The Last of Us Multiplayer Pits Survivor Against Survivor

[Colt47]

Actually, these days Multi-player is put into games like this one as a mostly harmless add-on meant to keep people from simply buying the game, playing through the single player section, and then returning it to Gamestop for credit.

That sounds like a needless expenditure of funds and development time for the off-chance that the mp proves successful enough to stop people from returning their game.

Hey, publishers have spent money on other strategies to try and avoid feeding the used game industry that are far more annoying, like project ten dollar. At least with the multiplayer, people aren't going to complain about having part of their game locked or some other strange occurrence from arbitrary drm schemes.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

So much for that title then eh?

Exactly how, if at all, the multiplayer ties into the singleplayer story is yet to be discovered.

If it's any way other then not at all I'm going to be very disappointed.

I think Bogos might have meant in a narrative sense, because I seriously doubt it would link to single player and not have told the media about it by now, with ME3 it was known fro some time.

 

[Legion]

My comment was actually meant to be sarcastic. I don't really think the female main characters thing and the inclusion of mp are related. Guess I should've made that more clear.

Ah, my apologies. It was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction on my part, mainly because I keep seeing people similar comments in a completely serious manner, it can be hard to distinguish between those making light of it, and those who really think publishers are that crazy/evil.

So I am sorry if I came across as needlessly aggressive.

 

[Reynaert]

I don't get all the negativity. It sounds great from where I am sitting. Can't wait to try this game, both single and multiplayer.

 

[Seracen]

God, Jimquisition nailed this on the head this week. The reason Uncharted needed multiplayer was b/c Sony lacked any decent fanbase for MP in the shooter dept (as far as system exclusives), at least, that's how I read it.

As such, ND created a competent MP mode. Now, if they are doing this b/c they LIKE it, more power to them. But more and more, I can't help feeling that MP is getting tacked on.

To paraphrase Mr. Sterling: I'm not buying Tomb Raider to play Gears of War, b/c I already have Gears of War.

If we are approaching games as a service (which is utter BS), and price points for said games are the same, the only way I am converting is if the "service" (in this case MP) is actually providing me something better, something I don't already have, or is more economical.

Thing is, I don't want resources put into SP to adversely affect MP. Whenever you have a concentrated story driven SP, there usually isn't space in the original vision for MP.

For example, tell me EA's googly eyes for MP (among other things) didn't scuttle Mass Effect somewhat. You can't turn an RPG into "Madden but scifi" and expect good results.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Survivor looks to be your traditional deathmatch style MP, except players only have one life and the emphasis is on 'outlasting' your opponents rather than run-and-gun Counter-Strike-like skirmishes.

Wha? That sounds exactly like Counter Strike, even down to the one spawn per round rule.

Aside from SOCOM II, no one has managed to capture the tension and flow of Counter Strike on console games. It will be interesting to see if this can succeed, I assume they will aim for a slower pace than Counter Strike, but like CS and SOCOM it will no doubt favour the swift and aggressive once real players get involved.

 

[Windu23]

People seem to have forgotten the story Escapist did back in December where Arne Meyer of Naughty Dog talked about multiplayer.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/121031-Naughty-Dog-Defends-The-Last-of-Us-Multiplayer

According to him, this isn't tacked on. It's been the plan from the start. Single and multiplayer have had had different teams from the start. They're doing it because they like it and they want to.

People react to things much too hastily, sometimes.

 

[fix-the-spade]

God, Jimquisition nailed this on the head this week. The reason Uncharted needed multiplayer was b/c Sony lacked any decent fanbase for MP in the shooter dept (as far as system exclusives), at least, that's how I read it.

Sony missed their shot really, Killzone 2's multiplayer was mostly excellent, but when it finally arrived in 2009 everyone was too busy playing Modern Warfare to notice.

It's the same problem EA have with Battlefield, doesn't matter how good it is, it's not Call of Duty so a majority of the buying public doesn't even register it's presence. They all needed to get in before Modern Warfare (and Halo 3, TF2) landed in 2007, they didn't and now nobody but the hardcore cares.

 

[Seracen]

Sony missed their shot really, Killzone 2's multiplayer was mostly excellent, but when it finally arrived in 2009 everyone was too busy playing Modern Warfare to notice.

