250 réponses à ce sujet

[Knight of Dane]

Skyrim doesn't get multiplayer, and it's gonna be game of the year.

[Chapity]

No, they dont. Plenty of games have succeeded without multiplayer, but some games wouldn't work without it. How shallow would left for dead or halo or gears or sports games in general be without the ability to compete with live opponents? If what we are insinuating is would me3 be successful without it, the answer is yes. Hell yes. But, could it be more successful with it, my answer is probably. Plenty of people have talked up the brilliance of this game with others who may not like the genre. Include a way to draw a person in with buddies and you got the possibility of people trying this game where they wouldn't have otherwise.

[Pappi]

I hope not, particular as multiplayer these days relies on an internet connection--which not everyone has.

[kalle90]

Did Dead Space 2 or Resident Evil 5, or a dozen other decent games, really benefit from it? I wouldn't say so.

It's more a genre thing. Straightforward shooters and MMOs seem to be ones that "need" multiplayer

[Biotic Sage]

marshalleck wrote...

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.

Your "question" was a rhetorical one that implied my assertion was wrong, so since you were indirectly making an assertion that was contrary to mine, there is the "contrarian" aspect. 

Since Skyrim is one of the most anticipated games on nearly every gaming site, and people are interested in a game that is clearly marketed as single player, I thought that supported my assertion.  Marketing is definitely part of the equation, but the actual product should not be entirely dismissed; we don't live in M.T. Anderson's Feed quite yet. 

Obviously if it doesn't sell well, then that indicates a mitigated interest in single player games.  However, every piece of evidence and data points to it selling far beyond what Oblivion's numbers were; the hype is much more prevalent than Oblivion's hype and the number of fans commenting and expressing interest is way up.  I could have picked a different example of a single player success story (such as ME1 and ME2), but Skyrim seemed like the most relevant since it comes out in a month.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 19 octobre 2011 - 12:28 .

[Soul Cool]

kalle90 wrote...
It's more a genre thing. Straightforward shooters and MMOs seem to be ones that "need" multiplayer

An MMO without multiplayer does not sense make.

[sael_feman]

No, a good single player game doesn't need multiplayer.

In the case of the ME series, the first, second and third game will hopefully link together well and be rewarding to play through again and again.

the many hours of my life disappearing before my eyes...nooo.

S'F'

[StarcloudSWG]

No, they don't.

The fact that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer mode is entirely optional and not needed for the best outcome is the only reason I haven't cancelled my preorder of the collector's edition.

That said, multiplayer gets added because game publishers, whether they're correct about it or not, feel that multiplayer is going to add sales to their titles.

[nelly21]

No.

But it doesn't hurt. And more options isn't a bad thing.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Yes. And me3 will benefit from it as well. At least all shooters should have it, so I'm glad me3 is getting it in that regard.


-Polite

[sp0ck 06]

BioShock was a big, successful game with no MP. And a shooter at that. Bethesda games.

Other games, single player is still the focus but the MP, even if it does feel tacked on, hasn't been bad. Red Dead Redemption and AC: Brotherhood come to mind. I'm thinking ME3 will be in the same vein.

[Siven80]

They dont need them.

But a well made multiplayer can certainly push a game to greater heights of sales and increase the replayability and community of games

[Gabey5]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Skyrim doesn't get multiplayer, and it's gonna be game of the year.

that game will probably be 300 hrs plus, and is open world, mass effect will proabably be like 20 hrs and is not open world. So skyrim has no need for multiplayer

[Blazenor]

Gabey5 wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

Skyrim doesn't get multiplayer, and it's gonna be game of the year.

that game will probably be 300 hrs plus, and is open world, mass effect will proabably be like 20 hrs and is not open world. So skyrim has no need for multiplayer

I would agree about the whole Skyrim thing because it is such a huge game and Mass Effect can be successful without multiplayer as long as it gets more DLC after launch.  My greatest fear is that because of the multiplayer there might be more support for it than the single player DLC, leaving us with less single DLC than theother two games.

