It's one thing if it's a single-player focused franchise. Another if it's not.Video games aren't inherently story-tellers. Having multiplayer only is not a bad idea - but the execution is what matters.You need to give your customers something more to do offline. Either that or bring the price down on the product.
If it's a multiplayer-focused game then I'd rather they put all of their resources into the multiplayer than doing a shitty campaign. Titanfall didn't deserve the flack it got for not having a single player mode, but it really should have had more content at launch. The same goes for single-player focused games. They don't need a multiplayer to justify full price (although ME3's multiplayer ended up being one of the only good things about the game.)
Quote from: Snake on February 02, 2015, 01:52:45 AMIt's one thing if it's a single-player focused franchise. Another if it's not.Video games aren't inherently story-tellers. Having multiplayer only is not a bad idea - but the execution is what matters.You need to give your customers something more to do offline. Either that or bring the price down on the product.I don't nevissarily mean story, just single player content. I spent likely thousands of hours on Star Wars battlefront jut on the AI battles, I never touched multiplayer. I have spent hundreds if hours on Halo forge and even firefight on Rech just messing around.
Eh. No and yes. I prefer games with a solid campaign, and would probably like more focus on that in the industry. If a game is designed focusing on multiplayer though, and it works (as in the audience supports it and feels like they're getting their moneys worth), then I don't really see the issue.
If it's multiplayer only, I expect long lasting support (almost on par with those MMO's).If it's singleplayer only, I expect a full story. Skyrim/RPGs need that at least.Combos are troublesome, usually because they haven't enough funding or resources to cover both bases perfectly, although coop story modes ALA Borderlands are good compromises if they focus on story more than multiplayer.
If it has a singleplayer, then yes, of course. I hate a half-assed campaign.But the same can also be said for multiplayer. I don't want a half-ass multiplayer, either. Or a half-assed anything. Either do it right, or don't do it at all (or save it for the sequel >.>)
I'd rather change it to"A videogame should be able to stand up on its design choices to the fullest possible achievable extent of the developer, and the publisher without diminishing, swaying nor lying about the promised quality, and at the same time taking serious consideration of the useful community feedback."
What do you think of this statement?
