I wonder how many games have a multiplayer that doesn't really suit them. And why? Does every publisher really require it (especially in PS3/X360 games)? I’m aware that most developers are afraid of game’s reception (about both gamers and critics), but is “shitty multiplayer” really much better than no multiplayer at all? Yeah, I can see possible opinions like “dude, this game is only 8 hours long and has no MP”, but… aren’t two additional hours of SP more attractive than multiplayer nobody would play anyway?
My final point is that there are games that are simply multiplayer friendly or unfriendly. For example most story-based FPS have very poor MP. FEAR2 is a great game if we talk about “story mode”, but what about its online mode? Yeah, it’s just totally average, and has no relation with original game whatsoever. Gears of War, Crysis and other similar games - same story. Stop. GOW has great co-op mode. Yeah, but it’s double single-player mode, not multiplayer one. But co-op is a good option for story-based FPS. On the other hand we have action-based shooters like Unreal Tournament that feature poor single-player mode.
Finally, there are “bonus” multiplayer modes, like in Red Faction: Guerilla. The team demolition mode is something completely different, but at least fun.
Comments:
-
Good point there, Dab. I often have this feeling that if the time required for implementing pointless in some cases MP mode had been spent on some other features of the game, the SP could be even better.
23.10.2009 11:08:03
-
Sad thing is, developer rarely is free to have a final word on this. I agree is stupid, as companies waste shitload of time/money/work to make multiplayer. Then people will play it for a week or two and get back to COD4. In order to create great multiplayer game you've to focus on it from the very start. Even GTA IV, which had OK-ish MP gained only initial popularity and later gamers returned to the 'usual suspects' (Halo, COD, GOW...)
23.10.2009 19:28:35
