Crytek: FPS Games Need Multiplayer to Succeed
Have gamers merely come to expect multiplayer in FPS games?
Monday Crysis 2 executive producer Nathan Camarillo told CVG that generally first-person shooters actually need multiplayer features in order to succeed on the market today. Other gaming genres typically don't require that particular component to have longevity.
"I think there's plenty of titles that don't have multiplayer that do quite well, but that's more of a genre specific decision," he said. "For an FPS game yeah you really have to have it unless you're a very unique kind of FPS depending on what you're delivery platform is and what market you're going into."
Naturally he goes on to describe the multiplayer aspect of Crytek's upcoming shooter, Crysis 2. After all, the game hits shelves in two months.
"It's different from other FPS games in that you are this ultimate super solider that has the ability to cloak at any point in time, so it's different than modern military shooters, it's different to Halo," he said. "You have the maneuverability, you're in an urban environment, you can jump, you can slide, you can climb. There's so much you can do in that first-person experience that the other multiplayer games don't offer."
But why is the multiplayer component such a necessity for FPS titles? As pointed out, other genres don't rely on pitting players against players online and/or offline. That said, it's quite possible that multiplayer is merely expected from shooters because the feature dates back to the early days of the genre itself thanks to id Software, Epic Games, Bungie and other developers. Gamers may have simply grown accustomed to testing virtual weapons and vehicles against friends. Besides, no challenge is the same when facing human opponents.
"Generally yes for FPS games you have to have awesome multiplayer and that's what we're making with Crysis 2," Camarillo said.
Camarillo also added that FPS titles require high review scores in order to stay afloat, admitting that Crysis 2 will struggle against other FPS titles if it doesn't receive a score in the 90s.
Crysis 2 lands on Microsoft Windows, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 on March 22, 2011.
- MSI Reveals N500GTX Series with Twin Frozr II
- MSI GeForce GTX 560 Ti Card Spotted
- Tom’s Hardware Hammer Time!
- Steve Jobs is Sick Again, Takes Another Leave
- IBM's Supercomputer Beats Humans at Jeopardy
- Intel Staffers Get Huge Bonuses after Record Year
- Watch Us Shoot at an SSD With a Shotgun & Rifle
- Intel Records Record Quarter and Record Year
- AMD CEO Left Over Mobile Strategy Disagreement
- Acer to Replace Netbooks with Sandy Bridge Tabs
- This is HP's 10-inch WebOS Tablet, the Topaz
- AMD Launches APU for Embedded Systems
- Acer: No, We're Not Leaving the Netbook Market
- Windows 8 Surfaces in NDA Presentation
- AMD Releasing Radeon HD 6950 1GB for $279?
- Apple: Win Tabs 'Heavy,' Android Tabs 'Bizarre'
- World of StarCraft Modder Gets Job Offer
- AVADirect Adds Sandy Bridge Laptops, Desktops
NO WAYYY!!!
I know I have seen this 50 times before but I now just put two and two together, Microsoft = Xbox.
They have managed to account for two massive gaming platforms, thats insane.
I have been playing FPS since the beginning, wolfenstein and doom. And I have to say the last FPS's i have actually enjoyed enough to play through were half-life 2 and Unreal Tournament 2003 (also fallout3, but its more of an RPG than FPS). Everything else is just a clone and far too linear and predictable. I havn't played Crysis yet, but i hope there is more from Crysis 2 that makes me go, "OOOOh, AAAAhh, this is not just the same old thing"
On PC at least it assures less pirating.
I have been playing FPS since the beginning, wolfenstein and doom. And I have to say the last FPS's i have actually enjoyed enough to play through were half-life 2 and Unreal Tournament 2003 (also fallout3, but its more of an RPG than FPS). Everything else is just a clone and far too linear and predictable. I havn't played Crysis yet, but i hope there is more from Crysis 2 that makes me go, "OOOOh, AAAAhh, this is not just the same old thing"
In that case you should be as pumped as I am for Deus Ex: Human Revolution, despite the fact that it's not entirely an FPS...
/Off-Topic
Anyway, Can't wait for Crysis 2, either... Man, this is going to be an awesome year. We've got TES:V coming out, We've got Crysis 2, Deus Ex, DN:F (Maybe...), and I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting to list...
Number one reason Crysis 2 is failed is xbox 360 and PS3 cause two platforms are just technical crap compared to high end or mid end PC
DN:F (Maybe...), and I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting to list...
If DNF comes out this year i will cry and ask my wife if i can name our son (if its a boy) Duke.
For me this is because most FPS games are 5-10 hours in length. I don't think that's worth 50 USD. Civilization and Total War can entertain me for month's on end; the average FPS's single player is a long weekend at best. Maybe if we had more Half-Lifes or STALKERs and less Call of Dutys the multiplayer could be optional.
