Monday, 20/November/2017, 3:50:08 PM
Welcome Guest | RSS
[BS!]theBeardedSquirrels!
Main | Developers Being Forced to Implement Multiplayer? - Forum | Registration | Login
[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Page 1 of 11
Forum » Mess Hall » General Discussion » Developers Being Forced to Implement Multiplayer?
Developers Being Forced to Implement Multiplayer?
nivasan6Date: Tuesday, 05/April/2011, 2:06:29 PM | Message # 1
Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 359
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Here is an interesting read:
http://www.ps3trophies.org/news....rs.html

I knew that this was happening, but I thought it was the developers who were pushing for multiplayer, but it turns out it was the Publishers. This is rather disgusting, and there were talks of Sony Santa Monica having job openings, and most of the positions listed were for online. People jumped to conclusions that God of War 4 will be online. I hope that isn't true, but if it did happen, they will be destroying one of the best action franchises.

What do you guys think about the article and that Publishers are forcing developers to implement multiplayer in their games?

 
KuzuDate: Tuesday, 05/April/2011, 9:15:06 PM | Message # 2
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Reputation: 4
Status: Offline
niva -
i like that u found this type of article that we can discuss. i think this issue is a bit tricky to talk about though, since, well, i think all of us have our biases and preferences. i will try to stay subjective without getting opinionated. i wont go deep into who should have the right to decide if a game is SP vs MP because i dont know the history or structure of game manufacturing. i would probably lean toward letting the developers choose, but in the end it is the publishers who are financially backing the project, so i understand why they have the final word. i guess as the developers gain more clout, they may be able to influence decisions more, the same way that actors may sway decisions to some degree.

so what do we think about having more games that may have traditionally been SP and including MP? i can understand the mindset of a purist SP gamer, who thinks alot of time, resources, and programming that was put into MP was diverted from the SP. but to what degree? we dont really know. is it possible that the exact amount of time/effort put into creating MP equates to the same amount being detracted from SP? most likely not. in all likelihood, the developer team was expanded with outside help (especially if they do not normally make MP games) to get the job done. but is it possible that *some* amount of time/effort was diverted from making the SP and put into MP? most definitely. from that perspective, i can see how a SP-lover would be disappointed by this turn of events. if we can agree that adding MP will detract some time/effort from making the SP better, then i would be upset with this decision if i were looking forward to the SP aspect.

but this is where my bias (sorry!) comes into play. i bought the PS3 specificially so i could play online games. my first game was RFOM. i have only bought one game that did not include MP (Obliviion; cuz i still have a love for RPGs). in fact, all of the games i have played, i jump straight into MP. in line with this topic, i can say the reverse about these games. i wish they didnt put resources into the SP because quite frankly, i could care less about them. i may or may not play it a few times, but in the end i have only finished 3 FPS games (+ RDR). to put it another way, MP is instant gratification (well, often instant aggravation, but u get the point). times have changed, and more and more gamers are realizing the full enjoyment and potential of online games. SP used to be the de facto mode. but now it takes a back seat to MP, i think its fair to say. im sure we can agree that the numbers favor MP, and i dont just mean behemoth COD.


 
KuzuDate: Tuesday, 05/April/2011, 9:15:22 PM | Message # 3
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Reputation: 4
Status: Offline
cont:

i think publishers have come to the realization that a mix of SP/MP is the best marketing plan available to them, and i would tend to agree. not that i *want* that, but i can agree with the logic. (this is not being a dick, im genuinely curious:) i would like to know the top-selling SP-only game for the PS3? we dont even need to compare it to COD, because its probably not even 20%. but what if we compare it to a decent FPS w/ SP/MP (KZ2, UC2, etc.). im pretty sure that these FPS, of which there are so many out there, still beat out the best SP games. i mean, im sure there are ppl who could easily claim that the Uncharted series would be that much better if they didnt have MP, and the SP would just shine even more. thats probably true, but at the same time there are XX-amount of ppl who enjoy the game for both the SP and MP, and many who bought the game because it has a good blend of both. this was my feeling for RDR as well. would i have bought the game if it were SP only? most likely no chance. did i think the MP was fantastic? no - then again i did buy it a year after the game was released, same as i did with BFBC2, and by that time the general player count and player interest has drastically declined, so thats just as much my fault for being so slow. anyway, did i think RDR was a very enjoyable SP game? yes. i think they were both very well done, and without both, they would not have had as many sales or people embracing the game. so in this sense, i think the SP-MP mix is essential to certain games.

