advertisement

Wanted dev: Multiplayer hurts games

By Brendan Sinclair, GameSpotPosted Feb 10, 2009 12:09 pm PT

Executive producer Pete Wanat says studios spend too much time and money shoehorning feature into games that don't need it.

When Wanted: Weapons of Fate arrives for the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and PC next month, gamers who pick up the interactive sequel to last year's action film will get the chance to try out their bullet-curving technique on the game's many assassin adversaries. However, they won't be able to twist lead into one another, given that the third-person shooter lacks a multiplayer mode.

Wanted: Weapons of Fate executive producer Pete Wanat.

During an appearance on the latest installment of GameSpot's HotSpot podcast, Universal Pictures Digital Platforms Group's Pete Wanat--the executive producer on Weapons of Fate--explained the reasons behind that decision. Wanat said that most people who play multiplayer games just play the best of the bunch, and that developers spend too much effort putting multiplayer modes into games that don't need them.

"For the most part, we waste our money and our time building multiplayer levels," Wanat said. "And why do we do this? Because a couple years ago the press was all about saying, 'This game has to have multiplayer, there's no replayability.' F*** that. That's a bad joke."

Wanat added that oftentimes the pressure to make a multiplayer version of a game comes from a publisher's marketing department. Just having that feature on the back of a box, the argument goes, makes it easier to sell a game.

There can be only one Wesley Gibson.

"What it does is it hurts the single-player game," Wanat said. "You don't get to add multiplayer [at] no cost. If you're going to make a multiplayer version, you take people, time, and money away from the single-player experience. And that all goes to hurt the single player. ... Not everybody is Bungie. Not everybody can have 100 guys working on their multiplayer. The Call of Duty 4 guys? If they want to do multiplayer, then do multiplayer. We'll play the f*** out of multiplayer in Call of Duty. We'll play co-op in Left 4 Dead. There are places and times to do it and do it right."

For the full discussion about Wanted: Weapons of Fate, violence in games, being a creator playing with somebody else's universe, and much more, check out Wanat's extended appearance on the HotSpot.

254 Comments

  • weblinks

    Posted Mar 20, 2009 9:34 am PT

    so you are saying its a waste of time and that great games come out with no mplayer hmmm bioshock ya ill give that one to you oblivion alright fallout three and complaing about halo, cod4, left for dead ya your right people play that game because if it just had single player how many time after beating the game would you that game back in wanted seemed like a cool game and was planing on getting it but i can see if the guy who is making this game couldnt even added a 4-4 mplayer it show he doesnt care on what people want and he is going to make a boring single player game witch is going to be cool the fist time around but will have no replay value so waste you 60.00 bucks on a 6 hour game you will never but in again

  • jacobmjl

    Posted Mar 9, 2009 7:18 am PT

    I agree with this guy, look at BioShock for eample, no multiplayer, yet awesome single player.

  • braveheartofg

    Posted Mar 2, 2009 8:52 am PT

    People who say that great games don't need MP
    KILLZONE2 is an example of a great SP game that was made even better with the addition of MP
    Since when did it cost to come up with the idea of how to implement other characters into coop?
    If designers can't be assed to put in MP then it's their loss! But I'm really annoyed that devs are putting out games that could have been better with the addition of MP

  • Maximus808

    Posted Feb 22, 2009 7:45 am PT

    I avoid multiplayer like the plague and hate games (COD4) that rely on it.
    As much as some people like to believe that the majority of hardcore gamers like multiplayer, it's just not true.
    I look at multiplayer games as games that are for the teen and pre-teen crowd, since they are usually extremely rude online usually and cheat.
    Multiplayer? Don't need it, don't enjoy it, don't like it.
    I'll definately be looking for this title, hope it's good.

  • paulokoenigkam

    Posted Feb 20, 2009 7:43 am PT

    This producer guy is my new hero. He knows the multiplayer would probably blow, and most people would keep playing halo and COD anyway.

    But if they're focusing only on single player, IT BETTER BE GOOD, and have some replay value.

  • TruPrince

    Posted Feb 18, 2009 8:25 am PT

    That is such bullsh@t the only reason I wanted to play this game was for a multiplayer online. Would be sooo much more fun if you could test your skills against others. This producer is an idiot

  • dartfrog731

    Posted Feb 17, 2009 2:11 pm PT

    Hes right there can only be one lord of the multiplayer and its cod4, and that's not changing till modern warfare 2 comes out.

  • titanviper2000

    Posted Feb 17, 2009 11:44 am PT

    @masterds64 i'm with you. multiplayer content is cool, but not every game needs it. give me a single player campaign that i can sink my teeth into rather than adding on mp that just doesn't belong. it's a waste of time. to me, a game that can't rest on it's single player campaign isn't worth the disc onto which it's burned. not to mention the fact that i don't need mp to make me feel like i'm good at something. if you want bragging rights, build a house.

