The Price Of 'Tacked-On' Multiplayer

Show Topics In:
Posted 4:31pm on Sat 3 August 2013
VG_Staff
  • Posts: 28,600
00
The Price Of 'Tacked-On' Multiplayer
Any game that meets some success before getting added multiplayer with the sequel gets painted with the 'tacked-on' brush. Does that always mean a sub-par experience, though?

Read the full article
Posted 9:21pm on Sat 3 August 2013
AdesteFideles
  • Posts: 156
00
In response to Topic
Any game that meets some success before getting added multiplayer with the sequel gets painted with the 'tacked-on' brush. Does that always mean a sub-par experience, though?

Read the full article

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
I have owned 5 of the 6 released games in this article (will play TLOU soon-ish) and not once did I even think about playing any of the multi-player modes.
Posted 8:53pm on Sun 4 August 2013
JoeStrife
  • Posts: 6
00
In response to Topic
Any game that meets some success before getting added multiplayer with the sequel gets painted with the 'tacked-on' brush. Does that always mean a sub-par experience, though?

Read the full article

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
I'll admit I haven't played all of these online, but I feel like an online experience is better when it seems like it could be part of the main story, or maybe not part of it, just at least somehow involved. Like in The Last of Us, you chose to be one of the factions that you met in the game, so you knew about them and what they do, so you knew that at some point in the universe of the game that these two factions could have met and fought over supplies, and the fact that even your own reinforcements are limited to a point that it can be a 1 vs 4 at the very end of the match, and the online was pretty awesome, most of the same gameplay mechanics were involved and it was also really quite rewarding to see your clan grow, I also loved the join game feature of being able to choose "No Groups", so you wouldn't be playing against a well co-ordinated team especially if you have no chance of being in one.
Whereas when it came to something like COD, I was just a bit confused, I understand two armies may fight over control of an area, but when it the reinforcements are basically unlimited and people can keep spawning in and dying over and over again, I just felt like there's no consequence of your own failure. And when it comes to all vs all deathmatch, 20 of the world's greatest soldiers decided to gather into a small area to all kill one another? I just... nah.
I enjoy multiplayer after finishing a game, it does add some nice length to £40 I spent buying the game and it's nice to feel like the developer at least tried to do something with it even if it's not popular. But when a game is basically reproduced ever year just for the multiplayer, just puts me off using the online functions, and I'm not just hating on Call of Duty, I like Call of Duty most of the time, I don't think much of the story but mainly I enjoy it most when I'm just playing it locally with just friends, but it just doesn't compare to something you feel like you can care about.
Posted 2:19pm on Mon 5 August 2013
MrSmileyFace
  • Posts: 41
00
In response to Topic
Any game that meets some success before getting added multiplayer with the sequel gets painted with the 'tacked-on' brush. Does that always mean a sub-par experience, though?

Read the full article

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
Personally, having played all of the games that have been released, I think that the only game that has a commendable online is TLOU, even then it isn't that great. But it just goes to show that no matter how good the single player is, if the online is budget, last minute or not wanted, it is going to be crap. Like Spec Ops: The Line, which is my favourite game and perhaps one of the best of this generation, it was utter crap because it was not funded well enough and not wanted nor needed.

We can only hope that the guys doing the online for Arkham Origins do a better job.
Posted 6:14pm on Mon 5 August 2013
mrgarrettscott
  • Posts: 13
00
In response to Topic
Any game that meets some success before getting added multiplayer with the sequel gets painted with the 'tacked-on' brush. Does that always mean a sub-par experience, though?

Read the full article

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
The reason that tacked-on multiplayer exists is because developers and publishers are trying to find away to extend the time a player spends a game. With a multiplayer mode, there is a reason to keep playing after finishing the main game. I thought that DLC could address this issue. Then, the question becomes why couldn't the already planned DLC be a part of the original game, especially same-day or on-disk DLC. Hell, some DLC feels tacked-on!

Some gamers won't even consider a game if doesn't include some type of multiplayer mode. Rather than accept losing a potential customer dollars, a publisher/developer finds a way to accommodate that customer by putting a check in the multiplayer box.

Perhaps, the best way to avoid tacked-on DLC or multiplayer is a let a game stand on its on merits. If it is a single-player game, let it be that.
Posted 8:24pm on Mon 5 August 2013
Endless
  • Posts: 4,486
00
In response to Topic
Any game that meets some success before getting added multiplayer with the sequel gets painted with the 'tacked-on' brush. Does that always mean a sub-par experience, though?

Read the full article

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
Suspicious absence of ME3 multiplayer which arguably is the best 'tacked-on' multiplayer in existence.
Posted 12:21am on Tue 6 August 2013
altaranga
  • Posts: 7,357
01
In response to Topic
Any game that meets some success before getting added multiplayer with the sequel gets painted with the 'tacked-on' brush. Does that always mean a sub-par experience, though?

Read the full article

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
Suspicious absence of decent reportage.
Posted 8:20pm on Tue 14 January 2014
watkins17
  • Posts: 7
00
In response to Topic
Any game that meets some success before getting added multiplayer with the sequel gets painted with the 'tacked-on' brush. Does that always mean a sub-par experience, though?

Read the full article

» Go to VG_Staff's original post
not to sure :/
Show Topics In:
Quick Reply

Login or register to reply to this topic

Create a new account or login to take part in this topic discussion.
View Full Site