Crackdown 3 Dev Explains Why Cloud Based Destruction Won't Be Present In Single Player

Not everyone is "always online" and heroes are not meant to destroy cities.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
SaveFerris1167d ago

Maybe not for this game, but future single player titles could use the tech. I can't wait to see what developers can do with this.

gameseveryday1167d ago

Absolutely. Just imagine Red Faction...if that was possible on last gen tech, I cant wait to see developers harness the full potential of cloud in the coming years.

christocolus1167d ago

His reply does make a lot of sense

1. not everyone is online

2. As the Hero your job is to protect the city, not destroy it.

Well said. and how would we get the orbs if the city was 100% destructible?

Looking forward to Crackdown 3.I'm happy David Jones is back.

Volkama1166d ago (Edited 1166d ago )

Nah that good guys don't destroy cities line is pure PR bull. The game could feature massive destruction physics without encouraging the player to destroy everything. Could be part of a running comedy skit as the agency struggle to pay out for your damages to the city, and you could get additional rewards for playing missions out responsibly. Or you could have fun wreaking the city.

There is no way in a million years that cutting off cloud compute is making the game better. It is a purely commercial decision. I'm not saying it is necessarily a bad decision, just calling it out for what it is.

freshslicepizza1166d ago

ask yourself this, how many here would complain big time if the game required an online connection? that is the only way they could get that kind of destruction by using the power of the cloud. the way they are doing this is much better.

Volkama1166d ago

@moldybread that's one factor in a commercial decision, yes.

As I say, I'm not disputing the decision. I just don't accept the PR reasoning that "We chose not to use 20x more compute resource because the campaign is better without it".

freshslicepizza1166d ago

"As I say, I'm not disputing the decision. I just don't accept the PR reasoning that "We chose not to use 20x more compute resource because the campaign is better without it".

agreed. imagine a gang of really bad guys with very powerful weapons who are intent on blowing up the city and it's your job to stop them. i think they made a conscious decision during development that they could not have as much destruction as they would like due to the limitations of the hardware so they tailored the games campaign around that.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1166d ago
donthate1167d ago

I think unfortunately like the original always-on policies, the naysayers and people without internet will hold you back.

People screamed really loud last time this was tried so I don't think it will happen. Believe me, I want it to happen!

RzaDaRazor1167d ago

There's many "always online" games. This would be no different.

user99502791167d ago

As much as we all know they'd like to, that vocal minority cant stop online gaming. The demand is too great.

Yetter1167d ago

somebody just has to do it and the sales will shut up the naysayers. Seriously, who doesn't have the internet?

dcbronco1167d ago

Hate there is no way anyone should be letting a relative handful of whiners stop anything from moving forward. Many people didn't have broadband when Live launched. Sometimes business has to take a"If you build it they will come" approach. This is one of those cases. Also given that the vast majority of the whining was from people who will never buy your product anyway because of biased idiocy you have to ignore them and push ahead. The Crackdown footage has made that clear. Now they only talk about their consoles ability to do it and quietly disagree with every favorable comment about Microsoft. No one should give people that pathetic a second thought.

AngelicIceDiamond1167d ago

How is that Bungie, Bethesda and numerous online games across X1 and PS4 can get away with always online but MS can't?

Yeah the reveal 2 years ago ok well its not DRM its a game that's always online.

This would be no different than the rest.

DevilOgreFish1167d ago

I think they seem to be also concerned with how destructible environments would change the single player story. If you read further on they say -

"It’s too fundamental of a game design change to make it an option. It changes literally everything.”

I mean theoretically if you could blowup everything, where would your objectives come from? you may even ruin certain objectives for yourself. apposed to multiplayer where none of that really matters.

they would need to work around scripted events and places you need to stay around for story. they may decide to bring it to single player with necessary changes down the road.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1167d ago
Aenea1166d ago

Hmm, not so sure, I don't mind always online games myself (unless there's an outage then I curse them! :)), but EA is getting a lot of flak for the new NFS's need to be always online. People don't even want to buy it because of it, so I can fully understand they are hesitant to use this tech in singleplayer mode as well...

medman1166d ago

The simple fact is it won't be in single player because the environment is too big...much easier to make it possible in a limited multiplayer map than in an entire gaming world. It's the same reason Uncharted single player is 30 fps and they're targeting 60 fps for the multiplayer.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1166d ago
1167d ago Replies(1)
KionicWarlord2221167d ago (Edited 1167d ago )

Understandable for single player because agents are suppose to save the city.

But the hype is real.

Crackdown 3 release will be a cultural shock on the gaming.

I cant wait for jumping through windows chasing down enemies or players taking down buildings. Shooting gas pipes in buildings to push the debris on enemies.

Its gonna be a thrill. Get on the train.

Skills for KILLS agent!

spicelicka1167d ago

Shai jen's enigmatic wang!

KionicWarlord2221167d ago

HA! Probably wont see the Shai Gen this time in Crackdown 3 because its a new city though.

It would be nice to see another type of triads style type of boss and enemies.

gangsta_red1167d ago

I can understand why in SP just because of the gameplay in past Crackdowns. Killing innocents aggro'd the city police just like in GTA games. I can only imagine if you blew up a bridge filled with pedestrians that then fell on a crowd of other pedestrians below would do.

Not to mention leveling the city would just break the game.

AngelicIceDiamond1167d ago

Yeah the team is still trying to sell us a single player game. If the single player has story progression I might jump in that for a bit but I know the real fun is in MP.

But like I said before I'm sure MS wants to get this game into many hands as possible. They're still trying to sell a AAA game not a destruction simulator. So a full blow SP is needed in that case.

skydragoonityx1167d ago

I can only look up to the clouds.

medman1166d ago

I hate to break it to you, but those clouds are full of shite. Don't step in it. You've been fooled before.

Show all comments (45)
The story is too old to be commented.