Spec Ops Multiplayer Is a "Cancerous Growth"

[bunji]

You know, the industry cannot be in a healthy state when greenlighting a third-person military shooter is seen as a 'hell of a risk'.

I'm not saying that as a jab at Cory Davis. From what I've seen, Spec Ops has some absolutely gripping narrative ideas going for it, and it's great to see the fetish for military porn given a cynical going over. But Christ, publishers have been trying to justify the endless stream of military porn as the only way for them to make money. If making a new military shooter is now seen as a risk, it makes me wonder just how fucked up the industry actually is?

Well the risk he was talking about wasn't coming from it being a military third person shooter, but being a military third person shooter which tells you that you are a fucking bastard for playing military thid person shooters.

 

[el_kabong]

So...he's complaining about a feature that he feels compromises his integrity...after he signed up with a large publisher...and after it was released...

What an artist.

(trolling over)

 

[Karoshi]

I pretty much agree with him. If the gameplay is bland and the story strong, then why the hell would you want to tack one multiplayer?

 

[Gone Rampant]

Much like other people ignore Deus Ex Invisible War or MGS2, I ignore Spec Ops multiplayer.

For once, IGN and I agreed on something.

 

[Ghonzor]

I wished he didn't use cancer as an analogy. It was bad taste.

I was more concerned about the use of "raped."
Cancerous is a fitting analogy...rape should never really be used in that fashion.

 

[GinraiPrime]

This definetly interests me. Kudos to Mr. Davis for pointing out that tacked on multiplayer is just not necessary in every game, we need more of this talk in the games industry today. Its nice to see developers saying its a waste of time and money aswell as gamers like us who've been saying it for years in regards to other games (looking at you Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 2).
The marketing for it really did it no favors. Like other people in this thread have already pointed out, I saw the advert for this game one time on tv and it just looked like any other generic shooter you see getting shat out every few months. After reading these comments about how its deconstructing the FPS genre and its more of a single player experience I'll definetly have to give these devs money We need more people like this!

 

[ElPatron]

Multiplayer isn't needed for every game, but it can drastically enhance the longevity and fun of others.

But everyone is busy with their Guild Wars, Worlds of Warcraft, Modern Warfares and Battlefields.

It can increase the longevity of a game - no doubt about it. But if only 6 people are playing it then it was a waste of budget.

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.

I think that what he meant is that now he has the fame of biting the hand that feeds.

He could have ragged on the multiplayer all he wanted, I'm not saying he should lie. But he could have sugarcoated his words towards Darkside Studios and 2k.

I mean, Darkside Studios were only doing what they were told.

 

[Plazmatic]

I find it funny they think it didn't sell well because of this. It didn't sell well because you wanted me to pay 50$ for a >5 hour campaign. If you made it 12 instead I MIGHT find the price warranted, or if you cut the price to 19.99, but you didn't so I didn't buy it.

Bastion has a longer campaign than this, hell, EVERY SINGLE CALL OF DUTY HAS A LONGER CAMPAIGN THAN THIS (even though the publishers got lazy and cut 2 - 3 hours off of every thing from the first modern warfare (not including world at war)).

Besides ,don't you think they could have spent more time polishing the single-player campaign (and making it longer) if they didn't have to spent part of the game's budget programming a crappy multiplayer campaign that nobody is playing?

Yes, I agree

 

[bunji]

You know, the industry cannot be in a healthy state when greenlighting a third-person military shooter is seen as a 'hell of a risk'.

I'm not saying that as a jab at Cory Davis. From what I've seen, Spec Ops has some absolutely gripping narrative ideas going for it, and it's great to see the fetish for military porn given a cynical going over. But Christ, publishers have been trying to justify the endless stream of military porn as the only way for them to make money. If making a new military shooter is now seen as a risk, it makes me wonder just how fucked up the industry actually is?

Well the risk he was talking about wasn't coming from it being a military third person shooter, but being a military third person shooter which tells you that you are a fucking bastard for playing military thid person shooters.

To be honest, though, you couldn't have worked that out from the marketing. 2k didn't market it as a cynical deconstruction of military shooters, probably because doing so would have ruined the surprise for the player. They marketed it as something akin to Battlefield or COD, and it was only the relatively few gamers who picked it up that discovered something else.

Like I said, the industry can't be in a healthy state when even that is the case. If military gun porn can't be counted on to sell anymore, what can?

I dont really buy that argument. Advertisments don't mean that much, especially for less iconic games like this. People are going to hang back and wait for reviews, or word of mouth. I cant speak for other countries but here in Sweden there was no commercials for this game at all, just as it is with almost all games excluding the ones that come with some serious pedigree. And then theres the issue of catching serious flack for the content of the game, which was the reason Six Days in Fallujah got shitcanned.

