Ever wondered why some videogames have an underdeveloped and clearly rushed multiplayer element shoehorned into it, even though it was neither required nor destined to be successful? According to former Midway producer John Vignocchi, it's certainly not the fault of the developers.
"We were having this battle all the time, talking about, '... is a totally amazing single-player experience the most important thing or should it be an 80% single-player experience and then a pretty cool multiplayer?,'" he divulges. "Stranglehold went through that exact same problem. I think if you ask every single person that worked on Stranglehold whether or not multiplayer was a necessity for that product, they would all say, 'I wish we never did it.'
"It was the worst part of the game, and it was something that executive management had said, 'This has to be in the game.' And no one wanted it, and it turned out the way it turned out. That’s something every game developer goes through."
I'm sure we've all suspected that management forces these inane and arbitrary design decisions, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing. It's somewhat worrying that people who don't have the first clue about videogames are the ones deciding what is and isn't in them. That seems true of all industries, and I wish I understood how things got to be that way.
Jim Sterling serves as reviews editor for Destructoid.com, head of the Podtoid podcast, and produces a number of news stories, original features, one-of-a-kind videos. With his passionate argumentative style, controversial opinions, harsh delivery, and dedication to brutal honesty Sterling is a name that you can't help but recognize.
Likes
PS2, iPod Touch, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid, Dynasty Warriors 3
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
14 comments | showing # 1 to 14
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
4:40 PM on 11.04.2009
| 
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
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.
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.
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!
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.