You've played the multiplayer on Assassin's Creed Brotherhood right? Same formula you described there basically, just obviously more of the AC style gameplay.ChaosBorne said:
What single player franchise would be even better with multiplayer?
- Thread starter superdelux
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Prototype would have interesting multiplayer, especially with co-op on. Fallout would also be good to do, wandering the wastes with a friend (and I'm eagerly waiting for the Fallout MMO which will let me do this). And Dwarf Fortress! Imagine stabbing another player through the lungs, so he cannot breathe, and then leave him for dead! I wish.
Absolutely none whatsoever, because you just know the singleplayer quality will suffer as a result.
Okay, HEAR ME OUT before you kill me for this...
Elder Scrolls games.
Wait for it.
IF in an ideal world where the multiplayer development took nothing from the resources, I would LOVE a multiplayer co op type game with a mate. Think Red Dead Redemption basically, maybe even with some unique raid type things open. It would be great fun because I have a lot of friends like me who play the game and like a laugh, messing around with them would be great fun.
However, of course, we do not live in an ideal world, the balancing and work for such a game would be very difficult, moreover the cost in terms of resources and manpower etc would degrade the rest of the game, so not the best idea, then.
Still, it would be nice if it were possible, everything's better when you're doing it with a mate. Except masturbation I guess.
Elder Scrolls games.
Wait for it.
IF in an ideal world where the multiplayer development took nothing from the resources, I would LOVE a multiplayer co op type game with a mate. Think Red Dead Redemption basically, maybe even with some unique raid type things open. It would be great fun because I have a lot of friends like me who play the game and like a laugh, messing around with them would be great fun.
However, of course, we do not live in an ideal world, the balancing and work for such a game would be very difficult, moreover the cost in terms of resources and manpower etc would degrade the rest of the game, so not the best idea, then.
Still, it would be nice if it were possible, everything's better when you're doing it with a mate. Except masturbation I guess.
Just Cause 2! Just imagine firefights in free falls and parachute races. Or simply wrecking havoc with your buddies all over Panau.
not entirely what i was getting at, the target of the hit is the same for everyone is what i meant actually (so in a particular level you always have to kill the same guy with his own routines and everything.)YamSoldier said:
and yes i did play the AC:B multiplayer and it didn't really tickle my funny bone, mostly because you couldn't make your own character and also because i sucked at it.
No one's possessions would be safe. With a single player they might get over encumbered. Then again, that might not be too much of an issue in itself.Arontala said:
Fair enough, I enjoyed the AC:B multiplayer but was pretty terrible at it, can't seem to get a match at all now. I do like the idea of a Hitman style MP though, I'm thinking of like 4 or 5 players all trying to get the hit on the Mafia grass in the Suburbia level from Blood Money? Or the Rehab clinic? Would be madness!ChaosBorne said:
Im going to go with everyone else on Just Cause 2. Sometimes you just need an extra grappling hook.
ChupathingyX said:
Just curious if you are aware that Interplay are currently in the process of making a Fallout MMO?superdelux said:
Voila, Fallout with multiplayer.
I quoted you both because one seems to want mulitplayer in Fallout and the other seems against it.
This way you both get your wish of sorts. Bathesda's Fallout games remain multiplayer free while the MMO Interplay managed to keep hold of is going to be a massive multiplayer Fallout game.
Yeah, something like this. I wouldn'y mind multiplayer in most games, so long as its mostly co-op. I like games where you can work together in achieveing something, or just generally dicking around.Arontala said:
For games like the elder-scrolls and fallout 3, i think it would be quite cool to have two player that aren't contractually obliged to have to stay together. Instead, each is given total control over where he or she would like to explore.
A game where story is any more important than in a porn film (so CoD, etc. need not apply - CoD story is laughable) is only made worse by addition of multiplayer. So Fallout, for example, would just suck if you added multiplayer.
Now that said, there are single player games where story is NOT important but yet do not have multiplayer components. Those probably would benefit from such additions. Now, examples of such games...
Well, puzzle games are generally good examples. Multiplayer Tetris is fucking FUN, but games like Incredible Machine (and its heirs, like Crazy Machine), Zuma, etc. I think could really benefit from a competitive multiplayer element (i.e. where your opponent's situation gets worse when you do something). Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think either of those has multiplayer currently.
Civilization didn't have multiplayer for a while, and now does, and I think it was a good addition, particularly with turns over e-mail (excellent idea).
I don't know if Dungeon Siege 2 & 3 have multiplayer, but if they don't, they should.
So to summarize - a game in which story is a significant enough part cannot benefit from multiplayer. This is a strong statement but I think it's true. But, a game whose story is insignificant, or separate from gameplay, could in fact benefit from multiplayer. CoD is an example of it.
Now that said, there are single player games where story is NOT important but yet do not have multiplayer components. Those probably would benefit from such additions. Now, examples of such games...
