Wolfenstein's Hardest Difficulty Will Make You Cry Blood

Wolfenstein's Hardest Difficulty Will Make You Cry Blood

image

"I am Death Incarnate," the game's hardest difficulty setting and a reference to the original Wolfenstein 3D will not be for the weak of heart.

If there is one thing id software's early shooters were known for, it was the ability to turn the difficulty up to impossibly brutal levels. I'm sure every gamer worth his or her salt remembers struggling through Doom's "Nightmare" or Wolfenstein 3D's "I am Death Incarnate" difficulty settings. Andreas Ojerfors, Machine Games senior gameplay designer, says that Wolfenstein: The New Order will call back to these roots, as its hardest difficulty level will not be for the weak of heart.

"You will cry blood," he told Gamespot. The "I Am Death Incarnate" difficulty option will return in The New Order, and Ojerfors says that contrary to games that are designed around the easy mode and then ramped up for the more difficult modes, The New Order was designed with advanced difficulty in mind.

"We want it to be a real, real challenge for people. This is not an easy game. Of course we have the five difficulty levels of the original Wolfenstein 3D, like everything from 'Daddy Can I Play?' to 'I Am Death Incarnate'. So you can turn it down or turn it up if you want to. But like the default, normal setting of the game, it's going to be a challenging experience."

One of the problems many gamers have with difficulty settings is when developers simply make the enemy "cheap" and "unfair," rather than more challenging. Ojerfors says this won't be the case with The New Order. "It's difficult, but it's always fair. You're never really cheated. It's always your fault if you die."

Wolfenstein: The New Order launches for the Xbox 360, Xbox One, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, and PC later this year. Bethesda's vice president of PR and marketing recently said that the game won't feature a tacked-on multiplayer mode because the Machine Games wanted to focus on the singleplayer.

Source: Gamespot

Permalink

Steven Bogos:

If there is one thing id software's early shooters were known for, it was the ability to turn the difficulty up to impossibly brutal levels. I'm sure every gamer worth his or her salt remembers struggling through Doom's "Nightmare" or Wolfenstein 3D's "I am Death Incarnate" difficulty settings. Andreas Ojerfors, Machine Games senior gameplay designer, says that Wolfenstein: The New Order will call back to these roots, as its hardest difficulty level will not be for the weak of heart.

One of the problems many gamers have with difficulty settings is when developers simply make the enemy "cheap" and "unfair," rather than more challenging. Ojerfors says this won't be the case with The New Order. "It's difficult, but it's always fair. You're never really cheated. It's always your fault if you die."

Wolfenstein: The New Order launches for the Xbox 360, Xbox One, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, and PC later this year. Bethesda's vice president of PR and marketing recently said that the game won't feature a tacked-on multiplayer mode because the Machine Games wanted to focus on the singleplayer.

Beautiful. Just beautiful. Maybe now we can have a few more of those classic, fun shooters in the market, instead of just waves and waves of spunkgargleweewee all the time.

Steven Bogos:

"I am Death Incrante"

Friendly spelling vigilante at your service.

OT:

Sounds nice. I'm glad the call for difficulty is moving away from just making the enemies bullet sponges.

Easton Dark:

Steven Bogos:

"I am Death Incrante"

Friendly spelling vigilante at your service.

OT:

Sounds nice. I'm glad the call for difficulty is moving away from just making the enemies bullet sponges.

Thanks for that! i've fixed it!

OT:

I'm with you 100%. I feel like so many games are built around the easy mode, and enemies just have more HP and auto-aim in the more difficult modes, making it impossible

Oh ho! A challenge is it!?
image
Bring it on Wolfenstein! I can take your Death Incarnate difficulty and make it look easy!

Death Incrante? Is he like the brother of Brain Crescente?

Good article, fix the initial Incrante to Incarnate and life will be sweet.

Oh and I am very much looking forward to this. If the technical aspects are perfect and the game proves to be entertaining, I'm in.

EDIT: Oh me and my many many many open tabs... the millions of minutes you've cost me already! Darn it!

But if it´s like every other modern shooter then it´s just going to be exremely annoying to play on the hardest setting. While Wolfenstein 3D and Doom (Ultra Violence, Nightmare seemed to be a bit of a joke) were a lot of fun on hard, because you actually stood a chance. But these days you can hardly avoid getting hit, so it just gets annoying because there are people with machine guns allaround you, while you desperately try to find cover...

