Bleszinski: Japanese Devs Need To Stop Ignoring Multiplayer

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT




Tacked-on multiplayer like on Mass Effect 3? NO!

No matter your opinion, ME3's Multiplayer is anything but tacked on. It's actually quite well made.

the tackled on statement refers to the fact that you have to play multiplayer to get your system readiness up. and thats often the only way to get 'the good ending'.

No Tacked on doesn't mean that. When a game has tacked on MP, it means the game didn't need it and the MP is also bad. ME3 doesn't need MP, but it's MP is good thus it benefits the whole game. What you stated is a whole other thing.

Well if we are honest Japan needs more multiplayer and Western needs less.

Quoted for truth.

Japanese development may be stuck in a rut and stagnating because they won't "get with the times," but Western development is stuck in a rut and stagnating because western developers are trying so hard to "get with the times" (which equates with most to "get in on WoW's/COD's market share") that they ignore making their games unique and innovative; thus we have too many Western WoW clones and Western shooters stanking up the market.

Am I the only person here that thought about what Vanquish Multiplayer would be like?

*thinks about it some*

I think he's wrong for the most part but TBF Vanquish would have been hella fun with a co-op mode.

Grey Day for Elcia:


Grey Day for Elcia:
The top selling Steam games at the moment are all single player focused, many of them containing no multiplayer at all. If you consider the first person genre too focused on multiplayer, you mustn't know the genre too well, as lan party FPS games were kind of the reason the genre took off.

No offense man, but I cant take your comment about the guy being ignorant of the genre seriously when you said this.

Grey Day for Elcia:
Japanese video games do suck some major ass, but since when is Cliff Bleszinski relevant? Make anything even slightly creative and I'll consider caring for a moment what you have to say, Cliff.

The only thing Cliff has done in his career is remake Unreal over and over and vomit out Gears of War and it doesn't get any less imaginative than space marines in tech armour fighting monsters and grunting.

So the man makes one first person shooter series (Unreal) and does it to death and I can't comment on the FPS genre? P-lease.

I was referring to the "Japanese video games do suck major ass" bit and you chiding the previous guy for his "ignorance" about the first person genre.


Lets just take a western example: Alan Wake. Absolutely no multiplayer needed or tacked on, and it sold very well. So saying that the Rising Sun's sunset starts without multiplayer hasn't got the most solid foundations. If CliffyB was serious, maybe he'd fix up UT3 for us.

Actually, Alan Wake sold terribly at launch, it didn't exactly bomb but i think the sales figures hung around 200,000 for the first year or so. It was the kind of game who's sales only picked up serious steam a year or so after launch. Then again the PC port sold pretty well right off the bat.

It was an acclaimed flop to begin with thanks to Microsoft paying Remedy to stop developing it for the platform that everyone interested in it was using. Our Susan will tell you it's an awesome game.

Oh look, master of the Dude Bro genre and self proclaimed "Tony Stark of video games" opened his terrible mouth again....

Seriously, if this is the best advice he can come up with as to why Japanese games and developers are failing he is a bigger clown than I thought. Good games don't need multiplayer to be good. Terrible games don't need multiplayer tacked on to try to help justify the purchase. Just because Epic got lucky and had a popular MP game doesn't mean every dev can be successful just by including a MP feature.

I am a huge fan of JRPGs and several J-action/adventure games and I know for a fact lack of multiplayer is the least of their problems.

Cliffy B is a still classless moron who shoots his mouth off thinking he is important.

I don't know. I found Vanquish incredibly dull. The controls were weaker than I desired and the set pieces (the only reason you might play the game) were poorly designed. I don't think multiplayer could have saved that game.

This would be a cool concept...

if there were infinite time and infinite resources

and if we all lived on the moon >_>

"Why don't I have a multiplayer Fatal Frame yet?" asks Cliff Bleszinski.

Because it's a *profoundly* stupid idea. Everything about Fatal Frame was carefully done for one reason: To make you feel vulnerable. You are a borderline helpless schoolgirl whose only defense was a magic camera that, perversely, you had to practically shove in the face of the groaning horrors trying to get you. When you're inside the mansion, things feel claustrophobic. When outside on the grounds, you feel uncomfortably exposed on every side. And the very first time you got jumped in a "save" room it hammered the point home: You are *not* safe. That sort of creeping tension comes from being utterly alone in a hostile place.

On the other hand, take a more recent Resident Evil: You're a certified badass, just this side of superhuman. If you're not cautious, you might get overwhelmed, but individually your foes are no match for you; a QTE will take them out with brutal abruptness. And you've got someone to watch your back (and hoard all the items).

Opinions differ on which is more fun, but there's no argument over which is *scarier*.

