Dear Rockstar. What the hell?

[TheCommanders]

Ok, real quick comment, with the disclaimer that I have not played Max Payne 3, nor have any opinion about the quality of it's multiplayer.

For anyone who thinks that adding multiplayer does not take away recourses from single player, or cause it to take longer to be produced, that is factually wrong. Adding multiplayer is a lot of work, and that work requires people and time. Either they take those people and time away from the main game, or they take longer making it with the same amount of people. In no case does multiplayer emerge out of the ether for no extra cost or loss in man hours to the company. QED

Imagine a fat guy on a diet in Starbucks. He orders a coffee. They give him a free cookie. He didn't want the cookie because he was there for a coffee, no more, no less. He didn't want the cookie because he didn't like cookies, he was on a diet and just wanted his coffee. So he starts raging in the face of the barista for giving him a free cookie he didn't want because HE WAS THERE JUST FOR A COFFEE, WHY ARE THEY GIVING HIM THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS CORE COFFEE-BASED EXPERIENCE.

THAT is what this rage is like.

I recall someone used an analogy with going to Starbucks and getting a coffee, than complaining that someone gave you a cookie that they didn't want. It would actually be more like either they gave you a cookie, but only 3/4 the coffee, or they took twice as long to get the coffee, but gave you a cookie. If you didn't want the cookie, then all they've done is worsen your coffee. Stop complaining about complainers with the use of bad analogies. I know it makes you feel like you can rage with slightly more legitimacy than direct raging, but doing so without thinking what you're saying through just makes you sound redundant.

 

[doomspore98]

So you haven't even played it and are making conclusions? YAAAAY!

It's got bolt-on multiplayer. what more evidence do you need? The publisher went "here, put multiplayer into it because everyone else does, even though it adds fuck all to the game".

Have you even played the multiplayer? If not, shut up about it being crap, it's actually pretty fun and intuitive.

 

[Kesimir]

Ok, real quick comment, with the disclaimer that I have not played Max Payne 3, nor have any opinion about the quality of it's multiplayer.

For anyone who thinks that adding multiplayer does not take away recourses from single player, or cause it to take longer to be produced, that is factually wrong. Adding multiplayer is a lot of work, and that work requires people and time. Either they take those people and time away from the main game, or they take longer making it with the same amount of people. In no case does multiplayer emerge out of the ether for no extra cost or loss in man hours to the company. QED

I recall someone used an analogy with going to Starbucks and getting a coffee, than complaining that someone gave you a cookie that they didn't want. It would actually be more like either they gave you a cookie, but only 3/4 the coffee, or they took twice as long to get the coffee, but gave you a cookie. If you didn't want the cookie, then all they've done is worsen your coffee. Stop complaining about complainers with the use of bad analogies. I know it makes you feel like you can rage with slightly more legitimacy than direct raging, but doing so without thinking what you're saying through just makes you sound redundant.

You are missing a very obvious third option. If a completely separate team of designers that only work multiplayer plied their craft independently from the single player designers it could be shoehorned into the final game without detracting in any way from the single player. If this separate team were not working multiplayer for Max Payne they would be working on another game's multiplayer like Midnight Club DUB Edition or something. If this were the case than you would be free to argue whether or not this other team did a good job with their proverbial shoehorning or not based on its own merits because it did not effect single player at all...

Or since we are all fond of the starbucks analogy; consider that the guy with the half shaven head and ill-advised piercings handing out free cookies does not interfere with the productivity of the raven haired, red-highlighted, bedazled purple eyeshadow wearing barista with the black lipstick that hands out your double half-caff non-fat mocha latte with cinnamon sprinkles.

Is that scenario so hard to believe?

 

[TheCommanders]

-snip-

You are missing a very obvious third option. If a completely separate team of designers that only work multiplayer plied their craft independently from the single player designers it could be shoehorned into the final game without detracting in any way from the single player. If this separate team were not working multiplayer for Max Payne they would be working on another game's multiplayer like Midnight Club DUB Edition or something. If this were the case than you would be free to argue whether or not this other team did a good job with their proverbial shoehorning or not based on its own merits because it did not effect single player at all...

