Crytek: FPS Games Need Multiplayer to Succeed

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.



why not kill the multiplayer and work twice as hard on the single player.
 
its about the cost per hour of entertainment, the call of duty's from number 4 onward have all been a day on average difficulty, or 2 days on the max difficulty.So lets say 20 hours of play.

In South Africa for a R500 game that is R25 per hour of entertainment which is more than the price of a movie ticket per hour.

If i could count all the hours if spent playing multiplayer its a lot closer to R0.25 per hour of entertainment.

No one wants to pay cash for a a day or twos worth of entertainment, so either make that single player campaign long, non linear and let your actions actually affect the plot.
 
Well I don't really like pure multiplayer fps games, most of the time I like to play solo. When I want to play with other people its most often MMORPG I play.

Correct statement should be that they need both single and multiplayer side to succeed.
 
Yeah but like the first Crysis if this one is going to be 10 times more demanding and taxing on the rig how can they expect the standard rigs to get onto a multiplayer setup...... even if they wanted to, the rig would just not take it.
And most people ain't going to spend a 1000$ just to play Crysis online.... so that's what's killing them, for a multiplayer setup, they need to get the requirements down and keep the effects and graphics up.... it's not undo-able.... but it's tough , no doubt.....
 
[citation][nom]amk09[/nom]Crysis 2 lands on Microsoft Windows, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3I know I have seen this 50 times before but I now just put two and two together, Microsoft = Xbox. They have managed to account for two massive gaming platforms, thats insane.[/citation]

yeah i always think fot his when i see annoyign sony fanboys ranting on a bout how xbox will die ect ect. now i'm no fanboy myself , i own a xbox 360 a PS 3 and a decent gaming PC rig. just think it's funy because as yiou said MS is BIG int eh industry on two paltforms (granted their only real PC competition is Steam and they Trail behind steam greatly ) These sony fanboys fail to realize Ms is jsut as big of a company as sony is if not bigger. both companys got cash to spare if they loose the fight one genration the only company in any real danger is Nintendo , they don't make OSes nor do they make sterios tv's phones or any pc software , if nintendo fail miserably a fewgnerations in a row , they have nothign to fall back on (one reason why i'm glad teh Wii was a sucess finacially even if i didnt care for it myself) it kept nintendo in the "game" I was upset teh day sega pulled out of hardware would hate to see nintedo ever have to do the same ., but i got side tracked the point was that Nintendo only makes console games and handheld games , they ahve no otehr buisness to fall back on if one or both thier devices fail on teh market. while sony and MS , are pretty secure since they both gain money from a boat load of other departments , like sony msuic , or MS's operating systems.

 
[citation][nom]alyoshka[/nom]Yeah but like the first Crysis if this one is going to be 10 times more demanding and taxing on the rig how can they expect the standard rigs to get onto a multiplayer setup...... even if they wanted to, the rig would just not take it.And most people ain't going to spend a 1000$ just to play Crysis online.... so that's what's killing them, for a multiplayer setup, they need to get the requirements down and keep the effects and graphics up.... it's not undo-able.... but it's tough , no doubt.....[/citation]
There's a reason they put low , medium , high as well as very high settings , people don't have to play it on maximum settings.
It's going to run better than Crysis 1 anyways.
 
Back in the day you could find an awesome Single-player FPS campaign and play it over and over again, one example being Unreal Gold (not the only one, though, remember Half-Life). Now, devs are too freaking lazy and/or cheap to put money in developing a compelling story, so they slap a couple hours of single-player campaign and let the multiplayer ( which is equivalent to dumping originality on the consumer) to do the rest.
Also, back in the day piracy was not a big deal, because the games were so good, people had to have them. Now, all kinds of protection schemes only hurt the actual buyers, while the pirates, bored and unwilling to shell money for a non-compelling piece, always find a way to at least enjoy that piece unrestricted.
Pi$$ poor judgment on developer's part...
 