Steven Bogos:
"You will cry blood," he told Gamespot.

Good. I already urinate blood. I want to cry blood too.

I just hope this game actually ends up good though. The previous one seemed a bit too mediocre and generic for my liking. I also hope the difficulty isn't punishing, but rather challenging. That it's firm but fair rather than "LET ME GET MY BEAT STICK OUT AND HIT YOU OVER AND OVER". I tried to complete COD: World At War on the hardest difficulty. I pretty much failed because they kept throwing grenades at me. Which made me just feel irritated and bored rather than more on the edge of my seat.

I'm starting to like this game more and more.

These days the only thing higher difficulty does i either give enemies more health, your bullets somehow can't shoot through a pack of warm butter or there seems to be just a endless chain of spawning enemies.

Wonder how they will do this.

I can't have much faith in this given it is coming to the 360 and PS3. No RAM for AI or open spaces. Damn why aren't these things dead yet?

Longstreet:
I'm starting to like this game more and more.

These days the only thing higher difficulty does i either give enemies more health, your bullets somehow can't shoot through a pack of warm butter or there seems to be just a endless chain of spawning enemies.

Wonder how they will do this.

im not going to lie i was really excited for this game... but i just watched some gameplay from E3 and my excitement quickly disolved

capcha Tea, earl gray, hot. your right Captain Picard would makes this game better

It's kind of interesting that we seem to starting off the next gen with a throwback to the old days gaming. I think I'll be getting this game eventually

if they do it like dark souls style "you lose if you're lame, (though bad guys changing direction mid air and a crappy shield cover area despite having autoaim turned on is crap) not because we cheated" style difficulty, then i'm all for it.

I'm wondering how hard this is going to be. I'm hoping for one hit deaths and if you die once you have to start the whole game again.

Noooooo........i dont want to turned into a crying huddled lump on the floor from replaying the same section for the hundreth time. :-( Especially if we are adding crying blood to the symptoms....will stain my carpet. lol

Longstreet:
I'm starting to like this game more and more.

These days the only thing higher difficulty does i either give enemies more health, your bullets somehow can't shoot through a pack of warm butter or there seems to be just a endless chain of spawning enemies.

Wonder how they will do this.

Probably by using more unconventional enemies more often (not to say you're going to be fighting endless armies of heavies like that fucking part in Cod Blops), giving enemies more health (not turning them into bullet sponges though) and using different positioning for enemies (a sniper in a tower who isn't there on easier difficulties).

Darren716:
I'm wondering how hard this is going to be. I'm hoping for one hit deaths and if you die once you have to start the whole game again.

*sigh* no. Why? Because at the end of the day we play games to relax, we want a challenge because we require some form of stimulation, but if we're going to be mentally flagellated with no sense of accomplishment we may as well go back to work... At least then we get paid.

The reason i brought up dark souls earlier is because it's as easy or as hard as you want it to be, once you have figured out your characters strengths and the bad guys weaknesses you can work towards a fulfilling conclusion and a battle well fought, not because it was easy but because you earned it and became one with your warrior and the battle, not because you have muscle reflexes and eidetic memory of a mythical greek hero. Because if you require that in a game chances are you don't play them to enjoy them, they're simply another thing to overcome.

Just what I need... to bleed from my tear ducts instead of mostly my pores and skin..

I remember this difficulty from the old wolfenstein games, and I didn't find it too challenging back then. I don't have high hopes for this.

Dr. McD:

Longstreet:
I'm starting to like this game more and more.

These days the only thing higher difficulty does i either give enemies more health, your bullets somehow can't shoot through a pack of warm butter or there seems to be just a endless chain of spawning enemies.

Wonder how they will do this.

Probably by using more unconventional enemies more often (not to say you're going to be fighting endless armies of heavies like that fucking part in Cod Blops), giving enemies more health (not turning them into bullet sponges though) and using different positioning for enemies (a sniper in a tower who isn't there on easier difficulties).

the only real natural way to make enemies harder (or easier) is AI, like on easy difficulty, making enemies likely to rush, forget to use cover or work in teams where as on hard they flank, use cover, use grenades to flush out prey, cover angles, but as well as making it organic, making them call out positions, unfocused cover fire as they switch positions, checking wrong angles first due to having to guess, bad guys remaining on alert instead of going back to all normal but being paranoid so making mistakes higher difficulty, less mistakes, cold guys (meaning both temperature and those caught by surprise) being slow to react or overcompensating. If they make it like this they could control difficulty easy, yet still make it rewarding. Combine that with solid code, ie no stupid collision detection, decent damage detection, AI that reacts realistically to sound, dismissing normal seeming, checking out abnormal seeming; and they could annihilate this game.

