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.
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.
I read that as a Dating sim with multiplayer.
but half life 1 multiplayer was actually fun and not forced?
Those were mods, EA hates those.
Plants vs Zombies 2 would have a good multiplayer I think
Yeah, if it's integrated into the game as the game is developed, it can be great.
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.
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?
This is just really subtle DRM, if you pirate the game then you can't use the features.
Valve = respectable and actually take time to produce a full product, EA = money grabbing cuntbags who half ass everything
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:
The multiplayer in hl1 was pretty good to be honest. Was a different take on quake.
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*
Fuck off
But Valve don't have a notorious habit of ruining games by having both mediocre multiplayer and singleplayer
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
because it shouldn't have had a singleplayer campaign let alone a multiplayer one
game is trash
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?
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.
Sounds like a easy way to force DRM without it being noticed.
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.
I meant spec ops from cod
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.
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.
Well, unless you don't count the WON/Steam fiasco.
pay 4 feeEA posted:
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.
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.
Shit Mulitplayer > Shit Singleplayer
Because you have to sit through shit singleplayer games alone