So everyone is raging over no Multiplayer in the Order

  • 124 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by The_Last_Ride (68548 posts) -

Video

Why is everyone so damn mad about this? I think it's good they don't shoehorn in some crappy multiplayer. It's not that impressive that it's 30 fps, but it doesn't really bother me tbh

#2 Edited by misterpmedia (3313 posts) -

No-one needs half arsed tacked on multiplayer that only a certain percentage of buyers will be able to play(Internet connections etc). Everyone can play single player, for how ever long they want and for as many times as they feel the need to, when ever they want.

#3 Posted by freedomfreak (37952 posts) -

The Order not having it doesn't bother me, although I'm always interested in how developers can potentially make an interesting, innovative multiplayer component.

It doesn't have to be a case of it "being shoehorned in" all the time.

#4 Posted by Krelian-co (9751 posts) -

I'd rather have a good single player game, there is veryfew multiplayer games i play, i usually don't spend much time with mp part of games other than "checking it"

#5 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (8196 posts) -

What ?

So what was up with those for characters in the trailer, are only one of them playable ?

#6 Edited by StrongBlackVine (8399 posts) -

I think they are missing out on a BIG opportunity by not having a co-op campaign and horde mode, the studio founder basically said they are focusing on making the best single player game possible. This is REady At Dawn's first home console game and maybe they don't want spread themselves too thin. If the AI companions are as well programmed as Naughty Dog's then I think it work out. 3 constant AI companions is a bit weird though.

#7 Posted by sts106mat (18699 posts) -

oh no speakers on my work PC. might have to listen to this cow meltdown another time, should be funny .

#8 Posted by speedfog (2812 posts) -

It's the first gen that Playstation users have to pay for online multiplayer.

That's one thing plusss in these times having no multiplayer is bad. Most people play the main story out and then just leave the game and never play it ever again, or just play the multiplayer. (Ofcourse there are exceptions.)

Ohyea and asking 60 bucks for a single player only game is just a ripp-off.

#9 Edited by Opus_Rea-333 (882 posts) -

Very weird and confusing that most PS4 exclusives lack multiplayer yet you need to pay for PSN plus for the so called multiplayers games.

Cow milkage at best.

PS: I know some people love Single player focused games and thats fine.

#10 Posted by Doom_HellKnight (12182 posts) -

The lack of multiplayer is nothing but good news...

#11 Edited by AmazonAngry (546 posts) -

Really? Most of the comments I've read on other sites have showed relief that the campaign was the focus.

#12 Posted by metal_zombie (2284 posts) -

why so you can have empty lobbies mp is a waste of time for a game like this

#14 Edited by Trail_Mix (2021 posts) -

To be honest, high replay value or it's just rental fodder.

#15 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15611 posts) -

There are a number of ways for a SP game to have replay value besides multiplayer:

Have a botzone like those in Battlefield 2 (PC), KZ2, and KZ3.

Have a single battle skirmish mode (player vs computer) like in the Total War games, mamy RTS games, and most sports games.

In open-world games, have free explore. In the case of Far Cry 3, there's also the option to reset outposts. The latter has taken all my spare time to the detriment of all other games from 2013.

Customized missions like in many flight sims.

In-game game editor to create customized scenarios like the one in ARMA 2.

#16 Edited by Gargus (2147 posts) -

Video

Why is everyone so damn mad about this? I think it's good they don't shoehorn in some crappy multiplayer. It's not that impressive that it's 30 fps, but it doesn't really bother me tbh

No one is mad about. I haven't heard one single person yet complain about it till your thread. But then again you do tend to create threads with false information about how everyone is hating on this, or everyone is loving that to create a false sense of reality to try and swing people into whatever opinion you have. Youd make a great news caster by the way.

#17 Edited by Opus_Rea-333 (882 posts) -

As long they make a long lasting 10+ hours single player they can ditch the MP.

Replay Value (speak for itself) is what makes it worth the $60.

#18 Posted by jsmoke03 (12447 posts) -

only thing that matters to me that its not 60fps.

no mp is fine, co op would have been cool but in all honesty id rather this game have a good single player than a crap mp that i will never play

#19 Posted by ShepardCommandr (2054 posts) -

Are you kidding me? That's the best news i've heard about this game.

#20 Posted by PrincessGomez92 (3200 posts) -

Worst news ever. No multiplayer, no buy.

#21 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (5852 posts) -

I was really looking forward to playing TEH Order with the lovable old James.

James? Wait a second, I don't know no James..........................................Gone.

#22 Edited by Mystery_Writer (7849 posts) -

It appears, since the last 2 gens and evidently this one as well, PS platforms aren't as developer friendly as Microsoft's when it comes to online features / capabilities.

