Wolfenstein 2 not to include multiplayer gameplay.

noclevername

noclevername

Gawd
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
545


Let's hope they get this right and keep from including microtransactions and BS from the game.
 
There was no MP in the first game, either. What's your point? This is thread worthy?
 
For some reason I remembered a lot from that game. It kind of stuck in my head. And I remember it played super smoothly. I remember the mission where you weren't supposed to trigger an alarm, the snowy aura. I no longer have a GPU though.
 
Armenius said:
There was no MP in the first game, either. What's your point? This is thread worthy?
Click to expand...

The way the AAA game industry pushing every game into a multi-player microtransaction shit show. How everything is built around a model of microtransactions, DLC, and pre-order bonuses. That you can't just get a solid finished product out the gate for one price to enjoy the full experience of what you paid for.
 
noclevername said:
The way the AAA game industry pushing every game into a multi-player microtransaction shit show. How everything is built around a model of microtransactions, DLC, and pre-order bonuses. That you can't just get a solid finished product out the gate for one price to enjoy the full experience of what you paid for.
Click to expand...
If you believe the clickbait. But there is more to the industry than EA, Activision and Ubisoft. Much more.
 
N4CR said:
The yearly news threads saying single player is dead, meanwhile another AAA title releases SP only.

Enough said.
Click to expand...
How many actually release a full single player campaign any more? How many games are solely built on a microtransaction model of gameplay to entice players to continually pay to play. Did you see the recent patent approved that Activision put in 2 years ago? The entire patent is on manipulation through gameplay to entice players to purchase perks/addons to give them an "edge".
 
Armenius said:
If you believe the clickbait. But there is more to the industry than EA, Activision and Ubisoft. Much more.
Click to expand...

This EA?

Star Wars game cancelled as EA dissolves Visceral Games! - Star Wars: The Last Jedi

This Activision?

Activision Patents Matchmaking That Encourages Players To Buy Microtransactions

Is this what I should expect of game devs and publishers when I buy a game anymore?
dvpea7sdauqz.png

Yes I know the amount of devs are many, but it is the AAA publishers and devs that is what this post was about. Not the indie devs, who still have their faults as bad as some of these AAA games.
 
Good, how many MP shooters do we have again?

The first one I picked up like 2 years ago for dirt cheap. Well worth it IMO. Plenty of options out there if you're looking for a mp game.
 
Eshelmen said:
Good, how many MP shooters do we have again?

The first one I picked up like 2 years ago for dirt cheap. Well worth it IMO. Plenty of options out there if you're looking for a mp game.
Click to expand...

That is also potentially why they did not push for it to be MP. I doubt that they really had the desire or motivation to do so as the game is not really geared for it, plus they would be best put in being a MP FPS game with what is there. But the main point of this is that it will be refreshing to see a AAA game devs/publisher not push a game to be a microtransaction MP piece of crap. That we will get a quality game at a single price point hopefully.

Take a look at Ninja Theory's newest game. They put a lot of work into it, the quality is amazing, the story was great, gameplay was good. They did this without any help from a publisher and put out top quality material at half the cost of AAA games. It can be done, but it is become less common to see it these days.
 
noclevername said:
How many actually release a full single player campaign any more? How many games are solely built on a microtransaction model of gameplay to entice players to continually pay to play. Did you see the recent patent approved that Activision put in 2 years ago? The entire patent is on manipulation through gameplay to entice players to purchase perks/addons to give them an "edge".
Click to expand...

Doom 2016 was mostly SP focused.
NMS
etc
No microBS there.

Sure there are not as many as the same old MP shooters and the rest but there are still plenty of games SP each year.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
It's refreshing to see developers not waste resources on half assed multi-player that adds zero value to the game.
Click to expand...

Precisely. I'm all for multiplayer games. I'm all for single player games. However, there should be no rule (written or not) that says all games should have both components. I'd much rather id software dumped more resources into making Quake Champions a better multiplayer game that tacking some bullshit "mp experience" onto Wolfenstein. If people want another multiplayer Wolfenstein game, maybe they could get Splash Damage to make a new ET or something.
 
Good!


Good idea about a separate Enemy Territory type game instead.
 
Q-BZ said:
Good!


Good idea about a separate Enemy Territory type game instead.
Click to expand...

I'd personally love to see more options there. It seems like Splash Damage has been in decline a bit recently. (though I haven't played Dirty Bomb myself) While I liked a lot about Brink, it was way too flawed as a whole. Maybe if they collaborated with id or Machine or something though it would end up pretty cool. I absolutely loved Quake Wars. Still play it on rare occasions.

