Rumor: Batman: Arkham Origins Will Add Multiplayer

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Genocidicles:

Abandon4093:
I'm talking about what most modern games do for coop. Add a separates, shorter campaign.

Which is also a waste. They could've just put those missions in the singleplayer, making it even better.

Instead they force you to play online with screaming 12 year olds if you want to play those missions, because they've got to attract the Call of Duty crowd somehow.

Coop

Attract the CoD crowd.

Attract the CoD crowd with coop.........

Did you hear how stupid that sounded in your head before saying it? Or was it just a pleasant surprise afterwards?

How about you go make some friends who might want to play that coop with you, instead of relying on random matchmaking? Just a thought.

No reason the rest of us should suffer because some introverts want us to stop liking what they don't like.

No screaming 12 year olds in my experience, just a few friends online.

Abandon4093:
How about you go make some friends who might want to play that coop with you, instead of relying on random matchmaking? Just a thought.

No reason the rest of us should suffer because some introverts want us to stop liking what they don't like.

No screaming 12 year olds in my experience, just a few friends online.

If I wanted to play with other people then I'd play a game that's supposed to be multiplayer like TF2 or CoD.

No point in sullying perfectly good games with an unnecessary multiplayer option.

Genocidicles:

Abandon4093:
How about you go make some friends who might want to play that coop with you, instead of relying on random matchmaking? Just a thought.

No reason the rest of us should suffer because some introverts want us to stop liking what they don't like.

No screaming 12 year olds in my experience, just a few friends online.

If I wanted to play with other people then I'd play a game that's supposed to be multiplayer like TF2 or CoD.

No point in sullying perfectly good games with an unnecessary multiplayer option.

How is it sullying it? No really, I want to know. Because the other guys reasons where laughable and they're about all I've heard when you ask people to explain when they say shit like that.

Really, tell me right now how the addition of multiplayer affects the single player.... at all.

Because it certainly doesn't take resources that could have been spent yadda yadda.

Separate teams etc etc.

So I really want to hear peoples reasoning here beyond "I'm anti social and everyone should stop liking what I don't like."

Also, far cry 3's multiplayer out strips any CoD I've played. It's coop was non too shabby either.

Also Sniper Elite V2's zombie mode was better than the Black Ops ones.

Abandon4093:

Mikeyfell:

Abandon4093:

I never get this line of reasoning.

How are they alienating you?

The presence of a multiplayer doesn't affect the single palyer.

Time, money, disk space, and personnel are all finite resources.
Anything not going in to the single player experience is effecting it negatively.

That's the case with any game, but Batman? The Arkham games amazing single player experiences. Awesome stealth, cool puzzles, a lot of exploration and an amazing combat system.
It's tight, that's the only word for it. Adding a Coop player is just fluff at best.
And could easily mean cutting whole levels to balance the enemy AI for Coop, or making the difficulty trivial on Coop, or stupidly hard on single player

Bollocks.

They have separate teams for multiplayer and single player components. They're essentially just giving the multiplayer guys something to do whilst the rest of them work on the single player.

And disk space.......... really?

Who gives a shit if it's fluff at best? That still doesn't tell me how it negatively effects your single player. It's still there, exactly how it would have been if they hadn't tacked on a multiplayer. And I'm not talking about changing the single player experience to allow coops in. I'm talking about what most modern games do for coop. Add a separates, shorter campaign.

Let's just say, for sake of argument that you're doing something really difficult.
Like... Um... making a game.
And you have 40 employes who you have to pay no matter what they end up doing.

Now, and hear me out here. Do you think the game would be better if you made 20 people work on the main game, and had 20 people working on pointless filler. Or, and this is a really big "or" is there the slightest possibility that the game would turn out one tiny iota better if you made all 40 people work on the main game?

Now. I'm sorry if that sounded condescending. But if you don't understand how only putting half of your recources to the part of the game that matters is negatively effecting it, I don't know how to respond to you.

