Abandon4093 said:
Mikeyfell said:
Abandon4093 said:
I never get this line of reasoning.
How are they alienating you?
The presence of a multiplayer doesn't affect the single palyer.
Time, money, disk space, and personnel are all finite resources.
Anything not going in to the single player experience is effecting it negatively.
That's the case with any game, but Batman? The Arkham games amazing single player experiences. Awesome stealth, cool puzzles, a lot of exploration and an amazing combat system.
It's tight, that's the only word for it. Adding a Coop player is just fluff at best.
And could easily mean cutting whole levels to balance the enemy AI for Coop, or making the difficulty trivial on Coop, or stupidly hard on single player
Bollocks.
They have separate teams for multiplayer and single player components. They're essentially just giving the multiplayer guys something to do whilst the rest of them work on the single player.
And disk space.......... really?
Who gives a shit if it's fluff at best? That still doesn't tell me how it negatively effects your single player. It's still there, exactly how it would have been if they hadn't tacked on a multiplayer. And I'm not talking about changing the single player experience to allow coops in. I'm talking about what most modern games do for coop. Add a separates, shorter campaign.
Let's just say, for sake of argument that you're doing something really difficult.
Like... Um... making a game.
And you have 40 employes who you have to pay no matter what they end up doing.
Now, and hear me out here. Do you think the game would be better if you made 20 people work on the main game, and had 20 people working on pointless filler. Or, and this is a really big "or" is there the slightest possibility that the game would turn out one tiny iota better if you made all 40 people work on the main game?
Now. I'm sorry if that sounded condescending. But if you don't understand how only putting half of your recources to the part of the game that matters is negatively effecting it, I don't know how to respond to you.
If you have 10 dollars and you need to buy milk, do you end up with more milk if you spend 5 dollars on milk and 5 dollars on apples, or if you spend 10 dollars on milk?
I don't know how much simpler I can put it. If you do not use your recources efficiently you are going to get bad results.
Anyways, me being a smug douchebag aside.
There are two possibilities about the Multyplayer team.
They are either new employes, in which case they're basically getting payed to learn the engine the singleplayer team is already fluent in, or the multyplayer is going to be in an entirely different engine, either way the company is wasting money on them.
Or they already know how to use the single player engine, in which case they'd be more useful helping make the main game more robust.
Plenty of the best singleplayer games that came out in the past few months had tacked on multiplayer, if you don't want to play them... just don't.
Spec Ops, Xcom EU, Farcry 3 (If you're willing to forgive the crap UI), Tomb Raider(And I'm being generous here)
So 4 primarily single player games that were good despite having tacked on Multyplayer in the last 12 months.
Walking Dead, Bioshock Infinite, Lollipop Chainsaw, Mark of the Ninja, Dust an Elysian Tali (Again I'm being generous) 5 good single player games in the past 12 months and 3 of them came out on Xbox Arcade.
(Yes I don't play on PC)
And going back another year I can only add Catherine, Dark Souls and Assassin's Creed Revelations to the list of single player games that are good despite the tacked on multyplayer.
And you can look me in the text and say multyplayer doesn't effect the single player.
That's exactly what I will do. Any single player game that is bad and has multiplayer was going to be bad even if it didn't. There are probably exceptions to the rule, but yea. Don't blame tacked on multiplayer for already poor games.
Wow, that's depressingly nihilistic.
You've played Bioshcok Infinite right?
What if the team that was responsible for making the vigors made a tacked on competitive multyplayer mode instead of the vigors? Or the claw hook sky rail thing?
Or what if, in order to fit the multyplayer on the disk, they took out all the audio logs?
Would Bioshock Infinite be just as good as it is right now if instead of Vigors, hookshots and audio logs it had pointless multyplayer?
That's all hypothetical, but do you at least get it now?
Unfortunately it looks like your image failed. But judging by the url it looks like you were trying to show a pic of Mr. Freeze. And while I can understand where you'd be going with that, on the other side of the coin is the fact that he's the biggest example of what I'm talking about. The entire objective of the Freeze Fight is to exploit ALL of his weaknesses (especially if playing on hard or New Game +). Granted, you've gotta diversify your tactics in the sense that he always compensates after you take him down, but still, you're essentially pulling off a Flawless Victory on the guy by attacking his shortcomings. Against Penguin you just keep out of his line of sight until you circle around behind him and use the jammer on his freeze gun...then you fight Grundy and have to blow up those three electric things a bunch of times.
