Should an online multiplayer option be necessary in video games?
Platinum Games don’t think so. Do you agree?
During and after E3, masses of information, previews, video’s and articles were born as a wealth of great titles were played, displayed and scanned by masses of excited game journalists.
If you read my previous article (if not, then please do, and if you have, then I really really like you), you will know my must buy games list has painfully increased. But there is one particular title in my top 5 most wanted list (man, how many lists do I have!) that really grabbed me, and that’s Vanquish from Platinum Games.
Platinum Games is a young but very experienced game development company mostly consisting of former Capcom Clover Studio employees and the genius minds behind Okami (PS2), Viewtiful Joe (PS2), God Hand (PS2), Ace Attorney, Dino Crisis, the original Devil May Cry and Resident Evil titles.
They have so far released titles like Infinite Space (DS), Madworld (Wii), Bayonetta (PS3/Xbox360), and are now on the tail end of completing Vanquish for the PS3/Xbox360.
Vanquish is a futuristic fast paced third person action shooter, which drops the player into combat situation after combat situation, whilst providing you with a myriad of gameplay options to mix and combine during fire-fights.
In a nutshell, the title allows players to use cover, pickup a number of gun and grenade types (via an emulator device), enter a bullet time effect to take out hard targets (also while rolling), and power slide around the battlefield to gain tactical advantage. At the centre of all these abilities is the main characters battle suit which controls the rolling, power slide and bullet time features whilst also being prone to overheating (temporarily forbidding use of those features until cool off).
But even with the promise of a robust and fast paced single player campaign, the one particular point that impacted me the most was the lack of multiplayer support. There is no confirmed word regarding offline multiplayer (not looking very likely though), but the developers have taken a decision to not include an online multiplayer option when the title ships later this year.
The reason for this decision is that Platinum did not feel they could include all of the cool game mechanics used in the single player campaign into a multiplayer version, thus not doing the experience justice.
Now this is not a first, I mean there are many other titles that do not offer a direct online multiplayer option. Prince of Persia 2008 (Next gen), Assassins Creed 2, Heavy Rain, God of War 3, are all examples of this.
But is this acceptable in the gaming world of today?
What do you think?
In my personal opinion, I think this is completely acceptable, but it needs to be done for the right reasons.
After all, this is a very important game design choice which helps to shape the style and ultimately the final delivery of the game itself. Platinum Games obviously chose to give the single player element priority in order to try and deliver a stellar campaign instead of dispersing their efforts and risking the games overall quality.
Judging by Platinum’s wealth of experience and success, I am likely to support this decision.
As gamers, we want to buy a quality experience.
Would you prefer more content of average quality, or rather, less content but a higher quality product?
(Man, that’s another article in the making)
Hopefully, the freedom to use multiple mechanics during actual gameplay will allow Vanquish to remain a fresh experience throughout, allowing each individual player to progress with his own approach and preferences.
Now, we have seen this type of game design before, with extreme success.
Quantic Dreams released Heavy Rain earlier this year with mass success both critically and commercially, their priority was the story. The control scheme also contributed to an immersive and emotional experience.
Sony Santa Monica gave us God of War 3, and even though the campaign was not a 15 hour journey, the standard of quality, particularly in the presentation dept argues the point that 8 to 10 hours of high quality and varying gameplay is just as important as a multiplayer based title with a 5 to 8 hour campaign.
Ubisoft Montreal’s Assassins Creed 2 provided a 15 to 20 hour story, with easily another 10+ hours of collectables, side missions, trophies, etc. The key was the use of the open world setting with the freedom aspect as priority. The presentation was the cherry on the cake.
Prince of Persia 2008 (again Ubisoft Montreal) provided a decent length game (approx 12/15 hours, I think) and an outstanding graphically unique experience with great sound and a decent story. But the title still lacked the success of the above 3 (though not by much) due to many gamers stating the gameplay was ‘too repetitive’.
Multiplayer is a way for gamers to not only interact and socialise (both friendly and competitively) but to also get more game time and bang for their buck.
Should a title with no multiplayer option (online or offline) be released for £30 instead of £40?
Or should an industry standard be set that a non multiplayer title must offer at least 15 hours of campaign time, thus forcing developers to provide free dlc shortly after release if they give anything less (giving us more content for our hard earned cash).
This is one subject every gamer has a say to.
To check out more on Vanquish – http://platinumgames.com/category/games/vanquish/
These were just my thoughts, my opinion, what’s yours?
Forever and ever, JustaGamer.
July 6, 2010
#1
Interesting article, of course there are exceptions to the rule – Halo 3 comes to mind here. Halo 3′s campaign, in my opinion, was sufficiently long enough while still having one of the best multiplayer experiences ever. On the flip side there are games like Heavy Rain and games with more of an RPG flavour that don’t lend themselves to having multiplayer very well if at all. So these games are really by an unwrittten rule required to have a longer lasting campaign than games with multiplayer. My final point is does coop count as multiplayer? In my opinion – no, it doesn’t. As it is in essence the campaign but with a friend. Laters! : )
July 7, 2010
#2
Informative article and a bit of a ‘stop and think’, scratch your head affair as if I am honest I would have to agree and say that unless the content and quality mirrors what the core single player game can achieve, why bother? As much as I love a strong and well thought out multiplayer gaming option and enjoying the social aspect of a great game with online buddies ( Gears, COD, Forza, PGR all nailed this format to name but a select few ) it may well have put me off shelling out my hard earned for games that could have jumped on the bandwagon such as DMC, Darkstalkers, Alan Wake, POP etc. To my point, I loved the original Dead Space and the mere thought of Dead Space 2 being an online experience has filled me with dread at this stage as I always feel when I hear news like this that the new experience, although may be adequate will never mirror the original painstakingly crafted single player campaign ( it just widens the target market )! Budgets are a tough thing to balance and games go one way or the other so it’s rare finding a game these days with 10/10 single and multiplayer aspects. I’d like to see a true focus in one area or the other and then at least the gamer will know enough before purchase to make their own decision on what element of that game is more important to them. The future would be financially very bright if developers released single player games and then released DLC for multiplayer ( or vice versa ) to keep everyone happy. One last point, I am a huge Achievement collector and so do I want to spend £40 and only achieve circa 50% of the achievements when I can buy a single player game and have them all to myself ;o) Happy game playing to all, however you enjoy your pixels!