Or since we are all fond of the starbucks analogy; consider that the guy with the half shaven head and ill-advised piercings handing out free cookies does not interfere with the productivity of the raven haired, red-highlighted, bedazled purple eyeshadow wearing barista with the black lipstick that hands out your double half-caff non-fat mocha latte with cinnamon sprinkles.

Is that scenario so hard to believe?

Ah, and I suppose that other team of designers are working pro bono, are they? Not likely. They are being paid by Rockstar, they are staff of Rockstar. Again, I am offering an opinion not having played Max Payne 3, rather talking about game development in general, but there is nothing that goes into a game that doesn't cost money or man hours or both. If it's another studio, then it's just money, but don't underestimate what the loss of budget can mean for the final quality of a game. Finally, cudo's on the description of your Starbucks analogy, but it's not really applicable. A game has a budget. Money from that budget, if allocated to working on multiplayer, means less money is allocated to single player. This negatively affects single player. It's very, very simple. I speak as a student studying game development and design, so this isn't speculation.

 

[Deathmageddon]

I for one had no motivation to replay the (incredible) story mode, MP is a good way to keep playing and really get your $65 (USD) worth. I'll concede that 4 discs is probably too many.

 

[nasteypenguin]

Ah, and I suppose that other team of designers are working pro bono, are they? Not likely. They are being paid by Rockstar, they are staff of Rockstar. Again, I am offering an opinion not having played Max Payne 3, rather talking about game development in general, but there is nothing that goes into a game that doesn't cost money or man hours or both. If it's another studio, then it's just money, but don't underestimate what the loss of budget can mean for the final quality of a game. Finally, cudo's on the description of your Starbucks analogy, but it's not really applicable. A game has a budget. Money from that budget, if allocated to working on multiplayer, means less money is allocated to single player. This negatively affects single player. It's very, very simple. I speak as a student studying game development and design, so this isn't speculation.

Rockstar, in all likeliness has enough money to fund these guys to go into outer space without needing to cut into the Max Payne budget, the issue is the amount of money Rockstar is willing to put into the creation of the game. Generally this is based on what they are expecting to profit from it, and multiplayer has been known to increase sales.
One could argue that the addition of a separate multiplayer aspect actually increased the budget the game had for single player as well.

 

[TheCommanders]

Ah, and I suppose that other team of designers are working pro bono, are they? Not likely. They are being paid by Rockstar, they are staff of Rockstar. Again, I am offering an opinion not having played Max Payne 3, rather talking about game development in general, but there is nothing that goes into a game that doesn't cost money or man hours or both. If it's another studio, then it's just money, but don't underestimate what the loss of budget can mean for the final quality of a game. Finally, cudo's on the description of your Starbucks analogy, but it's not really applicable. A game has a budget. Money from that budget, if allocated to working on multiplayer, means less money is allocated to single player. This negatively affects single player. It's very, very simple. I speak as a student studying game development and design, so this isn't speculation.

Rockstar, in all likeliness has enough money to fund these guys to go into outer space and not work on the game at all, the issue is the amount of money Rockstar is willing to put into the creation of the game. Generally this is based on what they are expecting to profit from it, and multiplayer has been known to increase sales.
One could argue that the addition of a separate multiplayer team actually increased the amount of funding the game had for single player as well.

Sigh, I'm not really getting anywhere here, but I'll just say two things.

1. Games now are getting multiplayer for 2 reasons - It's a selling point for a small percentage of people, and it's a way to increase the longevity of the game to combat used game sales. Of course they could just make a good game that's worth replaying, but most producers would rather go with the way that is guaranteed rather than the way that is better.

2. Games have a fixed budget decided on pre production. It doesn't matter how much the company has, it's how money that company says that any particular game can have at it's inception. Therefore, when you take away money to work on multiplayer, you have less money left to work on single player. In some companies that means you will have less people to work on it, in bigger companies, it just means you have to invest more man hours, but either way, the single player doesn't receive as much attention as it could have.

 

[Goofguy]

Don't dis it til you've tried it? The multiplayer is pretty damn fun and it doesn't take away from the single player experience. Nothing stops you from, you know, NOT playing it.

