Does every good franchise need multiplayer?

I get that originality is out the window and the 'hipster' thing now is to capitalize and exhaust every gravy train but it's really starting to get old fast. Bad enough quality new IP's are a rarity with amongst the countless rehashes, sequels and prequels. Now practically every good quality franchise has a useless multiplayer mode tacked on in hopes of cashing in on the lastest craze. Some may debate multiplayer is good but all it does is exploit resources that could have went into an even better single player campaign. How much better would games like Uncharted 3 be if ND focused strictly on the campaign instead of rushing through it and tacking on a poitless multiplayer? Mass Effect, Assasin's Creed, God Of War, what's next? Zelda?

It's what sells games, I know a ton of people (myself included) that will not buy a game unless it has good multiplayer because $60 for a game I can beat in 8 hours or less is not worth it unless it has multiplayer that I'm gonna sink at least 20-30 hours into.

Zelda has already had multiplayer ;)

Uncharted and Assassin's Creed both have excellent multiplayer modes, by the way. Uncharted 2 not only delivered a much, much improved single player game but also included a great multiplayer that was passed as unnecessary at the time. Same deal with Assassin's Creed, which was warmly received even though everyone bashed it prior. Personally, I enjoy the co-op in Mass Effect because it finally lets me play as a Krogan.

There are plenty of franchises out there that have unnecessary multiplayer add ons, sure. The Darkness II didn't need co-op, Bioshock 2 didn't need competitive multiplayer, Dead Space 2 had really uninspired multiplayer, etc.

But God of War looks different, looks like it could be fun. Let's just see what happens before declaring it dead just because there's a new mode.

Zelda has already had multiplayer ;)

Uncharted and Assassin's Creed both have excellent multiplayer modes, by the way. Uncharted 2 not only delivered a much, much improved single player game but also included a great multiplayer that was passed as unnecessary at the time. Same deal with Assassin's Creed, which was warmly received even though everyone bashed it prior. Personally, I enjoy the co-op in Mass Effect because it finally lets me play as a Krogan.

There are plenty of franchises out there that have unnecessary multiplayer add ons, sure. The Darkness II didn't need co-op, Bioshock 2 didn't need competitive multiplayer, Dead Space 2 had really uninspired multiplayer, etc.

But God of War looks different, looks like it could be fun. Let's just see what happens before declaring it dead just because there's a new mode.

IndianaPwns39

Lol, Zelda has MP too?? Wooow. I agree Uncharted 2's campaign definitely delivered in spite of MP which I barely touched. But you can't deny Uncharted 3's campaign left much to be desired and felt like the main focus was MP instead of the campaign this time around. Co-op can indeed be fun as I did enjoy Uncharted 3's cop-op somewhat, but I purchased Uncharted 3 expectating a thrilling campaign and was majorly disappointed. I haven't gotten around to playing Mass Effect 3 yet but needing to play MP in order to get the best ending in campaign mode?? Lol, I know I'm not the only one who thinks that's some bull****.

I just checked the MP trailer for GOW Ascension and it looks unecessary. Why not show a trailer of the campaign since that what GOW was built off? The fact that 1st trailer focuses on MP leaves me skeptical as to how good the campaign will actually be. Maybe the co-op will be decent but those are wasted resources imo that Sony could be using to make an even better campaign.

I get that originality is out the window and the 'hipster' thing now is to capitalize and exhaust every gravy train but it's really starting to get old fast. Bad enough quality new IP's are a rarity with amongst the countless rehashes, sequels and prequels. Now practically every good quality franchise has a useless multiplayer mode tacked on in hopes of cashing in on the lastest craze. Some may debate multiplayer is good but all it does is exploit resources that could have went into an even better single player campaign. How much better would games like Uncharted 3 be if ND focused strictly on the campaign instead of rushing through it and tacking on a poitless multiplayer? Mass Effect, Assasin's Creed, God Of War, what's next? Zelda?

HipHopBeats

Most agree Uncharted 2 is the best game in the series and it is the game that introduced multiplayer to the series.

The presence of multiplayer doesn't necessarily detract from single player (perhaps because sometimes teams are increased to handle the new component, sometimes they are merely divided). In U3's defense, the game design is fine, the problem is so many of the voice actors were committed to other projects. If Drake had played through most of the second half of U3 with a friend or three to banter with (especially Elena), I and I suspect most other people would have liked it a lot more.

