Submitted by Dee_Cazo 428d 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  +   428d ago
As long as mulitiplayer doesn't make the game cost more I dont care really. The more features the better imo.
Dno  +   428d ago
you are the smartest person on N4G
MikeMyers  +   428d 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  +   428d 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  +   428d 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 428d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Jek_Porkins  +   428d 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  +   428d 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  +   428d 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  +   428d 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
New stories

Weighing in on Ground Zeroes [Industry Attack]

22m ago - Paddybass writes: There has never been a better time to be an indie developer. Between Kickstarte... | PC

Cloudbuilt Review - 42 Level One

22m ago - Fraser from 42 Level One reviews Cloudbuilt. | PC

GameSkinny @ PAX East 2014: Hands-On Preview of Wolfenstein: The New Order

25m ago - "We're gonna be doin' one thing, and one thing only...killin' Nazis." | PC

Severed: Old School Influences in a New Generation | Hardcore Gamer

29m ago - HG: The Toronto-based studio that has brought us award winning titles such as Guacamelee! and Tal... | iPhone

Enter to Win a PS4 and More!

Now - We are buying one lucky N4Ger a PS4 just for commenting on any N4G story! | Promoted post

Hands-on with Galak-Z | Hardcore Gamer

1h ago - Galak-Z had a nicely busy booth on the PAX East show floor, but thankfully not too busy to get a... | PC
Related content from friends