I would probably be upset about 4 DVDs, if I wasn't playing MP3 on my PS3. I am utterly convinced now, more than ever, that Blu-Ray is the way to go.

 

[Razoack]

this is probably the dumbest thread i have ever read about on this forum. It's a free feature, a good free feature at that, so why are you complaining?

For Example, in World of Warcraft, i never did PvP (arenas anyway) because it was something i was never interested in. However, i don't berate the game for providing it.

In a related note, from watching videos of the multiplayer it seems to be very enjoyable, providing a decent solution to the problem of bullet time. If that's also a problem, why are you trying to play Max Payne and not a generic shooter. Hell, go play John Woo's Stranglehold, i bet you can pick that up for cheap and there's certainly no multiplayer on that anymore.

 

[Phlakes]

Alright, once again it's SUPER CRAZY MIND EXPLODING EPIPHANY TIME

You don't have to play the multiplayer.

Also, people enjoy so that alone makes it justified.

 

[crazyarms33]

You know, you don't HAVE to use the multiplayer.

WHOA NOW! You mean this optional feature is only that!? I use ALL of the features on any game I buy, and now they added MP which I didn't ask for so I have to use it even though I don't want to! All of my rage!

Sarcasm by the way. I agree with you. Sounds like he has his undies in a twist just because he wants something to ***** about.

 

[RagTagBand]

The single player is fucking excellent so they can jam in whatever features they like - The bit People cared about was equally cared about by rockstar.

OP - Don't be such a *****, *****.

 

[Kesimir]

Ah, and I suppose that other team of designers are working pro bono, are they? Not likely. They are being paid by Rockstar, they are staff of Rockstar. Again, I am offering an opinion not having played Max Payne 3, rather talking about game development in general, but there is nothing that goes into a game that doesn't cost money or man hours or both. If it's another studio, then it's just money, but don't underestimate what the loss of budget can mean for the final quality of a game. Finally, cudo's on the description of your Starbucks analogy, but it's not really applicable. A game has a budget. Money from that budget, if allocated to working on multiplayer, means less money is allocated to single player. This negatively affects single player. It's very, very simple. I speak as a student studying game development and design, so this isn't speculation.

I understand your point but I could just as easily argue that by adding a component almost guaranteed to improve the market potential of the product a project lead could have requested and been granted a larger budget than would have been given to a single player only title. Conceivably, this enhanced budget could then be used to improve the single player experience in addition to adding the multi-player capability. Like you, I have no magic 8-ball that grants me insight into the business practices of Rockstar, but assuming that adding multi-player is always detrimental to single-player is a false premise. If we can agree on that then we can still be friends.

EDIT: Ok ninjad and ninja responded to... but I think you are dismissing this point too quickly, but I lack the resolve or interest to delve deeper.

This next bit is more for the OP:
In fact, assuming multi-player was an initial design choice from the development team and not a mere commercial add-on we should really be looking at it more like any other feature in the game. You don't hear a lot of people arguing about how the designer that added the Speech skill tree in Skyrim wasted time and resources that could have been used making the Smithing tree better simply because they never use or intend to use the Speech skill tree do you? Isn't this pretty much a similar train of thought?

 

[nasteypenguin]

Sigh, I'm not really getting anywhere here, but I'll just say two things.

I'm not quite sure why your sighing, you said your studying this kind of thing; I don't know what you know. I just find it interesting and hoped you might be able to teach us less educated people a thing or two.

2. Games have a fixed budget decided on pre production.

Okay, but wouldn't the company have decided pre-production whether or not they would have wanted to include multiplayer and still expanded the budget to suit it? I wouldn't have thought additional funding is completely out of the picture either, even if it isn't official. If a company found a particular game is getting more publicity than they initially thought, and the developers are finding errors which cut away at the budget a bit too much, is there no way they could increase the budget to capitalise on this?

 

[Monsterfurby]

2. Games have a fixed budget decided on pre production. It doesn't matter how much the company has, it's how money that company says that any particular game can have at it's inception. Therefore, when you take away money to work on multiplayer, you have less money left to work on single player. In some companies that means you will have less people to work on it, in bigger companies, it just means you have to invest more man hours, but either way, the single player doesn't receive as much attention as it could have.