Well one exception to the rule was Pikmin 2. Its campaign was about 10 times longer than the first and they added a full blown challenge mode with co-op play and a full blown vs mode that was universally praised by the critics. Pikmin didn't need mulitplayer and I didn't ask for it, but boy did that game deliver on every conceivable level. Debatably Nintendo's most content rich game to date. But this was back in the day when developers strived to finish every aspect of a game to its fullest before release.

That may be one of the only examples of that happening though... I would worry if something like the Batman Arkham games shoehorned multiplayer into the experience. I'm just glad none of my favourite franchises have sullied itself with a quickly tossed in multiplayer

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

Zelda has already had multiplayer ;)

Uncharted and Assassin's Creed both have excellent multiplayer modes, by the way. Uncharted 2 not only delivered a much, much improved single player game but also included a great multiplayer that was passed as unnecessary at the time. Same deal with Assassin's Creed, which was warmly received even though everyone bashed it prior. Personally, I enjoy the co-op in Mass Effect because it finally lets me play as a Krogan.

There are plenty of franchises out there that have unnecessary multiplayer add ons, sure. The Darkness II didn't need co-op, Bioshock 2 didn't need competitive multiplayer, Dead Space 2 had really uninspired multiplayer, etc.

But God of War looks different, looks like it could be fun. Let's just see what happens before declaring it dead just because there's a new mode.

HipHopBeats

Lol, Zelda has MP too?? Wooow. I agree Uncharted 2's campaign definitely delivered in spite of MP which I barely touched. But you can't deny Uncharted 3's campaign left much to be desired and felt like the main focus was MP instead of the campaign this time around. Co-op can indeed be fun as I did enjoy Uncharted 3's cop-op somewhat, but I purchased Uncharted 3 expectating a thrilling campaign and was majorly disappointed. I haven't gotten around to playing Mass Effect 3 yet but needing to play MP in order to get the best ending in campaign mode?? Lol, I know I'm not the only one who thinks that's some bull****.

I just checked the MP trailer for GOW Ascension and it looks unecessary. Why not show a trailer of the campaign since that what GOW was built off? The fact that 1st trailer focuses on MP leaves me skeptical as to how good the campaign will actually be. Maybe the co-op will be decent but those are wasted resources imo that Sony could be using to make an even better campaign.

Yeah Zelda had the Four Swords co-op mode on the Gamecube. It was pretty well received too.

I actually can deny Uncharted 3's focus being primarily on multiplayer simply because I felt that the multiplayer was a huge step backwards compared to the second game. Especially in regards to co-op, which lost any sort of customization options and just grouped the three modes together. I also preferred the second game's map control attitude instead of giving the player Killstreaks (er, Kickbacks) and all that. The game didn't feel balanced simply because of the way it was designed.

God of War's multiplayer looks different, which I'm all for. I just hope the game is polished before it launches. I bought Twisted Metal for a different competitive game and it didn't really work upon launch so I shelved it. Should really check to see if that game got patched...

Heck-NO...

I think adding multiplayer components to games is great. Mass Effect mp is a lot of fun, Uncharted 2 mp is great, Dead Space 2 and Bioshock 2 were very enjoyable. I love seeing devs bring an mp component to games that one might not think would need one necessarily. Red Dead Redemption was another excellent mp experience. Now God of War Ascension looks to have another very cool mp experience. None of these games have been "ruined" as far as I'm concerned.Archangel3371

I'll add to this by saying that most large developers have the reasources to make very enjoyable multiplayer experiences in traditionally single player games. It doesn't have to be one or the other. They have and will continue to co-exist to provide gamers with as many options and longevity as possible. I really don't understand how people could be in favor of limiting games just because they have the wrong headed idea that multiplayer components have to detract from single players experieces. Was Metal Gear Solid 4 ruined by MGSO? Is Dark Souls ruined because it has some level of multiplayer? These are the questions you should ask yourself before going off on a tangent.