I wouldn't have it any other way, bring it on, this will be a fun end of the year for me.

Steven Bogos:
Bethesda's vice president of PR and marketing recently said that the game won't feature a tacked-on multiplayer mode because the Machine Games wanted to focus on the singleplayer.

I realize I'm harping on something a bit off topic but FFS I am tired of everyone complaining the second a game has a multiplayer mode and/or acting like its Christmas because a multiplayer mode is cut or abandoned. I mean it, I'm so fucking tired of it. Bioshock 2's multiplayer on PS3 doesn't seem to be dying down by any stretch of the measure, and there's still a decent player base on PC for Max Payne 3. It might not be award winning like AC:Brotherhood, but it's not as if every multiplayer mode is the spawn of Satanic demons that everyone acts like they are. I'm not saying every game needs it, but you know what, some games can actually benefit from it. Multiplayer as a whole cannot get better without experimentation. If the Metro: Last Light multiplayer had put a focus on scavenging, special combinations, multi-path levels, and narrative through the setting, character dialogue, and maybe unlockable memoirs... well actually it'd be Bioshock 2's multiplayer then. But no one would notice because everyone jumped on the hate wagon the second it came into view.

*breathes in* Why yes, I'm not in the happiest mood today.

OT: Good. Don't make the Uncharted style of increased difficulty. Do it more like Syndicate's co-op (which from the sounds of it, is what they are doing). Change enemy strategies, combinations, and patterns, in addition to moved weapons, health, etc. Make it a new experience rather than just the same but with changed stats, and you will forever have my respect Machine Games!

Gamers cant appreciate difficulty. Or rarely do. I remember all the whining on STALKER's supposedly unfair (yeah right *rolls eyes) or Metro 2033's impossible difficulty...

octafish:
I can't have much faith in this given it is coming to the 360 and PS3. No RAM for AI or open spaces. Damn why aren't these things dead yet?

We can only hope they get a dumbed down crappy version whilst the PS4, Xbone and PC get a good version. As someone who plays all too much on consoles I can say this generation has well out-stayed its welcome.

Excellent, always nice to have a harder difficulty available.

Steven Bogos:
Bethesda's vice president of PR and marketing recently said that the game won't feature a tacked-on multiplayer mode because the Machine Games wanted to focus on the singleplayer.

*draw drop*

...

Well fucking a. Here's hope it pays off...

I, for one, am glad there'll be a "Daddy Can I Play?" mode, because that's the only mode I'd be interested in.

Also, actual focus on the single-player experience?

Well, then this'll definitely be one game I'll eagerly be awaiting reviews for.

A game that is going to focus on single-player instead of multiplayer...and it's an FPS!? 0.o
I must have fallen into that strange parallel dimension again!

TizzytheTormentor:
Oh ho! A challenge is it!?
image
Bring it on Wolfenstein! I can take your Death Incarnate difficulty and make it look easy!

ok.. that post.. what is that anime. i am both terrifiyed and intrequed all at once. and i must discover it.

starhaven:

TizzytheTormentor:
Oh ho! A challenge is it!?
image
Bring it on Wolfenstein! I can take your Death Incarnate difficulty and make it look easy!

ok.. that post.. what is that anime. i am both terrifiyed and intrequed all at once. and i must discover it.

Plastic Nee San, haven't watched it myself, but here is the clip (not subbed, sorry bout that)

Parakeettheprawn:

Steven Bogos:
Bethesda's vice president of PR and marketing recently said that the game won't feature a tacked-on multiplayer mode because the Machine Games wanted to focus on the singleplayer.

