Just Cause 2 dev "bemoans" crap dlc, forced multiplayer.

First I'd like to apologize for making threads about this issue, but I have been seeing more and more devs say what we have been saying for a while in regards to dlc and mp. It annoys me so I like to talk about it.

Maybe they are starting to see the error of their ways.

Anyway, this article is about shoehorned mp and crap dlc.

So if you read the short article, let us know if you agree or not.


Here is a small part of the article;

"The big thing now is to force multiplayer into games that are really single-player games just to combat second hand sales and that makes absolutely no sense as it just consumes budget and does not add any value except on the back of the box," he said. "Proper DLC that adds value is great but so far very few games have motivated me to actually pay for the DLC. I've just paid for the crap that developers decided to cut because they didn't have the time to get into the game."


 

Discussion Info


Last updated July 4, 2018 Views 10 Applies to:

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

[quote user="Burst Axe"]

A proper multiplayer addition to single player games is fine. RE5 vs mode was completely stupid because the games controls didn't complement a mode like that. Mercenaries mode was cool. Dead Space 2 was an awesome game but PvP was also a stupid addition. Regular Co-op in Dead Space 3 is fine. The 4-player horde mode in Mass Effect 3 is also a great addition to a single player game so they are not all bad.

-

The thing a lot of gamers don't understand is your word isn't absolute no matter how many people (Other gamers or Developers) agree with you. Someone can easily think the opposite of what I posted above and be just as correct as me. Every person wants what they want out of a game. Now something's people just aren't realistic about, like a good or even decent story mode in a fighting game.

[/quote]

Yeah, i agree with your first statement.  Resident Evil, Dead Space & Mass Effect fit better with a Co-op mode over a competitive mode. 

But of course there are gamers out there who despise the idea & could go as far as to say that it takes away from their single player experience with no basis other than pure paranoia.

As for a story mode in fighting games, there is one game out that has a fun & entertaining story mode, Mortal Kombat (reboot).  But that's about it.

[quote user="Pyramid Head15"]

 Funny enough, I did.  It was the multiplayer in Chaos Theory. Never in a million years could I perceive that they can do deep and meticulous stealth in a co-operative/competitive sense. Then, Ubisoft ruined. The Xbox 360 version of Double Agent's co-op was horrendous. If I wanted to play against Versus bots, then I would that.  I was able to alleviate this concern by playing the original Xbox version of Double Agent, but that wouldn't be till years later. So my last saving graces was the Solo and Spy Vs. Merc. Ubisoft Shanghai makes bad single-player campaigns. And Spy vs Merc? They dumbed it down because it wasn't accessible enough. The nuances and complexity that made it great were gone. It was still too difficult I guess because it never caught on and Ubisoft alienated the old fans. Now, we have Splinter Cell Conviction, and I'm left feeling dissatisfied and disappointed that they took a step back for people who obviously don't appreciate the game for what it was.
 [/quote]

I didn't like SC DA's MP when it first came out, but then months later I played it with friends and it really is one of the best co-op experiences around for my personal experience. I gladly jump in and help friends if they need it.

a game like Singularity is a prime example of a game that kinda needed to have a mp option because it would help get the game out there in a sea of mp games.

thing is, i enjoyed the story but didnt play the mp for more than a few matches.  not because it was bad, but because i had no friends get the game and i rather play with friends over randoms.

My point was anyone can make a statement and it can sound all philosophical but doesn't make it 100% true.

-

You must be buying nothing but Premium Spectre Packs if you can't get a respec card or you just don't play enough.

^^ I totally agree about the forced mp. Dead Space 2 comes to mind. There was no need for it other than to charge for an online pass. DS 2 mp was woeful.

E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!

just cause 2 is free for PSN+ members, I didn't feel like the DLC they had was worth the money though, but there were some free dlc's on there.. the game is pretty nice tbh. not as good as mercenaries but very close.

[quote user="Pyramid Head15"]

[quote user="Burst Axe"]

Still the same things mentioned in that article can be accomplished in both games. It's called a cooperative experience. One game may be better than the other but that's entirely opinionated and I won't venture into that argument with you.

[/quote] Resident Evil 5 is a simple and shallow experience. Most Multiplayer games are simple and shallow. Journey, Demon/Dark Souls, even Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory prove that you can create co-op experiences that are not shallow and devoid of meaning. The problem is the market, whether by publisher or the consumer, want accessible, instant gratifying game-play where scoreboards and medals/achievements peppering the screen on a consistent basis. I read Brave New World. It's disturbing.

