Cliffy B wants more multiplayer in Japanese games

I remember when he had shaggy blond hair and would say things like how he wanted to rub his balls on the PSP. He used to be cool and likable.

Quake 3 Arena still satisfies my very occasional urge to play multiplayer.

I disagree about Dead Space's multiplayer being "tacked on". On the Ps3, at least, it's been strongly supported, has a strong following, and although as a Pc gamer that kinda pisses me off, it's gotten a lot of attention from players and the devs alike for something tacked on.

The weakest aspect of dead space 2 is its multiplayer. The thing about the ds2 multiplayer was it showed us without a doubt that 'if multplayer were done, when it was done, it best it be done well'. Dead Space multiplayer has potential but unless someone else brings it up, I barely remember it.

Yes - I didn't care for the multiplayer, but I think it started counting as a decent addition once they started taking player feedback into account and balanced out the higher levels, added maps and skins, etc. At least, on the Ps3, anyway.

No, it was pretty much tacked on.

Yeah, it's the prime example of not to add multiplayer into a game that clearly didn't need it to begin with. And that's pretty much why DS2's campaign suffered as it did.

The thing is if he wants the multiplayer to be anything more than just a tacked-on feature then it's likely going to cut into the single player's time and budget, much like we see with the constant degrading of Halo's single player campaigns with every new release. I like that the Japanese choose to focus on single player first.

No, it was pretty much tacked on.

Yeah, it's the prime example of not to add multiplayer into a game that clearly didn't need it to begin with. And that's pretty much why DS2's campaign suffered as it did.

Well define "tacked on" multiplayer then, because it was pretty damn fleshed out for something allocated to 4 members of the studio and apparently only there to sell a few extra copies.

I really don't give a damn where a studio decides to take a franchise but I'm certainly not one for vilifying them because they decided to experiment with multiplayer - even if transparently at the urging of the publisher.

Hell, if anything I'd like to see Dead Space experiment with a level editor. No game "needs" multiplayer but no game "needs" to NOT have it, either. And after the obscene amount of play troughs I did of the game, the campaign didn't stand out as anything but an improvement over the original.

Or you could spend 5-6 years to develop a game and call it StarCraft 2 where you have an extensive singleplayer (1/3rd of it at least) and a robust multiplayer system from the get go. But most developers either A ) don't want to do that anymore or B ) are not given the option to. Still, I agree nonetheless. Mirror's Edge doesn't have any multiplayer and I still consider the game to be among the most replayable out there. Then again, I absolutely love Mirror's Edge, so I'm just being biased about that.

It was barely fleshed out. It gave you the bare minimum of unlocks, leveling up, and handful of maps. And that's exactly why they added in multiplayer - to sell a few extra copies. That's not even acceptable.

Then I'm sure you'll love the rumored multiplayer for Dragon Age III then. I can only hope EA doesn't force multiplayer down DICE's throat if Mirror's Edge 2 is currently in development.

I disagree. It took the slow corridor sci-fi horror and chucked it out of the airlock in favor for a faster paced, gun-toting, action packed set pieced, no horror sequel. It's the Call of Duty of "sci-fi horror" just as how Resident Evil 6 is going to be the Call of Duty of "zombie horror".

Dead space 2 had improved gameplay, not dramatically but still improved, and i didnt mind the face paced action sequences (when the they were in the right place), the problem with ds2 was it never slowed down enough to tell a proper story. The dlc severed pack while short worked a story about as good as the campaign, which is sad especially since severed's story needed work.

Still don't get people giving a shit about stories in games. You're mostly getting a really crappy movie delivered in between all the fun shooting/stragety/puzzle stuff.

I don't remember Dead Space ever being slow paced except for the parts where you stood in a corner and listened to logs (those were cool). I kinda just prefer to run around and deal with shit as it comes rather then creep around on my tippy toes and hope to spot it beforehand.

"not acceptable", huh

Oh well then I guess I didn't play Planescape: Torment, System Shock 2, BioShock, Myth: The Fallen Lords, Uncharted, and many others the right way then since apparently I'm supposed to not give a shit about stories in games. "Oh... if you want an engaging story, go read a book!" For fucks sake.

And yet somehow you don't like the Call of Duty games?

Oh well then I guess I didn't play Planescape: Torment, System Shock 2, BioShock, Myth: The Fallen Lords, Uncharted, and many others the right way then since apparently I'm supposed to not give a shit about stories in games. "Oh... if you want an engaging story, go read a book!" For fucks sake.

And yet somehow you don't like the Call of Duty games?

What? No man, you're taking this way too seriously (read: at all). I just play a game like Dead Space and don't give a shit about the plot. I get to shoot zombies while rocking a wicked ass space suit. Shit, didn't give a shit about the plot in Planescape either - sure I enjoyed the dialog and writing and stuff, but mostly it was about utterly destroying the opponent and just enjoying the world. Fun stuff.

Call of Duty is fun when it does mean running around mowing shit down but most of the time I'm stuck peeking over whatever chest high cover has been delegated to me.

Most devs do not have the luxury of being able to follow Blizzard's design model whether due to time, budget, or management constraints, otherwise I certainly would argue that there's no excuse for having shitty tacked-on features and everything should always be polished no matter who's making the game.

As for story in games, it's not an all or nothing deal. There are some games that fall flat without a good story, and there are some that are just all about the gameplay and that's all you need, but not every game requires a good story, and not every game should only focus all their efforts on the gameplay either. For RPGs in particular, story often times IS part of the gameplay. If you're not into the story, you're typically not going to like the game no matter how much you may fancy its combat or leveling system.

Oh boy, now it's going this route. Nah, I'm done, I'm not going to bother when you use this stupid shit as an argument.

The fuck are you talking about? As much as I love Planescape, the combat sucked in that game. That wasn't even what the game was remotely about.

Dude, I'm not interested in arguing and I thought I made that clear ages ago.

I thought the combat in Planescape was brilliant. Winning by a mile one minute and barely scraping by the next, with all manner of ambushes to keep you on your toes in the mean time. Never got old.