Also I dont think that the fact that the consumers are friggin fed up with generic shooters is any indicator that the industry is in some dire straights. In fact, maybe it means that we can start seeing some innovations soon.

 

[BeerTent]

You know, the industry cannot be in a healthy state when greenlighting a third-person military shooter is seen as a 'hell of a risk'.

I'm not saying that as a jab at Cory Davis. From what I've seen, Spec Ops has some absolutely gripping narrative ideas going for it, and it's great to see the fetish for military porn given a cynical going over. But Christ, publishers have been trying to justify the endless stream of military porn as the only way for them to make money. If making a new military shooter is now seen as a risk, it makes me wonder just how fucked up the industry actually is?

Think of it this way... Out here, in the West, in games... The US military is where it's at. These guys are the coolest and apparently, gamers want to be just like them.

I won't spoil the story for anyone, but the mere thought that maybe, the US Military aren't the coolest guys around, or touching issues that require the player to be over the age of 13 to understand... Well, that's a risk.

Also, aside, personally, I'm not a fan or US, or CAN military. But they're needed. I', saying that up there as a point of reference.

 

[LazyAza]

God I hope the box ticking becomes a lesser issue next gen. Just please publishers stop doing that shit.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

It really does say a lot about a game when so many people care about the single player over the multi. I mean, I didn't know it was there until I beat it and then I finally decided to give it a try. It was utter crap. I completely agree with Mr. Davis and I'm very surprised that he has the balls to actually call out his employer like that. Hopefully, people will now realize that multiplayer isn't the be-all-end-all of video games and that single player is probably one of the most important parts of many, many different games.

 

[daibakuha]

Multiplayer isn't needed for every game, but it can drastically enhance the longevity and fun of others.

But everyone is busy with their Guild Wars, Worlds of Warcraft, Modern Warfares and Battlefields.

It can increase the longevity of a game - no doubt about it. But if only 6 people are playing it then it was a waste of budget.

There's some big assumptions here. Like that the communities for those games overlap. People who play Battlefield, may not play world of warcraft, and even if they did, people don't play one game exclusively.

 

[ElPatron]

There's some big assumptions here. Like that the communities for those games overlap. People who play Battlefield, may not play world of warcraft, and even if they did, people don't play one game exclusively.

My point.

Your head.

Way over it. Where did I say that people played all those games at the same time? Where did I say that people played those games exclusively? If I did, please quote that part because I am pretty sure that enumeration (figure of speech) does not imply absolutely anything about it's elements.

 

[daibakuha]

There's some big assumptions here. Like that the communities for those games overlap. People who play Battlefield, may not play world of warcraft, and even if they did, people don't play one game exclusively.

My point.

Your head.

Way over it. Where did I say that people played all those games at the same time? Where did I say that people played those games exclusively? If I did, please quote that part because I am pretty sure that enumeration (figure of speech) does not imply absolutely anything about it's elements.

You said that if no one plays it then it doesn't extend the longevity of the game, before this you mentioned that with all these other great mutliplayer titles out there, why would anyone play a new game?

That's what I got from it. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should be more concise in your response.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

So instead of rising to the challenge and trying to create a fun, unique multiplayer experience incorporating the same ideas that made the single-player interesting they.... threw a hissy fit, shit out a Call of Duty clone they admittedly put no effort into, and are now whining about it?

And people are... applauding them? Like they're doing something noble rather than showing how lazy they are?

Good Christ, gamers really are morons.

 

[ElPatron]

threw a hissy fit, shit out a Call of Duty clone they admittedly put no effort into, and are now whining about it?

(...)

Good Christ, gamers really are morons.

1. They were forced by 2K

2. It was ANOTHER developer who made the MP, and you can clearly read it on the OP

Also, speak for yourself.

You said that if no one plays it then it doesn't extend the longevity of the game, before this you mentioned that with all these other great mutliplayer titles out there, why would anyone play a new game?

That's what I got from it. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should be more concise in your response.

See, now you understood it.

Now the challenge is finding the differences between this reply and your first reply.

EDIT: to be concise, they are different

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

1. They were forced by 2K

2. It was ANOTHER developer who made the MP, and you can clearly read it on the OP

Also, speak for yourself.

Knew about 1, wasn't aware of 2.

Regardless, still a lot of whining and people applauding a developers laziness. In fact, finding out another developer had to do the multiplayer just makes this whole situation worse in my view. For the longest time I was considering getting the game because everybody raved about the single-player and the multiplayer did look like it had a lot of cool ideas but now this just leaves a bad taste in my mouth so i think I'll pass.