Well, puzzle games are generally good examples. Multiplayer Tetris is fucking FUN, but games like Incredible Machine (and its heirs, like Crazy Machine), Zuma, etc. I think could really benefit from a competitive multiplayer element (i.e. where your opponent's situation gets worse when you do something). Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think either of those has multiplayer currently.
Civilization didn't have multiplayer for a while, and now does, and I think it was a good addition, particularly with turns over e-mail (excellent idea).
I don't know if Dungeon Siege 2 & 3 have multiplayer, but if they don't, they should.
So to summarize - a game in which story is a significant enough part cannot benefit from multiplayer. This is a strong statement but I think it's true. But, a game whose story is insignificant, or separate from gameplay, could in fact benefit from multiplayer. CoD is an example of it.
I would just like to point out that a Fallout multiplayer mod is being devoloped by a modder, here is the link: http://www.moddb.com/mods/vault-tec-multiplayer-modsuperdelux said:
It's not finished yet and it's just one guy working on it but there ya go.
A devil may cry online version where you make youre own character and collect devil arms and do real time battles with other players.
In a perfect world where multiplayer didn't come at the cost of any time resources or effort, these would be games that I would like to have tried with more than one person. I won't say the games would definately be better, just that it would be something new that I'd like to try.
Amnesia: The Dark Descent
- Especially if there was no communication allowed, it would be pretty interesting to try and, while it might take away from the fright factor, multiplayer would definately cause some interesting scenarios that would add to replay value.
The Legend of Zelda
- That is to say, a 3D console four swords game with non-linked cameras would be amazing I think and its something I've always wished Nintendo would try.
The Metroid Prime Series
- Would be pretty awesome, and while I dislike puzzle games that require teamwork if they just added in the ability to bring extra bounty hunters with you it could make for some more interesting combat.
Every RTS game ever
- Multi-player campaign modes in an RTS are pretty fun and I wish more of them would do that.
Pokemon Mystery Dungeon
- If the game became a real time multiplayer game that lacked long single space halls it could be a classic. But it won't.
Amnesia: The Dark Descent
- Especially if there was no communication allowed, it would be pretty interesting to try and, while it might take away from the fright factor, multiplayer would definately cause some interesting scenarios that would add to replay value.
The Legend of Zelda
- That is to say, a 3D console four swords game with non-linked cameras would be amazing I think and its something I've always wished Nintendo would try.
The Metroid Prime Series
- Would be pretty awesome, and while I dislike puzzle games that require teamwork if they just added in the ability to bring extra bounty hunters with you it could make for some more interesting combat.
Every RTS game ever
- Multi-player campaign modes in an RTS are pretty fun and I wish more of them would do that.
Pokemon Mystery Dungeon
- If the game became a real time multiplayer game that lacked long single space halls it could be a classic. But it won't.
Honestly? None. At all.
Take any strictly single player franchise popular enough to consider multiplayer. Now, subtract the quality of the multiplayer experience from the single player experience.
Now, all your long time fans are un-happy because their favourite single player franchise was made worse to satisfy a small percentage of the fan base, and to attract new customers. Most 'multiplayer gamers' aren't going to give a damn, because they already bought this years instalment of Call of Duty, and are too busy playing that to give a damn about your series' reinvention.
The best you can hope for is a pleasant distraction, like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. Not deep enough to hook you endlessly, but not bad enough to make you angry.
Chances are, though, you'll end up with Resident Evil 5.
Take any strictly single player franchise popular enough to consider multiplayer. Now, subtract the quality of the multiplayer experience from the single player experience.
Now, all your long time fans are un-happy because their favourite single player franchise was made worse to satisfy a small percentage of the fan base, and to attract new customers. Most 'multiplayer gamers' aren't going to give a damn, because they already bought this years instalment of Call of Duty, and are too busy playing that to give a damn about your series' reinvention.
The best you can hope for is a pleasant distraction, like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. Not deep enough to hook you endlessly, but not bad enough to make you angry.
Chances are, though, you'll end up with Resident Evil 5.
*sigh*Rawne1980 said:
Yes I am aware that Interplay is making a Fallout MMO.
I am also aware that Bethesda are suing Interplay for the game because Bethesda like suing people and apparently because Bethesda think that the game will ruin the name of the Fallout franchise and go against lore.
The modern day Interplay is not the Interplay we used to know, however, Bethesda saying that they are going to ruin the Fallout name and go against lore, well...
...there is no finger big enough.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Bethesda and Fallout 3, Obsidian deserve the Fallout franchise more than anyone else based on three major facts;
1. They actually know how to make a Fallout game without comprimising lore
2. They have members who actually worked on the originals.
3. They actually know how to make a RPG, not what Bethesda call a RPG.
Sorry if that seemed like an attack against you, it wasn't.