All the new trends in online console gaming usually appear first on XBL. Match making, co-op-drop-in & drop-out, horde mode, achievements, etc..

It seems as though XB APIs frees developers to focus more on creativity than low level pluming.

#23 Posted by Riverwolf007 (23362 posts) -

you have to admit that a shooter with no co-op or deathmatch or whatever is pretty strange.

that would immediately move this game from a "buy" to a "rent" for me because who wants to pay $60 for a short shooter type single player campaign.

multiplayer is shooter 101, how is it even possible it got out of the design stage with no mp plan???

#24 Posted by Nightflash28 (2045 posts) -

I don't even understand why Uncharted got a multiplayer mode, but whatever.
I'm glad it's SP only and that some devs realize that it absolutely not a necessity to stitch some sort of MP component to your games. I don't know how that silly expectation came to be, ut good that not everyone is embracing it.

#25 Edited by bezza2011 (2161 posts) -

because it's the only thing Lems have to go on for an argument at this time, no one cared for multiplayer on every game last gen, theres just not much to argue over so it's come to this lol

#23 Posted by Riverwolf007 (22921 posts) - 1 minute, 15 seconds ago

you have to admit that a shooter with no co-op or deathmatch or whatever is pretty strange.

that would immediately move this game from a "buy" to a "rent" for me because who wants to pay $60 for a short shooter type single player campaign.

multiplayer is shooter 101, how is it even possible it got out of the design stage with no mp plan???

This is probably the funniest thing i've read ever, multiplayer isn't a shooter 101 lol and how the hell is it strange a third person game with a story not having multiplayer where have you been for the last 3gens lol

Multiplayer games are best suited to

  • MMO
  • FPS
  • Racing
  • Fighting
  • Sports

not every third person adventure game needs a multiplayer

#26 Edited by Heil68 (42456 posts) -

Doesn't bother me. I'd rather have them focus energy on the SP campaign. Every game does not need MP.

#27 Posted by MBirdy88 (7023 posts) -

It amazes me how console peasants cry when they don't get 60FPS.... 60FPS is a luxury, not a requirement. with competitive genres being the exceptions (even then... 30FPS is far from a problem).

You seem to think because you have new machines even though they are budget old PC parts that you deserve 60 fps for £350? yea.... you do realize these new consoles have the EXACT same problem as every other console before them right? budget power.

You want great graphics? then your not getting 60 FPS. simple as. better get over it now.

#28 Edited by Puckhog04 (22577 posts) -

Again, I'd rather have a game locked at 30 FPS that looks GORGEOUS like The Order 1886 does than have a game that looks amazing and fluctuate frames a ridiculous amount (aka dip frames to where it's unplayable). And multiplayer? There's enough of it out there.

#29 Posted by Nengo_Flow (9191 posts) -

People where raging about no multiplayer? WHEN?

#30 Posted by Shewgenja (7741 posts) -

I'm pretty sure it was the XBox fanboys raging about MP not being in this game.

#31 Posted by R4gn4r0k (15860 posts) -

Really? Most of the comments I've read on other sites have showed relief that the campaign was the focus.

Same here. 'Everyone' is a gross overstatement.

I think it's safe to say that everyone wants to see some gameplay footage though :p

#32 Edited by Vatusus (4181 posts) -

I personally dont care about most MP on games but I'm sure reviews will take the games score down for not having it... stupid

#33 Edited by seanmcloughlin (38112 posts) -

"Everyone"? I haven't seen anyone on forums raging about no MP. In fact I've seen the exact opposite in abundance

Also that guy takes things WAY too seriously. "It hurts my heart".... dude it's a fucking videogame

#34 Edited by Vatusus (4181 posts) -

I personally dont care about most MP on games but I'm sure reviews will take the games score down for not having it... stupid

you have to admit that a shooter with no co-op or deathmatch or whatever is pretty strange.

that would immediately move this game from a "buy" to a "rent" for me because who wants to pay $60 for a short shooter type single player campaign.

multiplayer is shooter 101, how is it even possible it got out of the design stage with no mp plan???

Vanquish had no MP and its arguably the best TPS last gen when it comes to gameplay

#35 Edited by blackace (19553 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride: When the trailer for The Order 1886 was shown, you see several characters preparing to fight some demons. Automatically you would think this is a multiplayer game (i.e. Left 4 Dead). It just looks like a game you would play online with friends. The fact that there is no multiplayer at all is just confusing. What was shown doesn't seem to represent that this would be a single player game at all. What are the other characters in the game going to do? Will they be AI controlled? Interested to see more info on this game and how it will be played.