I realize I'm harping on something a bit off topic but FFS I am tired of everyone complaining the second a game has a multiplayer mode and/or acting like its Christmas because a multiplayer mode is cut or abandoned. I mean it, I'm so fucking tired of it. Bioshock 2's multiplayer on PS3 doesn't seem to be dying down by any stretch of the measure, and there's still a decent player base on PC for Max Payne 3. It might not be award winning like AC:Brotherhood, but it's not as if every multiplayer mode is the spawn of Satanic demons that everyone acts like they are. I'm not saying every game needs it, but you know what, some games can actually benefit from it. Multiplayer as a whole cannot get better without experimentation. If the Metro: Last Light multiplayer had put a focus on scavenging, special combinations, multi-path levels, and narrative through the setting, character dialogue, and maybe unlockable memoirs... well actually it'd be Bioshock 2's multiplayer then. But no one would notice because everyone jumped on the hate wagon the second it came into view.

It's a valid complaint, the single player experience has taken a massive backseat in recent years, especially in the FPS genre, because publishers think it's an easier buck to go after the multiplayer crowd, no matter how out of place that may be (who here really thought what the Tomb Raider series was missing was multiplayer? Who thought the best way to follow up the fantastic Resident Evil 4 would be to saddle you with a co-op partner or a completely useless AI? Lost Planet 2, for god sake.)

We're fine for multiplayer games, but a satisfying, meaty single player is a rare occurrence, nowadays, and by the sounds of things, if this dev keeps to his word, that may well be what Wolfenstein actually delivers.

P.S. You mentioned Assassin's Creed's multiplayer...funny how the single player element of that series started nose-diving in quality around about the time they started pushing the multiplayer aspect.

rob_simple:

It's a valid complaint, the single player experience has taken a massive backseat in recent years, especially in the FPS genre, because publishers think it's an easier buck to go after the multiplayer crowd, no matter how out of place that may be (who here really thought what the Tomb Raider series was missing was multiplayer? Who thought the best way to follow up the fantastic Resident Evil 4 would be to saddle you with a co-op partner or a completely useless AI? Lost Planet 2, for god sake.)

It's a valid complaint if it actually applies to anything to do with the singleplayer. In Bioshock 2's case, it had an entirely separate developer (Digital Extremes -- Warframe, darkSector, Homefront multiplayer), and the reason it didn't do as well was because of a forced rewrite a year into development. And somehow Dead Space 2 never suffered from it's multiplayer -- in fact, from what I learned from talking to a beta tester, they actually cut things from the multiplayer so they could make sure the singleplayer was good, and also Visceral's repeatedly beaten in the fact that they wanted co-op from the start. Although that's not convenient for people to rail against multiplayer so it's taken as them trying to protect EA's ass. Multiplayer is what saved Homefront, from where I'm sitting. That was the only part of the game that was really praised as the singleplayer was a sloppy, badly put together linear affair while the multiplayer was, arguably, the closest we could get to a CoD killer that just didn't sell well enough or have enough momentum. Lost Planet already played like a co-op shooter, in my experience, so while I'm not going to argue that no one really asked for it, it's not like it was a deep divergence from the main idea like adding co-op was to Resident Evil 5.

Crystal Dynamics, not Square or Eidos, wanted to make a multiplayer mode for Tomb Raider, they just didn't have the time so they came up with some ideas that they clearly didn't flesh out and handed it off to Eidos because they wanted to make it a done deal. They never had to make, they wanted to. In fact their entire original idea for the reboot would have -never- even allowed for it if they hadn't gone back to the drawing board and made "Uncharted but with bits of Dead Space and Resident Evil 4/6 tossed in". It was their rather stupid choice. I'm not going to argue the thing with Resident Evil 5 because I haven't played it but you know what, I actually LIKED playing the demo for RE6 and plan on getting it for PC if I have the cash for it and/or its on sale.

rob_simple:
We're fine for multiplayer games

First, really? We have no need to explore new multiplayer options? That's why DayZ did so horribly that no will know what I'm talking about? That Gotham City Imposters with its impressively polished platforming isn't still consistently played by its fanbase? That year after year there are new multiplayer mods for Half-Life 2 that change the way things work? Yeah, clearly no one wants anything besides CoD.

You really aren't aware that people are intentionally banding together on Steam to play Max Payne 3's MP together so they can play despite the lackluster match making? That teams of max-rank players go toe to toe in Dead Space 2's competitive multiplayer? That even this far after launch, I can still find someone to do co-op with with my PC copy of Dead Space 3? Even more crazy is that there are still active clans and non-clan players playing Homefront? That I could find multiple full matches for Bioshock 2 on PS3?

rob_simple:
, but a satisfying, meaty single player is a rare occurrence, nowadays, and by the sounds of things, if this dev keeps to his word, that may well be what Wolfenstein actually delivers.

