No one will answer this question
-
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
- Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.
No one will answer this question
Why does every good game need multiplayer?
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:16 am
- Location: A benificery of the 'glorious' US Empire.
Re: No one will answer this question
deus ex, dishonoured, fallout, half life 2, mass effect and more says it doesn't.
-
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
- Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.
Re: No one will answer this question
Mass Effect 3 maybe?
Glad to see someone is on MY side of the issue.
Glad to see someone is on MY side of the issue.
-
- Short end of the stick
- Posts: 3655
- Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:37 am
- Location: Robbing the cradle.
Re: No one will answer this question
Mass Effect 3 actually had pretty good multiplayer. I put more hours into the multiplayer than I did the single player.
Re: No one will answer this question
A bit of a loaded question because we have to define what a "good" game is to answer it.
But my two cents on this is that actually some games, such as battlefield or CoD,are almost entirely reliant on a good multiplayer experience. This can be debated, but for the most part i know people who buy those types of games and barely touch the "campaign".
The appeal of multiplayer is a product of many of it's qualities; the challenge, the unpredictability, the satisfaction knowing that you have defeated someone in a particular task, etc. Competition is part of human nature, and multiplayer is like competition in it's most basic form. (I am mostly talking about PvP, which I am assuming what you are referencing when you say "multiplayer".) It's for that reason we enjoy it so much, I guess.
The ignorance often associated with people requesting PvP online when concerning overgrowth is more about the fact that they don't know how demanding it would be to have a smooth, quality online experience with overgrowth. There are split second reactions that must take place during combat in such a game, and we both know people would be complaining about the inevitable lag issues that would ensue. Lag and quick impulse reaction games do not mix. Many mistakes happen. And for that reason we cannot have PvP. If such technology existed where that problem would be removed entirely, you bet you're ass i'd want multiplayer PvP, but that's simply not the case.
But my two cents on this is that actually some games, such as battlefield or CoD,are almost entirely reliant on a good multiplayer experience. This can be debated, but for the most part i know people who buy those types of games and barely touch the "campaign".
The appeal of multiplayer is a product of many of it's qualities; the challenge, the unpredictability, the satisfaction knowing that you have defeated someone in a particular task, etc. Competition is part of human nature, and multiplayer is like competition in it's most basic form. (I am mostly talking about PvP, which I am assuming what you are referencing when you say "multiplayer".) It's for that reason we enjoy it so much, I guess.
The ignorance often associated with people requesting PvP online when concerning overgrowth is more about the fact that they don't know how demanding it would be to have a smooth, quality online experience with overgrowth. There are split second reactions that must take place during combat in such a game, and we both know people would be complaining about the inevitable lag issues that would ensue. Lag and quick impulse reaction games do not mix. Many mistakes happen. And for that reason we cannot have PvP. If such technology existed where that problem would be removed entirely, you bet you're ass i'd want multiplayer PvP, but that's simply not the case.
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:16 am
- Location: A benificery of the 'glorious' US Empire.
Re: No one will answer this question
it was horde mode.Grayswandir wrote:Mass Effect 3 actually had pretty good multiplayer. I put more hours into the multiplayer than I did the single player.
deep horde mode, maybe, but eh- the meat has always been in the SP for me.
MnB:WB? i don't know about you, but i've always found that the 1v1s with duelists tend to come down to split seconds, especially when you react to the feints and such. that said, i'm looking forward to facing down the solid work wolfire's doing on overgrowth's AI, and hadn't even really considered MP in it until now.Vespabros wrote:There are split second reactions that must take place during combat in such a game, and we both know people would be complaining about the inevitable lag issues that would ensue. Lag and quick impulse reaction games do not mix. Many mistakes happen. And for that reason we cannot have PvP.
mmm...fibre to premises exists, and has started being rolled out in some places. they'd probably only have like 25-30ms pings tops, within their own nation.Vespabros wrote:If such technology existed where that problem would be removed entirely, you bet you're ass i'd want multiplayer PvP, but that's simply not the case.
-
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:32 am
Re: No one will answer this question
max payne 2
best game ever, no MP.
best game ever, no MP.
-
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
- Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.
Re: No one will answer this question
I'll answer my own question:
There are many reasons to include or not include multiplayer, it's generally an easy money maker and it's a quick sales pitch.
But of course there's another side of this coin. Many indie devs don't implement it.
The reason I see in most of this, is that it doesn't fit into it's game, it isn't necessary and it takes up development time. But there is always a general demand for multiplayer, and many players continually demand it even though the devs usually have their reasons as to why it won't happen.
There are many reasons as to why it simply isn't necessary:
There are many reasons to include or not include multiplayer, it's generally an easy money maker and it's a quick sales pitch.
But of course there's another side of this coin. Many indie devs don't implement it.