If you have 10 dollars and you need to buy milk, do you end up with more milk if you spend 5 dollars on milk and 5 dollars on apples, or if you spend 10 dollars on milk?
I don't know how much simpler I can put it. If you do not use your recources efficiently you are going to get bad results.

Anyways, me being a smug douchebag aside.
There are two possibilities about the Multyplayer team.
They are either new employes, in which case they're basically getting payed to learn the engine the singleplayer team is already fluent in, or the multyplayer is going to be in an entirely different engine, either way the company is wasting money on them.

Or they already know how to use the single player engine, in which case they'd be more useful helping make the main game more robust.

Plenty of the best singleplayer games that came out in the past few months had tacked on multiplayer, if you don't want to play them... just don't.

Spec Ops, Xcom EU, Farcry 3 (If you're willing to forgive the crap UI), Tomb Raider(And I'm being generous here)
So 4 primarily single player games that were good despite having tacked on Multyplayer in the last 12 months.

Walking Dead, Bioshock Infinite, Lollipop Chainsaw, Mark of the Ninja, Dust an Elysian Tali (Again I'm being generous) 5 good single player games in the past 12 months and 3 of them came out on Xbox Arcade.
(Yes I don't play on PC)

And going back another year I can only add Catherine, Dark Souls and Assassin's Creed Revelations to the list of single player games that are good despite the tacked on multyplayer.

And you can look me in the text and say multyplayer doesn't effect the single player.

That's exactly what I will do. Any single player game that is bad and has multiplayer was going to be bad even if it didn't. There are probably exceptions to the rule, but yea. Don't blame tacked on multiplayer for already poor games.

Wow, that's depressingly nihilistic.
You've played Bioshcok Infinite right?
What if the team that was responsible for making the vigors made a tacked on competitive multyplayer mode instead of the vigors? Or the claw hook sky rail thing?
Or what if, in order to fit the multyplayer on the disk, they took out all the audio logs?

Would Bioshock Infinite be just as good as it is right now if instead of Vigors, hookshots and audio logs it had pointless multyplayer?

That's all hypothetical, but do you at least get it now?

Mikeyfell:

Let's just say, for sake of argument that you're doing something really difficult.
Like... Um... making a game.
And you have 40 employes who you have to pay no matter what they end up doing.

Now, and hear me out here. Do you think the game would be better if you made 20 people work on the main game, and had 20 people working on pointless filler. Or, and this is a really big "or" is there the slightest possibility that the game would turn out one tiny iota better if you made all 40 people work on the main game?

Yeaaaaaaaa... that's not how it works.

Of those 40 employees they all have specific skill sets that need to be utilised. That's why most of them specialise. You have coders who specialise in engine work, so they end up tweaking the engine. You have coders who specialise in tweaking netcodes, so they'll tweak netcodes. You have animators, you have character artists, environment artists etc etc etc.

Now at the point of tacking on a multiplayer. The bulk of games visuals are probably already done.

And you simply reuse assets, character models and environments. With very few tweaks. You don't start building the game again, from scratch. So the bulk of the work is already done. It's then down to mechanic and table specialists to come in and do their thing whilst someone writes a netcode.

They're all specialist jobs, so the people working on them were likely hired to work on them.

Now. I'm sorry if that sounded condescending. But if you don't understand how only putting half of your recources to the part of the game that matters is negatively effecting it, I don't know how to respond to you.

It sounded condescending because you seem to be thinking about game making as something you can just throw a number at and hope for the best. Completely ignoring the nuance involved in utilising specific resources to do specific jobs.

If you have 10 dollars and you need to buy milk, do you end up with more milk if you spend 5 dollars on milk and 5 dollars on apples, or if you spend 10 dollars on milk?
I don't know how much simpler I can put it. If you do not use your recources efficiently you are going to get bad results.

Bad analogy. People aren't dollars, just because you've got 10 of them doesn't mean you can split them down the middle and use 5 for one thing and the other 5 for something else. You need to utilise their talents.