Crysis can do whot ewer it like ass long ass they push the graphics crysis 1 is a bad experience online and only okay single player but a gurus benchmark tester. and i realy dident get black ops only for the online but i can truly say i will newer finish it ewer such a bad game, so i guess the online part realy saves it, hawing 2 part of game types in a games improve its successiveness at least.
 
i still prefer to just play the single player campaighn , beat it on its hardest mode, then set it aside a few months to do it again , after a few play thorughs if its good liek halflife or halflife 2 then it gets a replay eveyry 6 months to a year... if not then it goes on the top shelf.. i hope crysis two stays on the middle shelf with other good games tha ti can enjoy the single player campagn for years
 
Completely disagree! Multiplayer is a very specific benefit, but it's almost a genre in itself. FPS games that are all about the action, just to shoot and run, are more fun in a multiplayer setting, but that also makes it nearly completely without a story, without any "art". Crysis was amazing because of the story, the suspense, the action was almost the skin of it it all, but the substance came from the core, which was the story driving it forward. The day companies focus on MP in FPS games will mean the end of creativity in games.
 
Crysis ran very well (at 800 x 600) on a 2 GHz Pentium PC I bought in 2001. The only upgrade was an Nvidia GS7600 / 256MB graphics card. Gameplay and physics were smooth and even at that resolution the graphics were great. In fact when I later upgraded to machine that could run 1920x1200 the experience wasn't a lot different. Levels loaded much faster and the draw distance improved, but gameplay was unchanged.

And what an experience it was! The first half, playing cat & mouse with the KPA soldiers, jeeps, and helicopters, remains unmatched by any single-player game out there, including UT3 and any Valve release. Smooth, seamless, and polished, with top-notch production values and quality control. These are what I continue to appreciate about Crysis every time I replay it.

I was and still am amazed at the idiots who ranted about Crysis being a "tech demo" that "required a nuclear-powered PC". Actually, the opposite was true! It was certainly the best FPS of the decade AND IT WOULD RUN ON ALMOST ANYTHING! The stronger your rig, the better it would look, but calling that a disadvantage is sheer stupidity. Sadly, the internet does not lack for such people.

I can't wait for Crysis 2 and only hope that the loss of the wide tactical venues that brought so much to Crysis will be offset by even better AI and other features. And that you can still "save game" anywhere... please.
 
I hope that he isn't trying to defend a possible short campaign in Crysis 2, because if Crysis 2 campaign is short and they try to placate with a multiplayer, that is thumbs down for me.
 
Bots. So I can play with a few friends who are not level 99 ten year olds with bad attitudes on maps/mods (free) that are larger than my living room on our PCs/servers that we control and don't have to rent.
 
I disagree completely. Just look at Bioshock; the first one had no multiplayer, the second had only the most perfunctory multiplayer, and both were wildly successful.

A good game trumps all.
 
Its the story and the length that makes a game good. Take the Uncharted franchise on PS3 for example (although it is more of a action adventure, 3rd person shooter, platformer). Awesome game with a good story, a little short but still worth the $$$. On the other hand, its multiplayer is very much lacking, but, the game still has sales. Why? Because the storyline and gameplay are great!
 
I enjoyed playing Crysis. It was very fun to see what a game could look like and all the physics that would take place. Games like Crysis push the envelope which is a good thing. The multiplayer wasn't too bad, it was not the best, but.. many games aren't. I could see Crysis 2 trying to emulate CoDs with the urban setting. Here is to hoping for a good game.

BTW (although not FPS, isn't Diablo 3 slated for 2011.. epic gaming year for sure)
 
[citation][nom]bounty[/nom]Bots. So I can play with a few friends who are not level 99 ten year olds with bad attitudes on maps/mods (free) that are larger than my living room on our PCs/servers that we control and don't have to rent.[/citation]

Yes, I wish more FPS' had options for bots. That, and lengthy single-player modes... all far too short these days.
 
[citation][nom]kingnoobe[/nom]While I agree with multiplayer. I think it was also people being able to make maps and things like that.[/citation]
A committed modding community is the most valuable aspect a game can have. I've sunk a couple dozen hours into The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion recently, just because of mods.
The main reason I hate DICE (EA) is because they promised to release a modkit for BFBC2, and yet they never did.
Crytek, don't disappoint me. Crysis was really fun, but there was no replay value for me, and the story of Sykes was dissapointing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.