Bleszinski: Japanese Devs Need To Stop Ignoring Multiplayer

[The Wooster]

Bleszinski: Japanese Devs Need To Stop Ignoring Multiplayer

"Why don't I have a multiplayer Fatal Frame yet?" asks Cliff Bleszinski.

Why? WHY. Tell me why, Japan.

Japanese gaming seems to have fallen by the wayside compared to the huge, multi-billion dollar juggernaut the western gaming industry has become.

Some argue it's because Japanese game development culture has been stagnating for years, while others maintain it's because many talented Japanese developers have switched over to the handheld market in face of rising costs. Cliff Bleszinski, the mildly-grating, baby-faced visage of the Gears of War series, believes part of the problem is that Japanese developers are ignoring the current "big thing" in gaming: multiplayer.

"And so my advice to Japan is that in a disc-based market right now, you cannot [ignore multiplayer]," he told Gamasutra. [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/170151/Japans_game_devs_must_not_ignore_multiplayer_says_Cliff_Bleszinski.php] "I'm not saying tack multiplayer onto every game. But for instance, Shadows of the Damned, that was a wonderfully crazy adventure, the dialogue had me laughing out loud, just even the key-door systems in there; it was a beautifully crazy game with really fun gameplay, but no multiplayer co-op experience in there. I'm not saying tack on a versus mode; there's a billion different ways you can do some sort of "players interacting with other players" mode."

I can't fault the man's taste. Shadows of the Damned was a beautiful, profoundly underrated game that didn't deserve the commercial clobbering it got. But was that down to a lack of a multiplayer mode, or simply because it was too weird for your average slackjaw?

Bleszinski went on to single out Platinum Game's excellent Vanquish, pointing out its rather glaring lack of multiplayer features.

"The fact that Vanquish didn't have a multiplayer suite was a crime," he said. "And whatever reason they had ... The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm sure the development team got together and was like, 'Well, we probably shouldn't do multiplayer because of the budget,' or the time, but at the end of the day you have an amazing product that was [handicapped] by the fact that it was seen by many gamers as a campaign rental or a used game, and not the $60, day one, gotta have it game."

The idea that single-player-only games are rental fodder isn't particularly new. In fact, it seems to be that exact line of thought which is driving a number of developers to implement multiplayer features into single-player games that, according to popular opinion, really don't need them.

"So that's my initial, just-off-the cuff advice that I would give, because I love all things Japan," he said. "Growing up I realized everything I loved was derived from Japan, from Transformers to Nintendo to Force Five, Mazinger and Voltron, and all of it. So I don't want those games to go away."


Permalink

 

[80Maxwell08]

How about no? Since those games were especially made to be focused on single player. He's saying they shouldn't tack it on but they should put it in there solely for the sales. Hence tacking it on. Also the single player is rental fodder is only there because it's encouraged by websites. Not to mention Skyrim's release a while ago.

Let me try to explain my stance on Vanquish. Vanquish was the best third person shooter I ever played but did I want multiplayer for it at all? Not one bit. For one they would already have to remove the slow motion for obvious reasons and they would probably have to get rid of the power slide since how would anyone be able to hit anything? Unless they turned it into Tribes but only on the ground.

Also didn't we already have that craze a while ago with every single player focused game throwing in multiplayer? Didn't that make most of them worse? How about we don't do that again. On the topic of Shadows of the Damned how was that supposed to be marketed? I didn't see a single ad for that at all when it was coming out and the same goes for Vanquish. The only reason I knew about either is I go to gaming websites.

 

[Amnestic]

Yes, that's exactly what we need. More tacked on underdeveloped multiplayer modes for games that weren't designed for them originally because Marketing says Multiplayer=Good.

Hey, remember how awesome the multiplayer in Bioshock 2 was? Didn't that just make the game sooooo much better?

 

[Vault101]

yep..multiplay! that fixes everything! thats what we need!

 

[ThunderCavalier]

*thinks of Japanese Multiplayer*

*thinks of MindJack*

No, Bleszinski. Just... NO.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Hey bleszinki, how about you make a series that isn't shit, THEN rag try ragging on other developers?

