Bethesda Explains Why There's No Multiplayer in Wolfenstein

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, since RAGE MP sucked donkey marbles, I'm not amazed at this decision at all, haha.

Good call on focusing in the SP and make it a great product instead of giving a half-assed product on both fronts.

Cheers!
 
it's ok. i can understand why companies want a multiplayer aspect in their games, but these days the multiplayer segments are so diluted, those games aren't even delivering replay-ability. so in my eyes, this was a very good decision. we need more single player stories. just dont make them the standard $60 pricepoint unless it runs a couple hundred hours.
 
i actually like when publisher giving more freedom to developer on what they want to do with their games. unlike EA that every game must have MP element or else your project will not get approved. i still remember how yje dev for Spec Ops The Line states that MP makes them to ditch some of the gameplay element they intend to implement because it will not make sense in MP aspect.
 
Glad to see that. I have zero interest in any multiplayer in any game anyway. Wish all developers would do this. Single player should be first and foremost with multiplayer thrown in if they have time if not no biggy.
 
Thank god there's at least ONE publisher out there who still cares about us people who like single-player and doesn't have to make every damned game to appeal to the Call of Duty kids.
 
it is fine for game to have MP if it making sense to the genre and the dev themselves want to do it. but i don't like it when the MP is forced to the game especially the one that has heavy focus in SP. for example how many who play Dead Space game interested with it's multi player portion?
 
I think this is a bad idea. One of the best multi's that was ever released was RTCW and of course its successor, the original Enemy Territory. On top of that, ET was free! Hell, all they would have to do would be to copy the system of the previous games with the new maps. Slight modifications would be included to account for multiplayer, but other than that it would be just as amazing as the previous games.
 




personally, i dont care much for multiplayer online, i prefer lan and bots if i do play multiplayer
co op requires either a complete rebalance of everything, or always haveing an ai partner, who... has never been done well in a game once, it would kill single player. if you go a CoD co op... that is what most people play in those games with single player being throw away, but its also another design choice.

now if i remember right, return to castle wolfenstein was the multiplayer gold standard for a while, i didn't have a computer/ good enough computer when it was still popular, so you can see why multiplayer in this game is a bit more than a "oh yea we need to check this box to" it was literally the CoD of its day, where people played the game at times just for multiplayer.

i seriously doubt they will be able to make me care about this game with single player only, so it will be another game i add to my "if i see it for less than 5$ list"
 
i like that theyre giving free reign to the dev team. I just hope machine games didnt just get cocky and signed a contract like Obsidian did for Fallout New Vegas. Make a good game that sells good, but falls short 2 points on metacritic to the agreed score, they get screwed over while bethesda swims in money. I certainly hope this isnt the road bethesda still takes.
 
Having a multi-platform game (PC, xbox/360, and PS2/3), and having it have to fit on a single disc, obviously the platform with the smallest storage space, hurt the game's potential. Then when forcing a multiplayer aspect, and having to devote a significant amount of storage to that, really killed a lot of solid single player games' potential. A great example was when Splinter Cell started out as single player, and then they moved to adding a multiplayer component. The single player campaign's length most of all, and other aspects suffered greatly in my humble opinion. The multiplayer game was different and fun to me for a few minutes but I would have much rather had the full single player experience, which to me, felt like it was literally cut in half. I wish they'd had the sense to say NO to multiplayer for the SplinterCell series back then. I still love the franchise but the single player game wasn't worth the sticker price since adding MP.
 


no, just no... its not a space issue. multiplayer reuses many assets from single player with very little being multiplayer only, in terms of crap that takes up space. now the code and the framework to support multiplayer, that can take up a bit of space.

here, look at a game with full modding. unreal tournament 3, a recent game i got as an example. the levels themselves are relatively small, 30-60 mb range, and allot of what i'm looking at isn't reusing assets at all.

with splinter cell, that is hard to say. the multiplayer i only got to play a little bit of because i didn't have a cable modem at the time, but what i did play was honestly, some of the best the game had to offer. and if i remember right they had co op for the game after... was that co op only stuff or main missions now with co op?

i think, at least in splinter cells case, the game was served well by having a shorter main story with multiplayer, but it came out before online multiplayer really took off on consoles.

now, to go back to the space issue. dragon age on the console came on 1 disc.
dragon age on the pc is 20gb...
they can compress the hell out of things to get them onto consoles, or in masseffect 2s case, multi disc it, and that was 15 gb.
 
Because Wolfenstein Enemy Territory worked out so badly... oh wait one of the gaming communities favoured memories for all those that ever played. That xp system developed what Teamfortress did and I doubt tf2 would be what it was today if not for W: ET
 
To be honest I've missed single player centric FP games that have a decent story. In my opinion all the really great titles were ones where you were dropped into some bad situation somehow and had to scrounge, bite, kick and pray your way through with game mechanics that focused around that experience and not multi-player. The latest bioshock was a bit like that and look at the acclaim that got!
 
I'm all for more single-player games.

Bethesda should go talk to Square Enix; I mean, multiplayer in (the new) Thief FFS!
 
Personally I'm a big fan of multiplayer. but it needs a TON of attention to be done right. If it's not going to be done right, then don't do it at all. Nobody wants a crappy multiplayer multiplayer component to an otherwise great singleplayer game.
For games where mutlipleyer is done right (I'm thinking COD, Gears of War, Halo, Counter Strike, Team Fortress etc) it's all I play. I could care less about the COD campaign or Halo campaign, it's just more waves of enemies and cinematics about stories I don't care for. I play for the multiplayer. If I do play a campaign, it better be co-op.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom