Gearbox Boss Says Multiplayer Is Not Always the Answer

[Mister Benoit]

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.

The bit about 2030 made me queezy and throw up a bit in my mouth.

Meh this is Gearbox they just picked the game off 3drealms.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Not to mention that tacked on multi-player modes tend to be dead online anyway.

Thus making any investment truly useless.

 

[Vibhor]

Does this means duke nukem would not have multiplayer?
Does this means no more shrinking other player and then crush them?
He does know that a lot of people played duke nukem 3d for its creative arsenal and how it worked in multiplayer does he now?

 

[Lokithrsourcerer]

totally agree I cant really understand how the wigs in charge think adding a multiplayer to a game that doesn't need/shouldn't have it can do anything but make it more shit.

equally though games should always have a cop-op mode if it makes sense and it should have off and online support. it really pisses me of when I play a game that has you accompanied by a retarded AI companion the whole game and then only lets you play co-op online.

 

[ThirdPrize]

Frankly if Pokemon came out on the Xbox now it would probably have some sort of multi player "capture the flag" bolted on. Or would that be "Capture the flaggywoo"?

 

[Valok]

"Games should be true to their concept, says the Gearbox head, and not worry too much about feature lists."

Awesome. Very Well said.

 

[Irridium]

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.

If your game can support 3D, it can support Split-screen. 3D renders everything twice(one for each eye), so does split-screen. I'd be more than happy with developers scrapping 3D for split-screen.

 

[Trogdor1138]

In other news, people fucking eat Sandwiches.

Sorry, but it was extremely obvious, despite the fact I 100% agree. I don't see why this was so important it needed an article and such.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I completely agree with this. I'm tried of seeing single player on games suffering for half-assed multiplayer (BioShock 2, BulletStorm).

 

[beema]

Hear hear!
Now if only publishers would believe this and stop shoehorning multiplayer on to everything under the sun. Glad to hear that Rocksteady is being true to themselves and standing up for it as well. I can't imagine how stupid multiplayer on Arkham City might be.

Although, you know what else can detract from a game? Multiple release delays that go way beyond the point of being funny anymore

 

[Squilookle]

a single player campaign.... is a way for newbs to learn the weapons, and vehicles before they enter the multi-player. You know what could achieve that? Bots. I'd much prefer to buy multi-player games or single-player games not a compromised hybrid.

Ninja-ed on the bots. I think bots are only really possible with the processor power available to PCs, but that shouldn't be a reason that games like Battlefield 3 shouldn't have them, or why there shouldn't be larger maps for 64 players.

I always thought it was immensely stupid that the ONLY way to learn to use the vehicles in Bad Company 2 was online, surrounded by people who could probably put them to much better use.

And I never really bought the processor power view- if the xbox 1 can have as many bots running around as a PC game, and Perfect Dark on the N64 can have perfectly fine bots in it, then processor power is as poor an excuse against bots as it is against four player split screen.

 

[Xyphon]

Hell yes. I barely played multiplayer even when I had Gold...I focus on single player.

Which is why I still think Bad Company 2 is one of the WORST games I've played. I don't CARE how GOOD or REVOLUTIONARY your fucking multiplayer is, that does not give an excuse to tack on a shitty single player.

If you bought a Battlefield game for single player, you're doing it wrong.

OT: Yes, I agree that not all games need MP. If it doesn't fit or couldn't make for a fun time, leave it out.

 

[deckpunk]

Dead space 2, bioshock 2 etc... added multiplayer and I think a lot of people had the same reaction, an overwhelming sense of "meh, its ok I suppose but I'm gonna play the single player more." They were not dreadful but easily forgotten I think.

Sometimes less is more, and its nice to hear a dev talking sense as opposed to pseudo market research like "The kids these days love multiplayer, dlc and 20 quid map packs." In case I'm being to subtle FUCK OFF BOBBY KOTICK!

 

[PrinceofPersia]

Glad someone finally said it!
How would multi-player for Arkham City even work anyhow?

BRRRR...technicolor Batman's that is an evil image in and of itself.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

YES! Someone get that man a beer! Stat!

God I wish publishers would seriously listen to this. I'm beginning to think the only reason they tack on multiplayer is just to add another bullet point on the the game's box.

 

[RAWKSTAR]

Thank fuck, really hate playing against other people.
I like siting in the corner of the room, lights off, curtains closed playing games shunning everything.

 

[Worr Monger]

Finally....

I've thought this way for years. I'm not a huge fan of Multiplayer and I'm tired of the feature being shoehorned into every game with the possible drop in quality for the Single Player portion.

Just think of all those games out there with empty servers.. with their pointless Multiplayer modes..