Naughty Dog Defends The Last of Us Multiplayer

Naughty Dog Defends The Last of Us Multiplayer

image

The Last of Us multiplayer won't be tacked on, Naughty Dog claims.

The Last of Us, fungal zombies apocalypse game, recently announced it would have multiplayer mode - no details, just that mutliplayer exists - and, as might have been expected, fans were strong both for and against. Arne Meyer, community strategist, did his best to fend off the hordes who claimed that multiplayer would somehow be tacked on, or take resources away from the single player experience.

In fact, said Meyer, single player and multiplayer modes would have completely separate development teams, so there was never a question of one leeching resources from the other. This is a strategy that Naughty Dog has used successfully before, Meyer added, with Uncharted. As for it being tacked on, Naughty Dog wouldn't bother with multiplayer if it didn't suit The Last of Us.

"We don't develop games or features for bullet points" said Meyer, adding "we make the games we enjoy and we hope you'll enjoy as well."

Naughty Dog hasn't announced whether the multiplayer will be co-op or competitive, or given away any other snippets. However there is a release date for this PS3 title now: May 7th, 2013.

Source: Eurogamer

Permalink

It'll have multiplayer eh?

Ah well, won't be too hard to ignore it. Especially if they use an online pass like they did with Uncharted 3. Meaning even though both me and my brother both put our money together for the collector's edition, only one of us could play multiplayer. Because fuck people who have brothers and sisters but only one PS3.

"As for it being tacked on, Naughty Dog wouldn't bother with multiplayer if it didn't suit The Last of Us."

Lolwut? because Uncharted's multiplayer suited the game so much? Especially when you have 2,5 characters and all the rest are faceless goons nobody remembers. The least you can do, naughty Dog, is admit that you just want money from the dudebro audience.

The problem is that multiplayer ALWAYS diverts resources. Each dollar on the multiplayer development team is a dollar taken away from the single player development team.

And even if each one of those precious dollars had NO EFFECT on the single player product, I would rather a developer like Naughty Dog use the money towards ANOTHER single player game. Few play multiplayer in uncharted. We get those games for their single player story.

My guess is the multiplayer will consist of both Coop and more standard deathmatch modes since the preorder bonuses (listed here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.395827-Last-of-Us-Preorder-Bonuses). Indicate that there will be a skin for the 2 main characters. That coupled with the fact I don't think they'll have the little girl running around in a deathmatch leads me to think coop at least.

Irridium:
It'll have multiplayer eh?

Ah well, won't be too hard to ignore it. Especially if they use an online pass like they did with Uncharted 3. Meaning even though both me and my brother both put our money together for the collector's edition, only one of us could play multiplayer. Because fuck people who have brothers and sisters but only one PS3.

Wasn't it like this;
As long as the account that activated the pass is present on the ps3, all other accounts are also able to play online?

A game like this could do some interesting things with multiplayer, so long as they don't just do another "Team A shoots Team B" type thing.

I can't believe I'm actually the one saying this, but multiplayer in this game might not actually be bad. Just depends on how they handle it.

aaaaaand still annoyed that it isnt on PC. Because this looks the bee's knees.

bluegate:

Irridium:
It'll have multiplayer eh?

Ah well, won't be too hard to ignore it. Especially if they use an online pass like they did with Uncharted 3. Meaning even though both me and my brother both put our money together for the collector's edition, only one of us could play multiplayer. Because fuck people who have brothers and sisters but only one PS3.

Wasn't it like this;
As long as the account that activated the pass is present on the ps3, all other accounts are also able to play online?

Some are like that, some aren't. Depends on the publisher. After I let my brother use the code, it still wouldn't let me play online. A friend of mine did gave me her code though, so I was still able to play. But she shouldn't have had to do that in the first place.

A coop campaign would be awesome, though I don't have a PS3 so I don't know why I care so much. Possibly so I could go over to my friend's and leech off them play the game at their house.

Well you couldn't possibly make a flatter PR statement, so it is actually tacked on because one of the accountants feels like they need it.
For everyones sake let's hope they got some bargain bin developer for it so the rest of their budget can go to the proper game.

bluegate:
Wasn't it like this;
As long as the account that activated the pass is present on the ps3, all other accounts are also able to play online?

