122 réponses à ce sujet

[Peregrin25]

Companies add multiplayer because everyone else does. Even in games that don't need it.

Too many games these days have multiplayer that do not even need it to be successful. Infact some multiplayer teams that work on the feature invest a ton of money just to have it. Even if it is not done right.

Statistics show that more and more people are avoiding games with multiplayer and playing games that only have a single player campaign. Or a game that has optional co-op or multiplayer prefer to play alone in a single player mode.

I don't mind some games having an online multiplayer mode like CoD franchise or any other combat or FPS style game, Even racing and sports games don't bother me. It is the RPG and action style games that do not need a multiplayer mode. God of War Ascension is one prime example where an online multiplayer screwed the game for me, personally. That is just my opinion.

The new Tomb Raider game is another. It didn't interfere with the single player campaign but what got me thinking. What was the point of having a multiplayer in the first place?

To me companies use multiplayer in a failed attempt to give a game replayability. but in the long run has no longevity for the future. 10-20 years from now, all that money spent on online multiplayer for most games that don't actually need it is just going to be a waste.

Instead of making games have multiplayer they should delve deeper in the creation process and give the game 100+ hours of awesomeness. Skyrim, Borderlands, Borderlands 2, and Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, are just a few to name that have awesome depth and length and give hours upon hours of enjoyment. No multiplayer needed. And I can play them from beginning to end 100% sidequest and collectable completion every time.

That is just my opinion on multiplayer gaming for games these days. Some need it most do not. In fact, ots of games now days it is almost forced upon players to have to play it in order to experience the game as a whole. To me that is not fun, it is aggravating. I don't completely hate multiplayer modes in games like Gears of War or Call of Duty and similar style games, I play those all the time and enjoy it. Other games not so much. Not to mention, most games it gets boring really quick.

Modifié par Peregrin25, 10 juin 2013 - 01:04 .

[Sanunes]

Peregrin25 wrote...

Companies add multiplayer because everyone else does. Even in games that don't need it.

Too many games these days have multiplayer that do not even need it to be successful. Infact some multiplayer teams that work on the feature invest a ton of money just to have it. Even if it is not done right.

Statistics show that more and more people are avoiding games with multiplayer and playing games that only have a single player campaign. Or a game that has optional co-op or multiplayer prefer to play alone in a single player mode.

I don't mind some games having an online multiplayer mode like CoD franchise or any other combat or FPS style game, Even racing and sports games don't bother me. It is the RPG and action style games that do not need a multiplayer mode. God of War Ascension is one prime example where an online multiplayer screwed the game for me, personally. That is just my opinion.

The new Tomb Raider game is another. It didn't interfere with the single player campaign but what got me thinking. What was the point of having a multiplayer in the first place?

To me companies use multiplayer in a failed attempt to give a game replayability. but in the long run has no longevity for the future. 10-20 years from now, all that money spent on online multiplayer for most games that don't actually need it is just going to be a waste.

Instead of making games have multiplayer they should delve deeper in the creation process and give the game 100+ hours of awesomeness. Skyrim, Borderlands, Borderlands 2, and Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, are just a few to name that have awesome depth and length and give hours upon hours of enjoyment. No multiplayer needed. And I can play them from beginning to end 100% sidequest and collectable completion every time.

That is just my opinion on multiplayer gaming for games these days. Some need it most do not. In fact, ots of games now days it is almost forced upon players to have to play it in order to experience the game as a whole. To me that is not fun, it is aggravating. I don't completely hate multiplayer modes in games like Gears of War or Call of Duty and similar style games, I play those all the time and enjoy it. Other games not so much. Not to mention, most games it gets boring really quick.

Can you provide the evidence showing people are avoiding games with multiplayer? Besides Skyrim most games I know of that are successful have some sort of multiplayer in either co-op, pvp, or something inbetween.

Here is the problem I have with your arguement, Borderlands 1 and 2 both had co-op gameplay and they are in the process of making a Elder Scrolls Online MMO, so if there are so many people avoiding games with multiplayer why are so many games adding it now?  Looking at different boards over the years I still see people actively asking for it and rarely do I see any arguement for or against it besides "I like it" or "I don't like it".  Unless they are trying to base it on information that feels extremely anecdotal to me.

