MASTERPIECE, WHY EVEN INCLUDE IT?!" kind of attitude. It could just be me but either way, why argue with the inclusion of something the developer tried to please you with, as opposed to not trying at all? More is always better. Even if that more isn't well-made or properly implemented.
I actually liked Dead Space 2's multiplayer
I actually liked Bioshock 2's multiplayer
I actually liked The Darkness' multiplayer
I actually liked Saints Row 1&2's multiplayer
I actually liked Homefront's multiplayer AND singleplay--err, nevermind, I haven't slept in two days. Ignore me. *goes to bed*
No offense but you're coming off kinda high-and-mighty with the whole "WELL IF IT'S NOT A FULL-FLEDGED SEPARATELY-DEVELOPED SINGLEPLAYER MASTERPIECE, WHY EVEN INCLUDE IT?!" kind of attitude. It could just be me but either way, why argue with the inclusion of something the developer tried to please you with, as opposed to not trying at all? More is always better. Even if that more isn't well-made or properly implemented.
I actually liked Dead Space 2's multiplayer
I actually liked Bioshock 2's multiplayer
I actually liked The Darkness' multiplayer
I actually liked Saints Row 1&2's multiplayer
I actually liked Homefront's multiplayer AND singleplay--err, nevermind, I haven't slept in two days. Ignore me. *goes to bed*
@Chris Carter
I think Cliffy B is justified here because you made what he said seem worse than it actually was.
"“I’m not saying tack on a versus mode; there’s a billion different ways you can do some sort of ‘players interacting with other players’ mode.â€"
You didn't 'look beyond' what he said, you left out things he said to paint him in a much worse light. That quote above doesn't sound like someone who wants to tack on multiplayer to every game. The siliconera article shows a guy who wants new ideas when it comes to multiplayer games, this article tells of a guy who wants to shoehorn multiplayer into games, there is most definitely another tone.
It's ok if you have a different of opinion with someone, but not when you butcher and leave things out to do that. You're betraying and insulting the reader by doing that.
I think Cliffy B is justified here because you made what he said seem worse than it actually was.
"“I’m not saying tack on a versus mode; there’s a billion different ways you can do some sort of ‘players interacting with other players’ mode.â€"
You didn't 'look beyond' what he said, you left out things he said to paint him in a much worse light. That quote above doesn't sound like someone who wants to tack on multiplayer to every game. The siliconera article shows a guy who wants new ideas when it comes to multiplayer games, this article tells of a guy who wants to shoehorn multiplayer into games, there is most definitely another tone.
It's ok if you have a different of opinion with someone, but not when you butcher and leave things out to do that. You're betraying and insulting the reader by doing that.
@Ramm: This proves you played a crappy MP a lot it doesn't prove it was actually good or you believe it to be good. For all we know your an achievement whore.
@cynicalmonkey: Cliff: "I don't mean to tack on MP" later on "Why don't I have a multiplayer Fatal Frame yet? What if I had a Fatal Frame where anonymous people could join my game and be ghosts and try to scare the crap out of me, and then I rate how well they scared me? Basically a fancy hide and go seek.".
I didn't really agree with or disagree with the Dtiod article itself, but it seems to me Cliff is contradicting himself, cause honestly I don't see this idea of even working properly. It honestly sounds stupid when I say it out loud.
@cynicalmonkey: Cliff: "I don't mean to tack on MP" later on "Why don't I have a multiplayer Fatal Frame yet? What if I had a Fatal Frame where anonymous people could join my game and be ghosts and try to scare the crap out of me, and then I rate how well they scared me? Basically a fancy hide and go seek.".
I didn't really agree with or disagree with the Dtiod article itself, but it seems to me Cliff is contradicting himself, cause honestly I don't see this idea of even working properly. It honestly sounds stupid when I say it out loud.
Sounds to me Cliffy B is advocating multiplayer for games where it would work or where the result would be an interesting implementation. There's a vast difference between saying "this game could have had a great multiplayer component" and "MP ALL SHOOTAS FOR EXPLOIT CONSUMER!"