Yeah, there are no singleplayer enabled experiences that anyone might like, like Minecraft, Spelunky, Tiny & Big: Grandpa's Leftovers, Bit Trip, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Dead Space, Resident Evil 6, Resident Evil: Revelations, Injustice: Gods Among Us, Just Cause 2, Max Payne 3, Mark of the Ninja, Alan Wake, Alan Wake: American Nightmare, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, Silent Hill: Downpour, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, The Walking Dead, Spec Ops: The Line, Sanctum, Sanctum 2, Orcs Must Die, Orcs Must Die 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Batman: Arkham City, FF12, FF13, FF13-2, Portal 2, Bioshock Infinite, Bioshock, Bioshock 2, Dead Space 2, Dead Space 3, Transformers: Fall of Cybertron, The Witcher, The Witcher 2, Civilization V, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Borderlands, Borderlands 2, Scarygirl, Super Meat Boy, Gunpoint, Hard Reset, Sleeping Dogs, Ys Origin, Sniper Elite V2, Black Mesa (mod), Warhammer 40k: Space Marine, WH40k: Dawn of War. WH40k: Dawn of War 2, Metro 2033: Metro: Last Light, DmC, God of War Collection, Uncharted, Uncharted 2, Uncharted 3, Don't Starve, Shank, Shank 2, Total War: Napoleon, Total War: Shogun II, Crusader Kings, Crusader Kings II, Persona 4 Golden, Persona 3 FES, Persona 2, Trin, Trine 2, Remember Me, Dust: An Elysian Tail, Anomaly, Anomaly 2, FEZ, TES: Morrowind, TES: Skyrim, TES: Oblivion, Of Orcs & Men, Mars: War Logs, inFamous, inFamous 2, inFamous: Festival of Blood, Resistance, Resistance 3... shall I go on? Because I could just start listing the things available on Steam, PSN, XBL, hell lets go to the Android and iOS markets. The excuse that there aren't enough good singleplayer games is utter crap, you just have to get off your arse and look. And I'll guarantee you -- a number of those games that are great for singleplayer *gasp* they've got multiplayer! And somehow they haven't utterly failed as a result. You can't pretend to know if a multiplayer is good or not unless you've actually played it and confirmed with others that yes, it didn't play well. Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Wolfenstein, and Doom all had multiplayer and they certainly didn't need it but are they still not held up as classics? What about XCOM: Enemy Unknown? It's missing half its content in order to shorten the dev time but not because of the multiplayer.

I get it, it's your easy way out, it's your easy excuse by pure deduction. But forgive me if, in my experience, the deduction of my fellow gamers hasn't exactly blown me away. There are people who still think developers lose cash from the sale of used games when it's actually the publishers, and they'll swear by it. Multiplayer always has existed, it always will. The only thing you can do about it is encourage the new, divergent ones instead of the same old thing. Instead of buying that COD map pack, get FEAR 3 on sale, two copies, try out the multiplayer with a friend, enjoy F**KING RUN and the co-op, and actually experience something new.

rob_simple:
P.S. You mentioned Assassin's Creed's multiplayer...funny how the single player element of that series started nose-diving in quality around about the time they started pushing the multiplayer aspect.

So what you're saying is the actually interesting multiplayer made the bland singleplayer seem less interesting? I for one am SHOCKED.

I'll be quite honest with you, if your intention is to "win" or "prove me wrong", you're not gonna have an easy battle. I've been watching people give arguments like this across multiple sites and in the end I have never seen a valid reason for why multiplayer is viewed as the spawn of Satan for any other reason than who is publishing the game. If it was Valve instead of EA that had published Dead Space and they made the exact same product, you're damn well sure there'd be people playing its multiplayer happily because "they're supporting Valve". It's not that the concept or the innovation of multiplayer is bad, it's because the grubby publishers know that they can make money with it. Okay... that's kind of their JOB! I am not going to defend EA/Origin or Capcom with their sequel fest but you know what? Yeah, they're in this to make MONEY! I don't like it, I'm not a fan of it, I don't even like using that as an excuse when we see things like Dishonored and Skyrim, but you know what, they're stupid as fuck so if I can at least get an experimental multiplayer out of the bargain, I'm gonna take it. Because I'd rather get the most I can from a raging torrent of stupid that I can put to use and benefit than just whine about it like a ten year old when its very clear that they'll keep doing it unless it literally is a MASSIVE failure. We're talking not even a single person online at launch day -- Rogue Warrior comes to mind (Game Informer's review reported they couldn't even get a single match at the time of review).