Anyways, me being a smug douchebag aside.

Yea, you should really know what you're talking about before being a 'smug douche'.

There are two possibilities about the Multyplayer team.
They are either new employes, in which case they're basically getting payed to learn the engine the singleplayer team is already fluent in, or the multyplayer is going to be in an entirely different engine, either way the company is wasting money on them.

Yea man... You'd best get up to speed on this version of unreal dude. It's not like the skills you already have will be transferable from your last job. Because we don't use industry standards here dude. We developed our own engine, for every game ever.... because.

Very few companies have their own engines. And if they do, they've likely got large enough pools of resources to have dedicated multiplayer and single player teams at their disposal.

And contrary to what you might think, for the purpose of making an engine function a specific way. There's not a whole lot you simply can't transfer. By virtue of their being an engine all of the hard work is done anyway.

Or they already know how to use the single player engine, in which case they'd be more useful helping make the main game more robust.

A game runs on one engine dear.

Wow, that's depressingly nihilistic.
You've played Bioshcok Infinite right?
What if the team that was responsible for making the vigors made a tacked on competitive multyplayer mode instead of the vigors?

Yea, that would be bad. Because they'd probably find it hard to write a netcode, optimise pvp variables and write tweaked hit detection mechanics.

Or the claw hook sky rail thing?

For the interest of brevity, specialist team, for specialist jobs.

Or what if, in order to fit the multyplayer on the disk, they took out all the audio logs?

Were they banking on fitting the game on a CD?

Would Bioshock Infinite be just as good as it is right now if instead of Vigors, hookshots and audio logs it had pointless multyplayer?

That's all hypothetical, but do you at least get it now?

It's not hypothetics, it's psychothetical...

What I'm getting at is that it's silly, and completely off base.

Games aren't made like that.

Hey, it could be a really inspired, innovative, valuable game mode.

I mean, it isn't going to be, but we don't know anything about it yet.

synobal:
And now if everyone on the tour bus will turn to the left you can see a publisher making the same mistake everyone else has made again. Now continuining on up ahead you can see what is left of the occupy mass effect movement outside of biowares headquarters...

Hey, ME3 multiplayer works. It's one of the only multiplayer games I admit to enjoying!

But we can only blame ourselves for this. When CoD is hailed as the greatest selling franchise due to its multiplayer. We can only blame ourselves.

Abandon4093:
snip

Oversimplification and bad analogies aside, at least I'm not under the impression that you add multyplayer by snapping your fingers and having the Reuse Assets Fairy conger functional mechanics.

No matter how easy Unreal is to use, or how many models have already been rendered it still takes time and effort to turn those elements into playable levels
Time and effort cost money and money doesn't grow on trees, so choices have to be made and things have to be cut.
And in a single player game (Which is what the Arkham games are) the single player experience should get priority.

Mikeyfell:

Abandon4093:
snip

Oversimplification and bad analogies aside, at least I'm not under the impression that you add multyplayer by snapping your fingers and having the Reuse Assets Fairy conger functional mechanics.

No matter how easy Unreal is to use, or how many models have already been rendered it still takes time and effort to turn those elements into playable levels
Time and effort cost money and money doesn't grow on trees, so choices have to be made and things have to be cut.
And in a single player game (Which is what the Arkham games are) the single player experience should get priority.

It costs money to fund the work, obviously. But that doesn't mean they're sacrificing anything from the singleplayer.

The singleplayer will carry on being made, uninterrupted as normal.

Where people have got this notion from that multiplayer development somehow effects the singleplayer is completely beyond me. If development focuses shift, then yea. It will have an effect. But these games are coming out with tacked on multiplayers, not tacked on single players like Battlefield etc.

The focus is still on the singleplayer. The existence of a multiplayer in no way effects anything else.

Abandon4093:

It costs money to fund the work, obviously. But that doesn't mean they're sacrificing anything from the singleplayer.