Nope, one account, one code.

It's becoming more and more frequent that online passes are tied to one specific account rather than the console. I'm waiting for EA or Activision to announce an online pass that only works for a year, then you have to buy another one, they'll try it sooner or later.

Even lest interested now than I was before

As long as it works better than UC3's multi did. I dunno what it was, but UC2's was among some of the best multiplayer fun I ever had while 3 was just kinda...buggy.

purifico:
"As for it being tacked on, Naughty Dog wouldn't bother with multiplayer if it didn't suit The Last of Us."

Lolwut? because Uncharted's multiplayer suited the game so much? Especially when you have 2,5 characters and all the rest are faceless goons nobody remembers. The least you can do, naughty Dog, is admit that you just want money from the dudebro audience.

Because as we all know, the mark of a good multiplayer is what characters you can use, not how sublimely the mechanics can work.

Mimsofthedawg:
The problem is that multiplayer ALWAYS diverts resources. Each dollar on the multiplayer development team is a dollar taken away from the single player development team.

BZZT! I'm sorry, that is incorrect, thanks for playing.

That zero sum game for multiplayer thing only applies to indie games where all resources come out of the developers pocket. If they have a parent company (which Naughty Dog do, being owned by Sony), then if they want to add multiplayer, they request additional money to do it, rather than take the money out of their reserves.

Irridium:
It'll have multiplayer eh?

Ah well, won't be too hard to ignore it. Especially if they use an online pass like they did with Uncharted 3. Meaning even though both me and my brother both put our money together for the collector's edition, only one of us could play multiplayer. Because fuck people who have brothers and sisters but only one PS3.

WHy didn't you just let her play multiplayer on your account?

Foolproof:

Irridium:
It'll have multiplayer eh?

Ah well, won't be too hard to ignore it. Especially if they use an online pass like they did with Uncharted 3. Meaning even though both me and my brother both put our money together for the collector's edition, only one of us could play multiplayer. Because fuck people who have brothers and sisters but only one PS3.

WHy didn't you just let her play multiplayer on your account?

My brother and I shared an Xbox Live account for a year when we first got an Xbox. We'll do anything we possibly can to not have to do something like that again.

Well, I'll just wait and see with this one too. It can be bad: spec-ops the line, it can be fairly lackluster/boring: bioshock 2, and it can be amazing: mass effect 3 (yeah yeah I know not everyone will agree with me on that but the 60 hours I've shoved in tell me I enjoy it :P Besides, you can play as a volus)

Mimsofthedawg:
The problem is that multiplayer ALWAYS diverts resources. Each dollar on the multiplayer development team is a dollar taken away from the single player development team.

Foolproof:
BZZT! I'm sorry, that is incorrect, thanks for playing.

That zero sum game for multiplayer thing only applies to indie games where all resources come out of the developers pocket. If they have a parent company (which Naughty Dog do, being owned by Sony), then if they want to add multiplayer, they request additional money to do it, rather than take the money out of their reserves.

I am gonna play the devil's advocate here for a second.
He was talking about resources here, which is not just the cold cash. Resources are also the software/hardware given, the people working on the title and your release date / key date goals you have to achieve.

Adding on multiplayer is something that takes away developers from your single player, slowing down the development of one side in order to start up work on the other so everything gets wrapped up simultaniously. They need people from the main team who are familiar with the software to integrate the multiaplayer in a recognizeable way.

EA for example are known for pulling people in and out of different developing teams in order to focus their talents elsewhere, even if it means weakening one title in order to slightly raise the bar on another. It is called buisness praciticing.
The fact about having an industry not run by gamers but buisnessmen is that passion and perfection is not a key element they have the time nor interest in focusing on - it's the numbers and yearly income. Why reach for a 10, when it does not means a feasiable and justified extra income after you get a game past a 7? There is no financial reason to do it, why bother?

