Black Ops II Designer Thinks Gamers "Should All Play Multiplayer"
- Thread starter Sarah LeBoeuf
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think Black Ops 2 is a pretty cool guy, eh is multiplayer AND DOESN'T BELIEVE IN OPINIONS.
But seriously, fuck Vonderhaar and fuck his game, what happened to being modest?
But seriously, fuck Vonderhaar and fuck his game, what happened to being modest?
Basically this> I don't know why people take this as an insult. He basically saying what everyone else is thinking. Why would anyone just play HIS game for single player. Pretty sure, people are too much in the habit of mindlessly hating anything COD.TheDrunkNinja said:
I might be inclined to agree with this. He's not exactly abolishing the single player mode, but trying to encourage people to play MP in the game that he designed, fair enough. This guy's comment has been taken out of context.Xanadu84 said:
See, he isn't so bad at all. That's a change of heart from the usual CoD hostility to custom games.
There's no reason to be outraged by this sort of innocuous statement. I'm rather disappointed that people reacted angrily without really reading into the original source. But still, attention-grabbing headlines, soundbites, etc, fuel confirmation bias.
Ditto.Mr Cwtchy said:
I mean, would Silent Hill 2, Shadow of the Colossus, or Dear Esther been improved (even the slightest) by the inclusion of multiplayer?
awww. someone doesnt like it when people play SP.
here is a newsflash: some people dont want to play MP all the time. so grow up and shut up. i like to play some SP as long it has a good story and COD doesnt really have it.
here is a newsflash: some people dont want to play MP all the time. so grow up and shut up. i like to play some SP as long it has a good story and COD doesnt really have it.
Oh hey Mr. Vonderhaar, I don't mean to be disrespectful or anything, but would you kindly shut the hell up? Not everyone wants multiplayer, it can be fun and interesting, but, often times, it's more irritating and filled with immature assholes. Granted, that's not really a problem that can be fixed easily or fairly, but it is plagued by it nonetheless. I love my single-player games, and when I do want to play multiplayer, it isn't always COD, since it's pretty much the same game released every year, it gets kinda boring honestly. I don't understand how people can stand to buy it every year but hey, that's their choice, but anyways, I've gotten off topic. You, my good sir, have a very unpopular opinion, and if it really does annoy you that there are people who don't play COD's multiplayer, actually make a goddamn attempt to get them to. Doing the same thing over and over won't make people who didn't want to play it before suddenly start to, it only works to push them away. Complaining about it does no good.
The amusing thing is I almost got converted to what I view as multiplayer. Horde Mode via ME3. I loved that multiplayer, as it was multiple players up against a common enemy and everyone had to work together. Then EA started screwing it up with its 'marketing'.
I haven't played any recent CoD games, and I don't plan on it. Like most posters in this thread my opinion of that style of 'Multiplayer' is not positive, and for the same reason.
So here's my suggestion to you guys.
Rent the game. Don't buy it. Developers take the popularity of a game based on an initial time period of sales, so don't go to it straight away. It's like the opening weekend at the Box Office, just because a movie sells well initially doesn't make it good, and people don't seem to care. Why do you think they love Pre-orders?
People who pre-order this game are the reason why this genre of game will NEVER die. So why buy it new? You know you aren't going to enjoy the experience, so don't get up in arms about it.
Michael Bay is re-doing the TMNT. Doesn't mean I am going to encourage his behaviour by watching it. So why should we encourage this guy?
I haven't played any recent CoD games, and I don't plan on it. Like most posters in this thread my opinion of that style of 'Multiplayer' is not positive, and for the same reason.
So here's my suggestion to you guys.
Rent the game. Don't buy it. Developers take the popularity of a game based on an initial time period of sales, so don't go to it straight away. It's like the opening weekend at the Box Office, just because a movie sells well initially doesn't make it good, and people don't seem to care. Why do you think they love Pre-orders?
People who pre-order this game are the reason why this genre of game will NEVER die. So why buy it new? You know you aren't going to enjoy the experience, so don't get up in arms about it.
Michael Bay is re-doing the TMNT. Doesn't mean I am going to encourage his behaviour by watching it. So why should we encourage this guy?
Anyone who plays CoD for the single player missions is probably a bit of an anomaly. I don't like how more and more huge release games feel the need to have multiplayer, because that is not and has never been my "thing", but for CoD, I always thought multiplayer was sort of the point.
Now if they added multiplayer to a lonely horror experience like Dead Space, that would just be st--oh, wait
Now if they added multiplayer to a lonely horror experience like Dead Space, that would just be st--oh, wait
HOW TO FIX THIS:
Just give up and don't bother with the single player campaign.
Alternately: Don't allow your fanbase to be so utterly, completely DRAINING to play with.
Just give up and don't bother with the single player campaign.
Alternately: Don't allow your fanbase to be so utterly, completely DRAINING to play with.
To my mind, the day when the majority of the experience to be had is in multiplayer is the day when people should stop buying new versions of the franchise. Seriously. Why should people put their hard-earned money into an experience when the designer is banking on other people to provide the part that's worth coming back to?
