I only ask this question becuase I'm starting to see more new games include some form of multiplayer feature. I'm not saying anything about ME3 having one (which I don't have a problem with), but did it really needed to have one in order to succeed?
Do games today need multiplayer to succeed?
Débuté par
Blazenor
, oct. 19 2011 12:00
Retour en haut
#3
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:04
Thompson family
-
- Members
- 2 748 messages
To succeed, no.
To become blockbusters? Probably.
To become blockbusters? Probably.
#4
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:05
Ruud333
-
- Members
- 456 messages
Thompson family wrote...
To succeed, no.
To become blockbusters? Probably.
Yeah pretty much this ^
#5
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:06
Irajji
-
- Members
- 12 messages
Not really, but in most cases, multiplayer makes the game appeal to a bigger player base.
#6
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:07
Funkcase
-
- Members
- 4 555 messages
Not really, Bethesda games do well without it. But multiplayer does attract alot of people.
Modifié par Funkcase, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:08 .
#7
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:08
Zanallen
-
- Members
- 4 425 messages
Probably not, but multiplayer can extend the life of a game.
#8
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:10
Shadowcat101
-
- Members
- 210 messages
Yes. I think they do, at least it helps them succeed. As more and more people try multiplayer, going back to old school single player games gets harder. Well thats what I have found. At first I was all about the solo games, slowly I started to try more multiplayer game. Now, I still play both but multiplayer games have a much longer life span for me now than any solo game. I still like good story ones like the Mass Effect stuff. But in todays market unless you can play against other or with people, lots of people don’t think the game is even worth playing.
Modifié par Shadowcat101, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:15 .
#9
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:18
RoboticWater
-
- Members
- 2 358 messages
Probably not, but remember games always have to have something new in their sequels to be good and fresh. ME1 to 2 made many improvements to combat and streamlining. ME 3 is basically ME 2 with some more features, adding multiplayer adds something new to do and keeps things fresh.
#10
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:18
Arken
-
- Members
- 716 messages
Multiplayer adds something to do outside the main campaign. It makes it so there is more to do in the game. It's just another feature.
In my opinion multiplayer is only really useful in a game that doesn't have replayability in the single player experience. Though it does add to the options and experience.
I'm not sure if I'll ever use Mass Effect Co-Op but it looks fun and interesting. I also like that it looks like something I'd with my friends. That's a bonus. Instead of the usual killfest miltiplayer where eight year olds make life a living hell I can just cooperatively play with some pals. Glad Bioware went that route.
Though part of me wonders two things which are essentially similar questions.
1) Did Bioware add an entire multiplayer department to make the multiplayer feature? Or was it work thrown onto members of an already existing department? Were the level designers and programmers for multiplayer meant to be programming and designing for the single player experience?
2) Was the single player experience pretty much done when multiplayer production began?
Basically I wonder if in any way did multiplayer effect the single player campaign. If single player was pretty much done then I'm more then fine with that. That means Bioware felt there was still time to add more features. If a new department was made then I'm still fine.
In my opinion multiplayer is only really useful in a game that doesn't have replayability in the single player experience. Though it does add to the options and experience.
I'm not sure if I'll ever use Mass Effect Co-Op but it looks fun and interesting. I also like that it looks like something I'd with my friends. That's a bonus. Instead of the usual killfest miltiplayer where eight year olds make life a living hell I can just cooperatively play with some pals. Glad Bioware went that route.
Though part of me wonders two things which are essentially similar questions.
1) Did Bioware add an entire multiplayer department to make the multiplayer feature? Or was it work thrown onto members of an already existing department? Were the level designers and programmers for multiplayer meant to be programming and designing for the single player experience?
2) Was the single player experience pretty much done when multiplayer production began?
Basically I wonder if in any way did multiplayer effect the single player campaign. If single player was pretty much done then I'm more then fine with that. That means Bioware felt there was still time to add more features. If a new department was made then I'm still fine.
#11
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:19
Texhnolyze101
-
- Members
- 3 313 messages
No only fools think such things.
#12
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:21
Biotic Sage
-
- Members
- 2 842 messages
Skyrim. That is all.
All you need is a proven track record in a single player franchise, which Mass Effect already had, so no, in that case you do not need multiplayer.
All you need is a proven track record in a single player franchise, which Mass Effect already had, so no, in that case you do not need multiplayer.
#13
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:21
Killer3000ad
-
- Members
- 1 221 messages
Blazenor wrote...
I only ask this question becuase I'm starting to see more new games include some form of multiplayer feature. I'm not saying anything about ME3 having one (which I don't have a problem with), but did it really needed to have one in order to succeed?
RPGs shouldn't need multiplayer to succeed. Oblivion,Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, all great RPGs that succeeded without an ounce of multiplayer. ME1 and 2 both were successful without multiplayer.
