Most games these days ship with a multiplayer component so you can challenge people online. This isn’t the case with Bethesda’s upcoming hit, Wolfenstein 2. The team says that they haven’t included an online multiplayer mode as it would ‘dilute’ the single player storytelling experience.
“The only way we can create these super immersive narrative experiences is if we can solely focus on the single-player. Having a multiplayer component in this work process would just dilute it all. That’s the danger if you try to do two things at once.”
Right, storytelling, because that’s why people buy a game like Wolfenstein… like how people definitely bought DOOM for its multiplayer.
A game like Wolfenstein needs to have a great story. By not including a multiplayer, you can be assured a great experience with it. Look how GTA V turned out. Both story mode and multiplayer, but guess what? Multiplayer was focused on a crap ton more, if single player was focused at all.
Point is, fps these days only focus on multiplayer now, and that incredibly sucks. It sucks to the people who used to play games like Doom back then and even Gears back on the 360 (not first person but point still stands).
This is great news to me, and makes me want to buy this even more. It’s unfortunate if this made you want it less.
Doom is basically a mindless devil killing FPS game. Their is hardly any plot to begin with but that didn’t stop the game from being awesome no matter what it or it didn’t bring to the table.
tht was the point of the game where it didnt concentrate on story, it concentrated on great level design, secrets and platforming.
While Wolfenstein is basically an alternative history game that should focus on the plot since the last game kinda went a bit off with it.
I respect this. Then again, I’ve never been too big on online multiplayer in general (I’m far too competitive, sucks the fun out of it) so I can see how this would be a bummer to many. As someone who greatly prefers story-driven single player gameplay though… bravo Bethesda.
Nah this is great, and how i feel it should be. If you want a multiplayer game, you can grab Overwatch or COD or Battlefield or…the list goes on. I haven’t heard of a great FPS story mode in a while aside from Doom and Resident Evil (which is arguably a FPS).
P3. When I saw the title I thought it was was only for the Switch version. That would’ve sucked.
So refreshing especially after the cancellation of Visceral’s Star Wars games.
EA seriously sucks. They never should’ve been given the star wars license. I’ve actually lost interest in Battlefront 2 since that news came out.
Disney too. Between them and EA, Star Wars is being turned into something gaudy.
At least the movies are safe. But the games, entrusting EA was a dumbass move.
So far I’m ok with the movies since Disney took over. I thought Ep. VII was ok. Not spectacular, but not bad either; right in the middle of the originals and prequels. Last Jedi will have to make up for Force Awakens’s negatives to convince me. I hope they don’t get carried away with the one-off movies. Rogue One was good enough, but it could be very easy to screw up like a Han Solo or Boba Fett movie.
TFA so called negatives was actually a response to the prequels’s shitty reception. They played it safe a bit because they’re not sure of going full out unfamiliar territories but TFA is still refreshing. It struck the balance between new and old but because some SW fans are picky bastards, they call it ANH ripoff because of a few similarities which, again, were intentional to please those who despised the prequels who are now saying it’s worse than the prequels. Jesus, they’re like Sonic the Hedgehog fans, you can’t please them no matter what. But TFA is SW’s biggest hit since TESB. Rogue One was amazing and a true SW prequel DONE RIGHT. I’m not sure about Han Solo but I hope it’s good.
I can understand them wanting to play it safe with TFA and I agree it is a breath of fresh air, a huge improvement over the prequels; but the negatives are still there. I think in playing it safe they were able to create a movie that made fans yearn for the franchise again, but also ended up with something that wasn’t as spectacular as it could have been, and that’s what Last Jedi has to make up for. This is Star Wars. What made the originals so great is that they did go all out and presented an amazing cinematic experience never seen before.
Calling TFA a New Hope ripoff is going a bit far, but the story did feel uninspired. It didn’t really “feel” new. Seeing yet another planet annihilating super weapon threatening the galaxy makes it look like they ran out of ideas. Again, I understand they were playing it safe and using something familiar, but I’m not gonna turn a blind eye for that reason.
There were also some problems with TFA from a pure film critic perspective. The villain was ineffective (Ren and Hux looked like two children arguing before their mother when they met with Snoke), the suspense was a bit lacking, some of the dialogue felt unnatural, etc.
I thought Rogue One was a very good Star Wars story. The things I didn’t like about it were just typical movie critiques like I didn’t like some of the acting, the story had some pacing problems, etc.
TFA is there to set the stage. TLJ will kick things off with a bang hopefully and then IX will close it off in the best way possible.