The singleplayer will carry on being made, uninterrupted as normal.

Where people have got this notion from that multiplayer development somehow effects the singleplayer is completely beyond me. If development focuses shift, then yea. It will have an effect. But these games are coming out with tacked on multiplayers, not tacked on single players like Battlefield etc.

The focus is still on the singleplayer. The existence of a multiplayer in no way effects anything else.

uh... I, uh... Are you having fun with this?

I'm really glad you have infinite money and workers who can do multiple things at once without sacrificing proficiency.

But in the real world human beings are only physically capable of giving 100%

You can put your resources into singleplayer.
You can put your resources into multyplayer.
Or you can put some resources into single and multyplayer

If you go with the third option you will not, ever get 100% of the possible experience out of either element.

It's not magic. It's math. If you want to do more than one thing in the same time frame with a finite recourse pool you will have to divide your effort.

Where people have got this notion from that multiplayer development somehow effects the singleplayer is completely beyond me.

100% possible effort split between 2 elements
like
90% single player
10% multyplayer

instead of
100% single player

How the in LIVING FUCK is that "completely beyond you"
If you still don't understand why wasting time, resources and money on fluff negatively effects the thing you're supposed to be making please send me a postcard from magical pixy land where your immortal elves work for smiles and rainbows.

Mikeyfell:

Abandon4093:

It costs money to fund the work, obviously. But that doesn't mean they're sacrificing anything from the singleplayer.

The singleplayer will carry on being made, uninterrupted as normal.

Where people have got this notion from that multiplayer development somehow effects the singleplayer is completely beyond me. If development focuses shift, then yea. It will have an effect. But these games are coming out with tacked on multiplayers, not tacked on single players like Battlefield etc.

The focus is still on the singleplayer. The existence of a multiplayer in no way effects anything else.

uh... I, uh... Are you having fun with this?

I'm really glad you have infinite money and workers who can do multiple things at once without sacrificing proficiency.

Stopped reading there.

As I've said countless times now, separate teams for separate jobs. No one will be doing multiple things at once.

Abandon4093:

Mikeyfell:

Abandon4093:

It costs money to fund the work, obviously. But that doesn't mean they're sacrificing anything from the singleplayer.

The singleplayer will carry on being made, uninterrupted as normal.

Where people have got this notion from that multiplayer development somehow effects the singleplayer is completely beyond me. If development focuses shift, then yea. It will have an effect. But these games are coming out with tacked on multiplayers, not tacked on single players like Battlefield etc.

The focus is still on the singleplayer. The existence of a multiplayer in no way effects anything else.

uh... I, uh... Are you having fun with this?

I'm really glad you have infinite money and workers who can do multiple things at once without sacrificing proficiency.

Stopped reading there.

As I've said countless times now, separate teams for separate jobs. No one will be doing multiple things at once.

Separate teams do separate jobs.
Everyone gets paid
Boss has finite money

Where is your major malfunction?

Mikeyfell:

Abandon4093:

Mikeyfell:

uh... I, uh... Are you having fun with this?

I'm really glad you have infinite money and workers who can do multiple things at once without sacrificing proficiency.

Stopped reading there.

As I've said countless times now, separate teams for separate jobs. No one will be doing multiple things at once.

Separate teams do separate jobs.
Everyone gets paid
Boss has finite money

Where is your major malfunction?

So they pay more money...... not seeing how that impacts the singleplayer. They might have finite money, but that doesn't mean they ran out of money.

What I hate is when MP interferes with SP.

Like in ME3, you need to play MP in order to get the full war readiness, or whatever you call it. Sucks for people with OCD and hates/can't play MP. "Must. get.. everything.. in.. game!" (I'll leave out how shitty ME3 was, no need to turn this into the BW forums >.> )

I prefer SP games. I don't like MP. Only MP I really play is STO, cause I can ignore people when I want, and it doesn't affect my game experience.

As to RS not developing the 3rd one.. No thanks. I'll skip it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

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