Hey bleszinki, how about you make a series that isn't shit, THEN rag try ragging on other developers?

Or throwing a fucking hissy fit when people give it an 8.

Or how about making multiplayer that isn't broken.

I don't care about multiplayer at all, the only recent game were I have actually bothered with the multiplayer at all was White Knight Chronicles 2 and that's because it added something fun.

Just putting in a multiplayer mode for the sake of having multiplayer? No thanks. I think that in singleplayer games all effort should be put into making the singleplayer experience better, skip multiplayer and maybe add some extra content. More side missions, mini games and character customization are things that I'd rather see than multiplayer.

I'm trying real hard not to hate this guy. I mean, I don't think the notion that Japan needs more multiplayer games is inherently wrong, but he really does sound like he's advocating it for the wrong reasons.

Also, his smug face makes me rage a little inside. Maybe it's because he reminds me of Dane Cook.


The Vainglory:

Clearly, Clifford is just saying that the industry's answer to falling game sales should be to model every game after Unreal Tournament.

I stopped reading at '"Why don't I have a multiplayer Fatal Frame yet?" asks Cliff Bleszinski.'

Because it would be terrible. Fatal Frame is a game that makes you feel alone and helpless, throw in a partner and suddenly that is gone and it is nowhere near as scary.

Only thing we need out of Bleszinski is silence.

Also, there are a good bit of Japanese Games that have HUGE multiplayer scenes. Monster Hunter Franchise is HUMUGEROUS over there. Also Mario and all the stuff Capcom makes.

Looks to me like Japan has itself set up right with multiplayer thanks.

Unless by "Stop ignoring multiplayer" he means "Tack that shit onto every single franchise you have like us because it always works out!" which seems more accurate.

I think I know what Cliffy is doing.

If the Japanese tack on crappy multiplayer to their games, maybe his crappy tacked on multiplayer will look better in comparison.

Godamn, people. He's giving them advice how to get more sales so they could keep afloat, and he's right.

So he makes some logical suggestions and people dont even read it before berating him for exactly what he said was a bad idea. He said that you shouldnt tack on a versus mode but that many games being released from Japan right now could have benefitted, in his opinion, from a mode involving player to player interaction. This could be versus or co-op or whatever was right for the game. He did not say it was for every game and he said not to tack it on. He said that he believed games werent selling as well partially because games werent releasing with content which made them must buys, for example he said that because of Vanquishs short length and lack of anything but single player made it a used purchase/weekend rent. Please read things before you comment on them and dont attack someone when they try to make a helpful contribution to a market with a genuine proposal to a genuine issue. Also the guy has made a fortune through his games and they are all right so he does have a right to sugggest that japan could learn from the west if it wishes to sell more games.

EDIT: the more I read on this forum the more I am dispointed that people have the arrogance on display here to not only comment before reading but also to attack someone with hyperbole when they dont have a leg to stand one. He never once suggested every game be modelled after Gears or Unreal Tournament anyone who has claimed the like should be ashamed of themsleves. he tries to help with his opinion, backed by success, to a shrinking industry and you lot claw and sratch at him without anything in response except childish ridicule.

Lumber Barber:
Godamn, people. He's giving them advice how to get more sales so they could keep afloat, and he's right.

Except, as pointed out by at least two people, adding a multiplayer component to Fatal Frame would ruin the game's ideas. That is, to scare you. Partnering up with someone is almost guaranteed to ruin any horror your game was aiming for.

And, as I've noted, adding multiplayer components detracts from the single player due to limits of time, money and other resources. What does this mean? It means the single player will be worse.

What else? The concept that multiplayer stops games being rentals. Absolute rubbish. Numerous games with multiplayer ("Cliffy B"'s own Gears of War series being one of them) are still rentals. Adding multiplayer does not guarantee longevity especially when your multiplayer is shit because you only added it to try to get more sales and not out of any genuine desire to deliver a quality multiplayer gaming experience.

So no. He's not right. At all.

Some games could probably benefit from it if we're being perfectly honest. Maybe not fatal frame though.

Lumber Barber:
Godamn, people. He's giving them advice how to get more sales so they could keep afloat, and he's right.

What is he right about exactly? Most people who are multi-player lovers already have their game of choice; most of which are competitive play. I find it hard to believe that Mass Effect 3, Demon/Dark Souls, and many other games sold better just because they had a multi-player element. Multi-player shouldn't be a selling point as much as it should be something that enhances or lengthens gameplay. If there is a single player element but multi-player is what carries the game then the designers screwed up. Even if the game has a strong multi-player element in it, if the core game fails to impress than the game still won't do well. Finding a way to implement multi-player into everything is a waste; if a game is good it'll sell with or without multi-player.

