1. Post #41
    zombojoe's Avatar
    March 2010
    7,104 Posts
    If Valve hadn't added the "pointless" multiplayer to half life 1, we might not have seen Counter Strike or Team Fortress come out of it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Dumb Dumb x 7 (list)

  2. Post #42
    Gold Member
    Im Crimson's Avatar
    December 2005
    5,129 Posts
    If Valve hadn't added the "pointless" multiplayer to half life 1, we might not have seen Counter Strike or Team Fortress come out of it.
    Multiplayer FPS-deathmatch style gameplay in enclosed environments were not overdone back then.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 8 Sweden Show Events Agree Agree x 6Zing Zing x 2 (list)

  3. Post #43
    Gold Member
    GammaFive's Avatar
    August 2005
    1,399 Posts
    id love an up to date sims game with multiplayer
    I read that as a Dating sim with multiplayer.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    JustGman's Avatar
    December 2005
    5,554 Posts
    If Valve hadn't added the "pointless" multiplayer to half life 1, we might not have seen Counter Strike or Team Fortress come out of it.
    but half life 1 multiplayer was actually fun and not forced?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 8 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  5. Post #45
    Gold Member
    Leather Belt's Avatar
    August 2009
    4,190 Posts
    If Valve hadn't added the "pointless" multiplayer to half life 1, we might not have seen Counter Strike or Team Fortress come out of it.
    Those were mods, EA hates those.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 8 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  6. Post #46
    Map in a box's Avatar
    July 2009
    5,791 Posts
    Plants vs Zombies 2 would have a good multiplayer I think
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  7. Post #47
    Ah yes "opinions"
    Jackald's Avatar
    October 2005
    15,278 Posts
    I'd much rather an online component was organically developed as part of the game rather than because it was mandated by the overlords...
    Yeah, if it's integrated into the game as the game is developed, it can be great.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  8. Post #48
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2009
    6,500 Posts
    Didn't valve say something just like this? You guys don't need to hate just because its EA.
    Valve doesn't shit out games in half the time it takes to finish one and doesn't tack on anything deemed mainstream just for extra sales.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  9. Post #49
    Krakash's Avatar
    August 2011
    265 Posts
    It's just a way for them to get you to keep the game until they release the DLC.

    I'm eager to see what DLC plans they have for Dead Space 3. DS2 just had the singular big DLC and all the armour. Dead Space 3 Season Pass anyone?

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    The mouse's Avatar
    March 2009
    7,095 Posts
    This is just really subtle DRM, if you pirate the game then you can't use the features.

  11. Post #51
    Source's Avatar
    January 2010
    3,583 Posts
    Didn't valve say something just like this? You guys don't need to hate just because its EA.
    Valve = respectable and actually take time to produce a full product, EA = money grabbing cuntbags who half ass everything
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member
    Nikota's Avatar
    September 2010
    7,959 Posts
    Valve said this exact thing.
    Valve doesn't shut their game servers down after 2 years, and they go out of their way to make sure that servers can remain up, as long as the community is willing to host them.

    Edited:

    Like, it's fucking hilarious how EA will be doing this, and the multiplayer servers will all be down within a year, year and a half if it's lucky.

    Edited:

    If Valve hadn't added the "pointless" multiplayer to half life 1, we might not have seen Counter Strike or Team Fortress come out of it.
    The multiplayer in hl1 was pretty good to be honest. Was a different take on quake.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  13. Post #53
    Medevilae's Avatar
    December 2008
    2,886 Posts
    IMO it's more along the lines of Valve doesn't say "in order to get the best ending you must use an unintuitive and generic multiplayer to earn points" *cough* ME3 *cough*
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4Disagree Disagree x 2 (list)

  14. Post #54
    Sir Drone's Avatar
    February 2012
    1,876 Posts
    Fuck off
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Australia Show Events Useful Useful x 1 (list)

  15. Post #55
    a dumb bear's Avatar
    June 2011
    2,120 Posts
    Didn't valve say something just like this? You guys don't need to hate just because its EA.
    But Valve don't have a notorious habit of ruining games by having both mediocre multiplayer and singleplayer

  16. Post #56
    Gold Member
    Dirty_Ape's Avatar
    May 2005
    3,235 Posts
    Even though it sounded like a shit idea I did end up having a lot of fun in ME3 co op so maybe they won't fuck this up too much.

       Maybe   

  17. Post #57
    Maxjes's Avatar
    July 2012
    190 Posts
    Battlefield - Nothing changes.
    Burnout - Nothing changes.
    Command & Conquer - Nothing changes.
    Crysis - Nothing changes.
    Dead Space - Nothing changes
    Dragon Age - This does not need multiplayer.
    FIFA - Nothing changes.
    Fight Night - Nothing changes.
    Harry Potter - Nobody cares.
    Madden NFL - Nothing changes.
    Mass Effect - Nothing changes.
    Medal of Honor - Nothing changes.
    NBA Live - Nothing changes.
    NCAA Football - Nothing changes.
    Need for Speed - Nothing changes.
    NHL - Nothing changes.
    Rock Band - Nothing changes.
    SimCity - Nothing Changes
    The Sims - Not sure how they'd implement multiplayer.
    Skate - Nothing changes.
    SSX - Nothing changes.

    The only things this can really hurt is Bioware, and people are so quick to forget that Neverwinter Nights had a pretty okay Multi.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  18. Post #58
    Gold Member
    Nikota's Avatar
    September 2010
    7,959 Posts
    Uhm. EA doesn't have a hand in Rockband, other than a simple distribution deal.

    Edited:

    Like, EA manufactures the disks and necessary packaging, and madkatz manufactures the instruments.

