250 réponses à ce sujet

[PhantomSpectre]

Not really. It's just that some games benefit from Multiplayer and it increased their longevity.

[Arcadian Legend]

No, not at all, it can just help to enhance the experience.

[Dominus]

No. It can help boost sales, but it is not a prerequisite for being successful. If it was, we'd all be playing Mass Effect Wars, a 64-player free for all fragfest with hoverboards and rocket launchers. And of course who could forget Dragon Rage, the Online Racing sensation where you press a button, and something awesome happens.

Yeah. Really glad the answer is no.

[Robbiesan]

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 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.

Similar.  It can certainly help a game.  Let's face it, with the gaming industry many single player games are not particularly well done.  Aside from a single playthrough and how that was for you, you can gauge a SP game's goodness but how many times you are willing to replay it.  Multiplayer can make the game more fun, and more bang for your buck. 

This is coming from someone who was SP only in the past.  My first MP experience was Star Trek Voyager Elite Force, and I can tell you I quickly became hooked on multiplayer; that game's MP was a blast.  The next experience was with the Battlefield series which generally focuses on MP experiences and also a blast.

I think the way BW is doing ME3 is great.  You can do SP only and have a complete experience.  Then you can still hook up with 3 others for some MP experience, yet cooperative compared to competitive.  I really do look forward to seeing what BW has created with the full ME3 experience.

[CroGamer002]

No.

[BatmanPWNS]

No but MP make millions of money.

[aznricepuff]

It depends on how you define success. Oblivion, FO3, DA:O, ME1/2 all lacked MP, and most people would consider them successes.

But in terms of pure sales numbers, games with MP tend to do better. CoD:MW2 sold more units in 24 hours (I think it was somewhere like 5M?) than Oblivion did in almost a year (3M). And not all of that is just because of CoD/FPS craze either. Starcraft 2 sold 3M in a month, and that's an RTS, which generally isn't that popular of a genre.

Bottom line? If you want amazing sales figures (5-10M+) you probably want to have a solid multiplayer component to your game (note the condition of solid multiplayer; there's plenty of games that try to get away with half-assed MP implementations that just fall flat).

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

aznricepuff wrote...

It depends on how you define success. Oblivion, FO3, DA:O, ME1/2 all lacked MP, and most people would consider them successes.

But in terms of pure sales numbers, games with MP tend to do better. CoD:MW2 sold more units in 24 hours (I think it was somewhere like 5M?) than Oblivion did in almost a year (3M). And not all of that is just because of CoD/FPS craze either. Starcraft 2 sold 3M in a month, and that's an RTS, which generally isn't that popular of a genre.

Bottom line? If you want amazing sales figures (5-10M+) you probably want to have a solid multiplayer component to your game (note the condition of solid multiplayer; there's plenty of games that try to get away with half-assed MP implementations that just fall flat).

I think about every publisher wants a mega-hit blockbuster like COD, but most developers have higher standards that that.


*Wash,rinse,repeat*

[Feanor_II]

That's what EA thinks.

I don't, if you ask me.....

[Blazenor]

To clarify my first post:

When I'm talking about success, I'm talking about both financial and perception.

[don-mika]

some of them need, some not

personally i don't play MP, because i don't play game that have MP, because i play game that have story, and game that have story don`t need MP

[Someone With Mass]

Not really, but if they're done well (like ME3 just having a co-op mode) then I have no problems with it.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 19 octobre 2011 - 07:27 .

[The Elder King]

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

If you complete most of the missions in ME and ME2 on Normal they are both longer than 30 hours . If ME3 will that shorter than ME-ME2 it will be a great cons.

Edit: On topic, a game doesn't necessary need MP to be great or sell well. Though if MP is well implemented, and doesn't limit the SP experience, it's a good addiction.

Modifié par hhh89, 19 octobre 2011 - 07:51 .

[gosimmons]

Such as for horror, stealth, or rpg genres?

No.

[Chris Priestly]

Do they need multiplay? No.

Can they have multiplay as an option for those that enjoy it? Yes, as long as it does not detract from the single play experience.

That's what were going to prove.

[Halo Quea]

Blazenor wrote...

To clarify my first post:

When I'm talking about success, I'm talking about both financial and perception.

Fans of shooters (and by that I mean gamers who play shooters almost exclusively), will often admit that they don't even play the SP campaign of their favorite shooters.  They go straight from the unboxing to the MP. 

So when you mention perception, you can't just speak to one genre, or even one type of gamer.   Co-op is a welcomed experience by most RPG gamers, but most don't feel it's a necessary one.  RPG gamers can remain as engrossed in a SP campaign as fans of shooters are in a MP. 

From a financial standpoint, you couldn't have the success that shooters enjoy without MP.   There aren't that many devs whose mainstay are shooters that truly stress deep story and character customization.  Mostly because it's not needed, your focus is behind the gun, and that speaks volumes about shooters if you follow my meaning.  If it weren't for MP, gamers would probably play once and never pick it up again. 

RPGs?  Just the opposite, and there's really no need to rehash the reasons, we're all familar with them here.  Even if we differ on what an RPG is or isn't, we all agree on the most basic elements of story and customization.  That being said, there haven't been really great co-op experiences provided for RPGs.   At least not good enough where gamers would ever unbox an RPG, skip the SP campaign and jump right into co-op.  

I think I created a thread on this here once before, I'll have to check to be sure.  But I don't think that anyone even bothered to respond to it.   What I asked was if RPGs should adopt MMO type gameplay AS their MP experience?   Co-op is nice but perhaps a larger and more complex setting is needed to make RPG gamers enthusiastic about MP in their favorite genre.   Of course a full MMO like experience would require almost as much attention as the SP campaign.  More money to develop yes?  Will it attract more gamers for the financial bottomline? Also yes.   But it would take a large studio with the talent pool and conviction to see it to it's proper completion, and of course a publisher willing to take the risk. 

[rolson00]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Do they need multiplay? No.

Can they have multiplay as an option for those that enjoy it? Yes, as long as it does not detract from the single play experience.

That's what were going to prove.

most games add mp to increase the players liklyhood of replaying it but both the me games do fine without but i am impressed with what they have planned its like another story i think they've proved that they dont need shepard for the me universe to go on^_^
../../../images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png

[Ghost-621]

gosimmons wrote...

Such as for horror, stealth, or rpg genres?

No.

I'm looking at you, Dead Space 2.

[CannonO]

Nope. Deus Ex? BioShock: Infinite? Skyrim? Arkham City?

[Jaron Oberyn]

Tell 'em Chris! Prove those nay Sayers wrong! Coop is the best way to implement multiplayer in mass effect.


-Polite

[pmac_tk421]

Zanallen wrote...

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

this. I played ALOT of the uncharted 2 and tansformers war for cybertron multiplayer.

[CannonO]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Do they need multiplay? No.

Can they have multiplay as an option for those that enjoy it? Yes, as long as it does not detract from the single play experience.

That's what were going to prove.

Uncharted 2 proved it (though it was widely agreed that it seems tacked on since the game is a singleplayer hit), but you're welcome to improve.