Space Marine a "Multiplayer Game"

[jesskit]

Ok I may have had this rant before, maybe but it really came to my attention again reading the steam forums for space marine. Now my impression with space marine was get into the shoes of a marine and have a great time in the 40k universe, single player mostly. most of the dev videos are focused on single player etc.

And yet I see people on the forums crying about things in multiplayer like its totally ruined the game and saying its a bad multiplayer game dont buy it etc. What happened to the days of a great single player game, immersive and fun then oh hey they multiplayer side is kidna cool too? or if its not that good it doesnt matter because well its a single player game mostly and that didnt matter too much.

It just seems to me, that these days if it has any multiplayer it instantly becomes a "multiplayer game" and thus generates a great deal oh whinging that is unnessesary, and with some devs, "tweaking and balancing" to make it more "fun" for multiplayer

 

[Soviet Heavy]

If a game doesn't have a 30 hour singleplayer, then the focus obviously has to be multiplayer.

Never mind how brilliant or amazing those ten hours you'll probably get are, if it is only ten hours, the singleplayer is useless.

That's what idiots think at least.

EDIT.

Woohoo, four thousand posts!

 

[Mr Thin]

It's a very rare game that can have solid single- and multiplayer, because you have to focus on one or the other. If they focus on single-player, the multiplayer will be terrible and tacked on. If they focus on multiplayer, the single player will either be crap, non-existent, or much shorter than it would be were there no multiplayer.

Having said that, Relic makes fantastic games, and they know their way around WH40K. Dawn of War had a kick-ass campaign and brilliant multiplayer, so if they say they can pull off the same here, I believe them.

 

[MDSnowman]

Okay I was excited about the multiplayer, but I'm having serious issues with it.

I start it up, it starts searching for a game and then freezes up, and freezes up my entire PS3 in the process. Am I the only one having this problem?

 

[comadorcrack]

I agree with you OP, as long as the single player is good the game is definitely worth a buy. However, a bad multiplayer is still something to rage about. If a game is set on tacking on multiplayer it better be good dammit! Like Dead Space 2. Now I loved DS2... but fuck me did multiplayer suuuuuuucckkk.... And I will always mark it down because of it, but the single player still holds up well enough for me to recommend it.
Its all about how much you think the experience is worth as a whole...

 

[krazykidd]

If a game doesn't have a 30 hour singleplayer, then the focus obviously has to be multiplayer.

Never mind how brilliant or amazing those ten hours you'll probably get are, if it is only ten hours, the singleplayer is useless.

That's what idiots think at least.

EDIT.

Woohoo, four thousand posts!

60$ for a 10 hour game is a bit much don't you think?

OT : i agree with OP , i miss when single player was the main focus and multi-player was a nice addition . Unless it's really games that are ment to be played multiplayer like battlefield and L4D

 

[ZeroMachine]

If a game doesn't have a 30 hour singleplayer, then the focus obviously has to be multiplayer.

Never mind how brilliant or amazing those ten hours you'll probably get are, if it is only ten hours, the singleplayer is useless.

That's what idiots think at least.

EDIT.

Woohoo, four thousand posts!

60$ for a 10 hour game is a bit much don't you think?

OT : i agree with OP , i miss when single player was the main focus and multi-player was a nice addition . Unless it's really games that are ment to be played multiplayer like battlefield and L4D

But if there is active, quality multiplayer, it isn't a 10 hour game. Multiplayer that is built well is, essentially, unlimited replayability.

I understand that a lot of this site is more inclined to enjoy a good single player experience (myself included, I definitely prefer it). But to deny the worth of multiplayer on some weird "Yahtzee" principal is just foolish.

 

[Kotaro]

A good multiplayer game is awesome. But in egeneral, games should focus on the single-player, and make the multiplayer an extra thing, rather than the other way around (looking at you, CoD).

 

[jesskit]

But to deny the worth of multiplayer on some weird "Yahtzee" principal is just foolish.

not denying the worth, yes multiplayer can be fun, but in games that arent L4D, battlefield, Unreal Tournament does it justify the amount of crying and "the game is so broken" that gets thrown at them.

 

[ZeroMachine]

But to deny the worth of multiplayer on some weird "Yahtzee" principal is just foolish.

not denying the worth, yes multiplayer can be fun, but in games that arent L4D, battlefield, Unreal Tournament does it justify the amount of crying and "the game is so broken" that gets thrown at them.

Hell yes it does.

If a game is broken, it deserves to be critiqued for it. Especially if this:

Okay I was excited about the multiplayer, but I'm having serious issues with it.

I start it up, it starts searching for a game and then freezes up, and freezes up my entire PS3 in the process. Am I the only one having this problem?

Is a common problem.

But, then again, it sounds like they also ignore/deny the worth of the single player. So they aren't completely justified. Just in talking about the multiplayer.

A good multiplayer game is awesome. But in egeneral, games should focus on the single-player, and make the multiplayer an extra thing, rather than the other way around (looking at you, CoD).

Why?

