Editorials and Features

Forum for Editorials and other News Features

In Defense of 'Tacked On' Multiplayer

  • Fire Hawk DFire Hawk D2,157,768
    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:02, Edited on 16 April 13 at 14:03 by Fire Hawk D
    Great article. Finally, some defense of BioShock 2's fantastic multiplayer! Beyond staring at the back of a turret for hours, I enjoyed my time playing the game, single- and multi-player.

    I'll never side with the "tacked on" argument. I've never played an online multiplayer that I sat through and thought "man, this seems out of place". I know plenty of people that quite enjoy Tomb Raider's multiplayer and I myself love Assassin's Creed's multiplayer modes.

    I don't know. I'm always of the opinion that if you don't like it, why play it? Let those who do like it enjoy it. Don't be a child and demand a franchise you enjoy never change or evolve. Just don't play/buy it. If they add/change something in Game: Part II that you think ruined the series, then stop whining and go re-play Game: Part I again while the rest of us enjoy the new one.
  • Jerick85Jerick85189,328
    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:03, Edited on 16 April 13 at 14:04 by Jerick85
    I think Tomb Raider is a great game for me, the only reason I haven't purchased it is because i will have to deal with sh*tty Multiplayer Achievements. So "tacked on" mp actually is causing them to lose potential customers, since i'm sure there are others like me. I wonder if those numbers outweigh the people that get the game just because of the MP..
    Trying to increase completion percentage.
  • LavindatharLavindathar1,975,587
    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:04
    I enjoyed both games multiplayer you highlight?
  • Fire Hawk DFire Hawk D2,157,768
    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:04
    Jerick85 said:
    I think Tomb Raider is a great game for me, the only reason I haven't purchased it is because i will have to deal with sh*tty Multiplayer Achievements. So "tacked on" mp actually is costing them to lose customers, since i'm sure there are others like me. I wonder if those numbers outweigh the people that get the game just because of the MP..
    I'd bet my hat that the number of people who buy the game (for whatever reason) far, far, FAR outweighs the people who don't buy the game JUST because of multiplayer.
  • Jerick85Jerick85189,328
    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:05
    obviously, but you have to compare the people that only buy the game BECAUSE of the MP. And compare those to the people that won't anymore BECAUSE of the MP.
    Trying to increase completion percentage.
  • Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:06, Edited on 16 April 13 at 14:07 by osubluejacket
    I think the biggest frustration (in this community, anyway) is when games with a "Tacked-On Multiplayer" contain achievments and the MP community just dries up.

    For instance, I'm currently playing Syndicate and am trying to clear out the final few co-op achievements, but the community is next to none. This makes it hard to find a big enough syndicate/clan to nail down a few of the final pops. It's especially sad because the MP/co-op is WICKED fun.

    I also thoroughly adored Singularity. The MP had its warts, but it was a very interesting diversion and deserved better.
    TrueAchievements Editorial Manager | Twitter: @osubluejacket | "In Soviet Russia, game plays you!"
  • Fire Hawk DFire Hawk D2,157,768
    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:11
    Jerick85 said:
    obviously, but you have to compare the people that only buy the game BECAUSE of the MP. And compare those to the people that won't anymore BECAUSE of the MP.
    Yeah, but what company cares? One stat (those who bought the game FOR multiplayer) just adds to their total sales so who cares why they're buying it? The other (people who didn't buy it because of multiplayer) is probably so insignificant that they're likely to ignore that demographic altogether.

    They added multiplayer to increase their target audience. As long as it doesn't decrease the total numbers, who cares? Plus, seems REALLY silly to ignore an entire game because of one (optional) mode. I've heard the game was really fun.
  • Smash41Smash41187,994
    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:13
    Tacked on MP is OK for the first week, not so much after when there are 4 people playing.
  • Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:18
    The MP in Bioshock 2 actually was fun if taken in small doses. Playing it with people you know can add to the enjoyment factor. Singularity matches can actually become tense and fun, especially if there is good communication/teamwork. Beating the opposing team feels like a real accomplishment when the game is a close one. If you're gonna boost Singularity though watch out for an asshole by the name of Caretaker. I know for a fact that he trolls TA for Singularity sessions to disrupt to protect his precious number one spot on the leaderboards.
    My only complaint with wireless controllers is that there's nothing to slow em down when I throw em.
  • Removed Gamer

    Removed Gamer

    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:19
    Goldeneye's multiplayer was an afterthought. Sometimes people just get it right.
  • Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:25
    Try to write an article defending Beautiful Katamari's multiplayer... I dare you.
  • AwooAwoo2,149,275
    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:35, Edited on 16 April 13 at 14:35 by Awoo
    Anything that's tacked on to artificially enhance the length of a game is bad, whether it be multiplayer, pointless backtracking, excessive level grinding or anything like that. The fact that Bioshock 2 had a tolerable online mode is only because they put effort into it, in which case there's clearly not a problem. Mass Effect 3 is another great example of that, where the multiplayer was and still is surprisingly fun, and doesn't mess all that much with the single player experience.

