Spec Ops Multiplayer Is a "Cancerous Growth"

[Something Amyss]

You know, I like this guys statements. You know what I don't like? How everyone is going to use this guy as a reason for ragging on why things shouldn't have mutliplayer. Multiplayer isn't needed for every game, but it can drastically enhance the longevity and fun of others.

It can. Of course, for that to work you need to be called "Call of Duty" or "Left 4 Dead" or "Halo" or something similar. The reality is that most online communities drop off rapidly after launch, which is kind of the same problem they had in the first place.

A lot of games just shouldn't have multiplayer, sorry.

 

[weirdee]

In the long run, when we look back at games, this game has earned a spot of recognition, which is more than I can say for blaarghshooterdeluxeforgotnamealready.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Wait, now hold on a second guys. Everyone's bad-mouthing 2K Games for shoehorning in some unneeded multiplayer. Now, that was a mistake indeed BUT let's not forget that they green-lighted this project almost the WHOLE way through. They took a risk and let the developer do his thing. Something that most publishers do not want to do. So, before we start getting out our pitchforks against 2K, remember that they are still the ones that were willing to pay for and go with the whole thing. And for that, I thank them.

 

[Squilookle]

errr. Bad form man. Never diss your own project affiliation no matter how shitty it is.

Errr, it should be the exact opposite. It's incredibly annoying when artists and game designers or whoever make out their game is the best thing since sliced bread, and it is completely perfect. It's refreshing to see someone actually come and say that parts of their work sucked. If more people had his balls, maybe the games industry as a whole would be in a better position.

OT: I literally didn't even know that this game had a multiplayer component. I mean, I haven't played it, but every time I've seen it discussed only the single player has been mentioned.

You have completely missed kir4's point. He wasn't talking about dissing the product. He was talking about dissing the project affiliation- i.e. the team that had to make the multiplayer, and the publisher that funded the game... in other words, the hand that fed him. Good luck getting 2k to fund any more of his games if he's going to berate them like that post-release.

 

[daibakuha]

It can. Of course, for that to work you need to be called "Call of Duty" or "Left 4 Dead" or "Halo" or something similar. The reality is that most online communities drop off rapidly after launch, which is kind of the same problem they had in the first place.

A lot of games just shouldn't have multiplayer, sorry.

A lot of people said the same thing about the multiplayer for Mass Effect 3, yet people still play it. They keep releasing new weapons and maps for it, they keep doing events for the game with rewards for those you take place in the event.

Every game should have multiplayer, but what's wrong with experimenting with it? What's wrong with pushing ideas for different ways we can play games?

Like it or not, multiplayer is where things are going. Look at the top selling games on steam right now and you'll see why. Look at the most played games this week and you'll see why.

 

[violinist1129]

So, this is entirely against forum rules, but I don't really post that much so here goes.
Spec Ops is $20 right now and it comes with both bioshocks. If you want to support devs like this, buy it now.
http://www.amazon.com/Desert-to-Sea-Bundle-Download/dp/B0091T6FQO/ref=br_lf_m_1000828191_1_15_ttl?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&pf_rd_p=1392411762&pf_rd_s=center-4&pf_rd_t=1401&pf_rd_i=1000828191&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1XQ7V18DQ5C1G36ZTP4S

 

[I.Muir]

Multiplayer is not the cancer
The people that think it's necessary to move video game copies and the ones that keep video games bland, ugly iron sight simulators because they are proven to sell are the cancer killing video games

 

[Treaos Serrare]

Multiplayer add-ons to games need to die, if you suit wearing business criminals want to parrot sales reports about "multiplayer hits a larger demographic" then just make a solely multiplayer game with no time spent trying to make a compelling story. then when you get the dismally shitty sales reports maybe then it will nail the concept into your fucking skulls that next to nobody wants that bullshit in their game. Maybe then you will let your development staff make the kinds of games that will sell well and not disappoint everyone who spent 60 dollars on your title.

