Crytek: Closed Single-Player Must Go

[Afrospinach]

I am not sure what the success of Farmville has to do with FPS. It is like saying the sale of baby trundles is somehow related to sales of the Nissan GTR, two different markets. Go down that road and Crytek will merely alienate their entire user base and basically be starting over, good job.

 

[bigdragon]

I think Crytek needs to go away. I miss the old, pre-EA, Crytek when they were spouting off about the latest and greatest idea someone just out of college came up with while studying a competitor. Crytek used to stand for pushing the boundaries of what modern gaming technology could deliver to us. Now it's just a shell of its former self destroying the foundation it laid to chase pipe dreams. Poor Crytek. The same has happened to them as what has happened to Bioware and Maxis.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]nameon[/nom]...the same gamers that gave YOUR Far cry, Your Crysis their spotlight/success?[/citation]

No, not those same gamers. All the other ones that play Bejeweled and Words With Friends on the train.

 

[abbadon_34]

The original Crysis was single player and is still the best of them all. Don't tell me what to play. I love single player and that will never change.

 

[cats_Paw]

Keep talking crap. Only more people are going to leave.
These companies are so focused on earning a quick buck, that they are ltieraly going to go bankrupt in the next 5 years.
Free to play is only fun if its not pay to win, and with EA we can guess real fast the outcome.

 

[contrasia]

Yes, because what I really want to do when I've gone abroad with my superpowerful laptop to a villa with no internet is.... play my single player game.... online.... riiiiight. Or how about when I move house and still have no internet connection? Or how about when my Internet goes down? Or how about when I don't want anyone talking to me, or seeing me, or any other random guy I don't care about? Or how about when I want to cheat by using a memory program on my game, which you can't do on games that are online due to the obvious unfair advantage? Or how about when I want to mod and change everything and break the physics like in Skyrim, which happens to be one of the most popular SINGLE player games of our time? Something you can't do, if it's online (With the exception of model changes, changing the physics online would be impossible, since the engine has to match everyone elses).

There are hundreds of really GOOD reasons why it should NOT be online only. Also in addition to the one major fact of OWNERSHIP. When I buy a game, I want to believe, no I want to know, that I OWN the GAME. If it's online only, I in no way own that game, because when your company ceases to exist, I won't be able to play it anymore. No ownership. I can't mod, cheat, or play for all eternity, whenever or wherever I want, because of online only. That's BS, and you know it. You just want to jump out of a market that tends to get pirated. Most of you already abandoned the PC for consoles, so we mostly see console ports, now you're feeding us garbage about what we want, which is completely false, in order to justify your F U to the customer so you can kill pirated versions.

Look, I understand you want money, that's your business. But making up BS and telling it like it's the truth is not a money maker, nor is ignoring peoples opinions and what they actually want. Is Windows 8 selling as well as predicted when Microsoft ignored everyones opinions? Heck no. This kind of BS really angers me.... sorry for the rant. Just really pissed off at that kind of garbage from a company. What utter disrespect to the consumer. The complaints against D3 online only was endless, even now people are not happy about it. If they'd actually LOOK at what people are saying and LISTEN, then they'd know they're talking garbage and we'd never buy that.

 

[jack1982]

I'm 48 years old - the last thing I want to do in my leisure time is spend it in the online equivalent of a junior high school playground. Maybe I should just go? And what is it with so-called "creative" people saying that variety in games is a bad thing? There shouldn't be any Skyrims any more?

 

[ram1009]

I don't spend enough time playing games to be good enough to compete with the people who play multi player games. Therefore I never play multi titles. What should I do, get a gold fish?

 

[FinneousPJ]

^There's no way adults with responsibilities can compete in video games with teenagers. Teenagers with all the time in the world to play games, every day after school; I can't even play games every week if I'm busy with other things.

 

[Avus]

People who can't make good single player game said single player game should die...

 

[velosteraptor]

Hopefully my next keyboard will include a 'share' button.

 

[blppt]

[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom]That is because STO was a massive failure.[/citation]

As a P2P game, yeah, I would agree. But its suits me just fine as F2P. Its not P2W either---while you can get some items via the in-game pay currency (zen), AFAIK you cant get the absolute BEST stuff (level XII very rare items) by paying for it with Zen. There may be a roundabout way to convert zen into dilithium and then into energy credits required to buy these items on the exchange, but there is no direct way to do so. And, you can convert the in-game play currency (which is dilithium) to Zen, so you can eventually get the best refitted (premium) ship for your character, and even those aren't significantly better than what you would get by simply leveling through the story.

Now, if they started making say, level XIII or XII 'super rare' items, and only allowing them to be bought with significant amounts of Zen (which would take many hours to accumulate the equivelant dilithium) then yeah, that would be a problem, and be P2W.

 

[logainofhades]

I am still aggravated by D3 and having to have internet to play. I actually quit playing it because of such issues and stale story after you beat it the first time. If I am playing a single player game, I don't want to have to use internet to play the damn thing.