With that said: If multiplayer is added it will require pulling away attention from the singleplayer in some sense, some staff members and key figures who have to play ball over a wider area to cover all ground. This is what they have to do, if they want to ensure the multiplayer stays close and is passionately made to suit the single player - which also results in resources, time and programming diverted.
On the other end, it can be half assed, and with minimal investment of resources in any form as a hash-tagged-on multiplayer. Which will hurt their reputation.

And that is the concern, which one will this be? A passionate and possibly good multiplayer that COULD potentially be of concern to the quality of the main title, or another forcefully injected multiplayer that nobody asked for nor like that will possibly serve as nothing but a tumour.

Personally I will give Naughty Dog a chance, the Uncharted Multiplayer was... disturbingly plain and medicore/unnecesary. But I will personally overlook the first one they did, in good spirit - they are a good developer, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Nihlus2:

Mimsofthedawg:
The problem is that multiplayer ALWAYS diverts resources. Each dollar on the multiplayer development team is a dollar taken away from the single player development team.

Foolproof:
BZZT! I'm sorry, that is incorrect, thanks for playing.

That zero sum game for multiplayer thing only applies to indie games where all resources come out of the developers pocket. If they have a parent company (which Naughty Dog do, being owned by Sony), then if they want to add multiplayer, they request additional money to do it, rather than take the money out of their reserves.

I am gonna play the devil's advocate here for a second.
He was talking about resources here, which is not just the cold cash. Resources are also the software/hardware given, the people working on the title and your release date / key date goals you have to achieve.

Adding on multiplayer is something that takes away developers from your single player, slowing down the development of one side in order to start up work on the other so everything gets wrapped up simultaniously. They need people from the main team who are familiar with the software to integrate the multiaplayer in a recognizeable way.

Once again, BZZT! Not everyone at Naughty Dog is working on The Last Of Us - ND have been very, very open and forthcoming about this. So there is absolutely no cause to think that the people who are working on the multiplayer are the people who would otherwise be working on the single player. As such, there is no resource drainage happening, either in terms of funds, or of developer talent.

And thus there is also no impact on the release date.

Foolproof:

purifico:
"As for it being tacked on, Naughty Dog wouldn't bother with multiplayer if it didn't suit The Last of Us."

Lolwut? because Uncharted's multiplayer suited the game so much? Especially when you have 2,5 characters and all the rest are faceless goons nobody remembers. The least you can do, naughty Dog, is admit that you just want money from the dudebro audience.

Because as we all know, the mark of a good multiplayer is what characters you can use, not how sublimely the mechanics can work.

Mimsofthedawg:
The problem is that multiplayer ALWAYS diverts resources. Each dollar on the multiplayer development team is a dollar taken away from the single player development team.

BZZT! I'm sorry, that is incorrect, thanks for playing.

That zero sum game for multiplayer thing only applies to indie games where all resources come out of the developers pocket. If they have a parent company (which Naughty Dog do, being owned by Sony), then if they want to add multiplayer, they request additional money to do it, rather than take the money out of their reserves.

Irridium:
It'll have multiplayer eh?

Ah well, won't be too hard to ignore it. Especially if they use an online pass like they did with Uncharted 3. Meaning even though both me and my brother both put our money together for the collector's edition, only one of us could play multiplayer. Because fuck people who have brothers and sisters but only one PS3.

WHy didn't you just let her play multiplayer on your account?

How about you stop being a troll and read the rest of my post.

and stop with the "lolwut?" This isn't IGN.

So what are the offerings? One team escorting a group of people while another play the zombies? Which team can gather the most supplies? Who can maintain the best safe haven in the city?

If you're going to do multiplayer, then you might as well get creative.

Karloff:
Naughty Dog Defends The Last of Us Multiplayer
In fact, said Meyer, single player and multiplayer modes would have completely separate development teams, so there was never a question of one leeching resources from the other.

Isn't this the exact definition of "just tacked on"?

Come on... don;t do that man... if you're gonna say anything on multiplayer, wait until after the game is already out... so you can tell us how big of a mistake it was and how you were pressured by the publisher... if you continue on this route you'll only get people mad at you...<.<

 

Reply to Thread

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