Umm, so try reading the full interview before you sensationalize this one part of it:
http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/170144/what_if_cliff_ran_the_world.php
Was the full interview even read before this article was written? Its absolutely NOTHING like what this article makes it out to be. Reading the whole interview changes the tone of this comment and makes it clear his intentions were not negative and that he actually admires Japanese gaming.
http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/170144/what_if_cliff_ran_the_world.php
Was the full interview even read before this article was written? Its absolutely NOTHING like what this article makes it out to be. Reading the whole interview changes the tone of this comment and makes it clear his intentions were not negative and that he actually admires Japanese gaming.
I'm going to agree with Cliffy B on this one. I don't play many games for their stories anymore. I tend to lean on a multi-player heavy game due to the fact that I don't have that much time to game. I maybe get lucky to complete two single player games in a year. You can still get some aspect of the story behind the game through multi-player, but I simply find it more enjoyable playing with my friends online.
Great read Chris and I agree. Why shoehorn in MP to shooters when they can just deliver stellar single player experiences.
I think it's because it comes off as half-hearted most of the time, just throwing it in there just because they can or they want to justify an online pass. It's pretty much how I feel about ME3's Multiplayer myself.
I think it's because it comes off as half-hearted most of the time, just throwing it in there just because they can or they want to justify an online pass. It's pretty much how I feel about ME3's Multiplayer myself.
@Chris Carter: "I didn't demonize him."
So why did you write "Not content with just criticizing honest reviews and calling 8/10s "hateful", it seems as if Cliffy B has now set his sights on a new target: the Japanese game industry and the lack of multiplayer therein."?
Why did you say "Cliffy goes on to describe the "travesty" of Vanquish" when the word travesty isn't used in the interview anywhere? Why do you brush off his comment about not shoehorning in multiplayer in one line? Why did you cite your own opinions about different games' multiplayer modes as though they were fact to prove a point?
The Siliconera article might just reiterate the interview, but at least it didn't bend it over its knee to discredit a guy.
So why did you write "Not content with just criticizing honest reviews and calling 8/10s "hateful", it seems as if Cliffy B has now set his sights on a new target: the Japanese game industry and the lack of multiplayer therein."?
Why did you say "Cliffy goes on to describe the "travesty" of Vanquish" when the word travesty isn't used in the interview anywhere? Why do you brush off his comment about not shoehorning in multiplayer in one line? Why did you cite your own opinions about different games' multiplayer modes as though they were fact to prove a point?
The Siliconera article might just reiterate the interview, but at least it didn't bend it over its knee to discredit a guy.
I put this guy in the same boat as Peter Molyneux and those Angry birds creators.......I made a game that sold, listen to me now as everything I say is gold, I make games above the fold while your sales slow get old and mold, BLAH BLAH BLAH.
*Everything is better in rhyme*
Shadows of the Damned MP is shit we don't ever need to see.
*Everything is better in rhyme*
Shadows of the Damned MP is shit we don't ever need to see.
I think it's an utter and COMPLETE waste of company time and resources to add in competitive multiplayer into niche titles that are already focused on the single player.
"Why?" you say? Because the playing audience is WAYYYYY too small to support a good multiplayer community for anything outside of the first couple of weeks.
Do you honestly think anyone would have played Vanquish competitive multiplayer for more than a week or two?
The ONLY games that can support a competitive multiplayer community are those that get A LOT of sales, or those that focus of the multiplayer from the onset of development such that people wouldn't really be buying it for the single-player anyway.
I have a pile of single-player action games with added multiplayer and ZERO people left to play them that want to punch Cliffy in the mouth.
"Why?" you say? Because the playing audience is WAYYYYY too small to support a good multiplayer community for anything outside of the first couple of weeks.
Do you honestly think anyone would have played Vanquish competitive multiplayer for more than a week or two?
The ONLY games that can support a competitive multiplayer community are those that get A LOT of sales, or those that focus of the multiplayer from the onset of development such that people wouldn't really be buying it for the single-player anyway.
I have a pile of single-player action games with added multiplayer and ZERO people left to play them that want to punch Cliffy in the mouth.
I'll care what this man thinks once he actually makes a game I want to play. But I think he's being too generous. Japanese devs need to pull their heads out of their asses and make more just a few modern games. And some modern games that aren't just their attempts at appealing to western markets by making "western" games. Lack of multiplayer isn't the only way in which they are painfully backwards. And, frankly, I don't give a shit about multiplayer, aside from cooperative modes.
