Corkydog said:
JaymesFogarty said:
God, NO!! First Dead Space, Assassin'S Creed, Uncharted, and now Mass Effect as well? When will developers learn that sometimes, the single player experience should remain a single-player experience. All the money and time they pour into that mode could have been put into making the actual game better instead! I've no problem with multiplayer game, just games with multiplayer that definitely do not need it.
I liked Uncharted's multiplayer. It was quick and fun. A good addition to a fantastic game.
And all of you people are small minded. There are two things we know: Bioware wants some form of multiplayer component for something set in the Mass Effect universe. Big deal. Get over yourselves, everyone claims they want innovation, well here it is and it is already getting shot down when no one knows anything about it.
First of all, nice avatar. Now, the big thing you have to understand is that you rushed rather bluntly into my post. Did you read all of it? Go on, read it now.
Okay, now that you
didn't listen to me at all! read it, do you see where I'm coming from? You said you liked Uncharted 2's multiplayer? I'm not arguing with that; I liked it as well. I have nothing at all against multiplayer. The issue I have with multiplayer, is that it gets crammed in far too many games, that are good enough to not need to rely on it. I never once played Bioshock and thought, "this game could really use multiplayer." However, there it was a year later in the sequel. I've played that, and I remain steadfast; multiplayer was a friendly-gestured addition to a game that it didn't suit. It felt stapled on; and the resources could have instead been used in improving the main game. Dead Space. One of the most original games I've played in a while, (well, since Bioshock, and Portal.) Again, I never wished I could hack-and-slash with ten other people in an arena. I never wanted multiplayer. Guess why? Because it doesn't belong there. Dead Space, Metal Gear Solid, and the like, are games that focus on character development, are character-driven plot, and above all a deep and satisfying
single player experience. They are games made for single player. Yet all have succumbed to have multiplayer sluggishly tagged on, (and believe me, Bioshock 2 and MGS4's gameplay really did NOT suit online play.) The money put into making the online play could have been used to instead enhance the game, as people I know do not need it, nor want it. If you like your games fast-paced and online, get TF2, or MW2. If you like an interesting story, with three dimensional characters, go for MGS, or Assassin's Creed 2. Just remember that no one is saying that multiplayer is a bad thing. What gamers, (in the majority mind you) are saying, is that if they are playing a game clearly designed for a campaign only, keep it that way. If you've got any money left over developers, put it into polishing the game instead. Make what you have even better.
You've got a TF2 avatar, so I'll assume that you play it. Imagine that Valve made it as it is now, but added a campaign that cost them $1,000,000 to make. It's short, it's not that satisfying, and it feels tacked on and boring. Wouldn't you feel that instead of making a campaign in a game that wasn't designed for it, they should have invested the money instead into improving the great online play? That's the situation I'm typing about.
