250 réponses à ce sujet

[Texhnolyze101]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Probably not, but multiplayer can extend the life of a game.

This.

Your avatar creeps me out. .___.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

*Looks at ME2, Batman:AA*
Nah, a game can be epic without it, there are people like me who can't stand playing more than a couple hours of competitive MP....a week, CO-OP is often fun though and can extend the life of a game but it really isn't a necessary thing, most games just need it to compensate for a lacking SP experience.

[shepskisaac]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

*Looks at ME2, Batman:AA*

*Looks at ME2, Batman: AA sales*

Yeah, the games sold well. The problem is, selling 2+ million per system is not really satisfying for publishers as much as it was few years ago. Budgets of AAA titles are through the roof. Arkham City is looking at some great sales, but will it be enough, or will we see MP in Arkham 3?

[Nashiktal]

Does it need it? No.

I will grudgingly admit that is can extend the life of a game, and bring friends together though. Still mad that I won't be able to use it.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

IsaacShep wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

*Looks at ME2, Batman:AA*

*Looks at ME2, Batman: AA sales*

Yeah, the games sold well. The problem is, selling 2+ million per system is not really satisfying for publishers as much as it was few years ago. Budgets of AAA titles are through the roof. Arkham City is looking at some great sales, but will it be enough, or will we see MP in Arkham 3?

I suppose. I wasn't saying it like they were AAA blockbusters, they are much too good for that, AAA titles typically are made for the casual gamer and are really dumbed down (save for a few gems,BF series) but compare the games by sales in their genre or just think how well a game like COD would sell without MP, sure it's fun a few times through but after a little while rail shooters lose their luster.

[Bogsnot1]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Probably not, but multiplayer can extend the life of a game.

This.

Your avatar creeps me out. .___.

He's in your house, watching you sleep. 

[shepskisaac]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Probably not, but multiplayer can extend the life of a game.

This.

Your avatar creeps me out. .___.

He's in your house, watching you sleep. 

Didn't know Origin had an official model now.

[Texhnolyze101]

IsaacShep wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Probably not, but multiplayer can extend the life of a game.

This.

Your avatar creeps me out. .___.

He's in your house, watching you sleep. 

Didn't know Origin had an official model now.

^

[Bogsnot1]

IsaacShep wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Probably not, but multiplayer can extend the life of a game.

This.

Your avatar creeps me out. .___.

He's in your house, watching you sleep. 

Didn't know Origin had an official model now.

He's not. He just does it for fun, not profit.

[matt-bassist]

What is Corporate Greed.

[marshalleck]

Biotic Sage wrote...

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? 

I asked a question. Asking a question is not being contrarian. I don't think Skyrim will do significantly better than Oblivion did, which was a moderate success, but I could be wrong. 

Pre-orders only reflect how well the marketing is doing its job.

Modifié par marshalleck, 19 octobre 2011 - 02:07 .

[Axelstall]

Tonymac wrote...

Multiplayer adds the human element - which defies predictive models.

Spoken like a true game connoisseur.

That...    Or a robot. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/pouty.png

Modifié par Axelstall, 19 octobre 2011 - 03:55 .

[slimgrin]

Sometimes the human element can be a snotty brat.

[Computer_God91]

NO.

[Complistic]

slimgrin wrote...

Sometimes the human element can be a snotty brat.

In which case you mute them.

[dreadpiratesnugglecakes]

No. Before MMO's took off, Multiplayer was considered a must have and ended up in almost every game; I thought with the advent of MMOs they would stop tacking that garbage onto perfectly good singleplayer games.

[adonfraz]

Games today need massive replay value. The easiest way to achieve that is multiplayer. Sandbox games and Elder Scrolls get it through exploration, BioWare does it with engaging player driven storytelling.

One way or another, to cut down on used game sales developers need gamers to keep playing their game and not trade it in.

[mineralica]

Biotic Sage wrote...

Skyrim. That is all.

Don't know about Skyrim (we'll see soon, however), but definitely Morrowind and Oblivion

[Siansonea]

I'm sure there are plenty of games that feature multiplayer that don't succeed, and plenty of games that succeed that don't feature multiplayer. So no, games today don't need multiplayer to succeed. But this is just a thinly veiled "I M so MAD @ U Biowere!!!111" thread anyway, so whatever.

[Gatt9]

Thompson family wrote...

To succeed, no.

To become blockbusters? Probably.

I would have to disagree.