It's the same problem EA have with Battlefield, doesn't matter how good it is, it's not Call of Duty so a majority of the buying public doesn't even register it's presence. They all needed to get in before Modern Warfare (and Halo 3, TF2) landed in 2007, they didn't and now nobody but the hardcore cares.

True enough. It's sad too. I actually prefer Battlefield, whenever I play modern shooters at all (usually only scifi shooters for me). But EA keeps having Dice dial it in...and I can't be bothered as a result. I haven't bought Battlefield since 2142 dropped, although I did enjoy Bad Company and BC 2 for a weekend or two.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

While these types of games having MP is often silly, it looks like Naughty Dog is trying to make it in the spirit of the game. It sounds like it will feel just like fighting NPCs in SP mode, but they'll be real people.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I haven't bought Battlefield since 2142 dropped, although I did enjoy Bad Company and BC 2 for a weekend or two.

If you're still on PC it's worth getting a BF3 Premium key now. It took a while but it's a more than worthy sequel to 2/Special Forces/2142 now that it's finished.

Granted I could still come up with a huge list of what I do/don't like about the changes between it and 2, but 3 is a truly excellent game now (even with Origin attached).

 

[Erttheking]

People seem to have forgotten the story Escapist did back in December where Arne Meyer of Naughty Dog talked about multiplayer.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/121031-Naughty-Dog-Defends-The-Last-of-Us-Multiplayer

According to him, this isn't tacked on. It's been the plan from the start. Single and multiplayer have had had different teams from the start. They're doing it because they like it and they want to.

People react to things much too hastily, sometimes.

Yeah, what people seem to forget sometimes is that including multiplayer in a game doesn't make it tacked on by default. The Assassin's Creed multiplayer was well put together and it was a ton of fun, I can still find matches today.

 

[The White Hunter]

Naughty Dog proved it can do a good multiplayer with Uncharted 3, but why the hell does a game about a man and a young girl surviving in a post-apocalyptic setting need a damn multiplayer? [small]Yeah I know, don't answer that.[/small]

Focus groups. Thats why.

OT: Second mode sounds cool, first sounds kind of terrible.

 

[The White Hunter]

God, Jimquisition nailed this on the head this week. The reason Uncharted needed multiplayer was b/c Sony lacked any decent fanbase for MP in the shooter dept (as far as system exclusives), at least, that's how I read it.

Sony missed their shot really, Killzone 2's multiplayer was mostly excellent, but when it finally arrived in 2009 everyone was too busy playing Modern Warfare to notice.

Killzone 2's multiplayer is very good indeed, but I don't think it's that it was late, I think it's that you need patience to actually unlock everything. Same with Killzone 3 (though that was too floaty and poorly balanced, the recon class got nerfed to the point of being useless because it has an assault rifle and cloak, made cloak worse when they could've just got rid of the AR...), it takes a long time to get enough XP to get good unlocks (and incidentally to be competitive) and thus the people who play COD in 30 minute bursts won't invest time because they don't feel like progress is happening.

However I dislike the way every game makes you unlock shit now, especially the "kills = attachments and camo" bullshit.

Killzone 3 had a pretty good system, points get unlock tokens.

 

[Casual Shinji]

God, Jimquisition nailed this on the head this week. The reason Uncharted needed multiplayer was b/c Sony lacked any decent fanbase for MP in the shooter dept (as far as system exclusives), at least, that's how I read it.

Sony missed their shot really, Killzone 2's multiplayer was mostly excellent, but when it finally arrived in 2009 everyone was too busy playing Modern Warfare to notice.

I actually had a heck of a lot more fun with the Killzone 2 multiplayer than I did with MW. Evenhough the former was pretty broken, what with everyone camping and spawing infront of the opposing force's main base. Good times though!

 

[FancyNick]

Please don't let it hurt the core game. I am all for extra content in my games but there isn't a good track record of multiplayer modes for games who don't specialize in it.

 

[Baldry]

What? I thought...there wasn't any multiplayer...That was one of the reasons I was looking forward to the game! I'm pretty sure I read there wouldn't be any...I must be imagining things.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Ok, first thought: Why the hell does The Last of Us have Multiplayer?
Second thought: Why the hell does The Last of Us have Multiplayer?
Seriously, is this another case of developers/publishers needlessly shoehorning multiplayer into everything?