Monday, June 27, 2011

Till death do us part...

I was reading an interesting article in PC gamer magazine where 2 guys were debating on whether single player and multiplayer modes should be sold separately, and honestly I kind of have favor for both sides.

The first guy (we'll call him Mario) thinks that buying single and multiplayer modes gives him more for his money, plus he explains that game developers can make mega-bucks selling to a wider and combined audience.The second guy (we'll call him Luigi) disagrees and says:

"games don't need "mega-development" dollars" to be excellent values. Do you know of anyone that played COD:Black Ops for its single player, or its pitiful zombies co-op mode? They're back of the box bullet points, meant to give the impression that your're getting alot of content for your $60. That doesn't benifit gamers, it means overpaying for access to the piece of the game you actually want to play."

Then Mario says:

 "You're looking a gift horse in the mouth, you ingrate! Separating single-player and multiplayer modes into two purchases won't guarantee you'll save a penny. In fact, you'll probably be getting less for more! Look at Bioshock and Dead Space: both are single player only games that sold for full price. If their sequels had sold their new multiplayer modes separately, they would've still been full price for single player, then an extra $20 or so for the multiplayer DLC..."

I like to get more for my money as well , but for myself, I buy a game mostly because of the campaign, and if the campaign isn't good I could care less about the multiplayer because usually most multi-players are shoot-em-up and I'm not the best at those, but I play here and there just so I can laugh at how horrible I am, but If I know a game on hand that I will enjoy the single player mode as well as the multiplayer, for example, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, then I would definitely buy it together because I enjoy both modes.

So in conclusion I would love to save money on games if I wasn't playing one mode, but is it possible? And if so, should single-player and multiplayer get a divorce? Or should some games just stick to being good at one mode, for example, only make call of duty a multiplayer game only, and other games like dead space a single player only. I can say for sure and you can agree that some games have no business being multi-players.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Co-op games: Are you against me?

I had this topic on my mind for the longest time, and it bothers me alot. I may sound like a crybaby about it but I'm just gonna spill my opinion and maybe some of you can give me your opinion or clear it up for me so I won't think about it again.

Have you ever had one of those games your playing with a local partner and experienced some of the following:

1. you have only 2 bullets left and your partner runs and picks up the ammo without asking if you need it.

2. you have 25% health left your partner has 75% health left and yet he picks up the health that YOU needed.

3. Some games require separate points and your partner only has the sole intention on getting more points so they try to run ahead of you every time, and kill everything.

These are just some things I don't understand. If it's a "co-op" game then why not supply for both, otherwise it becomes the survival of the fittest. And if it's a co-op game why are the points separated aren't we suppose to work T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R? These type of instances focuses mainly on adventure-type games, and I am aware that some games allow you to trade items and such. I remember playing older sega games with my little brother like streets of rage and he would always grab everything and leave me to die. I'm just saying, we are suppose to get through this together.

Then, in this time and age I play games with my hubby like little-big-planet (story mode) and I swear he's trying to compete with me and stay ahead on points more than working together so he can feel like he's done the most. I've confronted him about that he always says "It's just a game"..... I'm thinking, uh-huh, you wouldn't have the same tune if you were loosing.

Does anyone have some clarification on this topic, or am I the only one that feels this way?