The reason I see in most of this, is that it doesn't fit into it's game, it isn't necessary and it takes up development time. But there is always a general demand for multiplayer, and many players continually demand it even though the devs usually have their reasons as to why it won't happen.
There are many reasons as to why it simply isn't necessary:
- It's a technical liability, games that are not designed for multiplayer, generally don't need it
- It simply doesn't fit into the game, the dev feels like it's unimportant
- There are certain audiences that the developers feel should not be catered to
- Players who feel it's their job to convert these singleplayer games (The minority)
- 3 year olds who play CoD (Codfags)
- People who actually see that the game can benefit from this
Re: No one will answer this question
Or, you know, people who'd think it'd be fun.Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:The people that want multiplayer are usually in one of these audiences:
- Players who feel it's their job to convert these singleplayer games (The minority)
- 3 year olds who play CoD (Codfags)
- People who actually see that the game can benefit from this
I don't don't want the devs to waste time on multiplayer either, but I don't want to be that guy that's like "Multiplayer? Hah, we're too good for that, because our "audience" has better taste than your "audience"."
Like i said before, if we could have multiplayer in this game, ignoring the obvious consequences that would come with it, i would definitely want it.
-
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
- Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.
Re: No one will answer this question
The people that see it as fun fall under the last category.
-
- Short end of the stick
- Posts: 3655
- Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:37 am
- Location: Robbing the cradle.
Re: No one will answer this question
They kept it updated with free content and new classes and guns. But then, I never really liked Mass Effect, so the multiplayer let me play with friends who did enjoy the series.APsychonaut wrote:it was horde mode.Grayswandir wrote:Mass Effect 3 actually had pretty good multiplayer. I put more hours into the multiplayer than I did the single player.
deep horde mode, maybe, but eh- the meat has always been in the SP for me.
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:16 am
- Location: A benificery of the 'glorious' US Empire.
Re: No one will answer this question
chalk up another reason why multiplayer can be awesome.Grayswandir wrote:But then, I never really liked Mass Effect, so the multiplayer let me play with friends who did enjoy the series.
YMMV i guess <3
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:05 pm
Re: No one will answer this question
I think the games that don't need multiplayer are among the ones that are built to be a strong single-player experience, most likely with a story arc that the player goes through, and possibly some of the main game mechanics are also focused on this experience, so it wouldn't be feasible to use them in multiplayer. Planescape:Torment comes to mind (i know it's an old one, but there is a spiritual successor under development).
There is of course also the kind of game where there is a strong sense of role-playing immersion that gets almost completely lost in multiplayer, but if the mechanics are enjoyable enough, the thrill of the competition (or, like in Portal 2, cooperation) can be worth the loss in immersion.
And then there are the games that offer both great singleplayer and multiplayer experience.
Regarding Overgrowth, in my opinion: theoretically MP would be fun, loads of fun. I haven't even had the chance to play versus mode with anyone, but i can imagine. Of course i'm not one of those people who push the devs to go work on multiplayer, but even David didn't completely rule it out.
As for the technical limitations, let's just say the game mechanics don't make it impossible. The fact that the game was built to be singleplayer will make it difficult to implement, and we may never be able to play across continents, but other than that it should be fine. People who argue that the game needs quick responses have never played a good competitive online FPS or what?
There is of course also the kind of game where there is a strong sense of role-playing immersion that gets almost completely lost in multiplayer, but if the mechanics are enjoyable enough, the thrill of the competition (or, like in Portal 2, cooperation) can be worth the loss in immersion.
And then there are the games that offer both great singleplayer and multiplayer experience.
Regarding Overgrowth, in my opinion: theoretically MP would be fun, loads of fun. I haven't even had the chance to play versus mode with anyone, but i can imagine. Of course i'm not one of those people who push the devs to go work on multiplayer, but even David didn't completely rule it out.
As for the technical limitations, let's just say the game mechanics don't make it impossible. The fact that the game was built to be singleplayer will make it difficult to implement, and we may never be able to play across continents, but other than that it should be fine. People who argue that the game needs quick responses have never played a good competitive online FPS or what?
Re: No one will answer this question
I argued against it because I believed the technical challenges in Overgrowth were different, and thus the problems as of yet unsolved. It took time to get from first online multiplayer games to modern speed - there's all sorts of lag prevention systems I don't really understand (hit detection, packets sent with time stamps, retroactive corrections to game state, built-in lag that acts as buffer when packets are delayed etc), but I know there's lots of under-the-hood work in there and I assumed Overgrowth would need lots of that sort of work to get the multiplayer working. Then David said that it's very easy and the lag won't be the problem, so yeah.
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:00 pm
Re: No one will answer this question
MP2 without MP? Preposterous. Are you going to force me to play as Mona Sax the whole time?learn_more wrote:max payne 2
best game ever, no MP.
I prefer MP3 anyway. Never touched the multiplayer though.
So yes, put Max Payne in Overgrowth please.