The upcoming Skyrim won't have multiplayer.
Modifié par Killer3000ad, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:27 .
#14
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:22
Blazenor
-
- Members
- 66 messages
Shadowcat101 wrote...
Yes. I think they do, at least it helps them succeed. As more and more people try multiplayer, going back to old school single player games gets harder. Well it’s what I have found. At first I was all about the solo games, slowly I started to try more multiplayer game. Now, I still play both but multiplayer game have a much longer life span for me now that any solo game. I still like good story ones like the Mass Effect stuff. But in todays market unless you can play against other or with people, lots of people don’t think the game is even worth playing.
I don't know, I seem to enjoy playing Mass Effect 1 and 2 multiple times without getting bored, however I do enjoy co-op games and just hate the competitive stuff. I just glad that ME3 is co-op and not PvP.
#15
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:22
el master pr
-
- Members
- 505 messages
Imho, no. A year ago, I only played multiplayer over Xbox 360, with the exception of ME of course. Since December 2010, I have not played more than 24 hours in multiplayer. I was replaying ME2 until mid-August, when I bought DA:O UE. My next buys are AC:Revelations and Arkham City, and even though Revelations has multiplayer, I'm not fond of it. I guess multiplayer is seen as a worthy risk because, as many have already said, it attracts more people to the franchise, whether it be for good or for bad.
#16
Guest_Neurotics_*
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:23
Guest_Neurotics_*
Guest_Neurotics_*
-
- Guests
Multiplayer adds to a game.
If GoW3 didn't have it I would've finished it once and then let it sit in it's case.
Instead, I've logged 20+ hours online. I'd say multiplayer made a big difference in replability.
This is BSN mind you, where all people do is b*tch and complain when BioWare doesn't do exactly what they want. We need the whambulance on speed-dial here.
If GoW3 didn't have it I would've finished it once and then let it sit in it's case.
Instead, I've logged 20+ hours online. I'd say multiplayer made a big difference in replability.
This is BSN mind you, where all people do is b*tch and complain when BioWare doesn't do exactly what they want. We need the whambulance on speed-dial here.
Modifié par Neurotics, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:23 .
#17
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:30
marshalleck
-
- Members
- 15 645 messages
Biotic Sage wrote...
Skyrim. That is all.
Not out yet, what does it prove?
#18
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:32
slimgrin
-
- Members
- 12 481 messages
Multiplayer is included for a number of purely financial reasons, not the least of which it discourages used game sales and piracy. At least with the way publishers are implenting things now..
Modifié par slimgrin, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:32 .
#19
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:43
Biotic Sage
-
- Members
- 2 842 messages
marshalleck wrote...
Biotic Sage wrote...
Skyrim. That is all.
Not out yet, what does it prove?
The number of preorders and all of the data indicating interest. Extrapolate to the amount of profit.
Do you enjoy being a contrarian, Marshy?
Modifié par Biotic Sage, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:44 .
#20
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:46
shepskisaac
-
- Members
- 16 374 messages
No. Does it increase their value considerably in the eyes of majority if the gamers? Hell yes. And thus greatly increases the chance at success. The fact MP became almost a standard didn't come out of nowhere.
#21
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:54
Blazenor
-
- Members
- 66 messages
Arken wrote...
Basically I wonder if in any way did multiplayer effect the single player campaign. If single player was pretty much done then I'm more then fine with that. That means Bioware felt there was still time to add more features. If a new department was made then I'm still fine.
This is what had me wondering as well. Was multiplayer an afterthought or something that was part of the plan in the beginnning? Again, I don't have a single problem with the current multiplayer as it has been reported so far, but part of me keep wondering if this was part of Bioware plans or something that was push on them to do for the game to succeed in today's gaming market.
#22
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:55
Texhnolyze101
-
- Members
- 3 313 messages
IsaacShep wrote...
No. Does it increase their value considerably in the eyes of majority if the gamers? Hell yes. And thus greatly increases the chance at success. The fact MP became almost a standard didn't come out of nowhere.
Pffft if the entire world saw your sig ME3 would outsell every game coming out.
Modifié par 101ezylonhxeT, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:56 .
#23
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:58
Bogsnot1
-
- Members
- 7 997 messages
Zanallen wrote...
Probably not, but multiplayer can extend the life of a game.
This.
#24
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:58
Lunatic LK47
-
- Members
- 2 024 messages
Zanallen wrote...
Probably not, but multiplayer can extend the life of a game.
Problem is by how much? The wild card is very erratic where the shortest life-span could be 2 MONTHS.
#25
Posté 19 octobre 2011 - 12:59
Tonymac
-
- Members
- 4 311 messages
Multiplayer adds the human element - which defies predictive models.
