Why should they? Whats the point in an online mode if it has to be an entirely different game - its not like they simply could slap a coop or vs mode on top? I could aswell hope (or even expect) it will come with a PSP-Version included.
David Jaffes comments on GoW 3
- Thread starter BoardBonobo
- Start date
- Status
online scoreboards?
Well, how do you propose they implement online? Co-op?
Why not?
It would be more believable that he has some allies along the way than that he kills everyone by himself.
Problem is, they do sequels of previous gen. properties which were big sellers but get locked into the same singleplayer paradigm, i.e. update these games with prettier graphics and ship them. Now that the hardware is capable of more than just better graphics, they could look at expanding the way these genres are defined.
Wasn't Jaffe one of the biggest complainants about used game sales? I know he's no longer involved with GoW but surely people involved realize that games like this are played and sold or just rented, because while pretty and having an engaging story, if the experience is less than 10 hours like a lot of action/adventure games this generation, it'll get flipped.
Online features might give people reason to hang on to these games longer, because they see it as having value beyond the singleplayer story. Again the hostility to it from consumers is baffling. You can just play singleplayer, ignoring the multiplayer features, and flip it back. Why oppose getting more for your money?
New info of God of War III will be shown on the Spike Video Game Awards ceremony.
[LIVE on Sunday, December 14th at 9pm.]
http://www.spike.com/blog/world-premieres/70766
[LIVE on Sunday, December 14th at 9pm.]
http://www.spike.com/blog/world-premieres/70766
ummmm... believeable.. you mean his charismatic ego which is anything unlike a raging sociopath who dismembers anyone close to him sooner or later?
Having a focus on Singleplayer can be a desgindecision. How do you imagine, say "Prince of Persia" in multiplayer. Im talking about slowing/rewinding time specifically, this could never work well in multiplayer. In that sense multiplayer is the restriction, if you want the game to be the same in and Single and Multiplayer.
Or have a completely seperate mode for multiplayer which would be just additional cost which have to be funded somehow. Again - whats the point in this, make a seperate addon so the multiplayer part can stand on its own (financially as I dont want to pay for it if its an afterthough).
You can play good 10h games again until you get bored of it, thats still alot better than having a 20h game that drags along for half the time and you wont ever touch for that reason.
Just because its multiplayer/online doesnt mean you will play it longer or it will sell more.
Because I could get more singleplayer if the money was spent right or it has no stupid designlimitations because of multiplayer (PoP without rewinding time?). Paying for stuff you dont use is a loss.
Im objecting adding artificial multiplayer-crap on games where its not fitting, its a pointless marketing gag in that case.
Btw guys, GOW 3 looks like it won't be out until sometime in 2010. Have a look at IMDB for the voice of Kratos:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0141333/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0141333/
I'd like to see evidence that developers and publishers short-change singleplayer if they have multiplayer features. Obviously that's not the case with FPS games, so why should it be the case for other genres like action/adventure games?
If they're doing it, it's only because of market acceptance, because of this fallacy that singleplayer story and multiplayer features must be mutually exclusive.
It may just be designers not wanting to think of multiplayer ideas. One of the things people were excited about in this generation was the prospect of having more enemies onscreen. Or having a game world which was huge.
But these elements are created for visual impact more than gameplay. Julian Eggbrecht boasted about the scale of the Lair world and specifically said that game was only a singleplayer experience because of the ambitious design.
Unfortunately, most designers in the genre seem to have cinematic pretensions and focus more on story and little else. There are exceptions, like GTA or MGS4.
Even the bolted-on online mode of the latter Ratchet and Clank games on the PS2 at least attempted to provide more than the same old, same old.
While writing this post, I thought of some ideas, such as a sidekick. Or better yet, let other humans control the opponents. I don't mean just in boss battles but say have one player go through the story mode with Kratos and at least one other player be the gods or the Big Bad which deploys legions of enemies, maybe even modify the maps Kratos must go through to reach goals in the game.
Are you saying that given any single player and a fixed budget, you can add multiplayer for free? Cool! Seriously though, think that through for a bit.
Obviously that's not the case with FPS games. That's why CoD4 had such an amazing, long-lasting single player campaign.
Funny you bring up that example. I'm fairly sure I read an interview with Insomniac where they discussed how such a big investment in the online portion was played by only a fraction of the players, and as the single player campaign suffered for it, they decided to leave out the online portion in the next version.
Kratos MMO? After all, adding online features are budget neutral anyway, and who knows SCEA can compete with World of Warcraft here ...
Seriously though I'm not saying it's impossible. But you should also realise that when developers focus on a single player experience 100%, that really means more resources and polish for that single player experience.
Well sure, most games have budget constraints.
I thought those FPS games had good story modes? I don't play them. Is that not the case?
Anyways, GoW3 probably has a bigger budget than most. It will have been in development how long by the time it ships?
Even with constraints, why put all the resources into singleplayer? This is the connected age. If they dedicate 25% of the staff to multiplayer, does that necessarily mean the singleplayer will come up short?
And no, not an MMO. I certainly have no interest in an MMO since it always involve pay to play. I don't mean that every enemy would be controlled by a human.
I thought those FPS games had good story modes? I don't play them. Is that not the case?
Anyways, GoW3 probably has a bigger budget than most. It will have been in development how long by the time it ships?
Even with constraints, why put all the resources into singleplayer? This is the connected age. If they dedicate 25% of the staff to multiplayer, does that necessarily mean the singleplayer will come up short?
And no, not an MMO. I certainly have no interest in an MMO since it always involve pay to play. I don't mean that every enemy would be controlled by a human.
