Personally, I think online play (with few notable exceptions) has become a crutch to prop up mediocre to bad games and encourages developers to cut corners. The most notable example I can think of is Halo. The first game was great. A little repetitive but what game wasn't circa 2001. Great game design, well thought out controls and a nice story synthesized from and inspired by a ton of classic sci fi literature. A shining example of the genre. Then along comes Halo 2. Still the same great gameplay but the game itself was short, too short. It was basically an expansion pack sold at full price that brought multi-player into the mix. They both were only worth The same goes for Halo 3 except the single player mode, while even shorter than 2, did not live up to the standard set for it by its predecessors. I don't mean to belittle the Halo sequels but most people identify with them. Now contrast that with Crysis Warhead which was basically half a game that introduced "real" multi-player to that franchise (the MP for Crysis was a half hearted effort) but retailed for a reasonable $29.99.
Poll: Does a game NEED online to be recieved well?
- Thread starter Hazy
- Start date
No it isn't for me I prefer to play single player why? I blame the Halo/Gears brats screaming in their high pitch voices about you getting a legit kill on them and they suck (even though they think they don't because they can beat daddy or mommy) so for me I literally refuse to play any system game online
How would Multi player really work in Oblivion OR Assassins creed without some hefty re-working of the engine for a deliberate multi-player version?
Oblivions engine was only designed for fights against the environment and Assassins creed might be good for the chasing down but the idea of maybe hiding among priest's and sitting on benches wouldn't work anymore. Plus Fighting in Assassins creed on foot really only climaxed into an orgy of Counter-Attacking everything and waiting to beat each guard one at a time without difficulty.
Oblivions engine was only designed for fights against the environment and Assassins creed might be good for the chasing down but the idea of maybe hiding among priest's and sitting on benches wouldn't work anymore. Plus Fighting in Assassins creed on foot really only climaxed into an orgy of Counter-Attacking everything and waiting to beat each guard one at a time without difficulty.
There are tons of games w/ online, that barely anybody ever touches.xxhazyshadowsxx said:
IMO, online helps but ONLY if it's done VERY WELL. otherwise ppl will just play the online games that play great & the singleplayer games that play great. But ignore the multiplayer part of the games that have great singleplayer but mediocre multiplayer.
If a game manages to have great singleplayer AND multiplayer; then it sells insane numbers.
Cliff Notes:
Multiplayer doesnt matter unless it's done really well. People only play very good multiplayer. More selective for gaming than singleplayer.
No. All the games from the pre-Xbox generations had no online, and many of them are still really good games. I find it annoying that so many games nowadays are focused so much on online, I don't care for it and I don't think I ever will. Playing a game with three or four friends is a lot more fun than playing with people you don't know.
Okay, maybe that was a little harsh. I don't mind multiplayer as long as the singleplayer is still a fun, fulfilling experience. Hence the reason why I like Halo but hate Halo 3. If you're going to do both, then at least put some effort into making both sides acceptable instead of just throwing something together and calling it a story.
Okay, maybe that was a little harsh. I don't mind multiplayer as long as the singleplayer is still a fun, fulfilling experience. Hence the reason why I like Halo but hate Halo 3. If you're going to do both, then at least put some effort into making both sides acceptable instead of just throwing something together and calling it a story.
Alone in The Dark (2008), 'nuff said.
*I'd like to point out, even though it is flawed, AITD is still a very good game, made better by the PS3 version.
*I'd like to point out, even though it is flawed, AITD is still a very good game, made better by the PS3 version.
Nicely said. It saddens me to see developers trying to tack on online features nowadays, just to be accepted by the mass media of 8 year olds that were raised on Halo. This is where I stand on a very recent issue: I DONT WANT BIOSHOCK 2 TO HAVE ONLINE, IT WAS PERFECTLY FINE WITHOUT IT!Captain_Caveman said:
Is it needed? Of course not, and as other people have said I'd rather have no online multiplayer than a shoddy slapped-on multiplayer that no one's really going to play anyway.
However, screeching homophobic/sexist/racist children aside, if done right multiplayer can be really fun. Some games just need to be played with other people to get the full experience. For example, L4D is alright on single player but it doesn't compare to online play (unless you're playing with complete idiots). BF: BC is absurdly fun online as well.
However, screeching homophobic/sexist/racist children aside, if done right multiplayer can be really fun. Some games just need to be played with other people to get the full experience. For example, L4D is alright on single player but it doesn't compare to online play (unless you're playing with complete idiots). BF: BC is absurdly fun online as well.
I'm not much of an online gamer. I rarely play multiplayer at all, and when I do it's single machine or LAN. I say yes, offer online play if the game suits it, but single-player is here to stay and a dedicated single-player game doesn't suck just for being one. [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/9/4/]
Nope, unless it is specifically designed to be online(obviously), otherwise it's just an extra, an addition to the core game.
No. Also pleases me as I can't get online.
Games with achievements entirely for offline would be great. Then I could actually get more than half of them.
Games with achievements entirely for offline would be great. Then I could actually get more than half of them.
Most popular games have no online. Fallout 3, Mass Effect, hell, even Halo: CE has no online support.
I'm not to bothered if a game has online or not, I mean I hardly ever play online- due to not having Xbox Live Gold, or a PC/Laptop that can run games. I've been brought up with games that don't have online capabilities, and the only game I played when I was little that had online functions was close-multilayer, like with the Pokémon games.
In short, I'm never really bothered whether a game can go online or not.
In short, I'm never really bothered whether a game can go online or not.
I believe that online definitely helps the experience IF the online is good quality (such as CoD4) but Fallout and Bioshock proved that a game can be good without online play. Infact I enjoy Fallout a lot, and this is coming from a hardcore online fellow.