Modifié par Sanunes, 10 juin 2013 - 05:08 .

[Solmanian]

i found that on general my "fun" formula is:

Q/X=F

Q= the ovarall quality of the game, as befit my specific taste.
X= The number of people I am forced to rely on and share my gaming experience with.
F= fun!

Can't help it that I'm a hardcore SP guy.

[Solmanian]

Easy prediction: ESO gonna flop.

[Jackums]

Because MP is too mainstream. BSN is full of hipsters.

[RandomSyhn]

I play video games usually when I'm avoiding social contact, why would I want somthing that has me dealing with more people.

[ArcaneJTM]

Solmanian wrote...

Easy prediction: ESO gonna flop.

I'm cautiously optimistic that it won't.  The more I see of it, the more I think it's got a good chance of being a decent success, provided they have more than one week's worth of content at launch like so many other new MMOs these days.  (Probably the result of misguided attempts at eliminating the grind, but that's just my opinion.)

[Sanunes]

ArcaneJTM wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

Easy prediction: ESO gonna flop.

I'm cautiously optimistic that it won't.  The more I see of it, the more I think it's got a good chance of being a decent success, provided they have more than one week's worth of content at launch like so many other new MMOs these days.  (Probably the result of misguided attempts at eliminating the grind, but that's just my opinion.)

I am not sure, but I think Bethesda or ZeniMax have concerns for they created ZeniMax Online to create the game instead of putting it under the Bethesda umbrella (of course I am probably reading too much into that decision).  I think its going to be a lot like The Old Republic, something is just going to feel wrong with the game, but on paper it looked like it would work.

[KDD-0063]

MP affecting SP is a big one. I played ME3's MP so the issue of getting best ending didn't affect me but I understand it is an issue (not really that much since all endings suck anyways). Bioware and EA's business practice didn't help either, they claimed it as a bug but EA has done similar shady things before.

For me personally, I hate this not because it becomes necessary to obtain best ending, but rather because playing MP makes the choices in SP trivial. It allows you to surpass the requirement for breath scene by like 3000-4000 easily, why bother making difficult choices in SP. There is no difficult choices because it all comes down to some war asset points which ultimately don't really matter.

Also MP probalby forced SP to use a score system to track the decisions. Which I really hate.

I think a better example would be Dead Space 3 (which I haven't played, only heard about it), that because of the need to add MP, it lost its very core and GT comments on recent survival horror games as "survivors are totally winning".

Also DA is quite different; you always get to control the whole party in DA, but in DA: I because of MP, the controls will probably be even more focused on one character.

Modifié par KDD-0063, 10 juin 2013 - 06:37 .

[KDD-0063]

Sanunes wrote...

ArcaneJTM wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

Easy prediction: ESO gonna flop.

I'm cautiously optimistic that it won't.  The more I see of it, the more I think it's got a good chance of being a decent success, provided they have more than one week's worth of content at launch like so many other new MMOs these days.  (Probably the result of misguided attempts at eliminating the grind, but that's just my opinion.)

I am not sure, but I think Bethesda or ZeniMax have concerns for they created ZeniMax Online to create the game instead of putting it under the Bethesda umbrella (of course I am probably reading too much into that decision).  I think its going to be a lot like The Old Republic, something is just going to feel wrong with the game, but on paper it looked like it would work.

I have similar doubts too. ESO sounds like Matt Firor shoveling 9 of the 10 playable races in elder scrolls into his three faction system based solely on locations. That being said, I doubt people will care, other than super lore nerds.

Borrowing Bethesda's reputation is an understandable decision but it doesn't really help with doubts.

That being said I think TOR ****ed up on their decision to focus so heavily on the story (and that crappy engine too) which actually wasn't really that impressive if compared to single player RPGs.

So I think the worst thing for ESO is ... that it ends up generic, or mediocre, it's probalby not going to be terrible.

[Pordis Shepard]

RandomSyhn wrote...
I play video games usually when I'm avoiding social contact, why would I want somthing that has me dealing with more people.