 

[ZippyPeanut]

Yep. And now it's us gamers yelling in pain.

 

[Kand]

"the notion of a single-player experience needs to go away." WELCOME TO EARTH !!!

only NOW in 2013 you realise people PAY if it`s a multiplayer-online experience?
every human with a brain understood this 10 years ago...zomfg give this guy a medal

 

[somebodyspecial]

It's against my religion to pay for a subscription to anything...ROFL. Including cable tv.

If I have to be connected online to play a game, it doesn't get bought and never will. Torchlight 1 & 2 can be bought for less than Diablo3 (you get BOTH games vs. ripoff diablo3!). Diablo3 can be beat in ~12 hours...Not the case with torchlights and you support the ORIGNAL diablo 1 & 2 designers Blizzard and Crytek can kiss my ...I will never buy a F2P game either.

Sell me a Single player game over 30hrs or you don't get my money these days.
*** Fires up Baldur's Gate Enhanced while rolling eyes over crytek ***

 

[shin0bi272]

"It could be it’s called Connected Single-Player or Online Single-Player instead."

yeah cause that worked out real well for diablo3, simcity, and mass effect 3 didnt it? How about you focus on making it harder for people to cheat online and making a game that doesnt bore the living crap out of your users in 15 min. before you start telling us how we should play. I hope you can see me flipping you off because Im doing it as hard as I can.

 

[ringzero]

Another example of someone arrogantly telling me what I want.

 

[ramon zarat]

It's all about locking down consumer options and shoving stuff down their throats, even if they don't want them. So now it's 60$ for the game + obligatory DRM internet connection $$$ + in game DLC $$$ + 15$/months for server access + you can't resell your old copy of the game that you now don't own at all, you simply acquired the rights to rent and play the game and they can revoke that "privilege" at any time they see fit.

You know what? I'm out. Fuck all that. I'm re-installing my copy of good old Battlefield 1942 with the Desert Combat mod and I'll die with it. R.I.P video game industry 1975-2013.

 

[bigj1985]

If I choose SINGLE PLAYER it means I WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE!! AS IN BY MYSELF IN MY HOUSE W/O SOME WANKER TWEETING ME HOW FAR IN THE GAME HE GOT!! Seriously who want this?? I would like to meet this imaginary audience who cries out for more online social interaction in the single player games they play.

If you want to offer me the OPTION of a single player mode with "online interaction" I am perfectly fine with that. But if you are making an attempt to FORCE me to be online to play a single player game you will will never receive a dime from me. I don't want Facebook messages shoved down my flipping throat from people on my friends list whilst in the middle of playing a game.

They are pushing this whole imaginitive fantasy that we all somehow want social networking in our games as a way to push DRM as your freind. They already tried the whole "the purpose of always online is to give the user content" failed excuse. So now they are just making up imaginary market segments who's users demand they always be online to interact with freinds .

We were not stupid enough to fall for you're first lame DRM attempts and we certainly won't be dumb enough to fall for this. Keep my single player games single player. If I want to be online I will CHOOSE the option to do so.

 

[internetlad]

How about you don't half-ass the single player experience. Some of the greatest times i've had have been with single player games.

Ace Combat 04 is the perfect example of this. It immerses you in the world, uses every possible outlet to chain you inside. The music is flawless and beautiful, the graphics (even still) are great, and the radio chatter make you feel like there are other pilots (on both sides) that have real personalities, fears, and hopes.

I think one of the reasons I loved AC04 was that you start as a rookie (as I did first playing the game) and eventually become the hero pilot. It's not Crysis where you start out as a badass super soldier in a suit. You are a nobody. You work your way up through each successful mission you participate in, and gradually gain the respect and fear of your allies and foes alike.

The radio chatter of troops on the ground, or foes in the air, reacting to your presence with totally believable radio chatter. A rallying call, calling you out, or saying they're coming for you, or in later missions losing their resolve and will to fight against what seems to be a hopeless fight as you close in. Few things break the immersion for me more than the tenth KPA soldier running up to a nanosuit superhero screaming DIE YOU AMERICAN PIG-DOG I KILL YOU. It simply doesn't work like that.

Much opposed to Mr Yerli's belief that there is no place for single player closed experiences in games anymore, I would go on the record as saying there most certainly is, but you have to actually create this world, not just make it look pretty. A truly great game doesn't just drop you in the world, give you an objective and say "Have fun", a truly great game makes you believe you are in the world, and evoke emotions related to the world you are in. Amnesia makes you feel hopeless and scared. Half Life 2 makes you feel like you're the only person in the world who can lead the cause. Ace Combat makes you feel like a rising hero.

These are the games that are truly art. Mario is fun, but at the end of the day it's just entertainment.

 

[royalcrown]

AGAIN, he can go F off. I will not buy a single Ubisoft always on P.O.S. even if it comes with a naked stripper in the box ! These damn CEOs think they can just extort more money and keep getting more invasive. Hey Yuri, as far as your single player going away goes, F You. I was going to buy Farcry 3 off your site because it was cheaper, now, not at all.

