Gearbox Boss Says Multiplayer Is Not Always the Answer

Bobbity

New member
Mar 17, 2010
1,659
0
0
SemiHumanTarget said:
i absolutely agree with Pitchford, but at the same time, I feel he may be guilty of a little hypocrisy. Gearbox's approach to Duke Nukem seems to be to out-Duke the original Duke, presumably to boost sales. In the original Duke 3D, yeah you could tip strippers and Duke had a couple of one-liners, but in the new iteration it seems like all that lechery and chauvinism is a required mechanic in the game. Based on trailers, it seems they're practically forcing you to, at best, passively sit through these sequences, and, at worst, physically participate (ie, the "capture the babe" mode). This is nothing like what the original Duke 3D was like and it's disappointing that Gearbox seems to be putting controversy first and gameplay second.
I think you've forgotten quite how bad - in a good way - this iteration's predecessor was :p Despite that, I agree: they're going over the top, this time around.

OT: I agree completely with this guy. I was stunned to discover that Dead Space 2 had multiplayer, and think that it should only be in games where it truly makes sense.
 

SemiHumanTarget

New member
Apr 4, 2011
124
0
0
I think the original Duke 3D was controversial for its time, but compared to media nowadays, it's actually pretty tame. But, in general, all of the "offensive" elements were activated by the player. Peeing in a urinal, tipping and/or killing a stripper, activating some of the one-liners... these were all done by the player, and they were 100% optional. The new one demands you at least watch, if not participate, in these "controversial" elements. I remember reading articles about the 90 minute playthrough that journalists were invited to, and they all universally talked about some gameplay mechanic that was both controversial and required. In a Duke game, the only thing I should ever be required to do is shoot aliens. All the rest is icing on the cake. There's a quality of "over-the-top"-ness about the new Duke that seems very gimmicky and even a little desperate.

And yeah, I agree, multiplayer in Dead Space 2 was a huge mistake. Multiplayer in a survival horror game is like having single player in an MMO.
 

Evil Moo

Always Watching...
Feb 26, 2011
392
0
0
Multiplayer is fine as long as it is done well. If it is just stuffed in at the last minute, doesn't fit the gameplay or is significantly detrimental to the development of the main single player aspects (if there are any) then it is perhaps best left out.

As someone who tends to enjoy the single player side of games more than most of the multiplayer out there, I would definitely be in favour of developers sometimes dropping multiplayer modes from their games, where appropriate, if it increases the quality of the single player.
 

Frotality

New member
Oct 25, 2010
982
0
0
all the more reason to buy DNF....as massively incompetent as its development cycle was, here we have a developer free to admit that they prefer a game element that makes it good over one that presumably sells well.

that is all too rare these days, and god damnit im supporting this developer even if their next game wont be out until 2030.
 

Serving UpSmiles

New member
Aug 4, 2010
962
0
0
Digikid said:
SOrry but most of YOU guys and Randy is dead WRONG. The addition of multiplayer is an excellent choice regardless of the game.

What they NEED to do is bring back split screen playing instead of this "you wanna play against someone they will have to pay for a copy as well and have high speed net to do it" crap.
1/2 agreed, I would love to see splitscreen come back to games, but i suppose these games graphics are becoming too good to handle splitscreen, honestly can you imagine Crysis 2 using splitscreen and keeping a solid framerate.

Also i do believe adding a good co-op or multiplayer mode or both greatly increases your audience a little. Look at Halo Reach, Campaign, Matchmaking, Firefight, Forge, Theater, if more games had features like these i wouldn't see a reason not to buy them.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Someone buy this man a beer.

That said, I have been enjoying the hell out of Assassin's Creed Brotherhood multiplayer. Sometimes, just sometimes, the let's-throw-in-MP approach actually works.
 

banksy122

New member
Nov 12, 2009
155
0
0
I agree, but I the opposite is also needed. Multiplayer based games don't need a single player campaign, mainly looking at Bad Company 2 and BF3. If you want to learn to play the game, play on un ranked servers. Adding a campaign just detracts from the Multiplayer.