Way to make this into a negative thing. Cliffy B is actually praising these games and saying he'd love to play them as multiplayer, too. I really liked Vanquish and think that a multiplayer mode would have been really cool.
You're just lumping him into the crowd of people that are putting down Japanese games, which is unfair.
@AJ Ryan
Cliffy B wanting multiplayer for a game that is obviously heavily influenced by his own game is an indication that he's mad? Right...
You're just lumping him into the crowd of people that are putting down Japanese games, which is unfair.
@AJ Ryan
Cliffy B wanting multiplayer for a game that is obviously heavily influenced by his own game is an indication that he's mad? Right...
You know what game went from "Play once and trade it in" to "Play for an extra 15 hours, then replay single player"
Singularity.
It was pretty sweet. And brought some interesting new ideas to the table. (later to be stolen by Dead Space 2.)
Singularity.
It was pretty sweet. And brought some interesting new ideas to the table. (later to be stolen by Dead Space 2.)
I don't know, sounds like he was praising Vanquish in comparison to his own IP.
Humble man is humble.
Humble man is humble.
You know for all the crying of the death of co-op modes, we sure do forget they also multiplayer experiences too when someone says "I think this game could have multi player"
@Chris - "I didn't demonize him."
The fuck you didn't! Bullshit sir. You quite literally made things up and attributed them to a man that didn't say them. I'm no fan of Cliffy B, Gears was alright, didn't play Bulletstorm and I don't have much feeling for the man either way, but I can't abide complete horseshit being written down to do nothing more then elicit a response from a readership. Tabloid writing at it's finest.
"some people think he represents the typical Publisher monetization mindset" I would bet money that everyone who has commented here and agrees with this hasn't read any of the actual writing on the topic and has just followed the line and swallowed your shit.
The fuck you didn't! Bullshit sir. You quite literally made things up and attributed them to a man that didn't say them. I'm no fan of Cliffy B, Gears was alright, didn't play Bulletstorm and I don't have much feeling for the man either way, but I can't abide complete horseshit being written down to do nothing more then elicit a response from a readership. Tabloid writing at it's finest.
"some people think he represents the typical Publisher monetization mindset" I would bet money that everyone who has commented here and agrees with this hasn't read any of the actual writing on the topic and has just followed the line and swallowed your shit.
@Caraleo - Thanks for suggestion. Think I shall. Between that and the Penny Arcade Report, this site is only worth anything because of the comments sections.
Have to overall agree with Cliffy on this.
Many games would of been better with a form of MP - even if it's just a poor form of Co-Op.
Fable 2 for example. Wasn't a great Co-Op addition; however I loved it. Was basic and didn't take way to the game and didn't really add much to it either. However the option was there and it didn't hurt the game at all.
Fall-Out 3 and New Vegas - again they could of done it. If you have a ally with you; a player can take them over. They wouldn't be grated the slow-mo effects or anything however. Would this hurt or change the game? Not at all. Would it be fun? Hell yes.
Shadows of the Damned - would of been awesome with a MP mode. A simple deathmatch DLC would of been great. Not included in launch but a added DLC. Even going the route of Lost Planet 2's Rush mode would of been great - take on each boss of the game as a team.
Vanquish - My god this game would of been fun as **** with co-op. MP Deathmatch could of worked - however it would of needed tons of tweaks for balance. However like I said co-op would of worked, and worked amazingly.
Many games would of been better with a form of MP - even if it's just a poor form of Co-Op.
Fable 2 for example. Wasn't a great Co-Op addition; however I loved it. Was basic and didn't take way to the game and didn't really add much to it either. However the option was there and it didn't hurt the game at all.
Fall-Out 3 and New Vegas - again they could of done it. If you have a ally with you; a player can take them over. They wouldn't be grated the slow-mo effects or anything however. Would this hurt or change the game? Not at all. Would it be fun? Hell yes.
Shadows of the Damned - would of been awesome with a MP mode. A simple deathmatch DLC would of been great. Not included in launch but a added DLC. Even going the route of Lost Planet 2's Rush mode would of been great - take on each boss of the game as a team.
Vanquish - My god this game would of been fun as **** with co-op. MP Deathmatch could of worked - however it would of needed tons of tweaks for balance. However like I said co-op would of worked, and worked amazingly.
follow