Last edited by a moderator:
I completely agree. I dislike that so many people think every single game developed should have online multiplayer. The game is a single player experience...adding anything more just for the sake of it being the cool thing to do will do nothing more than cheapen the experience.
If you want more value ask for unlockable wallpaper, themes, in-game music, soundtrack, and dev videos to come on the disc.
Ninja Edit- The only way I see online possibly working is with the Challenge modes. Those are not part of the main game play and adds something for the users to do after.
woundingchaney
Regular
I agree to an extent, but multi-player concepts have changed since the days of standard deathmatch. Having a form of online co-op would be an excellent decision for this title or just about any in the genre. Adding feature packs or episodes to the game would also be an excellent idea or even leader boards and unlockables (as mentioned). Basically saying that online gaming is such a norm on the consoles these days it isnt bound by a sheltered mentality of death match or die. Ultimately online gaming in a title such as this isnt a large issue but if done well could add leagues of replay value.
Yes, Call of Duty has an awesome story mode - which lasts about 5 hours.
Depends on when it started, really. I'm not sure, but I think they started later than most people expect, particularly since Heavenly Sword was also Sony sponsored.
Hey I'm not saying it's not possible to do any online. They couuld make an online colosseum mode with gladiator style fighting in various forms that could work quite well - you could combine this to do free for all, 2 player co-op (chained together), team co-op (think gladiator the movie style combat, or a group of players against a group of monsters), and the monsters could be player controlled as well for team competition, etc.
In terms of co-op campaign, I was challenged by the impossible idea that Kratos would work together with someone, and I came up with a Red Sonja style co-op experience (Red Sonja working together with a man was after all almost equally unlikely as Kratos working together with anyone at all, so it seems a good fit), where Kratos finds a female version who he simply can't beat (to keep the adult theme, preferably they at some point have sex, and later discover they are twins or something
). This would make for a great tutorial level where you first instead of working together fight each other, but you're both invincible and your stamina runs out at the same speed no matter what, but you progress through the level by performing certain attacks. These two additions I would actually enjoy. However, what I am expecting is a PS3 version of God of War almost exactly matched, but with trophies and incredible graphics, and I would be more than satisfied with that as well (maybe some online leaderboards for points and time trials or something). That's really enough, and that's all I wanted to say - there's nothing wrong with using that 25% to polish the game rather than add online gameplay. I would probably consider any online gameplay as a separate game and maybe even just sell it on PSN or add it as DLC and have an additional team with its own budget work on it.
Maybe because alot of FPS-Games (especially squad-based) naturally fit multiplayer-aspects?
Nobody is saying they have to be mutually exclusive, just forcing every game to pack both is nonsense.
Seem you blame designers for focusing on some aspects instead of trying to please everyone and there dog. I dont see anything wrong with games trying to leverage singleplayer without having to spend time thinking about how multiplayer will fit in.
Id hate to hear that there wont be any more "Sam and Max" Epsiodes, just because the developers dint get the multiplayer right.
Arwin already answered that
Wasnt the multiplayer-focused Ratched: Deadlocked selling by far the lowest in the series aswell?
Im not saying that it wont be possible to add a good multiplayer to GoW but:
- Either the maps will have to be fitted to single and multiplayer-mode, including practically double the balance work. I count added multiplayer as design limitation and an expense that could be used for refined/more singleplayer content
- The multiplayer is practically seperate from story-mode. Maybe some set of minigames. Then why not make it a cheap DL on PSN to start with? If multiplayer really is as important as you say then this should outsell the singleplayergame, just let the market decide.
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, I just heard that Left 4 Dead has both a co-op online mode as well as a vs. mode where humans can control the zombies while others control the heroes.
It must be that MS evangelizes online features better or makes developers of games it publishes or pays for exclusivity (whatever the arrangement MS has for Left 4 Dead) on games which must have online modes.
Is the Left 4 Dead singleplayer compromised by these online features?
It must be that MS evangelizes online features better or makes developers of games it publishes or pays for exclusivity (whatever the arrangement MS has for Left 4 Dead) on games which must have online modes.
Is the Left 4 Dead singleplayer compromised by these online features?
From what I hear, there is little point in playing L4D in singleplayer. There isn't even a proper story presentation, there are basically only just 4 campaigns. This game has really been created for co-op play.
I'm not even sure Valve has an arrangement with MS for this game. They never were very keen on developing for the PS3 ... Remember that comment made by Valve's president about the PS3? Also, Orange Box was converted by EA, not by Valve. If Left 4 Dead makes it onto PS3, it's very likely to be through a similar arrangement, and not likely to happen unless L4D is successful and considered appropriate for the PS3 market.
It has very little to do with MS in this case, more in that many of the software coming to the 360 has a PC origin where online features have taken center-piece long before that happened on the consoles. Sony has groundbreaking online features (for instance the 60 player Resistance 2 online competitive modes, the 8 player coop modes, etc.) and excellent server-side support for its titles (GT5P, Warhawk, Resistance all have server supported online rather than p2p which is much more common in even flagship online titles like Gears, Halo, Forza, PGR4, etc.) and Warhawk is an online only game that's still being supported with new features.
I wouldn't exactly say that they have groundbreaking online features. Nothing that hasn't been seen before, maybe no other console game has 60player multiplayer, but its not like its something groundbreaking. We have seen it before, battlefield players have played with64 players for years. MMO players have played with god knows how many players for years.
Its not like there hasn't been games out before R2 with 60 player multiplayer, the 8 player coop mode is not something new either.
GR:AW features 16 player coop (and you can have 4 local players on split screen if you want, along with 12 other players).
They have had more serverside support than xbox games. And that is a big plus to sony in my book, p2p SUCKS!!! in comparison.
How'd we get from GoW3 to L4D and other totally different games?
- Status