There are also some game series that require both, mainly looking at Halo and CoD(Well, CoD 1 and 2 >.>).
 

Layzor

New member
Feb 18, 2009
731
0
0
I wouldn't go running your mouth, you're just putting more even more pressure on your game to be amazing. Prove it first.
 

SilverUchiha

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,604
0
0
I'm with the majority. Multiplayer gets overused and abused by devs. I'd rather have more single player experiences that are good than a bunch of mediocre multiplayer experiences.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,346
8,846
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Call of Duty seems to be running away from single-player as fast as it possibly can without having to admit to it. I fully expect the next iteration's SP campaign to consist entirely of your character sitting down in front of an XBox to play the multiplayer game. Hence why I don't buy any Call of Duty games until they hit sub-bargain-basement prices on Steam.

On the other hand, Portal 2 is not a game I would have expected to cater well to multiplayer, and yet the co-op mode looks intriguing. That, I'm actually looking forward to trying.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Well, this gets to the root of the problem with gaming, and what's holding it back. Greed among publishers who aren't content to make a profit, but want to biggest profits possible right now. I think a lack of long-term thinking is also an issue for publishers as truely allowing gaming to grow will eventually help their bottom line.

The thing is that the entire "games as serious entertainment" stance is hurt when you dumb them down to the lowest common denominator. It's difficult to argue that games aren't just for kids, when every game is being designed so someone on the level of a child can find it approachable. The problem is that games are not growing up, but having their age level retarded, or even regressed, in the pursuit of more money right now, as opposed to looking at the potential for what truely serious games can evolve into.

Likewise I think people tend to fail to look at the potential for competitive gaming. Right now games with competitive aspects are being developed to be approachable to everyone. Fighting games, shooters, and even strategy games are being created with the idea that the lowest common denominator can sit down and have some success, and startd doing impressive seeming things, right off the bat. Whether this is a "noob tube" or easy to perform fighting game moves with disproportionate amounts of power, the point is that you can't have serious competition with such things as a part of the game. It's like putting handicaps into pro sports to prevent players like Michael Jordan from dominating. Just imagine boxing if Mohammad Ali or Rocky Marciano had been forced to compete with one arm tied behind their back to make it fair for the other fighters.

Right now Korea has shown the potential for competitive gaming to become REALLY big time, and smart producers would realize that slowly cultivating it on that level, and turning it into an international competitive area would allow them to reap monsterous profits. Being the producer of games with a national level competitive player base, and which are going to involve large audiences allowing for the sale of national-level advertising and endorsement space, is going to reap massive profits. We see the potential here already since it's happening in some places already, yet the problem is that the temptation of the "noob tube" always beckons.
 

Hungry Donner

Henchman
Mar 19, 2009
1,369
0
0
Digikid said:
SOrry but most of YOU guys and Randy is dead WRONG. The addition of multiplayer is an excellent choice regardless of the game.

What they NEED to do is bring back split screen playing instead of this "you wanna play against someone they will have to pay for a copy as well and have high speed net to do it" crap.
Adding multiplayer requires a tremendous amount of resources, resources which could be spent to improve upon the game's single player experience if that's the primary focus. This isn't to say that you can't have a single player game with a multiplayer option, or vice versa, but I don't believe a game necessary should have both.

A single player exclusive also has the option of streamlining parts of the engine for single player which can be very advantageous. For an RPG this also removes the question of what happens if player X does something opposed to player Y, the Elder Scrolls would be far less fun if quests could only be completed by one player and it would feel like a poor cousin MMO if you could strangely do the same quest multiple times.
 

TitanAtlas

New member
Oct 14, 2010
802
0
0
My honest Respects to Randy Pitchford, he realized the thing ive been saying in for years.... Now THATS a good developer that knows how to create a good game....
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
sigh if only everyone understood this.....still Dead space 2 is a great game but it did not need multiplayer
 

Armored Prayer

New member
Mar 10, 2009
5,319
0
0
I say multiplayer is not important for every game.

Dead Space 2 as the man mentioned is a perfect example. Sure it was ok, but ultimately pointless and waste of development time. I'm all for multiplayer but only if its done right and appropriate for the game.