    The problem arises when the multiplayer is bad, like in... oh let's say Overlord, to make a strange example. It's not needed, it's not particularily fun, and the developers must surely have known that no one would play that part of the game for very long. So why include it? The main issue here is that funds and work that could have gone into making an even better single player mode is wasted on pointless multiplayer, and that's quite a tough argument to beat. You may get lucky and get a good tack-on MP once in a while, but you're always getting it at the cost of something else.
    What can change the nature of a man?
  • lord verhlord verh177,495
    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:36
    I really ejnoyed the mp of Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood. Mainly because of the different classes. It wasn't perfectly balanced but it was fun. BioShock 2 was a lot of fun as well.
  • Removed Gamer

    Removed Gamer

    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:36
    Prof Hooblehof said:
    Try to write an article defending Beautiful Katamari's multiplayer... I dare you.
    It was still more fun than Mario Kart's awful levels on the Gamecube, that's not bad for just rolling about.
  • Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:37
    I think a lot of my problems with multiplayer stem from the achievements. I honestly hated Assassin's Creed and RE5's multiplayer with a passion, and my compulsions dictated I sit them out (before you criticise me, check the name of the site).
    By no means am I a CoD fan, but in this regard, it gets it right. People play the multiplayer religiously, despite the lack of achievements, and if your multiplayer is good enough, that will be the result.

    Also I don't know about anyone else, but multiplayer fatigue has somewhat set in for me. It was fun, fresh and exciting in the days of Halo 2, but now I'd rather just sit down with a nice long singleplayer and not have to go online into the general communities of elitists and angry children.

    Not saying I am totally against it at all, and I will usually give it a chance, but for the most part,, I no longer welcome it fervently.
  • litepinklitepink308,570
    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:38
    Thanks for the great read! Very professional.
    My TA Deal Blog: http://tinyurl.com/6t8nzpd
  • Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:39
    I personally would of referenced "Crysis 2". Not only was its mulitplayer a boring and repetitive 'CoD Clone', Crytek botched the achievements and it had very little to do with the single player mode other than sharing the same character skins. Why the Hell i couldn't play as the Ceph is still beyond me - it would of made it a lot more enjoyable. Playing once a week for over a year until they decided to give me "DEDICATED" was an endgame for me. I did not buy "Crysis 3" as a result of the crummy multiplayer experience in "Crysis 2". I also found it hilarious that most people boosted the crap out of this game to get it over with, only to have Crytek reset EVERYBODYS online stats - thanks Crytek you only punished those playing legit!

    Then there's Resident Evil 5, the multiplayer in that game was atrocious. Granted it was DLC, and as such not technically tacked on, but it really diminished the feel of the Campaign. Although, i must admit, being able to play campaign 2up after having all my ammo and health kits vanished by a certain single player NPC (that shall remain nameless) was a real relief. Although that was the last Resident Evil game i played.

    Bioshock 2 multiplayer was not that bad, but again i resented having to play over 20 hours online to get a completion. I was even more annoyed to find my completion disappear on Xbox after the release of the protector trials but never mind :S
    I think it's safe to say that Bioshock:Infinite would of suffered sales wise if they had repeated that model - i personally would not of bought it if it had "tacked-on multiplayer".

    I'm all for a bit of multiplayer being included, but i feel the Resident Evil model is better. Don't include mulitplayer and the associated achievements on the game disc. Then release multiplayer as DLC.
    That way the choice of whether to play online or not is down to the gamer... not their OCD. I actually really resent games being sold with online achievements included - there are still some people with little to no internet, for them it's not really fair that they need to go online to get a completion. Don't get me wrong i have played and will play multiplayer games online again, what i'm saying is that having it included on the game itself seriously makes me consider the amount of time/grind required to get 100% and as such makes me reconsider if i want to even play that game at all.

    Games i haven't played because they have multiplayer achievements:
    Crysis 3 (mentioned above)

    Syndicate (as well as looking crap it looked a terrible grind, i was willing to have a go until i saw multiplayer achievements)

    Tomb Raider (would of been day 1 buy without multiplayer)

    Assassins Creed games since II ( I have 3 but heard its glitched to hell and i'm not really up for the multiplayer grinding)

    Dead Rising 2 (was pretty gutted about this one - heard it was glitched to hell)

    I was also pretty annoyed to find out that DIRT 2 has 3 unobtainables, as i recently purchased this from marketplace. I was up for a bit of online racing and had i known prior, it would of been a no sale.

    I think my point would be, if you are going to do it, do it right. If you want it INCLUDED try your damnedest to make it FIT IN with the rest of the game! Also making sure that the game modes and achievements actually work would be nice ;P

    Nice read though, and no doubt a subject for much debate!
    Thanks for taking the time to write and post.
    It is a common misconception that movement in any direction should be considered as progression
  • Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:42
    MachineGryphon said:
    I think a lot of my problems with multiplayer stem from the achievements. I honestly hated Assassin's Creed and RE5's multiplayer with a passion, and my compulsions dictated I sit them out (before you criticise me, check the name of the site).
    Yeah, that's exactly the way i feel these days wink.
    It is a common misconception that movement in any direction should be considered as progression
  • DrNefarioDrNefario240,579
    Posted on 16 April 13 at 14:48
    Fire Hawk D said:
    I'd bet my hat that the number of people who buy the game (for whatever reason) far, far, FAR outweighs the people who don't buy the game JUST because of multiplayer.
    But how many people are only playing the multiplayer because there are achievements in it?

    Most of the tacked-on MP I have played is not actually all that terrible - Tomb Raider, AC: Brotherhood, ME3, etc - but I didn't really want it, and wouldn't have played it without the blackmail of MP achievements.

    Of course, I'm not sure how much I'd want to play even something like L4D2 or GoW3 if there were no achievements at all in the MP. It's a tough one to call.
Want to join in the discussion? Please log in or Register For Free to comment.
Hide ads
Hide ads