[/quote]RE 5 would be exactly the same without co-op. Co-op has nothing to do with how shallow you find the story. That's fault of the story, not the co-op mode which is an extra, but does not in any way alter the story.

[quote user="Pyramid Head15"]

[quote user="CollapseControl"]

But of course there are gamers out there who despise the idea & could go as far as to say that it takes away from their single player experience with no basis other than pure paranoia.

[/quote]"We opted from the beginning to make a single-player game. Adding multiplayer would have meant limits on what we could achieve. I personally – not the company – think single-player games are great fun and there is an audience for that. A game can be good without multiplayer support."
http://kotaku.com/5503474/just-cause-2-wont-have-multiplayer-just-cause


"The reason Booker and Elizabeth are united so early is that their developing bond plays a major role in the action, from a gameplay perspective as well as a narrative one."

“You develop this relationship and learn about her, and you’re both learning about the city together,” Levine says.

"The bond between Booker and Elizabeth is a crucial component of the story and gameplay in BioShock Infinite"

"...But you’re developing a relationship. You’re trying to save her, and eventually, she’s trying to save you.”
Gamers have plenty of reason to worry about MP intrusion, and Devlopers make these single-player games for specific reasons. There are plenty of games that accomade MP quite well, and there is no reason  to try and force MP into every game. And I can certainly find more information to facilitate this.




[/quote]

U keep bringing up Bioshock everytime. how about something else for a change?

u need to stop being so upset over others opinions, after all im not making the title.

levine is a respected dev and he knows what he is doing and will most likely do it right.

for the record, i only played bioshock & not part 2. i had no interest in the story and even less interest in the MP.

but there are plenty of games that can and will add multiplayer features to games.

some succeed and others fail, itll happen.

im more for the coop aspect which adds another game dynamic over just versus mode with kill.die.spawn.

i think skyrim is awesome but i know id get more varied fun out of it if it were coop.

i am not saying it needs it or anything, but i wouldnt deny it.

at this point in time there are tons of games id love to play day 1 but there is no rush since it has no coop features to quickly draw my friends and myself in.

there is nothing wrong with the games but i can easily wait it out until i find a reasonable time to play them.

games like darksiders 2 & sleeping dogs, gonna be fun single player but id be more inclined to purchase if there was more to it.

the only single player game i may buy day 1 is dishonored.

[quote user="Pyramid Head15"]

[quote user="Tatakai no Kami"]

[quote user="Pyramid Head15"]

 Funny enough, I did.  It was the multiplayer in Chaos Theory. Never in a million years could I perceive that they can do deep and meticulous stealth in a co-operative/competitive sense. Then, Ubisoft ruined. The Xbox 360 version of Double Agent's co-op was horrendous. If I wanted to play against Versus bots, then I would that.  I was able to alleviate this concern by playing the original Xbox version of Double Agent, but that wouldn't be till years later. So my last saving graces was the Solo and Spy Vs. Merc. Ubisoft Shanghai makes bad single-player campaigns. And Spy vs Merc? They dumbed it down because it wasn't accessible enough. The nuances and complexity that made it great were gone. It was still too difficult I guess because it never caught on and Ubisoft alienated the old fans. Now, we have Splinter Cell Conviction, and I'm left feeling dissatisfied and disappointed that they took a step back for people who obviously don't appreciate the game for what it was.
 [/quote]

I didn't like SC DA's MP when it first came out, but then months later I played it with friends and it really is one of the best co-op experiences around for my personal experience. I gladly jump in and help friends if they need it.

[/quote] The 360 version? 

[/quote] Yep, the 360 version.

A proper multiplayer addition to single player games is fine. RE5 vs mode was completely stupid because the games controls didn't complement a mode like that. Mercenaries mode was cool. Dead Space 2 was an awesome game but PvP was also a stupid addition. Regular Co-op in Dead Space 3 is fine. The 4-player horde mode in Mass Effect 3 is also a great addition to a single player game so they are not all bad.

-

The thing a lot of gamers don't understand is your word isn't absolute no matter how many people (Other gamers or Developers) agree with you. Someone can easily think the opposite of what I posted above and be just as correct as me. Every person wants what they want out of a game. Now something's people just aren't realistic about, like a good or even decent story mode in a fighting game.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.

* Please try a lower page number.

* Please enter only numbers.