 

[mapesdhs]

[citation][nom]internetlad[/nom]... A truly great game doesn't just drop you in the world, give you an objective and say
"Have fun", a truly great game makes you believe you are in the world, and evoke emotions
related to the world you are in. ...[/citation]

I think you might find this old article interesting:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/reflections.txt

Seems to me that some games companies have lost sight of the basics...

Someone said earlier they still prefer the single player campaign in the 1st Crysis. I've
been a late-comer to Crysis, played it for the first time a couple of weeks ago, was
instantly & totally hooked. Played it all night until I'd finished it around 9am the next
morning. Excellent.

Bagged Crysis2 off eBay afterwards, been playing it yesterday. Graphics? Obviously much
improved, it looks great. But the gameplay? Well... hmm. It just doesn't feel as open as
Crysis, almost as on-rails at times as MoH, not even as flexible in choices as CoD2; in
numerous situations, looking at my surroundings, it seems like there should be several
options as to what I can do, but in reality the route through the environment is a lot more
guided. Did anyone else find this? In scene after scene, there's one way into an area, one
way out. The gfx is great, but the gameplay is definitely lacking compared to the original,
or at least that's how it feels to me; I've not been pulled into the gameworld in the same
way Crysis managed to do. Though set in New York, I kept feeling like I was always in a
highly localised area which really could have been anywhere (pity, I've been to NY, fantastic
city, was looking forward to being immersed in familiar surroundings).

Crysis isn't remotely as open-world as Stalker or Oblivion, but it did strike a nice balance
as single-player games go. The clips I've seen of Crysis3 make it *look* like one can go
anywhere and do anything, but is it infact more guided & on-rails like Crysis2? I won't be
buying Crysis3 because of the net link nonsense, I'm just curious of what people think from
a gameplay perspective. Someone said they finished the main campaign in 4 hours; yikes,
that's short. If Crysis3's single player experience really is guided & short, this implies once
again that all the dev effort has been on multiplayer because it's perceived that's where the
big bucks are to be found. Shame.

I suppose my ideal game is something like Stalker or Oblivion but with Crysis3's graphics,
but it seems as if such a game is never going to become a reality now.

Ian.

 

[redraider89]

"Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli said that the notion of a single-player experience needs to go away."

If you don't want to play single-player games or don't want to make single-player games, THEN DON'T! Otherwise, SHUT UP! BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO, DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T WANT TO PLAY SINGLE-PLAYER GAMES! MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS about what you want to play or make and LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE ALONE!

 

[royalcrown]

[citation][nom]internetlad[/nom]... A truly great game doesn't just drop you in the world, give you an objective and say
"Have fun", a truly great game makes you believe you are in the world, and evoke emotions
related to the world you are in. ...[/citation]

I think you might find this old article interesting:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/reflections.txt

Seems to me that some games companies have lost sight of the basics...

Someone said earlier they still prefer the single player campaign in the 1st Crysis. I've
been a late-comer to Crysis, played it for the first time a couple of weeks ago, was
instantly & totally hooked. Played it all night until I'd finished it around 9am the next
morning. Excellent.

Bagged Crysis2 off eBay afterwards, been playing it yesterday. Graphics? Obviously much
improved, it looks great. But the gameplay? Well... hmm. It just doesn't feel as open as
Crysis, almost as on-rails at times as MoH, not even as flexible in choices as CoD2; in
numerous situations, looking at my surroundings, it seems like there should be several
options as to what I can do, but in reality the route through the environment is a lot more
guided. Did anyone else find this? In scene after scene, there's one way into an area, one
way out. The gfx is great, but the gameplay is definitely lacking compared to the original,
or at least that's how it feels to me; I've not been pulled into the gameworld in the same
way Crysis managed to do. Though set in New York, I kept feeling like I was always in a
highly localised area which really could have been anywhere (pity, I've been to NY, fantastic
city, was looking forward to being immersed in familiar surroundings).

Crysis isn't remotely as open-world as Stalker or Oblivion, but it did strike a nice balance
as single-player games go. The clips I've seen of Crysis3 make it *look* like one can go
anywhere and do anything, but is it infact more guided & on-rails like Crysis2? I won't be
buying Crysis3 because of the net link nonsense, I'm just curious of what people think from
a gameplay perspective. Someone said they finished the main campaign in 4 hours; yikes,
that's short. If Crysis3's single player experience really is guided & short, this implies once
again that all the dev effort has been on multiplayer because it's perceived that's where the
big bucks are to be found. Shame.

I suppose my ideal game is something like Stalker or Oblivion but with Crysis3's graphics,
but it seems as if such a game is never going to become a reality now.

Ian.

What about the Fallout series, story not the best, but do what you want how you want to, pretty darn fun.

I think it's because all this online "death match" and "capture the flag crap " takes a lot less effort than making a cohesive gameword with a good story. Making a bunch of maps and charging us outrageos money to "pew pew" each other is probably a lot easier/cheaper and another way to gouge the consumer for 60 - 70 bucks while cranking out junk.