First Person Shooters Need Strong Multiplayer Says Crysis 2 Producer
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Remember, Valve had already established Half Life as a fantastic game prior to the console multiplayer boom. And Half Life 2 also came out before Call of Duty 4 turned FPS development into the circus it is now. Successful on its own merits.Eruanno said:
I love Half Life 2, but the massive market outside of those interested in the Half Life series of games, the herpderping, noobtubing, griefers of the 21st century, wouldn't give a damn.
It's like showing the Sistine Chapel to bunch of misbehaving twelve year olds.
Also, this.vrbtny said:
So that's what happened to that Timesplitters work...that's a shame. Maybe when they're done though they can get back to work.
I kind-of disagree, but in a whole 'he has a point' kind of way. An FPS without multiplayer is fairly disappointing, but there are cases where including multiplayer would be tacky and game-breaking. Since I've just been playing it, I'll throw in Deus Ex as an example.
But for action-heavy FPS's like Crysis, CoD, Halo and Timesplitters: yes, multiplayer is a must.
I kind-of disagree, but in a whole 'he has a point' kind of way. An FPS without multiplayer is fairly disappointing, but there are cases where including multiplayer would be tacky and game-breaking. Since I've just been playing it, I'll throw in Deus Ex as an example.
But for action-heavy FPS's like Crysis, CoD, Halo and Timesplitters: yes, multiplayer is a must.
Portal? Halflife series? Star Wars: Republic Commando? Bioshock/System Shock (2)? Deus Ex?Logan Westbrook said:
I assume Portal 2 will lack multiplayer too.
On the reverse side, TF2 lacks any real singleplayer.
Bully on you for saying such a thing, Mr. Camarillo, I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more. The inclusion of multiplayer is most certainly not a necessary for FPS games. Having a poorer single player to accomodate a lackluster multiplayer is a bad idea. Similarly, having a poorer multiplayer to accomodate a lackluster single player is just as bad. If you can make both good: Great, but I see no reason why you can't focus on just one.
Typo! Should be "that *came* down to a game's genre."
Actually, Portal 2 was going to have competitive multiplayer, but it didn't work properly and was axed in favor of co-op maps. The Half-Life series has a multiplayer mode, as did Republic Commando.Amnestic said:
Bullshit. First Person Shooters need both a strong multiplayer and a strong campaign with a decent length. I'm sick of the campaigns of most FPS games being a six hour tutorial for the multiplayer.
Am I the only one tired of hearing these guys talking about how awesome their game is going to be on this site?
Anyway, I don't think that's true. Multiplayer is always a nice addition to a game, but single player should come first. Unless your game is multiplayer only of course.
Anyway, I don't think that's true. Multiplayer is always a nice addition to a game, but single player should come first. Unless your game is multiplayer only of course.
Ultima Underworld. Single-player. First FPS I played (before Wolfenstein 3D even). Fun as hell.Xzi said:
Another candidate for Mac-heads would be Pathways Into Darkness. You know, the game those Marathon/Halo guys started with?
From what I saw, and to start there is not a lot on display, it resembles the speed of play from Call of Duty. But I saw holograms and suit powers, which makes is feel more like Halo. And the SCAR had a massive amount of recoil, which also made it feel like Halo.Asehujiko said:
In that case, its more of a blending, which is what I believe we'll be seeing more of among first person shooter multiplayer components. Sure, you have your outliers like Brink which change the whole dynamic of the game by making a new primary function essential to combat, but otherwise, the balance of what feels best as a game and what feels best realistically is quickly being refined. There may be different camps which agree on different aspects, but the games all function brilliantly within their design document.
Also, let's wait until the game comes out until we bring judgment on a title.
I don't dispute that most FPS games need a strong multiplayer element in this day in age to attract buyers, however if I'm expected to drop $109 on the latest Medal of Halo: Modern Company game I damn well expect a single player game as well that will last longer then 6 bloody hours.
Translation: either make something awesome and innovative with a deep and stimulating story, diverse range of interesting characters set in a colourful and imaginative world, or just make some derivative piece of crap and hope people like the multiplayer lots. Yep, sounds about right.Logan Westbrook said:
From my experience the addition of multiplayer (especially a reliance upon it) means great commercial success (so long as the servers run smoothly), while often also resulting in lowered critical acclaim.
I am certain that, for example, the Mass Effects would've sold more if they had included a multiplayer mode. But I am also dead certain that their content and polish would not have been half of what it was, if multiplayer was indeed slapped onto the games as well.
That said, multiplayer doesn't automatically mean that a game sucks. But still, seeing how pigeonholed the Black Ops storyline actually was from that one youtube video...it is very obvious that putting all your eggs in the basket of multiplayer tends to almost always result in a derivative product with very little artistic merit.
I am certain that, for example, the Mass Effects would've sold more if they had included a multiplayer mode. But I am also dead certain that their content and polish would not have been half of what it was, if multiplayer was indeed slapped onto the games as well.
That said, multiplayer doesn't automatically mean that a game sucks. But still, seeing how pigeonholed the Black Ops storyline actually was from that one youtube video...it is very obvious that putting all your eggs in the basket of multiplayer tends to almost always result in a derivative product with very little artistic merit.
So far all I've seen of the Crysis 2 multiplayer indicates that its just "Call of Duty: Crysis Edition". The suit seems to just be this game's gimmick to loosely differentiate it. Yes it is being developed by Free Radical, which does intrigue me, but unless you show me something that doesn't look like a re-skinned Call of Duty, I'm not interested in the multiplayer.Logan Westbrook said:
Crysis 1's multiplayer was really interesting, if a little rough. It was a combination of Counter-Strike and Battlefield. Why not just polish that up some more and offer that?
I don't necessarily agree. Multiplayer in FPS games helps them sell and can be very fun, but it isn't necessary. I personally would take a good singleplayer over an equally good multiplayer any day.
Not needed. This new installment actually uses LESS system resources, which I find incredible.Abedeus said:
On topic however, I believe he is ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY WRONG. Valve, PLEASE don't take any of this seriously, keep the Half Life series Single Player, that is what you do best, and I suggest that no one else takes this seriously either.