That’s what I’m hoping for.
In defense of there being another planet destroyer, it makes sense. Though the first two Death Stars were destroyed, the Death Star did its job perfectly: it destroyed planets. If a weapon works, you are obviously going to try & make more of that weapon whether it was destroyed or not. In war, you don’t stop making weapons that do their job because the first couple got destroyed.
As weapons yes. Both death stars worked perfectly, but the strategy clearly did not. The Empire’s strategy was similar to trying to kill a fly with a shotgun. I could fire, miss, blow out a window, and discover that the gun works perfectly; but after a couple shots you can bet I’ll put the gun down and realize that, while it does exactly what it’s supposed to do, it might not be the best strategy to achieve my goal.
Uhhhhmmm what? They cancelled a Star Wars game? The last one they have announced at E3?
The single player game that Visceral was making.
Viseral games was making a single player story driven star wars game and when the studio go shut down by ea ea pretty much made it s different game by making it multiplayer
WTF but there is already a Star Wars multiplayer game? What the hell is doing EA?
As long as we get the same game as everyone else, that’s fine. I think it could have a great multiplayer component. But if the devs really don’t want to do it, better that they don’t force themselves and end up with a half baked multiplayer.
Are they saying this is like that on all consoles? Or just the switch?
All.
At this point anything with multiplayer is taken off my “to buy” list of games. I’m sick of multiplayer and the retards who want multiplayer in every damn game that comes out. I literally read a few comments on some other site where people were complaining about Evil Within 2 not having multiplayer, what a bunch of f!@#ing brain dead morons.
||They have been infected by the disease known as COD-MOM = Call of Duty Multiplayer Obsessive Morons…||
Where is COD-DAD? Watching the COD-KIDS?
||What kind of nonsense are those?…||
They’re one big happy COD-FAMILY!
Crap. Oh well at least the story mode looks really good.
At first I was nervous too and thought this was going to be only for the the Switch version and I was having flashbacks to all the crappy third party ports on Wii U.
Did the previous game had MP? I played the game for a while I just don’t remember it having MP.
Same, Played through both the main and prequel and not omce did I ever noticed or cared to look for a MP option.
Last single player fps which MP I enjoyed was Soldiers of Fortune 2.
Games should either be SP or MP, and not to try shoehorn either in a game just to justify the price tag.
I dont entirely agree, but I do get you. Specially when the MP takes resources from a single focused game.
The reason I disagree is because of games like The Last of Us. That had a solid SP campaign, and the MP was a great addition. Seriously, that MP had no right to be that good! Lol
These kind of games with added MP that isnt shoehorned are rare though, so I do see where youre coming from.
For some games and genres, MP makes perfect sense, but for most FPS games, they usually does not.
Is this news for all versions right? Not only the Switch one?
Yes.
It’s for all ports, thank god. I was worried that they’re gimping Nintendo ports again.
I thought this was regarding Switch port not having multiplayer. But I wouldn’t mind no multiplayer in this if it’s meant to perfect the story mode. If it has co-op, I’ll accept that.
Good for Bethesda for sticking with what they do best. While all these major publishers are allowing monetization to dictate their game design while trying to keep and milk a long-term player base, Bethesda is still just trying to be great storytellers. Statements like this along with their early support on Nintendo has gotten them a long way from the days of Horse Armor DLC for me.
im fine with them just focusing on story then adding multiplayer later, it prolongs the longevity of the game by adding things a little at a time like how they did Splatoon and Hyrule Warriors and Smash Bros.
Except Splatoon is rushed but still being bareboned as it is after all of the updates and Hyrule Warriors is basically Dynasty Warriors; repetitive as shit. Smash Bros. is a different ball park from this example. Made to perfection thanks to Sakurai’s ambitions of seeing his games through.
I thought it was only for the Switch but it seems no.
Well personally I think the multiplayer it fits well on games that were focused on play against other people but if you want to make a game with a good story then no problem.
I have Overwatch and Splatoon 2 (and PUBG, even though I barely play it now) for my multiplayer shooter fix. I really don’t need anything else. So this is fine. Not every game needs multiplayer. The multiplayer in Doom isn’t very good, you can tell they focused more on the single player. So I think they’re making the right call by just skipping multiplayer instead of half-assing it.
Then again, I probably won’t get this game anyway. It hasn’t shown anything that interests me yet.
If the previous games didn’t have a multiplayer, oh well with this one not having it.