There are just too many disparate disciplines between multiplayer and single player development. Trying to cram all of that into one game (at least these days) typically results in one or the other getting sacrificed to some degree for the other. Focus too much on the multiplayer, and your story/campaign suffers. Focus too much on the campaign, and your net-code goes down the tubes. Not that it's impossible to combine all of this, but I think it takes the right team, the right development cycle, to pull it off.

As an example, GTAV seems to have pulled off both pretty well. But they put what $220 million into that game? Most studios aren't going to be doing that. IMO best to stick to what your team does best. Machine Games obviously has great writers, and can pull off excellent single player experiences, which is why it was wise to stick to that for Wolfenstein.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
It's refreshing to see developers not waste resources on half assed multi-player that adds zero value to the game.
Click to expand...

Even if it was mediocre, it would be dead in 2-3 weeks. If you want an MP game to thrive, it needs a lot of work, marketing, and be balanced very well. Tacking a crappy MP portion on just does not hold up. If only publishers could figure that out. There are some exceptions if the game or previous entries in the series were very good and had a massive player base. Apparently ME3 had a fairly active MP community for a year or so.

But as good as Wolfenstien was, it was no where near ME in terms of becoming a classic or genre defining game. Too bad it went out in a whimper.
 
Q-BZ said:
Good!


Good idea about a separate Enemy Territory type game instead.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking that some kind of Enemy Territory game would be cool in an Arkane world. ET: Dishonored :D I'd love to play against other people with knives, blink spells, etc. across rooftops and the like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
J3RK said:
I was just thinking that some kind of Enemy Territory game would be cool in an Arkane world. ET: Dishonored :D I'd love to play against other people with knives, blink spells, etc. across rooftops and the like.
Click to expand...

That would be insane (in a good way) if done right.
 
noclevername said:
This EA?

Star Wars game cancelled as EA dissolves Visceral Games! - Star Wars: The Last Jedi

This Activision?

Activision Patents Matchmaking That Encourages Players To Buy Microtransactions

Is this what I should expect of game devs and publishers when I buy a game anymore?
View attachment 40775

Yes I know the amount of devs are many, but it is the AAA publishers and devs that is what this post was about. Not the indie devs, who still have their faults as bad as some of these AAA games.
Click to expand...
Yes, Ubisoft, EA, and Activision are the big 3 publishers who are and have been doing microtransaction shenanigans in their AAA titles for awhile now. That is what my post was about.

But here are some other AAA publishers to consider. Take-Two Interactive is still releasing plenty of single player content that is not focused on microtransactions with the developers under their umbrella. They include developers such as Rockstar, Firaxis, Team Bondi, Ghost Story and Hangar 13. Then you have ZeniMax Media, who is the parent company of Bethesda. In addition to Bethesda they have id, Arkane, Tango Gameworks, and MachineGames. Square Enix, and let's not forget Nintendo. All of them AAA publishers not currently following the so-called trend and just a sampling off the top of my head.

And relevant: Ex-Visceral dev calls death of single-player fears "totally absurd"
Zach Wilson said:
The assertion that single-player linear games are going to disappear is totally absurd. EA might not be the company that carries that torch, but there are so many groups out there that are passionate about this kind of game that they won't go away. Personally I'd like to see fewer games with higher quality across the board, which is probably what will happen... We're also going to continue to see developments in production pipelines that will dramatically reduce the cost of asset generation, which will benefit everyone. There's no one single narrative that can be derived from this event other than games are incredibly difficult to make, and the fact that any game or movie gets made at all is a cause for celebration.
Click to expand...
So this developer believes it will be ultimately good in the long run concerning the production of single-player narratives.

He goes on with a little disclosure, saying that as a shareholder, he believes what EA is doing is best for their particular business and other publically traded publishers.
Zach Wilson said:
Current market trends suggest that [EA is only interested in monetizing games with loot boxes and microtransactions]. I expect publicly-traded publishers to follow market trends to maximize their profits. As a current shareholder in EA, I support this. As a game designer in the AAA space I do my best to balance the need to make money with my respect and dedication to the craft, always with the player in mind. As a gamer, I don't buy or play games that abuse these systems.
Click to expand...
 
Armenius said:
Yes, Ubisoft, EA, and Activision are the big 3 publishers who are and have been doing microtransaction shenanigans in their AAA titles for awhile now. That is what my post was about.

