I don't need to even read that article to know what it says
"I'm a sell out. I don't care about artistic integrity or quality games. I care about money, and Microsoft pays me big bucks to suck their corporate dick and push the multi player agenda. I'm a useless corporate stooge with no soul. I should probably kill myself and do the world a favor"
Now imagine I said that in my best Bill Hicks voice with a lot more vulgarity.
RyaNtheSlayA wrote:
Seriously. Screw you Shao Kahn I'm gonna play Animal Crossing.
To play devil's advocate, Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are single player games with a fantastically integrated multiplayer component that enriches the single player experience.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
MrPopo wrote:To play devil's advocate, Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are single player games with a fantastically integrated multiplayer component that enriches the single player experience.
That's not playing devil's advocate. That was already admitted. Did you even read the article?
Yerli's connected single-player idea? Not a bad idea. In fact, it's been done with Demon's Souls and Dark Souls tremendously. Great idea ... but why does it now need to be every fucking game? This is the same attitude that saw multiplayer crammed into Overlord -- about three people played that shit, and nobody's playing it now. It was a useless waste of time and money, but it had to be done because everybody's doing it. I hate seeing one good idea duplicated to obnoxious excess -- we have Hollywood for that already.
"The games market seems incredibly quick to discard things at the slightest provocation, or claim something's "dead" at the drop of a hat. This is coupled with a seeming need to see everything homogenize and become the same thing."
This quote shows how I feel about multiplayer modes in most games today
"It had to be done because everybody's doing it. I hate seeing one good idea duplicated to obnoxious excess -- we have Hollywood for that already. "
RyaNtheSlayA wrote:
Seriously. Screw you Shao Kahn I'm gonna play Animal Crossing.
MrPopo wrote:To play devil's advocate, Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are single player games with a fantastically integrated multiplayer component that enriches the single player experience.
I totally agree with this, except for the fact that these publishers want nothing like the Souls games and basically want Call of Duty with different skins on it, and want at least three a year.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you all how I feel about that idea.
But for the sake of not wasting post space, I'll say that I'm pretty confident that this will not happen. Ever. Maybe the big budget "high profile" game companies will try to do that, but it will never be a mass thing that everyone tries to do.
I feel old when talking to anyone my age yet too inexperienced to effectively talk to anyone older. Life is grand that way.
MrPopo wrote:To play devil's advocate, Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are single player games with a fantastically integrated multiplayer component that enriches the single player experience.
That's not playing devil's advocate. That was already admitted. Did you even read the article?
Yerli's connected single-player idea? Not a bad idea. In fact, it's been done with Demon's Souls and Dark Souls tremendously. Great idea ... but why does it now need to be every fucking game? This is the same attitude that saw multiplayer crammed into Overlord -- about three people played that shit, and nobody's playing it now. It was a useless waste of time and money, but it had to be done because everybody's doing it. I hate seeing one good idea duplicated to obnoxious excess -- we have Hollywood for that already.
I didn't realize reiterating things from the article was verboten. Might as well clean out everything repeated in this thread then.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
MrPopo wrote:To play devil's advocate, Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are single player games with a fantastically integrated multiplayer component that enriches the single player experience.
That's not playing devil's advocate. That was already admitted. Did you even read the article?
Yerli's connected single-player idea? Not a bad idea. In fact, it's been done with Demon's Souls and Dark Souls tremendously. Great idea ... but why does it now need to be every fucking game? This is the same attitude that saw multiplayer crammed into Overlord -- about three people played that shit, and nobody's playing it now. It was a useless waste of time and money, but it had to be done because everybody's doing it. I hate seeing one good idea duplicated to obnoxious excess -- we have Hollywood for that already.
I didn't realize reiterating things from the article was verboten. Might as well clean out everything repeated in this thread then.
I welcome our server based over lords erm, video games.
Seriously this is stupid, no one remembers when valve said the same thing a little while ago?
Seriously fuck this whole sky is falling attitude. It's pointless to get riled up over what one guy at a video game studio says. I'd rather play a video game that has dlc and multiplayer then never play another new video game again. Where was everyone when MGS 4 came out? I don't remember people complaining about that game having multiplayer and how it took away from the single player portion of the game.