EDIT: And for the record, CoD always focused on multiplayer. They just also had decent single player parts.

 

[jesskit]

Just for interest I just looked up 2 top 100 games of all time lists, 1 list it was about game 18 before there was a multiplayer focused game (Mario Kart 64) (the IGN top 100) and the other was PC games only in 1-19 there was 4 multiplayer focused games (one being WoW) (PCGamer). Many had multiplayer components but all the 100 reviews landed on the single player experience

 

[Soviet Heavy]

If a game doesn't have a 30 hour singleplayer, then the focus obviously has to be multiplayer.

Never mind how brilliant or amazing those ten hours you'll probably get are, if it is only ten hours, the singleplayer is useless.

That's what idiots think at least.

EDIT.

Woohoo, four thousand posts!

60$ for a 10 hour game is a bit much don't you think?

OT : i agree with OP , i miss when single player was the main focus and multi-player was a nice addition . Unless it's really games that are ment to be played multiplayer like battlefield and L4D

I wouldn't know, I'm playing the PC version for 50$ /jerkass comment.

If those ten hours are good and I feel satisfied, then I feel it justifies the price tag. Those ten hours are still replayable.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I feel you man. But all in all, it's just another "what happened to the days of" thread. Gaming is changing a lot, demographics change, companies focus on different things, from pc to console, graphics and hardware, DRM, and lots of others. One of my biggest disappointment is the loss in LAN play, but I seem to be a minority in that. I love multiplayer, but since I have moved to Asia I just can't afford a connection good enough to play any.

I have always thought that developers should do whatever they want in respect to single/multi, as long as one doesn't get sacrificed. Which is a fine line. Some games are primarily aimed at online, but still offer a great solo experience. I liked Borderlands, which is awesome with a group, but still solid on your own. Rainbow 6 Vegas series is awesome by yourself or even one friend. But there are quite a few games with tacked-on multiplayer that just seem stupid. Or the single player is marketed, but only a few hours long. Yeah that can get annoying, and seems greedy just to throw it in there for the hell of it, but that's how it is I'm afraid.

 

[Valkyr71]

I personally like both aspects of the game. I think they are both well dne. There ould be more maps and you could play as a multitude of other rces in multiplayer and you could fight more than orkz in single player but otherwise I think its well done. 60 dollars well spent

 

[Waaghpowa]

I miss the days when a single player game was the main focus. What I hate most is when they take a good single player game, then tack on a multi player because a bunch of whiney cunts complained that there was no multi player. See Metro Last Light.

They even ruined the FEAR series with this. Yes, I realize that the first game had multiplayer, but the single player was great and a decent length as well, not to mention good enough to replay on it's own.FEAR 3 was absolute shit after they made it a co op focus.

I swear none of this was a problem before consoles started going online, ever since the classic Xbox got Xbox Live, it's all been going downhill. I'm not directly blaming consoles, but the timing seems too convenient.

 

[Waaghpowa]

If a game doesn't have a 30 hour singleplayer, then the focus obviously has to be multiplayer.

Never mind how brilliant or amazing those ten hours you'll probably get are, if it is only ten hours, the singleplayer is useless.

That's what idiots think at least.

EDIT.

Woohoo, four thousand posts!

60$ for a 10 hour game is a bit much don't you think?

OT : i agree with OP , i miss when single player was the main focus and multi-player was a nice addition . Unless it's really games that are ment to be played multiplayer like battlefield and L4D

I wouldn't know, I'm playing the PC version for 50$ /jerkass comment.

If those ten hours are good and I feel satisfied, then I feel it justifies the price tag. Those ten hours are still replayable.

I would like to add that I played the demo numerous times. Though I haven't received my copy yet on account of the PC collectors copy being available ONLY from THQ and requires shipping to me, I can honestly say it will be a game where I will play single player through more than once.

 

[AdeptaSororitas]

I agree that games that focus solely on multiplayer and tack on a crap single player campaign are terrible. However I dont see Space Marine as this at all. It has a FUN Single Player that I can honestly say I will have fun replaying again and again. AND the multiplay is fun and BALANCED *cough* Call of Duty *cough* I can be just as successful as a Tactical Marine as a Devastator as an Assault Marine. My only dislike is the look of the Chaos Marine but that's because it was a faithful copy over from Table top and I don't like them there either.

 

[Slaanesh]

I agree that games that focus solely on multiplayer and tack on a crap single player campaign are terrible. However I dont see Space Marine as this at all. It has a FUN Single Player that I can honestly say I will have fun replaying again and again. AND the multiplay is fun and BALANCED *cough* Call of Duty *cough* I can be just as successful as a Tactical Marine as a Devastator as an Assault Marine. My only dislike is the look of the Chaos Marine but that's because it was a faithful copy over from Table top and I don't like them there either.

Pretty much agreed with everything here. My only complaints are for multiplayer: the horrendous amount of time it takes to get into a game and that god damned martyrdom perk for Assault Marines/Raptors. Fuck you martyrdom.