If, however, you're actually looking to discuss this in a calm and sensible manner, then all the laser beams will turn off, but dude... I already wrote my original post because of how frustrated I am with this issue so, if the hill of text isn't any indication, I'm a bit opinionated on this issue. I'm to this like Jim Sterling is to the Xbox One. Maybe moreso, and that's bloody saying something.

Parakeettheprawn:
Snip 2000

No, I have no intention to 'win' as someone as entrenched in their own opinion as you clearly are will never be swayed by anything.

I was merely stating my opinion that many of the games I have loved have been marred by the addition of a forced and unnecessary multiplayer (Resident Evil, Ratchet & Clank, Lost Planet, Assassin's Creed, The Darkness II...I could just as easily create a list the size of yours).

I'm not against multiplayer existing, but I personally have zero interest in it, which is why I stay away from games like Team Fortress 2 or Brink (although that was more because Brink is shit) because I don't expect a game not designed for my tastes to pull me up a chair and start meeting my demands. No, what I take issue with is when developers take a game that has always been about the single player experience and then turn it into a forced multiplayer for no reason other than it might sell better,(See: Ratchet & Clank: All4One) essentially shutting out people like me who have been loyal to the franchise since day one.

Also, I never said that there were no single player games in existence, that would be stupid, but I do notice that a large swath of the titles you name-dropped aren't AAA titles, which is the market I was referring to; perhaps I should have made that clear. Also, a good few you named have multiplayer which, outsourced or not, takes resources away from providing a more solid single player experience.

P.S. I have no idea how you drew the conclusion that Borderlands 1&2 are single player games. I played through them solo because I'm an anti-social prick and, as much as I love them, they are in no way designed to be played that way.

I like games that have split-screen co-op as I can play them with my housemate, but online multiplayer is something that actually puts me off of buying a single-player game.

rob_simple:

No, I have no intention to 'win' as someone as entrenched in their own opinion as you clearly are will never be swayed by anything.

When you've been sitting on the sideline for over five years, watching something you enjoy getting mocked and treated like something evil, lets see you be keen about someone bieng down on it.

rob_simple:
I was merely stating my opinion

Stating it like it's fact.

rob_simple:
that many of the games I have loved have been marred by the addition of a forced and unnecessary multiplayer (Resident Evil, Ratchet & Clank, Lost Planet, Assassin's Creed, The Darkness II...I could just as easily create a list the size of yours).

Rachet & Clank: Deadlocked was one of the most popular Rachet & Clank entries, and one of the few games that the PS2 saw significant people playing MP in, so... I fail to see how that hurt the brand, and wasn't Crack in Time sort of the finale anyway? It's not like they can't go back to making it be singleplayer, they just wanted to make a co-op game (the fact Fuse also exists as well as the big co-op options in Resistance 1-3 strongly indicate Insomniac wants to make a killer co-op game).

The Darkness II was being made by an entirely different developer and from what I understand it was less that it was bad just that they significantly changed things into something along the lines of Syndicate meets Just Cause meets Bulletstorm, which I won't argue is a SERIOUS departure from the original game, but the co-op pretty much seems to have just been added to pad out the game and let you team up with friends, nothing more really. Resident Evil's state of "decline" is because everyone expects to get another Resident Evil 2, forgetting that Resident Evil 2 was even more actiony than Resident Evil, and the same goes for RE3 in relation to RE2 and so on. The series was headed down the road it has reached almost by pure fact that it's a zombie shooter and you can only make zombies so scary before no matter how insane the survival elements are you're gonna run out of options. Even if they reboot the whole damn thing as it was I guarantee you it won't feel the same and you won't be happy because you already have the game you want. It's on PSN. I for one actually welcomed RE6 for giving me what is essentially Max Payne 3 meets Dead Space lite with a tinge of its own inventiveness. I've never found any horror game scary, and certainly not ones with zombies. Alan Wake was the most unsettling one, while Penumbra was more like "well, here's a quirky and creepy stealth/puzzle game" and Amnesia was "...so its Penumbra without the hammer?" Dead Space always handled like a survival shooter, and in what entries I've played, the same goes for Resident Evil. Is that a fact? No, but it is how I feel about them so forgive me if I don't see RE6 as the death of the franchise. Hell Resident Evil: Revelations, the second patron saint right after RE2, was just basically Hydrophobia (they even brought the scanning thing for crying out loud) with the most "missing the point" aspects of Dead Space tossed in.