This video is hilarious. Guy wakes up and makes a butthurt video. Too funny. The damage control by Cow on this is also funny.

#36 Posted by Pikminmaniac (8525 posts) -

If people are mad about this it's probably because the reveal trailer heavily suggested that the game would have a focus on co-op.At least that's what I think

#37 Posted by j_assassin (878 posts) -

awww, I was looking forward to teabagging someone online, no teabagging no buy!

#38 Posted by Riverwolf007 (23362 posts) -

because it's the only thing Lems have to go on for an argument at this time, no one cared for multiplayer on every game last gen, theres just not much to argue over so it's come to this lol

#23 Posted by Riverwolf007 (22921 posts) - 1 minute, 15 seconds ago

you have to admit that a shooter with no co-op or deathmatch or whatever is pretty strange.

that would immediately move this game from a "buy" to a "rent" for me because who wants to pay $60 for a short shooter type single player campaign.

multiplayer is shooter 101, how is it even possible it got out of the design stage with no mp plan???

This is probably the funniest thing i've read ever, multiplayer isn't a shooter 101 lol and how the hell is it strange a third person game with a story not having multiplayer where have you been for the last 3gens lol

Multiplayer games are best suited to

  • MMO
  • FPS
  • Racing
  • Fighting
  • Sports

not every third person adventure game needs a multiplayer

golly! who would expect mp in a shooter! golly!

lulz, you dudes crack me up.

look man, i seriously don't care if it is in there or not all i am saying is this game goes from a buy to a rent because i'm not shelling out $60 for a 6 to 12 hour shooter campaign.

#39 Posted by Riverwolf007 (23362 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

I personally dont care about most MP on games but I'm sure reviews will take the games score down for not having it... stupid

@Riverwolf007 said:

you have to admit that a shooter with no co-op or deathmatch or whatever is pretty strange.

that would immediately move this game from a "buy" to a "rent" for me because who wants to pay $60 for a short shooter type single player campaign.

multiplayer is shooter 101, how is it even possible it got out of the design stage with no mp plan???

Vanquish had no MP and its arguably the best TPS last gen when it comes to gameplay

lulz, yeah rocket knees and talking mgs heads in a box made it the best tps last gen.

i am still stunned that you dudes as a whole were so into vanquish.

and yes i realize i'm prolly in the minority in thinking vanquish was not that great a game but i don't care.

i could not take it seriously at all.

#40 Edited by Tighaman (709 posts) -

I'm sorry but if it was just one guy in the SP I could understand no co op or multiplayer but DAMN ITS FOUR PEOPLE in SP you couldn't do online co op or horde multiplayer?

#41 Edited by LegatoSkyheart (24096 posts) -

Sony users butt hurt they can't have Gears of War.

#42 Edited by Justw8_N_C (85 posts) -

I'm sorry but if you're not buying a game because it doesn't have tacked on multiplayer...you're an idiot. I just want to know..what the fuck is an MP for this sort of game even going to look like? I can't see it.

#43 Edited by Telekill (4151 posts) -

I don't care about the 30fps as I just don't get the big issue behind it. That said, I am a bit saddened that they won't have coop. It seemed an ideal premise to capitalize on coop play with friends.

I'm sure the game will still be lots of fun though.

#44 Posted by HitmanActual (299 posts) -

People talk shit about no mp means no replay value yet most mp games are dead or at least on life support within a few weeks...and half of those players are only playing to get dumb ass trophies or the online would have been dead even earlier.

I no longer support games that add mp just for the sake of "cashing in" as all the DLC ends up being useless add on garbage for mp and nothing for the sp side which always seems to suffer one way or another.

#45 Posted by k2theswiss (16577 posts) -

same reason why everyone mad titanfall has no shit SP...

"OMG every fucking game MUST has SP and a MP because well that's normal even if suck"

#46 Posted by MlauTheDaft (2963 posts) -

MP is incredibly overrepresented in gaming as is, so I consider this great news.

#47 Posted by treedoor (7478 posts) -

No multiplayer? And they want to charge $60 for this?

lol

#48 Posted by mems_1224 (45629 posts) -

I dont mind that it doesnt have multiplayer but that pretty much guarantees that Im never going to buy it.

#49 Posted by Bigboi500 (28783 posts) -

Keeping costs down for a big budget title like this is smart. I hope this trend continues, and devs get away from that stupid fad of everything needing online multiplayer to appease bro gamers--a group that wont support anything else.

#50 Posted by CallOfDookie (6 posts) -

Co-op would be nice! I can do without some cheesy tacked on MP.