LOL



btw what exactly is the business model for MP anyway? E.g. how are they making $$ off me3 MP? Are that many
ppl really spending actual cash on the packs? Do they get kickbacks from online fees for the platform?

Edit:  I guess I should mention that I think MP for DA would be better if it were completely separate. I played quite a lot of me3 MP and it was okay, but it really had nothing to do with the game and should have been separate imo.

Modifié par Pordis Shepard, 10 juin 2013 - 06:56 .

[Sanunes]

Pordis Shepard wrote...

btw what exactly is the business model for MP anyway? E.g. how are they making $$ off me3 MP? Are that many
ppl really spending actual cash on the packs? Do they get kickbacks from online fees for the platform?

There must have been enough people buying the packs, for they kept adding more items in those packs.  Kind of reminds me of a F2P MMO, the MMO still exists so people do wind up buying the content.  I don't think they would get a kickback, for they aren't bringing extra fees to the platforms.

Modifié par Sanunes, 10 juin 2013 - 06:55 .

[Lilaeth]

My main gripe is that having tried ME3 multiplayer, it was full of elitist ****s. Through the forums here I eventually met some great people to play with, but before that, it was just awful. Ergo, I don't want MP to have any bearing on the SP game at all. I'd rather the Devs put the work in on SP.

[n7stormrunner]

.. it's made by bioware and is not.... whatever it is the bioware fans like... what other reason do they need? then again personally I think they don't even need that.

[Bfler]

If there are large battles like e.g. siege of a castle, MP can be very funny.
WoW PVP was also good, before they introduced the battlegrounds, when there were random battles at certain places like Crossroads or random raids on cities with dozens of players.
On the other side e.g. something like ME3 MP is rather simple and boring, because it's only coop with some waves of AI enemies.

[Sanunes]

n7stormrunner wrote...

.. it's made by bioware and is not.... whatever it is the bioware fans like... what other reason do they need? then again personally I think they don't even need that.

My problem with ME3 is what I dislike seemed like it wasn't BioWare's choice, but something they added for the fans, I actually walked of Star Trek Into Darkness feeling the same way I did with Mass Effect 3.  I follow these boards when I have nothing else to do and found the areas that disappointed me the most were some of the most talked about subjects here. The "hidden score" for Mass Effect 2 Sucide Mission, returning companions, epic ending, and other minor things.  Yes BioWare made mistakes implementing those things, but it feels like it wasn't there idea to add them in the first place, but they wanted to give the people that played all three games what they were looking for.

[Pordis Shepard]

Lilaeth wrote...
My main gripe is that having tried ME3 multiplayer, it was full of elitist ****s. Through the forums here I eventually met some great people to play with, but before that, it was just awful. Ergo, I don't want MP to have any bearing on the SP game at all. I'd rather the Devs put the work in on SP.

^ This to a large extent.  I don't think the MP was all the reason for ME going from RPG/action to Action Shooter/RPG, but I think the shooter part of the MP did drive a lot of the changes in the feel of the game leaving the RP genre behind.  At least in my opinion.

[Sanunes]

Bfler wrote...

If there are large battles like e.g. siege of a castle, MP can be very funny.
WoW PVP was also good, before they introduced the battlegrounds, when there were random battles at certain places like Crossroads or random raids on cities with dozens of players.
On the other side e.g. something like ME3 MP is rather simple and boring, because it's only coop with some waves of AI enemies.

This is the problem with all video games anymore, they try and make them for everyone and it doesn't work.  Normally any MP experience for me is only fun if the people I am playing with aren't jerks and thankfully I didn't have much of a problem with Mass Effect 3, but with World of Warcraft I avoided PvP for years because of the people that just AFK'd around or threw temper tantrums because the group wouldn't follow them. 

[n7stormrunner]

Sanunes wrote...

n7stormrunner wrote...

.. it's made by bioware and is not.... whatever it is the bioware fans like... what other reason do they need? then again personally I think they don't even need that.