Honestly, I don't need to see "Multiplayer" On the case to enjoy the game. Some game developers think that because Call Of Duty and Battlefield were able to pull it off, that they will be able to also. It's important for these developers to remember that Call Of Duty and Battlefield built their franchise on multiplayer. That's where they put their time and money. You need to figure out what aspect of your game is the most important and which part will probably be most appealing to players. A majority of your money and time need to go to the part with the most potential. Call of Duty puts very little meat into the Single player because that's not what crowds come to see, they come to play through endless Multiplayer maps. Games like Skyrim will probably never be succsessful Multiplayer titles because they put all the time and all the money into Single Player. Once a game developer says "Let's add multiplayer", they are taking a major risk. There is a good chance that people will probably hate the idea of a traitional Team Deathmatch in a game that hasn't earned enough popularity to have basic gamemodes like that. It's kind of like a phone adding the ability to have apps. It isn't 100% important to have apps, but if you find the right market, it will sell well. However, if you invest too much into app developers and apps, the phone itself will decrease in quality because less time and effort was put into the important parts of the phone.

99% of MPs are tacked on, very rarely do you get a MP thats actually worth playing and had the proper amount of time and money put into it.

Multiplayer has its place in gaming, its not in every game.

No, but it's the normal thing to do now days. Most games I don't ever bother with the multiplayer, since it seems like it would be boring.

Does it need it? No, & Yes. No because these franchises just dont lend themselves to multiplayer. They exceed at their single player campaigns, not MP

Yes because as your 1st poster said ( JayQProductions ) he will not buy games without MP. These people are the reason MP is being shoe horned into games that dont need it.

Its the "Call Of Duty Effect" in play. There are a lot of gamers that dont even care about a quality single player experience, for them if it doesnt have multiplayer then its not worhth thier money. Thats very sad.

I wonder how these people would have existed back in the day when games didnt have online MP. Would they not buy games at all?

Some games seriously don't need competitive multiplayer, like deathmatch, etc. You can tell when it's a tacked on idea, because it's usually poorly implemented with vanilla MP modes that don't bring anything new to the table. Why developers insist on wasting resources on something that people are only likely to play for a month, I can't understand. It doesn't really give the game 'longevity' if only a handful of people are going to play it, and the money could have been better spent on making the SP campaign better, or even adding co-op.

A number of single player campaigns in games would be well-suited to a co-op experience, either locally or online. I like the co-op experience because you get to enjoy a game with a friend (or friends), and it can be a great blast.

But devs should leave competitive multiplayer to games where it is better suited.

people always complain about how it effects the single player, but it takes a toll on the multiplayer too. its hard to make a simple deathmatch mode in an fps to be really balanced. its even harder to do it while making that deathmatch mode anything remotely new.

i think more games could support well thought out mp modes, but its much more common that we get some half hearted aside to justify the "now with multiplayer!" bullet point on the box.

people always complain about how it effects the single player, but it takes a toll on the multiplayer too. its hard to make a simple deathmatch mode in an fps to be really balanced. its even harder to do it while making that deathmatch mode anything remotely new.

i think more games could support well thought out mp modes, but its much more common that we get some half hearted aside to justify the "now with multiplayer!" bullet point on the box.

LoG-Sacrament

You are extremelly limited in what you can do in a multiplayer game.

You have people exploiting every little flaw, people whos sole mission is to make the other person angry or miserable, people cheating and hacking, people who arent playing as a team, and people that just plain arent very good at the game.

No games need MP. Unless they're MMOs. I hate having to deal with a s*y SP mode because they decided to concentrate more on the MP. Rubbish. I would be more than happy if they sold games separately, $15-30 for SP as well as MP. Or the usual $60 for both.

-

I hate paying for an experience I will never use. It is a waste of my money.

Unless it's a game that was built off MP like COD / BF, you can usually tell a campaign mode for a popular franchise will either be crap or offer some kind of disappointment when the game trailers focuses strictly on MP and shows you nothing about what the actual campaign will offer.

Look at games like AC Revelations, the disappontment with Mass Effect 3's ending for example. Both trailers only revealed the 'promising' MP modes and kept gamers in the dark about the disappointments in store for those who were expecting a memorable single player experience. Two franchises that started on single player, with a tacked on MP strictly to appeal to younger, impatient gamers who want map packs and leaderboard spots.

It will be interesting to see what games like Max Payne 3 and God Of War Ascension offer in the actual campaign this time around especially since all we know is that these two games have an 'exciting' MP tacked on and the single player mode is a 'security clearance needed' mystery that only reveals a few cutscenes and no actual gameplay footage.

Nope, there are alot of franchises that are fine without MP.