 

[NerfedFalcon]

Yes, that's exactly what we need. More tacked on underdeveloped multiplayer modes for games that weren't designed for them originally because Marketing says Multiplayer=Good.

Hey, remember how awesome the multiplayer in Bioshock 2 was? Didn't that just make the game sooooo much better?

Or Dead Space 2! Man, that game's multiplayer was just AWESOME...for the two days or so where you could actually get a game.

 

[lapan]

In other news, western devs need to stop tacking multiplayer on everything.

 

[valkeminator]

"No. Just NO!" That was the thought that screamed across my head when I read the title, even more so after reading the whole article.

I had enough of tacked on Multiplayer on every single franchise.
Its only necessary to add it, IF and ONLY IF its a title like... say, Dark Souls.
The closest Japanese title I can think of to implement similar mechanic would be Monster Hunter.

Do I want a Multiplayer Persona 5? NO!
Tacked-on multiplayer like on Mass Effect 3? NO!
Tacked-on Megaman multiplayer? Pssh.

Multiplayer like Dark Souls ? YES!

...I would tout Armored Core V multiplayer too, which is similar to Dark Souls, but then being a niche title it was not the best decision IMO. Its mixed at best. Then again I'm a FROMSoft fanboy.

What I believe is that Japanese games need to do a bit of soul searching, rejuvenate the magic Japanese games had that Western games Don't. They used to have it, but then all I can say is "Where was the magic?"

 

[kurokenshi]

Maybe you should stop relying on Multiplayer CliffyB. Just a thought.

 

[Snow Fire]

Most games should be multiplayer, because I like to play with 2-3 friends to help me get through hard parts where the AI just makes me want to rip my hair out. Halo 3 and Reach both had the right idea, the campaign hub should act like a multiplayer lobby, allowing you to quickly play alone or with friends. Really, any game with AI players should always have a multiplayer campaign, because AI, no matter the game is stupid and will secretly want you dead. Also, there's the problem that all the enemies will want to focus on only the player, because they know that the player's death will grant them victory, with a couple of friends, it'll least allow me to not be the only one being shot at.

 

[wooty]

Oh Cliffy, here's some advice for you. Stop wearing your sisters t-shirts to make yourself look bigger and hit the gym.

Just because your biggest known series needed a multiplayer to carry it along doesnt mean an entire nations industry needs to jump on the bandwagon. Home consoles in Japan arent as big as the handheld scene, so it makes more financial sense to focus on handhelds for now.

 

[limowreck]

ALL OF THE ABOVE!

hahaha... it's good to see i'm not alone in the opinion that multiplayer is not always necessary, a message that we seem to increasingly have shoved down our throats.

In my humble opinion, too many games have multiplayer, if anything. Games like Vanquish, which ignore the possible extra sales a forced in multiplayer component could bring in favour of a polished, unique, and FUN gameplay experience, make me feel all warm inside ^_^

 

[darkknight9]

"Bleszinski, the mildly-grating, baby-faced visage of the Gears of War series, believes part of the problem is that Japanese developers are ignoring the current "big thing" in gaming: multiplayer."

Thank goodness belief and fact are not mutually exclusive. The less motivating factors to eliminate or endanger an entire set or group of consumers by demanding a constant internet connection and/or multiplayer, the better.

 

[Bob_F_It]

Lets just take a western example: Alan Wake. Absolutely no multiplayer needed or tacked on, and it sold very well. So saying that the Rising Sun's sunset starts without multiplayer hasn't got the most solid foundations. If CliffyB was serious, maybe he'd fix up UT3 for us.

 

[pure.Wasted]

LOL @ every single response so far talking about tacked on multiplayer when the man clearly states he's not interested in tacked on multiplayer.

Here's an idea. How about developing a great single player game that has *gasp!* a great multiplayer?

Pokemon should have gone massively multiplayer (and I don't necessarily mean MMO) a very long time ago. Not just for endgame lvl 100 vs lvl 100 competitions. There are so many opportunities to insert meaningful multiplayer into the singleplayer experience so that the two are seamlessly integrated and help each other, but no.

