surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Having a multiplayer is just another bullet point to the package. That's what they want. They think that to get a full experience they need to have it. Not so. Bioshock for example
Top selling franchises seem to be multiplayer focused. COD, Halo, ext. The bean counters at the top (most of them have never played a videogame) pick out the top things these games have in common, and run with it as law as to why they have done so well. Multiplayer, lead male "edgy" characters, you name it. I have to deal with these bean counters on a regular basis in my line of work. To call them detached, is an understatement. They did get where they are at for a reason, though. Numbers are numbers, they cannot lie. If you would like to make a sh*tload of money kids, do well in math. -Lesson of the day-
I had heard the MP in Stranglehold was rather fun. It's a shame what most development teams have to go through.
The ones with money call the shots, unfortunatly the ones with money often don't have a clue about games and what should and shouldn't be in them, thus the issue.
I think I might be partially to blame for this. I do a lot of focus groups and I gotta tell you, almost everytime everyone in there wants multiplayer. There of plenty of people who don't even bother hitting start on single and just go straight to multi. Being able to play a game with your friends is a very key feature. Some games might get away with no multi for a while (bioshock) but if its a shooter, people are going to wonder when they can shoot their friends.
People tend to like multiplayer in games. $60 is a good chunk of money and some people just want more value (like me). Even if the multiplayer is mediocre, as long as it's fun and it's there, I don't see much of a problem as long as it doesn't distract from overall quality.
It's true that execs just want to make money but money is what employs people and keeps the shareholders happy. If execs dumb shit down to get people to buy the product, it's because they know people will buy it. The problem is, the general public is stupid and likes crap. example: Mtv
It's true that execs just want to make money but money is what employs people and keeps the shareholders happy. If execs dumb shit down to get people to buy the product, it's because they know people will buy it. The problem is, the general public is stupid and likes crap. example: Mtv
As long as multiplayer doesn't detract from the single player experience, I don't really care. Modern Warfare did it right, with a strong single and multiplayer experience. But single player should always, 100% of the time, come first.
@RenagadaPanda
Agreed, usually any game that focuses so much on multiplayer that it hampers the quality of the single player(with the exception of games that really emphasize multiplayer, like Borderlands) is a game not worth playing in my opinion.
Agreed, usually any game that focuses so much on multiplayer that it hampers the quality of the single player(with the exception of games that really emphasize multiplayer, like Borderlands) is a game not worth playing in my opinion.
It's not just execs. Gamers don't want to play $60 for a 6 to 8 hour campaign regardless of its quality and reviewers frequently mark down anything that doesn't have multiplayer (they're especially vocal about co-op, even after RE5 demonstrated that co-op for co-op's sake is a horrible thing). Most of the people consuming the product don't have any concept of how hard it is to design and implement a multiplayer component (not to mention how expensive!), and don't appreciate how unreasonable it is to demand one when they'll drop the game for Call of Duty after maybe a week.
@ Gee-Man
Even Borderlands was just as good in single player, where I spent most of my time. In fact I almost liked it better, I could do things at my own pace instead of having a friend nagging about this and that. Plus going back and forth between coop and single play on one character completely threw me off, then some quests were eligible, some weren't, blah blah.
Even Borderlands was just as good in single player, where I spent most of my time. In fact I almost liked it better, I could do things at my own pace instead of having a friend nagging about this and that. Plus going back and forth between coop and single play on one character completely threw me off, then some quests were eligible, some weren't, blah blah.
Besides, the multiplayer didn't kill Stranglehold. The loose controls, flaky camera, rollercoaster difficulty, terrible plot and extremely short campaign featuring some of the deadest AI of this generation killed the game's success.
So these guys didn't have a talent for multi and wanted to stick with solo? Why? They don't appear to be any more talented in that area.
They can claim the multi took time away, but this one game didn't feel rushed or like more time would have improved things. It did feel completed, it just also felt like the people who made it simply aren't that great at making games.
Hey, I called my name thing the truth for a reason!
So these guys didn't have a talent for multi and wanted to stick with solo? Why? They don't appear to be any more talented in that area.
They can claim the multi took time away, but this one game didn't feel rushed or like more time would have improved things. It did feel completed, it just also felt like the people who made it simply aren't that great at making games.
Hey, I called my name thing the truth for a reason!
On the whole Xbox 360 and PS3 games with multiplayer sell more than games without it.
If you take a singleplayer-only game concept to focus tests and it doesn't test well, the moderator will ask "What could be added that would make you buy this game." The answer will be multiplayer. (Or if the game doesn't include guns, the answer will be guns.)
When executives are deciding whether or not to sink 20 - 50 million dollars into a game they look at sales trends (games with multiplayer good or bad sell more) and consumer demand (direct feedback saying "add multiplayer and I'd buy this).
A designer may accurately point out that multiplayer won't make the game any better, and will suck resources from other features that could be more polished. But that designer won't be able to provide evidence that a polished single player experience will outsell pretty good single player and some multiplayer.
The executive's job is to ensure profitability. They won't green light a game unless they are confident there is a market for it. So the more marketable version of the game, the one that include MP, wins even if it isn't best for the overall design.
If you take a singleplayer-only game concept to focus tests and it doesn't test well, the moderator will ask "What could be added that would make you buy this game." The answer will be multiplayer. (Or if the game doesn't include guns, the answer will be guns.)
When executives are deciding whether or not to sink 20 - 50 million dollars into a game they look at sales trends (games with multiplayer good or bad sell more) and consumer demand (direct feedback saying "add multiplayer and I'd buy this).
A designer may accurately point out that multiplayer won't make the game any better, and will suck resources from other features that could be more polished. But that designer won't be able to provide evidence that a polished single player experience will outsell pretty good single player and some multiplayer.
The executive's job is to ensure profitability. They won't green light a game unless they are confident there is a market for it. So the more marketable version of the game, the one that include MP, wins even if it isn't best for the overall design.
follow