  • Psilyocybin

    Posted Feb 17, 2009 11:42 am PT

    Yea that guy is not going to sell to many games this day and age if he doesn't implement a multiplayer mode into this game..because guess what your not going to sell to many copies you'll just see this title recirculated in game stops across the nation...Because even Metal Gear Solid 4 had a multiplayer...It gives you best of both worlds..for thsoe that like singleplayer and those that like multiplayer atleast let us **** i'd be happy witha co-op mode in thsi game.

  • cerealkiller8

    Posted Feb 16, 2009 11:00 pm PT

    lol this is the worst idea ever i NEVER buy games if they dont have multiplayer, unless they are massive RPGs like fallout 3 and stuff. It doesn't have to be the greatest multiplayer ever, people are still going to play it.

  • Darkon_X

    Posted Feb 16, 2009 9:59 pm PT

    Yeah this game better score 9's or just like the guy below me said "he just shot himself in the foot"

    Anyhoo, it's cool if you don't do multiplayer in a game if you don't have the resources available. Maybe more companies should listen to this guy and go "Hey, maybe we should fix our single player experience first, then go multiplayer." That doesn't mean that 'certain' companies should drop multiplayer altogether.

  • cloud1000

    Posted Feb 16, 2009 8:00 am PT

    this wanted game best be gud cos if not, he just shot himself in the foot

  • masterds64

    Posted Feb 16, 2009 7:24 am PT

    Being of a dieing gamer breed (the anti social hardcore loner) I agree-MORE SINGLE PLAYER CONTENT!

    LESS TACKED ON MP!

    ...though some games it helps, many games focus on it too much these days, which sucks for ppl like me (I don't even game online-why bother I know I'm gonna get beat by somone I can't PUNCH OUT!)

  • Hellknight2005

    Posted Feb 16, 2009 5:58 am PT

    @ CPM_basic:
    Yeah, you would know how easy it is huh?

    They'd have to optimize the engine/game even more, so that lag in the online component is nearly unnoticeable, or not there at all, which in itself costs more time and money. They'd also have to do some more programming (for features such as lobbies, matchmaking etc...) which costs even more money and time. Then they'd have to implement how do the 2 or more characters (who i assume will be together all the time in the co op) fit into the story, which is again more time and money... debugging the online co-op feature (more time and money)... and the list can go on

    Easy? I think not. If it were, i think more games would have this feature in it.

  • lukemularczyk

    Posted Feb 16, 2009 5:39 am PT

    Everyone mentioning MGS4 multiplayer is kinda forgetting that MGS4 multiplayer is actually MGS Online, a (kinda) seperate product. It was developed seperatly from the main game I believe by 2 different internal teams (althought they still talked to each other).

    Most development studios cannot afford to have seperate teams for SP and MP.

  • Unreal_007

    Posted Feb 16, 2009 3:44 am PT

    Some games just really don't need multiplayer in anyway. GTA anyone?

  • ALLoY1717

    Posted Feb 15, 2009 9:10 pm PT

    Couldn't agree more. You think Bioshock would have been as goos with MP? Think Turok would have been better without it (Turok MP sucked so hard). I also hate how people try to have some kind of mp mode just to say that the game has it. It doesn't matter really because no one will be playing it after the first two weeks.

  • Phoenix534

    Posted Feb 15, 2009 6:42 pm PT

    This is my kind of producer : )

  • djdna514

    Posted Feb 15, 2009 9:32 am PT

    I like games I can play by myself, not be bothered by other people and not have to depend on other people. Dead Space, Bioshock, Fallout, Elder Scrolls. Great games that would get ruined implementing Multi-player. Totally agree!!

  • Pewbert

    Posted Feb 15, 2009 8:20 am PT

    If it doesn't have multiplayer, then a co-op mode these days is a must.

Wanted: Weapons of Fate Quick Links

Summary | Reviews | News | Previews & Features | Images | Videos | Answers | Hints & Cheats | Forum | Check Prices

Check Prices

Amazon.com $19.99 SHOP ›
advertisement

Related Unions

Wanted: Weapons of Fate Boxshot Enlarge the boxshot
Wanted: Weapons of Fate

Game Stats

  • Rank:
    2,145 of 77,560
    (down by 90)
    X360 Rank:
    293 of 1,890
    Highest Rank:
    5 in 2009
    Tracking:
    560 Track It»
    Wishlists:
    343 Wish It»
  • Player Reviews:
    29
    Player Ratings:
    477
    Users Now Playing:
    54
  • Number of Players:

    1 Player

  • Top 5 User Tags:
    1. wanted
    2. grin
    3. weapons of fate
    4. fate
    5. shooter
  • Mature Rating Description

    Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language. Learn more

Full Game Details »Close
Also on

Games you may like…

Users who looked at content for this game also looked at these games.

See More Similar Games
advertisement
Click Here