But here are some other AAA publishers to consider. Take-Two Interactive is still releasing plenty of single player content that is not focused on microtransactions with the developers under their umbrella. They include developers such as Rockstar, Firaxis, Team Bondi, Ghost Story and Hangar 13. Then you have ZeniMax Media, who is the parent company of Bethesda. In addition to Bethesda they have id, Arkane, Tango Gameworks, and MachineGames. Square Enix, and let's not forget Nintendo. All of them AAA publishers not currently following the so-called trend and just a sampling off the top of my head.

And relevant: Ex-Visceral dev calls death of single-player fears "totally absurd"

So this developer believes it will be ultimately good in the long run concerning the production of single-player narratives.

He goes on with a little disclosure, saying that as a shareholder, he believes what EA is doing is best for their particular business and other publically traded publishers.
Click to expand...

Did you seriously just say that Take-Two is not focused on microtransactions? Rockstar sells GTA Online currency for real money. NBA 2K18 is one of the worst examples of microtransaction bullshit in a AAA game. WWE 2K18 has loot boxes and I'm just waiting for 2K to patch in a way to buy them with real money.
 
Armenius said:
Yes, Ubisoft, EA, and Activision are the big 3 publishers who are and have been doing microtransaction shenanigans in their AAA titles for awhile now. That is what my post was about.

But here are some other AAA publishers to consider. Take-Two Interactive is still releasing plenty of single player content that is not focused on microtransactions with the developers under their umbrella. They include developers such as Rockstar, Firaxis, Team Bondi, Ghost Story and Hangar 13. Then you have ZeniMax Media, who is the parent company of Bethesda. In addition to Bethesda they have id, Arkane, Tango Gameworks, and MachineGames. Square Enix, and let's not forget Nintendo. All of them AAA publishers not currently following the so-called trend and just a sampling off the top of my head.

And relevant: Ex-Visceral dev calls death of single-player fears "totally absurd"

So this developer believes it will be ultimately good in the long run concerning the production of single-player narratives.

He goes on with a little disclosure, saying that as a shareholder, he believes what EA is doing is best for their particular business and other publically traded publishers.
Click to expand...

Rockstar has GTA V that has pulled well over half a million in microtransactions for their in game currency.

Bethesda has came out with the creation club which is paid mods for Fallout.

NBA 2K18


Bethesda


StarWars Battlefront 2


Forza 7


The list goes on and on.

No I don't think single player gaming is dead, but It is far less frequent in the AAA game market. Rockstar alone has pulled well of $500,000 from the shark card system to buy in game currency. This was from last year about GTA V and the single player aspect.

"A Rockstar blog post from December 2013 tells players to look forward to "substantial additions" to the game's story mode. These additions were planned for 2014. In case you needed to check your watch and/or calendar, it's now 2016 and all's quiet on the single-player San Andreas front."
 
Last edited:
I never even touched the MP in the new Doom - the SP stood on its own and I didn't care for what I tried of the MP in beta anyway.

Going to pick up Wolf 2 as well to support quality SP gaming.
 
MavericK said:
I never even touched the MP in the new Doom - the SP stood on its own and I didn't care for what I tried of the MP in beta anyway.

Going to pick up Wolf 2 as well to support quality SP gaming.
Click to expand...

After id took back the MP aspect of Doom, while a little too late in the game IMO, it was actually pretty good. If there were either more people playing it, or a dedicated server module (are you listening jerks?!?!?!?.... of course they're not) then I'd play the hell out of it with some friends, or my kids or something. In fact, I'd buy copies for my friends that don't have it, and my kids just to play MP if they put out a dedicated server. Now that the game routinely sells for around half price (sometimes less) you'd think there wouldn't be any reason for them to hold out on that. Might even increase their residual sales.
 
Maybe I'm getting "too old", but MP is filler for me; I play it while I wait for something I really want. Good SP however, this is what I game for. If it wasn't for SP, I would not have even tried most of the MP I ended up enjoying. Perhaps I'm part of a dying breed, but it seems to be all the best titles over the last... well always, but to stay relevant to the topic let's just say the last 10 years, all those titles were SP focused (Doom, Wolfenstien, Witcher, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Dishonored, etc). Outside of 2-3 of the Battlefield games, Mass Effect 3's surprisingly good MP, and the Division, I don't remember a MP focused game that even garnered my attention since the early days (Half-Life, Unreal Tournament, CoD: MW, Battlefield 2, etc). Most MP is just cookie-cutter, twitch blah, blah, blah that is so boring and/or reflex dependent that I cannot muster more than a passing interest.
 
