Simon looks at the recent announcement of Tomb Raider's multiplayer and says why games which are renowned for single player shouldn't give into multiplayer.
Multi player is a necessary evil these days with all the kids screaming "I won't pay $60 for a 10 hour game with no multi player". That puts devs in a position were they HAVE to put in multi player. I'd rather pay $60 for a great 10 hour game than an open world repetitive game that is just go to point A and kill this person and come back to point B and I'll give you money missions over and over and over again.
i dont pay $60 for a 10 hour game. multiplayer doesnt make me reconsider my option neither. i personally think $60 is too much of an asking price for a 10 hour game, and multiplayer doesnt make me reconsider since most multiplayers seem forced. ill be honest, if games cost $40 ill be willing to spend my money on it if its 10 hours. if the game is $30 chances are ill even impulse buy the game. but $60? your game better be near perfection for that price. (hint: not many games fall under near perfection) but thats just my 2 cents. you see anarchy regain? im really really interested in it because it looks cool and its only $30. now lets say that same game was $60 and had "super realistic graphics" i wouldnt give it the time of day until it gets a price drop. its all about the price for me.
Why are so many games $60 to begin with? A game like Starhawk might have been far more successful if they priced it maybe $40 for online only. How much is Call of Duty worth just for the single player experience? There are so many issues at stake that nobody really wants to deal with. Why don't the platform holders offer a rental service for example? What they seem to be doing now with online passes and adding DLC and online multiplayer is trying to keep the consumer interest and stay with that product longer. Gamers have changed and probably play more games now per year than ever. So they cycle through them but by offering online play they stick around longer and feel like they are getting more value. You can have a great single player experience but if it's only 8-10 hours long some see the $60 price out of reach. When you compare how many hours they spend on a game like Call of Duty then that $60 price seems way more reasonable.
Yeah, and sometimes even platform holder can 'suggest' to add multiplayer to the game or else.
I would rather get both in one package since there are enough games out there that offer both. And with a very good single player campaign I can overlook a lame MP and judge the game as if it were a SP game.
just think of how much better that single player campaign would be if they hadn't siphoned resources away to produce a mediocre multiplayer component. there are ways of adding replay value to single player game without resorting to tacking on multiplayer.
"just think of how much better that single player campaign would be if they hadn't siphoned resources away to produce a mediocre multiplayer component." I always hear this argument, but it still doesn't really make sense for most SP games that tack on multiplayer, considering most developers put different teams on both single player and multiplayer. You might say "oh, well both teams could work on sp", but the thing is, chances are high that the team they hired for mp, are ONLY good at multiplayer, people who have never done a single player game in their life (or have never done a good one). Then you say "it would be so much better". Really? I highly doubt it. It might be a little bit longer by about 4 or 5 hours, but honestly it's probably just going to be the same repetitive 5 hours over and over again. I hear people using Bioshock 2 as an example. Bioshock 2 was great, but nowhere near as amazing as the first. Bioshock 2 sp didn't fail to meet expectations because there wasn't a highly lengthy campaign, it failed to meet expectations because it wasn't as good as the first Bioshock. Adding 4 or 5 more hours of killing splicers/big sisters, and item fetching wouldn't have made it MUCH better, it would have just made it longer, and a little bit better. If you look at a game that tacked on mp (that used a single studio and didn't outsource the mp)and look at the sp and forget for a second that the mp even existed, if it's an amazing game, then yeah, you can probably make the case that the game suffered because of the multiplayer. But if you look at the game as if the mp never existed and it's not amazing, then chances are very high that the game wouldn't have been significantly better without mp, it would have just been a longer version of the same average quality game. I do want devs to stop "tacking it on" if what they're tacking on is just going to be average, but if they put a lot of effort into it, I'm all for adding mp to a lot of games. I'm glad Mass Effect 3 added mp, because they did it right, they made it amazing and addictive and extremely fun. I'm glad Uncharted 2 added multiplayer because that was really fun as well. I'm not glad that Dead Space 2 added mp, but the campaign didn't really suffer for it, so no harm no foul there. I'm not against devs adding mp, just as long as they do it right and put a lot of effort into making it good. If it's just some half assed attempt at checking off some box of features or trying to attract cod addicts, then I want none of it. Ken Levine at Irrational Games had the right approach. They actually had several working multiplayer modes, but he realized they didn't work/fit and weren't good enough to be in Infinite, so it was scrapped.
There are many games out there that have both online, but a spectacular single player offering. In fact, you could just get the game for the offline portion only, and still have a blast. These include Uncharted 2 and 3, Gears of war 1-3, Resistance 1-3.
Why is Tombraider taking so much flack for adding some MP that looks decent so far? Pretty much every game now a days has co-op or some form of MP.
i believe thats the problem, not every game needs MP, and tomb raider definitely didnt need it, especially since the multiplayer seems to be an uncharted clone. im sure the game will be awesome, but why add mp that no one asked for, especially if you're gonna play it safe and just make it a copy of uncharted's.
Funny, that's exactly what was said about UC's mp and now it's being "copied" by a series that perceded it.
Multiplayer adds replay value to a game. So as long it doesnt damage the single player experience I'm all for it. Just look at uncharted 2.
I can't help but laugh at the kids who say that Tomb Raider is a copy of Uncharted.. So retarded
Both of them are heavily influenced by Indiana Jones. Anyone you played the original Tomb Raider games knows that the only similarity it has to uncharted is the theme.
* Looks at Tomb Raider *
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.