Cliff isn't saying EVERY Japanese single player only game needs multiplayer but that some games could have a multiplayer with it. Obviously not every game needs multiplayer, and not every game needs a story mode. It couldn't hurt for some Japanese developers to think of having a multiplayer mode. Thats all he is saying. It's advice and one guys opinion. No need for everyone to start acting like assholes over it.

No. No no no. Not every game needs multiplayer of any sort, Cliffy. I'm really not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

What happened to focusing on making good games, rather than just doing the "next big thing?"

It's strange how Skyrim did so well then...

Maybe he should focus on making his own games less about pressing the A button non stop for hours I swear to god my brain was turning into a lettuce halfway through GOW3.

Also Fatal Frame is the worse game to suggest. Horror games are not about multiplayer.

Moonlight Butterfly:
It's strange how Skyrim did so well then...

If you read the entire article over at Gamasutra, he actually says he would've liked a multi-player aspect in Skyrim. He likens it to Animal Crossing, which I still find to be lunacy.


Moonlight Butterfly:
It's strange how Skyrim did so well then...

If you read the entire article over at Gamasutra, he actually says he would've liked a multi-player aspect in Skyrim. He likens it to Animal Crossing, which I still find to be lunacy.

Animal Crossing...what.

It's clear this guy is all about catering for the market that wants to veg out in front of a brainless multiplayer for 2 hours after work.

Not people who game as a hobby.

There's nothing wrong with that but he shouldn't make out that this approach is the only valid option. I think Grey's assertion that the loss of developers to the freemium games is a much more valid reason for the drop in the Japanese game market.

Take Diablo 3. The multiplayer is essentially the singleplayer + other people. Except Arena PVP, which can't have been all that difficult to implement, honestly. Look how much replayability and fun they added to the game by doing absolutely nothing except adding multiplayer. Now, did it help that they knew they were going to do this, and so created battle systems that worked for singleplayer/multiplayer interchangeably? Absolutely. But that's the point of "not tacked on."

Reverse engineer the situation as well. Torchlight is a very similar game to Diablo but without any multiplayer.

Guess what the primary gripe people had about it was?


All right fair enough my main point was basicaly that I don't think multiplayer is the be all end all solution CliffyB is making it out to be.

While I agree with the previously mentioned point that if nothing else Pokemon should have gone massive multiplayer by now, I haven't seen many games from Japan aside from the fighters in which a multiplayer would make sense or even work.

Quality not withstanding, most Japanese games tend to have a strong focus on the narrative, and rather narrow path of progression. Although Vanquish looks like it could have had a fun multiplayer being a shooter of sorts.

Also I saw a study a while ago saying 55% of Japanese people are afraid of the internet.

What the fuck does this even mean?

It means that digital games and the like have less of a chance of doing well than other places. Hence why I mentioned Malicious, a PSN exclusive, being made in Japan. It's just an oddity over there. Sorry that was confusing. I was just trying to say the differences in the market there compared to the rest of the world. A lot of people don't even hook their consoles up to the internet because they "fear" it.

Short answer: nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

As someone who doesn't touch multiplayer for fear of catching the homophobic douchebag virus, I can safely say that games without multiplayer want for nothing.

So, it's official. Cliffy B is a fucking moron.

Japan, you can do whatever you want because I don't care about multiplayer. Well I guess that's not completely true, I'm actually a big fan of pseudo-multiplayer like in Dark Souls or upcoming Dragon's Dogma where you can interact with players in certain ways but it serves to affect the single player game... So yeah keep doing that. But otherwise I don't care whether you add it or not.

But whatever you do, do NOT add trophies for multiplayer portions... that pisses me off to no end. Good luck getting those if you play a game a few years down the road when the online community is nonexistent.

Because Fatal Frame is a horror game. Horror exponentially decreases the more players are added into the mix. That's why L4D could never be scary so it instead settled for being tense. If you are screaming for Multiplayer horror games you're insane!

Right now every single game in the west crowbars multiplayer in there. Why? To combat fucking second hand copies. Not because it would be a fun mode to play or because it works with the games mechanic. But to keep the customer from trading in his 4 hour long game once they are done with it.

Sniper Elite V2 has Sniper Multiplayer. Everyone. IS. A. SNIPER! Multiplayer did not make that game better. COOP did, but then again the COOP worked with the games mechanic and emphasised the Sniper-Spotter gameplay.

We don't need another Multiplayer FF. God knows they failed so hard with that already.

Oh look, another reason to not listen to him.

I'm going to have agree but it is an obvious point that games that need multiplayer should have it and those that don't then do not tack it on.

Tacked-on multiplayer like on Mass Effect 3? NO!

WTF, ME3's multiplayer was astoundingly good and has some of the best depth in a multiplayer mode of any kind ever. What are you smoking?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here