Dark Souls sort of has the right idea, although it's a bit too encouraging of griefing. Then again the singleplayer is all about getting griefed, too, so it's really not all that different...

 

[80Maxwell08]

LOL @ every single response so far talking about tacked on multiplayer when the man clearly states he's not interested in tacked on multiplayer.

Here's an idea. How about developing a great single player game that has *gasp!* a great multiplayer?

Pokemon should have gone massively multiplayer (and I don't necessarily mean MMO) a very long time ago. Not just for endgame lvl 100 vs lvl 100 competitions. There are so many opportunities to insert meaningful multiplayer into the singleplayer experience so that the two are seamlessly integrated and help each other, but no.

Dark Souls sort of has the right idea, although it's a bit too encouraging of griefing. Then again the singleplayer is all about getting griefed, too, so it's really not all that different...

Except he only says they should do it for sales. Hence tacked on. Especially since his examples were 2 games that don't need it at all. Guess what games need money and if a game is supposed to be single player focuses I don't want it to have resources wasted on some multiplayer that's only there for worthless marketing.

 

[pure.Wasted]

LOL @ every single response so far talking about tacked on multiplayer when the man clearly states he's not interested in tacked on multiplayer.

Here's an idea. How about developing a great single player game that has *gasp!* a great multiplayer?

Pokemon should have gone massively multiplayer (and I don't necessarily mean MMO) a very long time ago. Not just for endgame lvl 100 vs lvl 100 competitions. There are so many opportunities to insert meaningful multiplayer into the singleplayer experience so that the two are seamlessly integrated and help each other, but no.

Dark Souls sort of has the right idea, although it's a bit too encouraging of griefing. Then again the singleplayer is all about getting griefed, too, so it's really not all that different...

Except he only says they should do it for sales. Hence tacked on. Especially since his examples were 2 games that don't need it at all. Guess what games need money and if a game is supposed to be single player focuses I don't want it to have resources wasted on some multiplayer that's only there for worthless marketing.

"For sales" doesn't have to be a bad thing. It means I want to come back to a game over and over because it has replayability.

You're approaching the problem from the wrong angle, I think. You're assuming that the developers have already come up with a concept that works flawlessly for a single player game, and then resources must be diverted at the last second to add some multiplayer mode. But that's backwards. Why not spend a few more weeks or months designing your game so that the multiplayer is a natural extension, and doesn't take all that much work?

Take Diablo 3. The multiplayer is essentially the singleplayer + other people. Except Arena PVP, which can't have been all that difficult to implement, honestly. Look how much replayability and fun they added to the game by doing absolutely nothing except adding multiplayer. Now, did it help that they knew they were going to do this, and so created battle systems that worked for singleplayer/multiplayer interchangeably? Absolutely. But that's the point of "not tacked on."

edit: but I should clarify that I'm really not as familiar with the two games in question as you are. So if that radically changes the interpretation of what he's saying... then, yeah, I could be mistaken. But even so, I seriously doubt that everybody in this thread has played those titles enough to reach the same conclusion you have.

 

[BrotherRool]

It's probably fair enough that the Japanese industry would be doing better if it had more multiplayer focuses. Not because multiplayer is another checkbox, but because in itself it's a more powerful form of advertising. The reason why Halo and Gears and CoD and Battlefield sell exceptionally well is if you play them, you want your friends to play them too so you can play together, you form communities and attachments and when those people move onto the next big thing, you have to do it too or be left behind.

But from a game perspective? No thanks, you can't just stick multiplayer in, you've got to make it a fundamental part of your game for it to work, else no-one will play it. Catherine and so on wouldn't have been better games for multiplayer.

But when you think hard about it, it can work, it worked for Dark Souls and MGS had a kickass online. The fighting games need an online for definite (and they all do have onlines), looking into co-op or Against-AI type options for Devil May Cry's wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

The thing is generally they do this, and if they don't do it and should then it needs to be a work of effort and he makes he sound more tacked on