As for AC... I've already established I never saw the appeal to begin with.

rob_simple:
I'm not against multiplayer existing, but I personally have zero interest in it, which is why I stay away from games like Team Fortress 2 or Brink (although that was more because Brink is shit) because I don't expect a game not designed for my tastes to pull me up a chair and start meeting my demands. No, what I take issue with is when developers take a game that has always been about the single player experience and then turn it into a forced multiplayer for no reason other than it might sell better,(See: Ratchet & Clank: All4One) essentially shutting out people like me who have been loyal to the franchise since day one.

First, there's your biggest flaw in your argument. You're trying to debate the legitimacy and place of something that you don't even enjoy. That's like trying to have a Republican talk about how Welfare and centralized government are good in the US. It can happen (Barbara Bush was a big supporter of Welfare, apparently), but it's not likely. How are you supposed to even know which of them is good or not if you barely if at all play them? And FFS not every MP game is TF2. Neither is every game CoD. No one's shutting you out because they added multiplayer -- that's bullshit. Rachet & Clank: All for One was a clear spin-off title, just like that tower defense game and PS Heroes On The Move. It's not a betrayal, my gosh, seriously, do you even think about that maybe the developers wanted it all along? Case in point, Irrational (they made Tribes Vengeance, SWAT 4, almost made L4D before L4D existed, and spent a year experimenting with MP ideas for Bioshock Infininte!), Visceral Games (tried competitive MP in addition to the co-op in Army of Two 1-2, tested out co-op in Dead Space 1 and tried both competitive and co-op before settling on co-op for Dead Space 3), and Monolith (they made Gotham City Imposters while also the heavily SP focused first two entries of FEAR, in combination with having worked on an MMO for Sony and having still made a rock solid MP that is still played in both earlier FEAR games). Other devs known for their SP but have done MP: id, Bioware, Eidos, Crystal Dynamics (Guardian of Light's co-op did far better than the reboot's MP), Raven Software... I doubt we need another big list so I'll leave it at that.

rob_simple:
Also, I never said that there were no single player games in existence, that would be stupid, but I do notice that a large swath of the titles you name-dropped aren't AAA titles, which is the market I was referring to; perhaps I should have made that clear. Also, a good few you named have multiplayer which, outsourced or not, takes resources away from providing a more solid single player experience.

Ah but you act as if multiplayer has made it so. Who the hell cares if a game is AAA or not at this point? Minecraft made more money than Inversion and barely if at all had a budget for the first two years of development. Trying to use that as excuse for not playing a game is beyond ridiculous. If you aren't finding what you want in one market, you got to another. If a Wal-Mart employee keeps spitting on your grapes, you could always go to the Giant down the street where they don't and no one will look at you badly for doing that. If they do, then that's their own fucking problem, and they can get over it. And FFS, you really want to hold onto that little shred of an argument "it takes away resources", don't you? Face it, this isn't the case with every game. The only time I'd be obliged to agree is Dead Space 2, but actually in reverse because the SP was such a key focus that the competitive MP was a malnourished L4D VS mode clone that could have been -so much- more. Bioshock 2 wasn't hindered by it, they didn't even share assets -- which is why all the assets in Bioshock 2's MP are different and/or taken from Bioshock 1, why certain control scheme aspects are changed, and why it loads separately from the SP, because it's a completely different game!

rob_simple:
P.S. I have no idea how you drew the conclusion that Borderlands 1&2 are single player games. I played through them solo because I'm an anti-social prick and, as much as I love them, they are in no way designed to be played that way.

Because I tried the first one online and while I agree that in theory they're meant to be, and actually decided to go back to SP because of how it managed to actually be MORE boring when you have four laundry lists of things to shoot and collect.