That's not how budgets work. At the point where a budget is decided you are likely to have a Game Design Document or at least a High Level Concept of sorts, and you will have a very clear plan set up detailing what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, and what it will cost in terms of man-hours and, ultimately, cold hard cash. They don't go "here's a million, make a game", but rather devise very specific budgeting for very specific purposes.
Your point is absolutely moot as the funding made available to develop multiplayer is made available in the first place only because there are plans to implement multiplayer.

 

[Something Amyss]

I recall someone used an analogy with going to Starbucks and getting a coffee, than complaining that someone gave you a cookie that they didn't want. It would actually be more like either they gave you a cookie, but only 3/4 the coffee, or they took twice as long to get the coffee, but gave you a cookie. If you didn't want the cookie, then all they've done is worsen your coffee. Stop complaining about complainers with the use of bad analogies. I know it makes you feel like you can rage with slightly more legitimacy than direct raging, but doing so without thinking what you're saying through just makes you sound redundant.

Except Max Payne 3 offers more coffee than the previous games, and the cookie was prepared by a different team who didn't cross over and handle the coffee. One might complain about the flavour, but that seems to have less to do with the cookie than it does the way the wind is blowing these days. All...Errr...Starbucks seem to be changing the flavour of their coffee, even if they don't participate in the free cookie promotion.

Dropping the analogy, I'm not sure what the problem here is. I dislike "tacked on multiplayer," but this doesn't look like it was merely tacked on. From the few reviews I've seen, it looks like MP's multiplayer element was well-received. AND it doesn't seem to detract from the story mode. So the analogy doesn't seem bad. It's a good cookie that's optional and the coffee is still the same coffee as before. A lot of games do have compulsory multiplayer, and that is bad. This doesn't appear to be one of them.

 

[Razoack]

2. Games have a fixed budget decided on pre production. It doesn't matter how much the company has, it's how money that company says that any particular game can have at it's inception. Therefore, when you take away money to work on multiplayer, you have less money left to work on single player. In some companies that means you will have less people to work on it, in bigger companies, it just means you have to invest more man hours, but either way, the single player doesn't receive as much attention as it could have.

That's not how budgets work. At the point where a budget is decided you are likely to have a Game Design Document or at least a High Level Concept of sorts, and you will have a very clear plan set up detailing what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, and what it will cost in terms of man-hours and, ultimately, cold hard cash. They don't go "here's a million, make a game", but rather very specific budgeting for very specific purposes.
Your point is absolutely moot as the funding made available to develop multiplayer is made available in the first place only because there are plans to implement multiplayer.

Pretty much agreed. After doing a games course (which rather tediously involved making a 150 page design doc) Funding is only found for the game after Design Document is created. It's actually the main purpose of the document. Multiplayer was not a last minute addition as this would have set back the time of the game by at least 4-6 months (the closer to the end you change the requirements or specifications, the longer it takes the rectify and the more expensive the error is). With regards to attention, the team of programmers will work closely on each section, tying it together. They don't split off, making one group work on singleplayer and one work on multiplayer as that would be extremely detrimental. The team works together on specific sections at the same time, progressing together.

Captcha: kill time - yes this certainly has.

 

[TheRussian]

You should have gotten it on Steam. Sure it takes 30 hours to install, but you get a solid gold game with a brilliant Multiplayer to boot.

 

[synulia]

Do you see anyone complaining that Rockstar skimped on the singleplayer in Max Payne 3? No, because it's length is just right and it's paced pretty well. If the game were 4 hours long you would have reason to complain. As it really isn't, especially on harder difficulties, you're complaining about the wrong things here.

 

[Xanadu84]

Why waste man-hours ADDING A PART TO YOUR PRODUCT THAT NO ONE FUCKING ASKED FOR?

It's just you. Multiplayer in Max Payne 3 is strangely awesome. And the game needs 4 DVD's because of HD pre-rendered cutscenes and audio mostly. Especially on PC. Max Payne 3 looks and sounds incredible on PC.

It's actually a shame you disagree, because the joke potential from your end here is magnificent.