TL
R version; those acrid and self-indulgent puddles of toxic waste aren't going to vomit themselves onto the page, so get on it!
This is one of the few subjects I feel strongly about. My thoughts on this issue using the analogy of conjoined twins Timmy and his brother Geoffry;
There is a limited time-frame during which the weaker of the two, ol' Geoffry, glows with the warm light of life, its eyes aglow with wonder and amazement and I suppose its a wonderful thing for Mommy and Daddy (First day adopters) and then fate must run its course, they are overtaken by the consumption that has ravaged their lungs before Timmy and Geoffry reach their first year. Poor, sad little Geoffry. He just can not handle the weight this life thrusts upon him, despite the help of Timmy, and he too expires just as the stench from Mommy and Daddy's room becomes unbearable. By the time I get my hands on the poor lad(s), Timmy is standing there with a wrinkled and dried up husk hanging from his hip, flapping in the breeze. Great. Just what I wanted. The fine gentleman that sold this orphan to me promised me two good workers and what do I get? A sickly, frail child with his dead brother hanging on as a constant reminder of the nutrients that would have made Timmy the greatest slave the world had ever known (if I'd have let him out of the basement which is just crazy talk) if they hadn't been stolen from him in the womb. Yes, I imagine even Geoffry would have been great but that whore of a mother couldn't leave well enough alone, she had to dress like a cheap harlot and every Tom, Dick, and Harry (developers) wanted a piece. Just had to have it all, didn't ya? Well now ya got NOTHING, YOU'RE NOTHING YOU WORTHLESS WHORE, HEY, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT YOU UNGRATEFUL LITTLE SNOT *backhanded slap* You'd do well to watch where you're pointin' them eyes, boy, or you might find yourself waking up one morning two eyes lighter, course, Geoffry's got a fine set of peepers you can borrow, ain't that right Geoffry! *loud, gruff laughter in tandem with several knee slaps* It's not like your mother being a whore is any secret anyway, now wipe them tears and get back to building that box that's roughly your size yet unrelated to you in anyway.
I really had some good points in there but it took on a life of its own. So, in summation, Multiplayer is a waste of resources if people aren't all going to be playing your game at the same time, unless of course its co-op or some other alternative to modes requiring more than 2-4 people. Furthermore, tying trophies to it is just stupid or incredibly grandiose if you aren't Infinity Ward or Dice. So, not only do I have to know that the single player campaign is shorter and less fleshed out, possibly missing rocking, super dope mechanics or totally bitchin'content that will possibly be sold to me later as DLC, the part of the game responsible for this is USELESS to me if people aren't online, or the servers are down, which they will be one day. I love nothing more than paying to cover the costs of two things when only one is available to me. It's all ok though, to me, due to one thing. BOTS (for anyone savvy to this kind of thing, is it possible to design A.I. routines that can be universally applied throughout all games? A.I. has to be one of the most difficult and important, therefore time-consuming and without fail unfinished in some respects by release, so it makes sense to save time by using a known winner, but I suppose someone would be licensing their A.I. by now if that were possible). So, Black Ops, I applaud you for letting me play Bots. Counterstrike: GO, lookin at you too kiddo *eye wink/tongue click/hand pistol thingie*. Even if they are crap Bots, at least I can access the content. Seriously, it's time we put an end to this people, stand with me and let them know that we won't tolerate any more wilted husks born of a whore attached to our games.
R version; those acrid and self-indulgent puddles of toxic waste aren't going to vomit themselves onto the page, so get on it!This is one of the few subjects I feel strongly about. My thoughts on this issue using the analogy of conjoined twins Timmy and his brother Geoffry;
There is a limited time-frame during which the weaker of the two, ol' Geoffry, glows with the warm light of life, its eyes aglow with wonder and amazement and I suppose its a wonderful thing for Mommy and Daddy (First day adopters) and then fate must run its course, they are overtaken by the consumption that has ravaged their lungs before Timmy and Geoffry reach their first year. Poor, sad little Geoffry. He just can not handle the weight this life thrusts upon him, despite the help of Timmy, and he too expires just as the stench from Mommy and Daddy's room becomes unbearable. By the time I get my hands on the poor lad(s), Timmy is standing there with a wrinkled and dried up husk hanging from his hip, flapping in the breeze. Great. Just what I wanted. The fine gentleman that sold this orphan to me promised me two good workers and what do I get? A sickly, frail child with his dead brother hanging on as a constant reminder of the nutrients that would have made Timmy the greatest slave the world had ever known (if I'd have let him out of the basement which is just crazy talk) if they hadn't been stolen from him in the womb. Yes, I imagine even Geoffry would have been great but that whore of a mother couldn't leave well enough alone, she had to dress like a cheap harlot and every Tom, Dick, and Harry (developers) wanted a piece. Just had to have it all, didn't ya? Well now ya got NOTHING, YOU'RE NOTHING YOU WORTHLESS WHORE, HEY, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT YOU UNGRATEFUL LITTLE SNOT *backhanded slap* You'd do well to watch where you're pointin' them eyes, boy, or you might find yourself waking up one morning two eyes lighter, course, Geoffry's got a fine set of peepers you can borrow, ain't that right Geoffry! *loud, gruff laughter in tandem with several knee slaps* It's not like your mother being a whore is any secret anyway, now wipe them tears and get back to building that box that's roughly your size yet unrelated to you in anyway.