The Sims sold over 16 million units,  The Sims 2 moved 13 million,  The Sims Online bombed.  Final Fantasy 7 sold a metric crap ton of units,  the MMORPG barely stayed afloat.  The biggest know blockbuster,  Super Mario Bros,  moved 40 million units without multiplayer.  Pokemon Red and Blue moved over 20 million units.  Having Multiplayer doesn't make a game a blockbuster,  nor does not having it preclude a blockbuster.

In fact,  Angry Birds is said to have sold 12 million units and had over 400 million downloads,  making it hands down the most popular game in history (Unless you start counting arcades*).

It's just that some of the best selling games featured Multiplayer,  but in almost every case,  whether it's Halo,  Diablo,  Starcraft,  or CoD,  they've all been outsold by single player games that were of high quality.  In fact,  CoD and Starcraft are really the only two multiplayer games that approach some single player games.

Multiplayer can sell a game when it's done right (Starcraft,  Diablo,  Half-Life,  Team Fortress,  Doom,  etc),  but most often,  it's used as an excuse to cheap-out on the AI and balancing the game.  There's been countless attempts at cutting costs that way.

There've been alot of studies,  because of the behavior and average age of multiplayers,  most people who buy a game won't try it.  The quality of person in most multiplayer games drives people away.

Great games sell great,  no single "feature" is ever going to sell a game,  only the quality of the game.  a multiplayer meadowmuffing is still a meadowmuffin and won't sell.

*If you want to count arcades,  then the most popular game in history is Pac-man.  10 billion quarters,  2.5 billion in revenues,  and caused coin shortages in one country (US).  Following that is Space Invaders,  8 billion quarters,  2 billion in revenues,  and caused coin shortages in one country (Japan).  Then you get to Street Fighters,  which is only half of the two single player game's revenue.

Edit:

It's wikipedia,  so grain of salt (Should go without saying)

http://en.wikipedia....game_franchises

If the numbers are reasonably accurate,  you don't hit a primarily multiplayer franchise until the 6th entry,  and only 2 of the 10 series with > 100 million are primarily multiplayer,  and IIRC Call of Duty wasn't always about multiplayer.

Only 4 of the 12 that cracked 50 million were multiplayer.  Even if you go down to > 10 million,  they're still a minority.

Multiplayer is just not a neccessity.

Modifié par Gatt9, 19 octobre 2011 - 04:45 .

[BounceDK]

Most people tend to think that games absolutely need multiplayer. I am not one of them thank god. To me it makes absolutely no sense to put multiplayer in Mass Effect, but I don't care as long as it does not affect the singleplayer portion of the game. I do not want nor do I care about multiplayer. I can buy plenty of other games for that.

[Yakko77]

Thompson family wrote...

To succeed, no.

To become blockbusters? Probably.

Pretty much.  It simply adds more playability if nothing else.  More options.  It's generally a good thing.  I'm not a huge MP advocate as my most favorite games are SP RPGs but I'll definitely be joining others to fight the Reapers on XBL.

[Gabey5]

multilayer keeps a game from being shelved. Once i beat the game i will probably shelf it for a while, but with Mp it will be played more probably

[Gatt9]

adonfraz wrote...

Games today need massive replay value. The easiest way to achieve that is multiplayer. Sandbox games and Elder Scrolls get it through exploration, BioWare does it with engaging player driven storytelling.

One way or another, to cut down on used game sales developers need gamers to keep playing their game and not trade it in.

Actually,  that's not the case.  Games today are designed to be completely disposable,  in as short an amount of time as possible,  to move you on to the next $60 purchase.

Go back to the C-64,  some of the RPG's on it were designed to take weeks to even months of play to beat (Might and Magic,  Bard's Tale,  Ultima).

Move up to the 90's PC era,  and games were designed to take weeks of play,  like pretty much every game released was designed to be a minimum of 40 hours and most much more.

Move up to the modern era,  8-12 hours isn't unusual.  40 hours max.  Why?  Because they'll have another new game out a few weeks later,  and they want you to be dropping $60 more,  not still playing the last game.  Publishers don't want great games,  they want fast games with lots of buzzwords so they can move you on to the next buy as fast as possible.

Which is why publishers are the very worst thing to happen to gaming.

As far as Elder Scrolls goes,  I don't know how anyone could possibly make it through even 20 hours of the incredibly empty landscape with quests that have no point,  since you don't actually get anything out of it.  Level scaling makes sure whatever you do,  it didn't matter.

Modifié par Gatt9, 19 octobre 2011 - 04:38 .