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

people always complain about how it effects the single player, but it takes a toll on the multiplayer too. its hard to make a simple deathmatch mode in an fps to be really balanced. its even harder to do it while making that deathmatch mode anything remotely new.

i think more games could support well thought out mp modes, but its much more common that we get some half hearted aside to justify the "now with multiplayer!" bullet point on the box.

crimsonman1245

You are extremelly limited in what you can do in a multiplayer game.

You have people exploiting every little flaw, people whos sole mission is to make the other person angry or miserable, people cheating and hacking, people who arent playing as a team, and people that just plain arent very good at the game.

Flaws shouldn't be present and trolls are rare. As for people playing as a team, that is always going to be an issue when 16 people are thrown together, but generally speaking, while there is usually a lack of a unified strategy, people tend to be pretty good about supporting each other.

As for people who aren't very good, why is that a problem? Everyone can contribute to a team no matter their skill or experience level. All someone needs to do is figure out what needs doing and try to do it. For example, going and picking up a flag carrier once his vehicle has been shot out from under him isn't the hardest job in the world, but its one that helps the team win.

*Shrugs* If you want to play in highly organized games with veteran players, what you ought to do is join a clan.

Last but not least, I agree with LoG that there is a tremendous range of possibilities in multiplayer games, but that such things are hard to do well and games which try to do something different have a harder time getting accepted than familiar modes do.

No.

I cannot understand the appeal of online multiplayer. Once you learn the maps it becomes the most repetitious thing on earth. I honestly think the main appeal for most people is that you can annoy the hell out of everyone by talking trash over your mic, doing team kills, exploiting glitches, etc. etc. etc. I just do not understand how getting good at it can offer any satisfaction. I mean, if you play it a lot, of course you're going to be somewhat good at it. Big deal.

And adding multiplayer takes time and costs money, and as the developers will tell you, that takes resources away from the creation of the single player campaign, and it shows. Man oh man, does it ever show.

I get that originality is out the window and the 'hipster' thing now is to capitalize and exhaust every gravy train but it's really starting to get old fast. Bad enough quality new IP's are a rarity with amongst the countless rehashes, sequels and prequels. Now practically every good quality franchise has a useless multiplayer mode tacked on in hopes of cashing in on the lastest craze. Some may debate multiplayer is good but all it does is exploit resources that could have went into an even better single player campaign. How much better would games like Uncharted 3 be if ND focused strictly on the campaign instead of rushing through it and tacking on a poitless multiplayer? Mass Effect, Assasin's Creed, God Of War, what's next? Zelda?

HipHopBeats

I don't mind playing online multiplayer mode games & also don't mind changes. But when gaming companies start targeting single player driven games & turning them into a laughing stock, that's where gamers/comsumers going to have a issue. It's bad enough where there are ton of games that has multiplayer driven games with tacked-on single player mode these days. Now, its Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Dead Space, God Of War (hold up, bring the beat back for a second. Did I just hear that G.O.W. is going to have a online multiplayer mode? It better be a straight up lie!), Mass Effect, Ninja Gaiden (I'll never understand why NGIII needs multiplayer mode in the first place), Uncharted & more games. Gaming companies need to do either (A) make complete games (Halo Reach, Uncharted 2 & Gears Of War 3) or (B) go back to making single player or online multiplayer only games (that way everybody wins).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcgLyRyT5CY&feature=plcp

short answer: no

long answer: nooooooooo!

Not every game can handle MP.

Worse they add deathmatches to Dead Space 2 just to attack those that buy used games.

No and that is a mistake a lot of developers make because they feel like they need something else to include with the game.

No and that is a mistake a lot of developers make because they feel like they need something else to include with the game.

Agreb91

It's better to include it in the initial release if you're going to do a multiplayer component. Resident Evil 5 took the route of adding it's versus mode afterward and gamers accused Capcom of taking it out of the main release to be resold later. We all have the to face facts here and understand that with the increased connectivity of consoles, that some type of multiplayer will be apart of most high profile releases going forward.

What I don't understand is why people are against this, I even read on a previous discussion that some people have internet, but don't connect their consoles. This is the most absurd thing I could think of because all gamers used to want was the ability to play online with other people. There was a time when getting an online game and build a community was part of the fun. Now all some gamers want to do is strictly play with friends or play without mics and that is simply counter productive. If you think that the online part of your games are overrun with trolls, disrespectful youths, or other undesirable people, take action!