Why doesn't Yahtzee try Multiplayer very much?
- Thread starter Raneman
- Start date
When you rate multiplayer your essentialy rating playing with your friends which is a terribly subjective benchmark for any reviewer, I dont take anyone that uses multiplayer as a selling point seriously (not that Yahtzees in anyway serious)
But a game needs to stand on it's own merits to earn a review not on a communities, or if your going ot use that benchmark review multiplayer with total randoms I assure you it's not the same experience. Any game is fun with mates, even Turock.
But a game needs to stand on it's own merits to earn a review not on a communities, or if your going ot use that benchmark review multiplayer with total randoms I assure you it's not the same experience. Any game is fun with mates, even Turock.
Basically this, but to summarize, he doesn't refuse to play multiplayer, he refuses to play online multiplayer. Also he believes that every game should stand up on single player alone, and frankly I agree with him.Not G. Ivingname said:
Don't people do any sort of research before bothering the public at large? Yatzhee doesn't like mulitplayer because is is inpersonal and doesn't like doing things with strangers. That and he finds that people in mulitplayers are crazy annoying and replusive and is far worse that co-op in which you can nail your friend for acting like a bell-end. That and multiplayer doesn't really add anything. You could make really aggressive AI that changes it's strategy in accordance to your play style and you have just about the same experience. And finally it's a really sneaky way to charge people a lot of money for a game experience that varies depending on community and there activity and behaviour rather than working on the main game and making that the core and making a good mulitplayer just a bit of a plus.
I firmly believe the world has gone mad if the mutliplayer is more important than the singleplayer.
The only exceptions I have for this rule is when multiplayer is a core part of the experience (ie. Left 4 Dead, Borderlands), or when the multiplayer is the ONLY part but is done perfectly. (ie. Team Fortress 2).
The only exceptions I have for this rule is when multiplayer is a core part of the experience (ie. Left 4 Dead, Borderlands), or when the multiplayer is the ONLY part but is done perfectly. (ie. Team Fortress 2).
best Quote from Yahtzee in this article
"Sometimes I regret that. Sometimes I'd like more time to explore the nooks and crannies, just like I did your mum"
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/6832-Extra-Punctuation-On-Multiplayer
"Sometimes I regret that. Sometimes I'd like more time to explore the nooks and crannies, just like I did your mum"
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/6832-Extra-Punctuation-On-Multiplayer
Because he thinks that a game should be able to stand on it's merits alone, without the aid of other players.
i think your missing the point. if the game puts on a shoddy tacked on single player its a crap game. some games - team fortress 2, counter strike: source, demigod; can stand soly on the merit of thier multiplayer, other games, such as halo, call of duty - while they have good multiplayer should also stand on the merit of thier single player. btw, i played AvP - the multiplayer sucked.Raneman said:
I think he mentioned one time, im not sure, that playing Single Player gives a better view of Story and Gameplay, while Multiplayer is full of useless twats that are nothing but gun totting free loaders with nothing better to do. I think, i may be mistaken...
hell i started gaming less than 2 years ago when i got my laptop(minus the occasional game of super mario brothers at my grandmas) and i much perfer single player to multiplayer. now, i dont HATE multiplayer, i just much prefer a story - the same reason the only mmo i have been able to get into is guild wars.technoted said: