Stupid multiplayer is ruining games.

Dog--

The Freeman
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
9,741
Reaction score
25
Every game now-a-days is getting completely ruined by multiplayer..

They are tailoring almost every single game made towards multiplayer, pretty much every new game I've rented got beat by me within atleast 10 hours.

For example: Army of Two

THIS GAME WAS MADE FOR COOP WHY THE F*CK IS IT ONLY LIKE 6 HOURS LONG?!

My brother, who never plays video games, beat this game with me.

example two: Turok

THIS GAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN VERY LONG. PERIOD. WHERE THE HELL IS MY CEREBRAL BORE?

example three: Call of Duty 4

I haven't actually played this, but my NON-GAMER friend said he beat it very fast, and I've heard it's short anyways. He also said single player is more fun then multiplayer.


It's starting to piss me off.. I can understand some games they make purely for multiplayer, it's always good to have those, like Battlefield games, but why the hell do they even bother with single player if they make it less then atleast 10 hours. I buy a game to play it, not play it for a few hours, then get done with it because I beat it 8 times..

Why don't they just have two development teams, one for multiplayer and one for single player, it's not like they still won't make a profit.. They make mad cash selling games..
 
Everything you tell a developer about their game(s) is ignored, to be honest.

I can only think of very few rare cases where the devs actually listen to their fan-base, but even then, it's usually just little things alot of people complain about, or probably just the difficulty.. (gamer: It's too hard! dev: ok let me fix.. Now you kill everything in one hit gamer: more fun!)
 
I don't think you could very well make a good single player game out of TF2.

That's what Episode 2 is for!
 
Everything you tell a developer about their game(s) is ignored, to be honest.

I can only think of very few rare cases where the devs actually listen to their fan-base, but even then, it's usually just little things alot of people complain about, or probably just the difficulty.. (gamer: It's too hard! dev: ok let me fix.. Now you kill everything in one hit gamer: more fun!)

If every dev listened to what every gamer in their fan base wanted how would they ever actually get anything done? Its good having advice and getting feedback, but from an artistic point of view should say an artist be constantly relying on want everyone else wants to see rather than what THEY want to create? TF2 is a perfect example of that, completely unexpected and everyone would have laughed at it had the concept been showed off to the public earlier, but hey it worked didn't it?

Anyways regarding the OP, how is this a new problem? I remember playing the original resident evil games and beating them in little over an hour or so to get the best ending. Personally I prefer shorter games because I can't dedicate my life to a massive 40 hour adventure anymore, plus I'm tired of all the filler and bullsh*t that usually comes in those types of games. RPG games, for example, could probably be cut down by dozens of hours if it wasnt for the need to grind all the f*cking time. Seriously its getting old.
 
Call of Duty 4 Multiplayer is the soul of the game. I'm not seeing the problem. It has yet to get boring for me.
 
Singleplayer games take skill to make, so when a developer isnt good at making decent games, multiplayer makes more money. You can make a shitty multiplayer game, and it will still outsell a good singleplayer game.
 
COD4 was great, its length was perfect and I'm a whore for long games. So me saying what i am, i must mean it!
 
Call of Duty 4 was fine, I agree with Asuka that the length was perfect.
I couldn't see myself playing the SP much longer if it had another few hours worth of gameplay.

The multiplayer is simply unmatched atm, I've been having a blast with it and once mods/more unlockables and bigger maps find their way to the game, it'll be excellent.
 
Call of Duty 4's SP was one of, if not, the best SP experiance of all the CoD games, despite being the shortest. The multiplayer is amazing though and I still play it for a few hours a day or play at least one scrim a day on it with my clan.
 
Games in general are declining in quality these days. They're either mindless shoot-em-ups or cliche RPG's.
 
Multiplayer sucks, why would I want to play with others and allow them to ruin my game, if I can play in my own world?
 
Pirated versions of multiplayer games are harder to play online then single player. So more people will
buy your game, especially if you have a subscription model.

Second, the amount time you have to spend on making a sp game last 50 hours is much more compared
to the time you have to spend making a multiplayer game last that long. For some slower paced games
thats not a problem but for arcade shooters a team of 50+ will spend 3 years on a quality 12 hour sp
game, while they could make a multiplayer game that would last 50 or 100 hours or more.

And a lot of people will not buy games that will last them less then 20 hours, so games with good
multiplayer sell the most usually.

When it comes to length I look at it more in terms of content then time wise, and in that sense games like
cod4 or god of war, are games with one of the lengthiest campaigns I have ever player. Yes I may finish it
in 10 hours, but there is something cool happening every 30 seconds, while in other games it's more like
every 20 minutes. How much I experience, and how exiting or original it is, matters a lot
more then how long the experience lasts.
 
They make mad cash selling games..

Uh, no they don't.

Namco Bandai Holdings Inc. president Takeo Takasu has said in an interview that PS3 games must be a mass-market success. Games for the next-generation console cost an average of $8.6 million to create, according to Takasu, and need to sell 500,000 units before the developer can turn a profit.

Not many games sell half a million.
Infogrames haven't turned a yearly profit since 1999
 
Back
Top