60°
Submitted by Dee_Cazo 672d ago | article

Tomb Raider Reboot: Why Multiplayer?

VGR: In all of our previous twelve adventures with Lara – we have been alone. We fought with her to survive the deadly traps, unknown environments, fierce beasts and ruthless mercenaries to find our way to the prize at the end.

However, when Crystal Dynamics took over the franchise, they added this new mode to Guardians. Did they ever ask the gamers if they wanted it? (PC, PS3, Tomb Raider, Xbox 360)

Kingthrash360  +   672d ago
As long as mulitiplayer doesn't make the game cost more I dont care really. The more features the better imo.
Dno  +   672d ago
you are the smartest person on N4G
MikeMyers  +   672d ago
This is the way things are now, to add some sort of online features to keep the consumer playing. I don't mind multiplayer as long as the single player experience doesn't suffer. Uncharted 2 was a great example of improving on the original while adding online.
Jek_Porkins  +   672d ago
Multiplayer is just something that pretty much every game is going to have. I know people who will only buy a game if it has an online component and with games costing $60, people want to feel like they are getting the most for their money.

I think too many people have been burned by the 4-6 hour campaign and no online, so they are actually looking for more value, even if it's just tacked on.

As long as it doesn't cost development time on the campaigns, I don't care, I'll probably ignore it like the others.
Donnieboi  +   672d ago
I clicked agree on your comment, but i'm curious:

Why ignore it? Won't you at least give it a couple of chances? Why be so close-minded? I used to be the same. I hated online only because I valued story more. I am a BIG RPG/JRPG fan who saw no value in competing with others. UNTIL I played Metal Gear Online (MGO). It showed me that although playing online provided no story, I had FUN, and have stories to tell with friends I made online (even though MGO got shut down by Kojima in June 2011 -_-). So, even though I still love STORY more, I would never be as closed minded as to ignore the multiplayer. I'd still learn how to play, before giving up on it based on the first initial try. Keep an open mind. If Tomb Raider's campaign were as big as Skyrim, then the $60 more than pays for itself. But since it's such a survival story/drama driven game, I doubt the writers will drag the story on for longer than 6-10 hours (sadly). So, for $60, I sure as hell wanna squeeze every last drop out of that game.

But maybe in the future (if the MP sucks), Eidos can just add scenario/event/map editors for online play in co-op or single player user generated content (Instead of another tacked-on multiplayer (once again assuming it sucked in the first game)). But I still want SOMETHING that will make the game last longer than one week (of it's $60).
#2.1 (Edited 672d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Jek_Porkins  +   672d ago
Well I personally play online games with thriving communities, which is anything over 50k in my opinion. So I stick to the Gears Of War, COD's, Halo, Battlefield type of online games.

I tried some of the lesser online games like Assassins Creed and Mass Effect, but the community is never large and never sticks around for very long. Even though a lot of people around here hate COD, one of the reasons I enjoy it is that I know that game will have a thriving online community for the whole year, most other games cant really say that.

I never signed up for MGO because you needed to create an entire new ID in addition to the PlayStation Network ID.
papashango  +   672d ago
Multiplayer is a huge risk nowadays. You can have a great singleplayer game but if your multiplayer side feels generic it will cost devs a lower metacritic average.

Publishers and developers are in the same mindset they were in a few years back. That multiplayer automatically means more money. but with gamers and reviewers becoming more jaded with each generic multiplayer release. It's gonna end up biting them in the ass.
KwietStorm  +   672d ago
I watched a developer multiplayer match a couple months ago, and I wasn't even slightly impressed. It looked entirely like Uncharted, but with noticeable design issues.
XishikiX  +   672d ago
Well Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light had Multiplayer and was awesome!

It's a shame they couldn't have done something like that. Maybe it will still be cool. But the fact that Crystal Dynamics didn't even work and Eidos Montreal did doesn't really make me think the single player is going to be compromised.

That said, I don't know if the game is going to be good or not.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
40°

2014 Predictions Recap (Hint: It Doesn't Go Well)

25m ago - Traditionally the end of the year is a time for looking back at the year that’s been and reflecti... | PC
30°

Gamer Assault Weekly's Games of the Year

49m ago - This year was a bit of a bumpy ride for gaming but at the end we had some really great titles. Th... | Culture
40°

This War of Mine Review {Critically Sane}

53m ago - Critically Sane: "When video games are content to provide us with overblown power fantasies about... | PC
30°

Battlefield 4 CTE Christmas Update – Play as Santa, Snowman, Elf or Reindeer

55m ago - The Christmas patch is now available for Battlefield 4 CTE. Lots of new Christmas easter eggs and... | PC
Ad

Win a PS4!!

Now - Join us on Filmwatch to find out how you can win a free PS4 this holiday season! | Promoted post
40°

Assassin's Creed Unity PC Patch Worsens Glitches

58m ago - Gameranx: "Assassin's Creed: Unity, I fear there may never be a day when I write about you withou... | PC