My problem with ME3 is what I dislike seemed like it wasn't BioWare's choice, but something they added for the fans, I actually walked of Star Trek Into Darkness feeling the same way I did with Mass Effect 3.  I follow these boards when I have nothing else to do and found the areas that disappointed me the most were some of the most talked about subjects here. The "hidden score" for Mass Effect 2 Sucide Mission, returning companions, epic ending, and other minor things.  Yes BioWare made mistakes implementing those things, but it feels like it wasn't there idea to add them in the first place, but they wanted to give the people that played all three games what they were looking for.

mass effect 3 wasn't going to end well for bioware no matter what they did. I come to the bioware forum because I find the way people act funny.... then again I grew up listening to metal, watching  anime and old george carlin shows so there is a off chance I'm a little odd

I don't want to hear anything about the new star trek moive I haven't seen it yet

Modifié par n7stormrunner, 10 juin 2013 - 07:27 .

[JoltDealer]

Short version is, people hate change. The longer version is more complicated. People against the inclusion of multiplayer are either 1) those who hate interacting with other people or at the very least online gamers or 2) they believe it takes away from the single player experience. Spoiler Alert! That's not true.

As far as money/resources go, SP games get one budget and if they decide to add MP they get another, separate budget for that. SP's budget is unaffected. In the case of Mass Effect 3, they had two separate teams for SP and MP content that worked together, but independently of one another. Single player is, again, not affected by the inclusion of multiplayer in this regard. Now as for disc space, that has always been problem. It's why there was no multiplayer in Mass Effect 1 or 2, despite them wanting it from the very beginning. You can't have as much SP content if you include MP content, but developers have found ways around it like in ME3 and the Assassins Creed series. Now with PS4 (PS3 already had this) and Xbox One both using Blu Ray discs, this will no longer be a problem as Blu Ray discs are capable of holding much more data.

As for those who hate it affecting single player, I'll agree there. That was stupid, but Bioware realized their mistake shortly after and changed ME3 so you could reach it without playing MP. However, this move is usually the developers trying to ensure that you play the multiplayer that they worked so hard on. If you don't, they would have wasted literal years of their life. Hell, the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer was pretty damned good. Sure it wasn't perfect, but it lightyears better than what we were expecting. Yet there are still those on this board who act like spoiled children, who would rather refuse to eat the food the cook has prepared simply because there's broccoli on their plate. Nevermind how long it took or how difficult it was to make.

Modifié par Crimson Sound, 10 juin 2013 - 07:36 .

[Pordis Shepard]

Crimson Sound wrote...
Short version is, people hate change. The longer version is more complicated. People against the inclusion of multiplayer are either 1) those who hate interacting with other people or at the very least online gamers or 2) they believe it takes away from the single player experience. Spoiler Alert! That's not true.

I think it does have at least an indirect affect on the SP.  What makes a good MP game is not the same as what makes a good RPG SP game. They will therefore alter the game mechanics into some hybrid (at best) that will suit both somewhat.  I was pleasantly surprised with the me3 mp, but again... that's not what I bought.  I can't say the same about the SP game.

I would hate for DA to go the same route, all because suits are in love with having MP in games.

Modifié par Pordis Shepard, 10 juin 2013 - 07:52 .

[Bfler]

Crimson Sound wrote...
People against the inclusion of multiplayer are either...  2) they believe it takes away from the single player experience. Spoiler Alert! That's not true.  

You will not tell me that these small rectangular maps, which you can find in ME 3 SP and MP, were designed for SP.

Modifié par Bfler, 10 juin 2013 - 08:05 .

[BadJustice]

because they could've used the budget to make the SP better

[AlanC9]

BadJustice wrote...

because they could've used the budget to make the SP better

Which would make sense .....if only MP didn't make money. But it does.

[AlanC9]

Bfler wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...
People against the inclusion of multiplayer are either...  2) they believe it takes away from the single player experience. Spoiler Alert! That's not true.  

You will not tell me that these small rectangular maps, which you can find in ME 3 SP and MP, were designed for SP.

Yep. Those maps were designed for MP, and were free maps for the SP team.

So MP is subsidizing SP, not the other way around.