I hope we see a return of single player games focusing on single player, and multiplayer games focusing on multiplayer. Not many games accomplish both well. The multiplayer space is already full of behemoths and the poorly constructed afterthought multiplayer modes in most single player focused titles cannot compete. They never get very popular, and their communities die off fast. Makes it not worth investing time into, regardless of if it's any good or not. I'd rather see the time, effort, and money that goes into these half-assed multiplayer modes funneled back into making a solid single player campaign.
 
Viper87227 said:
I hope we see a return of single player games focusing on single player, and multiplayer games focusing on multiplayer. Not many games accomplish both well. The multiplayer space is already full of behemoths and the poorly constructed afterthought multiplayer modes in most single player focused titles cannot compete. They never get very popular, and their communities die off fast. Makes it not worth investing time into, regardless of if it's any good or not. I'd rather see the time, effort, and money that goes into these half-assed multiplayer modes funneled back into making a solid single player campaign.
Click to expand...

I can see this happening under Bethesda or CD Projekt Red, maaaybe even Ubisoft, but EA especially has been vocal that SP only games "are not financially sustainable". Which is BS, because every EA title that has gone out this year (excluding sports) is going to get it's arse handed to it by Wolfenstien 2, same way it did by Doom and the first Wolfenstien. EA doesn't give anything credence but market trends and couldn't read those accurately with three panels of experts.
 
N4CR said:
The yearly news threads saying single player is dead, meanwhile another AAA title releases SP only.

Enough said.
Click to expand...

Ah, but I am thinking this game must be loved by the "yawn, yet another multiplayer shooter for the idiots" people. I mean the ones that don't really enjoy the FPS genre for its mechanics.

While it could happen, no one should expect a great multiplayer experience from a current Wolfenstein game. Considering what the MachineGames people have done with Riddick and Wolfenstein, I say it would suck and they did the right thing skipping it.

Now, now. Before you pile on me, remember to read this thread's title again. That should tell you MachineGames and Bethesda agree with me so they didn't waste anyone's time with it.

I won't be surprised if they give Splash Damage another chance, though. Current id technology seems good enough. Hopefully lessons have been learned after Quake 4 MP, Quake Wars, Wolfenstein 2009 MP, Brink, RAGE MP, Doom MP, and Quake Champions. Blah, I didn't intend for this list to be this long :(

Don't have much faith in the current market, even less in Bethesda.
 
dgz said:
Ah, but I am thinking this game must be loved by the "yawn, yet another multiplayer shooter for the idiots" people. I mean the ones that don't really enjoy the FPS genre for its mechanics.

While it could happen, no one should expect a great multiplayer experience from a current Wolfenstein game. Considering what the MachineGames people have done with Riddick and Wolfenstein, I say it would suck and they did the right thing skipping it.

Now, now. Before you pile on me, remember to read this thread's title again. That should tell you MachineGames and Bethesda agree with me so they didn't waste anyone's time with it.

I won't be surprised if they give Splash Damage another chance, though. Current id technology seems good enough. Hopefully lessons have been learned after Quake 4 MP, Quake Wars, Wolfenstein 2009 MP, Brink, RAGE MP, Doom MP, and Quake Champions. Blah, I didn't intend for this list to be this long :(

Don't have much faith in the current market, even less in Bethesda.
Click to expand...

In the case of this thread, I think you're preaching to the choir so to speak. I'm getting the feeling that everyone who's posted more or less agrees that they made the right decision here, and that most companies should focus a given game based on what they do best. :cool:
 
Frraksurred said:
Maybe I'm getting "too old", but MP is filler for me; I play it while I wait for something I really want. Good SP however, this is what I game for. If it wasn't for SP, I would not have even tried most of the MP I ended up enjoying. Perhaps I'm part of a dying breed, but it seems to be all the best titles over the last... well always, but to stay relevant to the topic let's just say the last 10 years, all those titles were SP focused (Doom, Wolfenstien, Witcher, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Dishonored, etc). Outside of 2-3 of the Battlefield games, Mass Effect 3's surprisingly good MP, and the Division, I don't remember a MP focused game that even garnered my attention since the early days (Half-Life, Unreal Tournament, CoD: MW, Battlefield 2, etc). Most MP is just cookie-cutter, twitch blah, blah, blah that is so boring and/or reflex dependent that I cannot muster more than a passing interest.
Click to expand...

I agree completely
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top