 

[Dendio]

I will buy this on steam sale. The name made me think it was just another blackops clone. The comments here make me actually want to give the game a chance

 

[Treaos Serrare]

Wait, now hold on a second guys. Everyone's bad-mouthing 2K Games for shoehorning in some unneeded multiplayer. Now, that was a mistake indeed BUT let's not forget that they green-lighted this project almost the WHOLE way through. They took a risk and let the developer do his thing. Something that most publishers do not want to do. So, before we start getting out our pitchforks against 2K, remember that they are still the ones that were willing to pay for and go with the whole thing. And for that, I thank them.

2K took a "chance" publishing a modern war shooter set in a desert?


I'm not seeing it.

the chance was looking too politically incorrect, because god forbid you offend someone

 

[IrateDonnie]

2K is good at making companies "shoehorn" in the muli-player. I'm still convinced Bioshock2 would have been a better game without the MP feature that just seemed tacked on.

 

[Mr F.]

So developers are also pissed off at tacked on multiplayer? Interesting.

I am all for the creation of ultra-competitive online multiplayer. But I think it should be sold utterly separately from the single player campaign. So games like Spec Ops (Which I want to get hold of, it sounds awesome) can do what they do best by creating compelling story-lines and games like Call of Duty (Which, be honest, the majority ONLY play for the multiplayer or only go through the storyline once, in a single evening, before playing the multiplayer) can just sell the multiplayer.

Everyone wins, games come down in price (Slash 20 dollars off both games) and single player campaigns get more polish as does the multiplayer.

Yet I doubt this will ever happen. Its not like purely competitive FPS games with no story do very well (TF2, Counter Strike, others... Is it obvious I don't play competitive games online yet?)

All that aside... As others have pointed out, the word "Cancer" was in poor taste. Although... It fits. I mean, something which affects more than 30% of all FPS games, kills quite a few and which everyone knows at least one game that was destroyed by it (Or has had an experience with a game that would have been better without it)... It fits. (And before someone says I am insensitive, my father is dying of it. Shit happens people)

TLDR;

I agree with him utterly in principle (And I really need to stop using parenthesis)

 

[Hitchmeister]

I think unnecessary, lackluster multiplayer can actually detract from a game's sales. In the case of Spec Ops: The Line, the whole point of the game is the story of the single player campaign. Including multiplayer just lets people who don't realize that ask, "Is the multiplayer any good?" An honest answer to that question could cost them sales. If multiplayer wasn't there, that question wouldn't be asked.

 

[Rangerboy87]

That's actually really good to hear from the perspective of a gamer. This guy has artistic integrity and knows exactly why tacked on multiplayer is a bad idea.

And even better, while he critics the publisher for what they did he also understands that the project itself was risky (which it was) and that having it greenlighted was probably a big sacrifice on their behalf

So props to this guy for using logic and sense on the internet

Absolutely!

He is dissing them for making them put in the completely unnecessary multiplayer (as do I, 2K), but praises them for taking the gamble (ditto). I do have to hark on reviewers for downgrading the game for its multiplayer when it's clearly obvious that it's tacked on, a byproduct of the producers not the developers.

I rented this game last weekend (didn't even touch the multiplayer) and it is definitely going onto my "All-Time Greats" list. I am definitely going to strongly consider buying it now as props to these guys. The single player shows how a game should be made and these guys deserve our money to make that very clear to developers and producers.

P.S. If Yahtzee doesn't put this in his Top 5 this year (and pretty high at that), I will be extremely disappointed in him. That is his one big chance to put a big "suck it" to big name military shooters coming out this year like Black Ops 2.

 

[Thoric485]

Spec Ops was a bit too blunt with its message, but I liked it overall. Specifically the nice little details like Walker's armor getting raggier overtime, his commands and executions more fierce, the diverse ways to approach some situations (Gould, Riggs, the road, the crowd, the epilogue), the great use of loading tips and entertaining dialogue (mostly the Radioman).

Certainly stands out from the competition in the TPS genre. I just wish they messed around with sand more to break the tedium in some of the longer sections.

And, yeah, the multiplayer was unneeded. I hoped 2K would learn after Bioshock 2. Still, as far as publishers go, they're one of the better ones. Looking forward to XCOM: Enemy Unknown.