Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperorIng
I saw that. Social interaction was always what arcades were about. The 80's were about beating the high score of your fellow gamer, while in the 90s it was head to head racing and fighting games.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperorIng
I saw that. Social interaction was always what arcades were about. The 80's were about beating the high score of your fellow gamer, while in the 90s it was head to head racing and fighting games.
I'd say a large factor behind these early, early games being multiplayer only was a hardware issue, it just wasn't feasible to do AI.Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperorIng
Arcade ops love multiplayer games (especially competitive fighters) because you're raking in twice profit each play. It's not one person playing while another waits, it's constant coin drops. Today it's a similar situation, all 24 players in that CoD lobby have bought a copy and each bought the map packs whereas if you're playing couch coop only one copy is sold.Quote:
Single-player games get all the press, but what always moved the biggest numbers were multiplayer games (see: sports games, for example).
Pong is a far cry from Call of Duty. Please, do not confuse, nor intermingle as "same".
Yeah, you buy one version of pong and that's all you need, there is no need to pay 60$ for yearly upgrade.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSciFi
Single player campaigns in the CoD games is all I care about. Glad they keep making them.
It's funny that the PS3 and 360 versions of Black Ops III only have the online multiplayer.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSciFi
Yeah you can tell by the visuals they didn't even care at all and to top it all off it runs at 30fps well sort of.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
This makes wonder if people are aware of what happened with Elder Scrolls Online:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=003oGsnWeXw
Fallout 4 MP would of been amusing, nothing says being alone in a vast wasteland like not being alone at all.
Limited multiplayer, like "up to X players" being able to join someone's campaign, like the awful Dying Light or Boringlands let you do, would be nice in many games. Players join? Number of enemies or their difficulty increases. Players leave? Reverse that.
Mad Max had no multiplayer functions in its campaign, only death races, and the driving in the game was trash.
Some of my best memories are with my brother playing games like ToeJam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron and The Ren & Stimpy Show presents Stimpy's Invention. This is what multiplayer meant to mean back in the day. And it's what drove me towards it still when playing the original Halo in Co-Op later on. This is what multiplayer meant to me. Maybe every now and then I'd hit the vs mode in some game with friends or family (including fighting games), but that never seemed as a prevalent feature in the gaming world even as recent as 2005. With the exception of "arcade" fighting games", It's the 7th generation that changed it all.
Nowadays, I ask a random person: "Hey, brohemian, you play games too?"; to which I get "Fuck yeah! It's all about Call of Duty, baby!". And, if I delve deeper, there is not one mention of any story-driven campaign. I respond: "there are many good Call of Duty games. Play any other games?" To which I gather: "Of course, man; you gotta hit me up some time so we can play some Destiny, or TitanFall, or Star Wars Battlefront, or BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH..." :?
Sure, some popular games have quality content and, even, quality gameplay; but that doesn't equate to a quality presentation or, even, a good game. With so many games of the sort already coming out, when a new AAA game nowadays shits on single player campaign, it marks itself instantly for Doomed Shovelware of the Near Future. And that's hopeful thinking, imo. TBH, with online-only bullshit multiplayers, what I personally think it marks itself for is simply Doomed Paperweight of the Near Future.
I have zero interest in these games when, at the same time, there are so many I already own that are so shock-full of great content that I haven't even tapped into yet.Add to that the insurmountable number of great games with amazing stories I don't yet own that I have on my Want List. But that's just me talking on my behalf.
P.S.> How the fuck does Kim Cardashian make over $80 million in a diarrhea-content-filled smart phone "game". Goes to show what "popular" really means to the gaming industry.The same shit happened in the movie industry. And that's what's scariest. With so many accepting the drop of single player story mode from AAA games, the gaming industry will start using their net profits as excuse for what people truly want. Look at what happened with Star Wars Battlefront. Look at Street Fighter V. Sure, these games look and play beautifully, but they shit on everyone who was hoping to simply buy these games, put on their console, and play the fuck out of a single player mode.
As long as the fucktards are out there spending the money on Diarrhea, the liquid shit will keep pouring out. :?
This would make sense, if it was one of those games were if you win, you get to see her topless. What is that Saturn game? "Yakuzen Special"?Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSciFi
Drop in, drop out co-op could work in Fallout 4. Just have a player take over a companion. Simple yet it doesn't take away from the single player experience.
But that's a good idea that requires programming talent, so it can't happen.
That's what would happen in Watch Dogs. Someone would hack your phone and you would have to chase them down, or lose some kind of experience points.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jackal