And you know what, you can be an anti-social prick. Go ahead. I have no problem with that. I don't care if you never play multiplayer. But here's the thing, you aren't the only anti-social prick, and surprisingly enough a lot of anti-social pricks love to complain about multiplayer across multiple sites. And you know what the silent majority of us who play multiplayer really want to say at this point in response: "WE FUCKING GET! FOR FUCKS SAKE WE GET IT! BUT MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THAT -WE- ENJOY IT AND NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO EVEN TRY IT!" You can just be like Yahtzee and only try the MP if it really tickles your fancy. No one is pointing a bloody gun to your head and demanding you even acknowledge it. Refusing to use it in of itself makes your point clear. Every less blip on the metrics for people who bought a game and didn't play the MP sends a little message. Bitching about it just to irritate the rest of us -doesn't- help, because some of us want a co-op survival action game with three different campaigns and three different sets of protagonists. Some of us want to play that awesome action game with a friend in a wave based mode that pushes us to the limit into the wee hours of the night. Some of us actually DO like it.

So you can hate it as much as you want, go ahead, be my guest, but stop making it a living hell for us to actually say "you know what, I like this new multiplayer mode" without being told we're causing "the problem". I'm bloody fricking tired of this shit being treated as something perfectly fine. There are far bigger fish to fucking fry than multiplayer modes being added to games. Hell if we didn't do it at least some parts of the time we would never have Dark Souls' game invading system or DayZ with its immersion and cut throat atmosphere or Minecraft with its thousands of different ways to play or Battlefield 4 with the ability to actually destroy entire buildings like we've been waiting for for the past decade or so. You aren't always going to get a diamond like that, there will always just be regular things or minor gems amongst the rough, but you can't just assume it being brought up or included is some sort of personal offense to you. You can guess what a developer and/or publisher's reasoning is, far more so on the latter front, but not so much on the former front can you be accurate because I've been on that side and it's not that a developer is trying to hurt you feelings, they're just trying to do what they think is best. Is that guaranteed to work? No, because they're bloody human. They are as stupid as myself and you.

Parakeettheprawn:
On a clear day you can snip forever.

I'm not going to respond to you in full because I honestly haven't the time, energy nor desire to, so all I'm going to say is this.

Resident Evil 4 is one of my favourite games of all time. Resident Evil 5 introduced a forced co-op mechanic that made it unplayable to anyone without a co-op partner because, as several Youtube videos will attest, the AI is useless; it was added in as a concession to people who don't want multiplayer forced on them. Now, there was absolutely no reason for Capcom to force multiplayer onto the next big game in the RE series, when the focus of RE has always been about the single player experience.

They want to make a multiplayer title? Fine, be my guest, but don't call it Resident Evil when it has as much to do with Resident Evil as Mario does.

This is my point of contention, that you seem to be repeatedly ignoring: I don't care about multiplayer being put in games that I'm never going to play anyway, but when the franchise has never been about multiplayer and suddenly chooses to completely focus on it, eschewing the single player experience that defined the franchise, it's obvious that the developers are exploiting an established brand to either try their new idea rather than using a completely new IP or simply lazily cash in on what's currently popular.

I had no problem with FUSE being multiplayer based, and I have no problem with Insomniac wanting to try new things, but Ratchet & Clank, first and foremost, is about the single player experience and even Deadlocked was more of an expansion than a full game. All4One was a full game that was practically unplayable as a single player experience because, once again, the AI was glitched to hell as a result of being a concession for those of us who like to game alone.

So no, I don't think multiplayer is some big bad monster ruining my favourite hobby, but I don't appreciate it being foisted upon me, much in the same way I didn't appreciate Jak & Daxter, a fun little Mario 64 clone, being turned into a gritty sandbox game to cash in on the GTA demographic; much in the same way I didn't appreciate EA taking the Syndicate brand and slapping it on a game that had fuck all to do with the original; much like I didn't appreciate Dead Space 3, one of the few survival horror games left in the mainstream, being turned into 'Generic Shooter #347'.

I'm all for change, but not when it's a cynical attempt to hoover up money from a passing trend; which is what many of the decisions to put multiplayer in modern games are based on. The Jimquisition had a brilliant video on the subject a few weeks ago, I suggest you go look it up.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here