Top
160°

Why It’s Time More Games Ditched Multiplayer

Sick of tagged-on deathmatch modes and miserly, uninspired single-player campaigns, Mark Butler applauds the announcement that The Order: 1886 will be multiplayer-free – and argues that more mainstream releases should follow its example.

Read Full Story >>
wow247.co.uk
The story is too old to be commented.
oODEADPOOLOo1401d ago (Edited 1401d ago )

I agree with the point of the article just not with the particular game he choose to make his point on. Man I was hoping this game would have co-op so bad that now im just uninterested. If this game was focused on a single main character I would have been fine with no anytype of multiplayer to focus on SP, but the squad aspect was too much of a tease and now I just get annoyed whenever I see this game mentioned.

shodan741401d ago

My main bugbear is tagged-on competitive multiplayer. I'm actually a lot more agreeable to the optional co-op aspect, to be fair. If it's implemented well, it can be terrific - and actually add to a campaign experience.

That said, if the co-op actively denigrates the campaign, as with Resident Evil 5, then I'm definitely opposed!

oODEADPOOLOo1401d ago (Edited 1401d ago )

True, I remember playing Resistance:FOM and enjoyed the co-op. Overall even though the game didnt do that well, it had a really good story and had great atmosphere. It also managed to do a decent job at multiplayer, still with some problems, but it was fun. As long as its a well done complement I didn't see a reason not to include it for this type of game.

PsylentKiller1401d ago

I agree, competitive mp being tagged on is a bad idea if it wasn't part of the initial design. I think a lot of debs just want a piece of the pie that Activision almost has full control over.
Co-op if done right is great but often has a high risk factor in spoiling the main story of the game. It's difficult to play through a full co-op campaign without spoiling the story for someone or them spoiling it for you.
Games like Borderlands have demonstrated how to do co-op the right way. Left 4 Dead is another great example of co-op.
I think the the debs of The Order: 1866 were afraid that the addition of co-op would ruin the suspense. Separate co-op missions may have worked but they probably didn't want to detract from the main story.

MrSwankSinatra1401d ago (Edited 1401d ago )

Co-Op is not in the developers vision so why shoe-horn something that was never meant to be in the game in the first place? the story is the main focus of this game in which co-op actually takes more focus away from the story. i'd rather have actual co-operative experience that was built from the ground up like boderlands from the get go gearbox wanted co-op to be in the game and now it's one one of the best co-operative experiences you can get.

oODEADPOOLOo1401d ago (Edited 1401d ago )

Why make a squad based game and miss the opportunity to add coop? Its a double edged sword. While I respect the dev for having a vision, it just ended up disappointing me as I was looking at that aspect heavily to add replayability and added value. And im pretty sure im not alone on that.

Veneno1401d ago

Sorry Gamedog but you're wrong on this one. Co-op would ruin the AAA experience set forth by this game. Let me explain.

If you've ever played Uncharted single player and then the online co-op multiplayer, you'll notice there's a huge difference. Same with the last of us online. You can really insert any AAA game that has a cinematic focus here.

what happens is that you cannot recreate the amazing single player experience with online coop because you have to make sacrifices. The game would take a hit graphically. The top quality animations take a hit and become canned animations. The shooting mechanics also take a hit as the enemies turn into bullet sponges and don't react as realistically.

There are some games that are identical online and offline, but they have made the sacrifice of making each experience run on the same engine therefore cutting down on the potential for a truly amazing single player experience.

Also, story elements get sacrificed. Imagine if Last of US was co-op. It would change the entire narrative of a perfect single player experience. It would NOT be the same.

So I would trust REady at Dawn with their decision. They are smart enough to know that co-op would destroy the vision they have for this game.

assdan1401d ago

I was really hoping this game would have coop. Not all games need multiplayer, but I also get pissed when people say "good" when a game has no mp.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1401d ago
dcj05241401d ago

We should just ditch anything that takes away from the main experience. Battlefield needa to drop single player and Tomb Raider 2 shouldn't have multiplayer. Co-op still would've been dope for the order.

UltraNova1401d ago (Edited 1401d ago )

Something tells me after Titanfall both COD and Battlefield will be multiplayer only.

Only Destiny will be left with both single and multip because it needs to introduce us into their new universe. Doing that requires you to tell a story, alas the mandatory single player campaign. Plus, Bungie loves them a good sci fi story!

On topic, I prefer single vs multi any time.

Look at GOW Ascension... As I was playing it I was cursing its multiplayer and the lack of focus in the story and play time of its single player campaign, a defining aspect of GOW.

Nero13141401d ago

Time to start renting games to I guess

SpiralTear1401d ago

If a multiplayer mode really sucks, then you're not gonna play it, so there's no replay value anyway.

HighResHero1401d ago (Edited 1401d ago )

Last gen was nearly ruined by copycats, hand-holding, "mass-market" appeal, and imo excessive health regeneration (haha).
Maybe it's time we take a step back and give talented devs the freedom to create games that many of us want.
If you don't like it buy a different game. Crazy right?
This doesn't mean multi-player is going away Dante.
Also isn't DmC or whatever single player?

sashimi1401d ago

Tomb Raider's MP really gave it replay value pfff bahahaha.

SpiralTear1401d ago

The resources that are used for a tacked-on multiplayer mode could be used for something more important, like fixing bugs, adding new quests or fixing up the aesthetics. If the multiplayer is that much of an afterthought, like it was in Tomb Raider, don't include a multiplayer mode at all.

Show all comments (31)
The story is too old to be commented.