however, like i stated, i would be absolutely fine, and actually a little surprised that certain games that are just massively popular dont just throw away SP and work on MP only. i think the only reason they dont is because they will be seen negatively, and the "lack* of a main feature, even if in the minority, would cause bad press. i think in time, this will happen though. when i see my friends online, i dont see them playing FPS in X-campaign stage - i see them in X-map playing X-online game mode. i would like to see the stats for the top games, showing what percent of time people spend playing MP vs SP. i could only imagine it would be completely lopsided in favor of MP. 75 v 25? 90 v 10? would be an interesting stat.

back to being subjective: i can see how forcing the construction of MP would detract from the overall greatness of the SP, and in that respect i wish good SP games were left alone. sure is a shame, since the SP could be that much better without having to waste resources, so that definitely sucks. but i have to say, as a huge fan of MP, i appreciate that certain games that may not have been on my radar were given a decent MP that i could enjoy. are too many games being forced to include MP? probably. but i can only imagine that this trend will continue as more and more games with MP continue to rule the market.


 
nivasan6Date: Wednesday, 06/April/2011, 1:12:46 PM | Message # 4
Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 359
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Interesting points Kuzu, I can agree with most of them, but comparing MP to SP percentage may not be as lop-sided as you think. There are millions of people who would rather play and do continuously play SP than MP. I would say it's more around 55 v 45, or it could also be 50 v 50. There are more casual gamers now then they used to be, and so they count for a lot of the SP as well. I'm not sure if you were including the other consoles in your percentages, but if you were than SP would be on top because of the Wii, not many of those games are online, and most people don't even play Wii games online either.

I like your point about developers scrapping SP all together for a particular game. I would be mad if they decided to include a SP in the new Warhawk game. The first Warhawk was not that great, but the second is one of the best online experiences on any console. Would adding SP to the new one hurt it? Maybe, but I know I wouldn't want a SP in it, just focus on what made the second Warhawk amazing: multiplayer. The same thing happened with the Battlefield series, BF 1942 - BF 2142 had no SP campaign. But, Battlefield 3 will feature a SP campaign. I did not like the news about this because BF has always been about MP, and they should've stuck with that. Will the campaign detract from the overall experience, hell no. But, it might get lower review scores if the campaign is dull, and that might cause lower sales. Should CoD get rid of their SP? Yes, they should because it's all a big joke. They sort of "set" the standard now for 4hr campaign's in fps games.

I don't mind publishers asking developers to include multiplayer in a game that would make sense to have it in. Bioshock is a great example. It has an excellent story, and multiplayer would've ruined the game and experience for many people. Dead Space 2 is another game. Why do you need multiplayer in a Dead Space game? The same thing is happening in inFAMOUS 2, but it isn't really multiplayer. They're allowing users to create their own content and post it in the game, so that everyone can play it. I was mad when Uncharted 2 featured multiplayer because I thought it would detract from the excellent campaign, but it didn't. It actually made sense to have some sort of multiplayer, I personally would not have bothered implementing multiplayer into it at all and left as a strong SP game.

I believe that if the publishers want a certain game to feature multiplayer so badly then they should have the developers scrap the SP all together. Now it seems that most developers are spending more time with MP than with SP. I do like games that are online only, which is why I have three of them: Warhawk, SOCOM: Confrontation, and MAG. A single player campaign would have hurt these games badly.

In conclusion games such as CoD, Battlefield, Warhawk's, MAG's, etc... should be MP only.

 
Forum » Mess Hall » General Discussion » Developers Being Forced to Implement Multiplayer?
Page 1 of 11
Search:

Copyright DoOrDie86 © 2017