  19. Post #59
    Maxjes's Avatar
    July 2012
    190 Posts
    They don't own Crysis either, but I'm not sure if this policy is for all the games they publish, or just the ones they own, so I included them.

  20. Post #60
    Gold Member
    Trogdon's Avatar
    October 2007
    9,820 Posts
    Exactly; Valve can "get away" with this kinda because they're actually good at what they do and understand that good things take a good amount of time to make.
    so please explain to me why portal 2 was no longer than 6 hours though it took years to come out and cost $50

  21. Post #61
    Gold Member
    TestECull's Avatar
    July 2007
    4,668 Posts
    so please explain to me why portal 2 was no longer than 6 hours though it took years to come out and cost $50

    Explain why Battlefield 3, which launched at 60, had an absolutely terrible 3 hour campaign despite DICE repeatedly saying they were trying to make a good SP to go along with it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  22. Post #62
    Gold Member
    Trogdon's Avatar
    October 2007
    9,820 Posts
    Explain why Battlefield 3, which launched at 60, had an absolutely terrible 3 hour campaign despite DICE repeatedly saying they were trying to make a good SP to go along with it.
    because it shouldn't have had a singleplayer campaign let alone a multiplayer one
    game is trash

  23. Post #63
    PLEASE,give me the dick
    fruxodaily's Avatar
    November 2010
    8,671 Posts
    Maybe they're referring to the Activision approach where you have 2 different teams working on the sides of the games? That worked well with CoD, campaign was great and MP was silly fun.
    Activision still mentions to tie in MP with SP somehow

    Example: A lot of cod maps are based off SP missions
    Spec Ops has events from single player that can be suited for CO-OP
    Zombies takes on another turn

    EA is just doing it for the thrill, like does sims or dead space really need a MP component?

  24. Post #64
    Gold Member
    Super Muffin's Avatar
    June 2006
    1,913 Posts
    Spec Ops has events from single player that can be suited for CO-OP
    Spec Ops was 2K, not Activision.

    I'm surprised so many people care about this tacked on MP thing. 2K, Rockstar, and Ubisoft have all taken this approach and nobody batted an eyelash.

    Seems like the EA hate bandwagon is rolling again.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  25. Post #65
    We Are No Idiots
    Aide's Avatar
    March 2010
    3,230 Posts
    Sounds like a easy way to force DRM without it being noticed.

  26. Post #66
    timmah638's Avatar
    September 2011
    253 Posts
    Spec Ops was 2K, not Activision.

    I'm surprised so many people care about this tacked on MP thing. 2K, Rockstar, and Ubisoft have all taken this approach and nobody batted an eyelash.

    Seems like the EA hate bandwagon is rolling again.
    It's kind of funny, because I've heard from an ex-EA employee that they give fairly good opportunities to those they lay off. Though I guess that that's an issue for another thread.

  27. Post #67
    PLEASE,give me the dick
    fruxodaily's Avatar
    November 2010
    8,671 Posts
    Spec Ops was 2K, not Activision.
    I meant spec ops from cod

  28. Post #68
    27X
    Rantasaurus Rex
    27X's Avatar
    July 2010
    4,371 Posts
    Valve said this exact thing.
    No they didn't. They said they would be expanding the OPTIONAL social and community components of their games and introduce more community feedback and mod/steamworks support. ME3 got mod tools and an MP community hub released when exactly? You can't even fucking use text chat in that game.

    Yet again quality raidyr post 100% devoid of context or common sense.

  29. Post #69
    Gold Member
    TestECull's Avatar
    July 2007
    4,668 Posts
    because it shouldn't have had a singleplayer campaign let alone a multiplayer one
    game is trash

    If DICE had said "Right, fuck it, nobody buys Battlefield for SP, so we won't bother with SP at alll" I'd be fine with BF3. Not my cup of tea, I hate that type of multiplayer, but fair enough if it's good it's good. However, they repeatedly claimed they were going to try to make an engaging single player during development, with the end result being six kinds of terrible. It's so heavily scripted that you don't get to do much of anything. They made jet combat boring for fuck's sake!


    So glad I didn't buy it. I almost did based on their claims but sense took over and I waited for reviews. Every single one of them said the SP was terrible but the MP was good, and since I don't enjoy MP I shrugged the game off entirely.

  30. Post #70
    The best headhumper of the galaxy.
    RockmanYoshi's Avatar
    January 2012
    1,413 Posts
    Valve doesn't shut their game servers down after 2 years, and they go out of their way to make sure that servers can remain up, as long as the community is willing to host them.
    Well, unless you don't count the WON/Steam fiasco.

  31. Post #71
    usa
    Future Moderator
    usa's Avatar
    December 2011
    1,914 Posts
    EA posted:
    Play4Free
    pay 4 fee
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 8 New Zealand Show Events Funny Funny x 4 (list)

  32. Post #72
    Gold Member
    Skyward's Avatar
    March 2009
    8,461 Posts
    IMO it's more along the lines of Valve doesn't say "in order to get the best ending you must use an unintuitive and generic multiplayer to earn points" *cough* ME3 *cough*
    To be fair, they fixed it, and you don't need to play the MP at all to get the best possible ending anymore.

    Also, as unnecessary as it was, ME3's multiplayer was actually pretty decent. I mean I wish it went to single player development, but I ended up playing that mode a HELLUVA lot with my friends.

  33. Post #73
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    May 2010
    2,809 Posts
    EA was such an amazing game development/publisher company before and around after the millennium.

    And Sierra

    And Team 17 kinda just got a bit lazy, they're still cool I think.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 8 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  34. Post #74
    therake6's Avatar
    April 2007
    82 Posts
    Shit Mulitplayer > Shit Singleplayer

    Because you have to sit through shit singleplayer games alone