One of the many things I did love about Mass Effect 2 was the DLC, one of the best was LotSB which I hope we get a lot more DLC like that post Mass Effect 3.

[Axelstall]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Skyrim doesn't get multiplayer, and it's gonna be game of the year.

Incase you couldn't tell, there's Thousands of "Game Of The Year" Awards are given every year, there should be only one Game Of The Year Orginization so that it means something. (Then CoD Wouldn't get it every year somehow)

Modifié par Axelstall, 19 octobre 2011 - 04:32 .

[SnowHeart1]

It depends on the game. I assume we're talking about "succeeding" in the economic sense. Some games do need multiplayer to succeed while others should not. In the modern market, shooters definitely need multiplayer. It extends the life of the game and appeals to a large portion of the shooter demographic.

If a typical shooter fan has a choice between two generally similar games, one of which offers multiplayer while the other does not, he'll probably choose the one with multiplayer. That's fine.

Other games, however, do not need multiplayer because it just doesn't make much sense... and they do very well. The first one that comes to mind is the Sims, but if you have a strategy game with a good AI, most strategy gamers I think would be content to not have multiplayer, or happy with a weak match-making service that is just enough to let them play with friends they already know rather than strangers.

And there are games like those made by Bethesda, singleplayer RPGs, that do perfectly well and do not have multiplayer. Do they need multiplayer to succeed? No.

But some genres do. For good or ill, ME2/3 sort of stradle at least two genres, and that's what prompts the vigorous debate here.

[Knight of Dane]

Axelstall wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

Skyrim doesn't get multiplayer, and it's gonna be game of the year.

Incase you couldn't tell, there's Thousands of "Game Of The Year" Awards are given every year, there should be only one Game Of The Year Orginization so that it means something. (Then CoD Wouldn't get it every year somehow)

In case you couldn't spell, i mean tell, Skyrim's gonna get 'em all.

[Pappi]

I think adding multiplayer makes the games last longer, as in you play them for longer

[Axelstall]

By success you mean pre-orders? because that's dependent on the amount of hype the game is given.
However, if you mean a combined total of players, purchases, and pre-orders. I don't know.

[Pappi]

By success I mean people still playing it, as in--people still play resident evil 5 online and that came out years ago.

[Blazenor]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

It depends on the game. I assume we're talking about "succeeding" in the economic sense. Some games do need multiplayer to succeed while others should not. In the modern market, shooters definitely need multiplayer. It extends the life of the game and appeals to a large portion of the shooter demographic.

If a typical shooter fan has a choice between two generally similar games, one of which offers multiplayer while the other does not, he'll probably choose the one with multiplayer. That's fine.

Other games, however, do not need multiplayer because it just doesn't make much sense... and they do very well. The first one that comes to mind is the Sims, but if you have a strategy game with a good AI, most strategy gamers I think would be content to not have multiplayer, or happy with a weak match-making service that is just enough to let them play with friends they already know rather than strangers.

And there are games like those made by Bethesda, singleplayer RPGs, that do perfectly well and do not have multiplayer. Do they need multiplayer to succeed? No.

But some genres do. For good or ill, ME2/3 sort of stradle at least two genres, and that's what prompts the vigorous debate here.

You kind of made me really think about another point, If genres like Shooters (First and Thrid person) need multiplayer (which most had stated) to succeed and the Mass Effect series after 2 games now is getting multiplayer.  Is it fair to say that Mass Effect 3 will be even more of a shooter than what Mass Effect 2 was and there-for need multiplayer to succeed?

Modifié par Blazenor, 19 octobre 2011 - 05:35 .

[Axelstall]

Yep I would say that's true success right there. Not like CoD's every year players migrate to the newest one.

EDIT: not you Blazenor, I meant Pappi you posted at the same time.

Modifié par Axelstall, 19 octobre 2011 - 05:38 .

[SnowHeart1]

Blazenor wrote...
...Is it fair to say that Mass Effect 3 will be even more of a shooter than what Mass Effect 2 was and there-for need multiplayer to succeed?

And that's the proverbial third-rail that I'm not gonna touch.  We'll just have to see.