I really had some good points in there but it took on a life of its own. So, in summation, Multiplayer is a waste of resources if people aren't all going to be playing your game at the same time, unless of course its co-op or some other alternative to modes requiring more than 2-4 people. Furthermore, tying trophies to it is just stupid or incredibly grandiose if you aren't Infinity Ward or Dice. So, not only do I have to know that the single player campaign is shorter and less fleshed out, possibly missing rocking, super dope mechanics or totally bitchin'content that will possibly be sold to me later as DLC, the part of the game responsible for this is USELESS to me if people aren't online, or the servers are down, which they will be one day. I love nothing more than paying to cover the costs of two things when only one is available to me. It's all ok though, to me, due to one thing. BOTS (for anyone savvy to this kind of thing, is it possible to design A.I. routines that can be universally applied throughout all games? A.I. has to be one of the most difficult and important, therefore time-consuming and without fail unfinished in some respects by release, so it makes sense to save time by using a known winner, but I suppose someone would be licensing their A.I. by now if that were possible). So, Black Ops, I applaud you for letting me play Bots. Counterstrike: GO, lookin at you too kiddo *eye wink/tongue click/hand pistol thingie*. Even if they are crap Bots, at least I can access the content. Seriously, it's time we put an end to this people, stand with me and let them know that we won't tolerate any more wilted husks born of a whore attached to our games.
Listen here, Treyarch:
I have, on my computer, Team Fortress 2 and Blacklight: Retribution. Furthermore, it is a simple task to get Super Monday Night Combat and/or Tribes: Ascend. Now, Blacklight: Retribution essentially captures the soldier feel you're going for but it has mechs and a special see-through-wall visor.
Why, exactly, should I play your multiplayer?
I have, on my computer, Team Fortress 2 and Blacklight: Retribution. Furthermore, it is a simple task to get Super Monday Night Combat and/or Tribes: Ascend. Now, Blacklight: Retribution essentially captures the soldier feel you're going for but it has mechs and a special see-through-wall visor.
Why, exactly, should I play your multiplayer?
I like playing Multiplayer-like games, but I hate interacting with people online. Therefore, modes where you get to play multiplayer with bots is awesome and I'm glad to see it return here.
But seriously, what a creep.
But seriously, what a creep.
The old adage is true: don't hate the player, hate the game.
I'm trying to figure out if Mr. Vonderhaar is sore due to the lackluster response to CoD: Elite, or if he genuinely thinks more people on multiplayer is a better thing.
Personally, I don't have the patience to endure the Sisyphean torture that is hitting Prestige multiple times over, five hours a night, while 12-year old kids scream into their mike and yell things like "cocksucking fucking ******" over and over again. The only people I see enduring that kind of torture are Youtube partners monetizing it or people with far, far too much free time on their hands. It's the same mentality that leads people to post videos like "Why MW3 is the worst game of all time" while having 95 out of 100 reasons focus on improper balancing in the multiplayer.
Unless they're planning to make a F2P multiplayer-only installment, trying to force everyone to get into multiplayer will be a waste of time. CoD built its reputation on having some of the consistently best-scripted and tightly-plotted campaigns in any franchise. I don't think many people would deny that when you buy a CoD game, you're essentially getting a 4-hour thrill ride (with the multiplayer being the cherry on top).
If Activision has so much confidence in their product (enough to can the previous visionaries of the series and start selling map packs for $15 a pop), then they should put their money where their mouth is and go multiplayer-only, and see how the fans react.
CAPTCHA: don't tase me(!)
I'm trying to figure out if Mr. Vonderhaar is sore due to the lackluster response to CoD: Elite, or if he genuinely thinks more people on multiplayer is a better thing.
Personally, I don't have the patience to endure the Sisyphean torture that is hitting Prestige multiple times over, five hours a night, while 12-year old kids scream into their mike and yell things like "cocksucking fucking ******" over and over again. The only people I see enduring that kind of torture are Youtube partners monetizing it or people with far, far too much free time on their hands. It's the same mentality that leads people to post videos like "Why MW3 is the worst game of all time" while having 95 out of 100 reasons focus on improper balancing in the multiplayer.
Unless they're planning to make a F2P multiplayer-only installment, trying to force everyone to get into multiplayer will be a waste of time. CoD built its reputation on having some of the consistently best-scripted and tightly-plotted campaigns in any franchise. I don't think many people would deny that when you buy a CoD game, you're essentially getting a 4-hour thrill ride (with the multiplayer being the cherry on top).
If Activision has so much confidence in their product (enough to can the previous visionaries of the series and start selling map packs for $15 a pop), then they should put their money where their mouth is and go multiplayer-only, and see how the fans react.
CAPTCHA: don't tase me(!)