...i will cry and ask my wife...
Well there's your two problems right there.
This is really only true when the developer is lazy and only includes a 8 hour single player experience.
I think it failed because you can never enjoy it on that platform.
This is funny coming from a company whose currently available flagship game was a multiplayer flop.
Got 2 Words Half-Life
Best single FPS and didn't need Multi-player and still playing with that game
People have just become smarter and no longer want 10hour long tech demos (designed for hardware that nobody can afford) with abysmal writing and mediocre gameplay and stupid AI. (you know.... Far Cry and Crysis 1)
Play one linear single-player shooter and you've played them all.
Got 2 Words Half-LifeBest single FPS and didn't need Multi-player and still playing with that game
Both Half Life 1 and especially Half Life 2 were also sold because of multiplayer. Wanted to play counter strike back in the day? You had to buy Half Life. Wanted to play Day of Defeat? Buy Half Life....
The HL series is not like the COD modern warfare series, where people only care about the multiplayer, but multiplayer definitely improved Half Life sales.
While I agree with multiplayer. I think it was also people being able to make maps and things like that.
nooooooooo
FPS games need good gameplay and a good storyline to succeed. The time crytek learns that is the day that they make a successful game that is known for more than just graphics
adding multiplayer to a crappy game wont make it better. All it means is that you have a crappy game but now many people can now play the crappy game together and be disappointed together, it still doesn't make the experience pleasant.
Focus less on graphics and tacking on multiplayer, and instead make a game with a good story line and good gameplay that is creative and not monotonous.
No it doesn't need multiplayer. Take CoD for example...played the single player, was satisfied but not impressed, never bothered trying online. My idea of fun also isn't being raped for months by nerds with nothing else to do but play the game 12 hours a day. BC2 was the other way around. The single player was short and easy, but it really shines in multiplayer and max-level players don't have insane advantages.
So really it depends. There's tons of examples around for games that are in the FPS genre but do or don't need multiplayer (CounterStrike vs Half-Life).
No it doesn't need multiplayer. Take CoD for example...played the single player, was satisfied but not impressed, never bothered trying online. My idea of fun also isn't being raped for months by nerds with nothing else to do but play the game 12 hours a day. BC2 was the other way around. The single player was short and easy, but it really shines in multiplayer and max-level players don't have insane advantages.
Thats one of the main problems that hurts multipleyer games today. Weapon unlocks, unless you get the game early on and play constantly, you will end up in a situation where you are fighting against people who not only have more experience, but also much better weapons.
Crysis had horrible multiplayer. Hopefully Crytek has learned from that.
FPS need multiplayer because it fills in the gap from a 4 hour single player campaign.
It doesn't NEED multiplayer. It just has to be as good as the first Deus Ex. Good luck with that!
Common people Crysis Power Struggle is unique if it was a properly balanced.
I still play it on a server which is constantly moderated and is properly balanced. It is quite an experience.
Metroid Prime was successful without multiplayer (in fact, the only true multiplayer one is considered to be poorer than the others)...
Really, companies need to realize that the multiplayer has to be on equal or LESSER standing than the single-player, not the other way around. In fact, you don't even need multiplayer depending on the platform and the kind of game (bearing in mind that the Metroid Prime series is considered to be more "adventure" than "shooter")
Crytek is also focusing on the singleplayer you idiots.
They got the acclaimed sci-fi author Richard Morgan to write the story, plus they said the sp campaign is longer than average.
Crytek Frankfurt-> SP
Crytek UK (timesplitters devs)-> MP
So I have faith in Crytek , the game will be awesome and we will get the extra eyecandy on the PC.
Crytek is also focusing on the singleplayer you idiots.
They got the acclaimed sci-fi author Richard Morgan to write the story, plus they said the sp campaign is longer than average.
Crytek Frankfurt-> SP
Crytek UK (timesplitters devs)-> MP
So I have faith in Crytek , the game will be awesome and we will get the extra eyecandy on the PC.
why not kill the multiplayer and work twice as hard on the single player.
its about the cost per hour of entertainment, the call of duty's from number 4 onward have all been a day on average difficulty, or 2 days on the max difficulty.So lets say 20 hours of play.
In South Africa for a R500 game that is R25 per hour of entertainment which is more than the price of a movie ticket per hour.
If i could count all the hours if spent playing multiplayer its a lot closer to R0.25 per hour of entertainment.
No one wants to pay cash for a a day or twos worth of entertainment, so either make that single player campaign long, non linear and let your actions actually affect the plot.
Well I don't really like pure multiplayer fps games, most of the time I like to play solo. When I want to play with other people its most often MMORPG I play.
Correct statement should be that they need both single and multiplayer side to succeed.
Yeah but like the first Crysis if this one is going to be 10 times more demanding and taxing on the rig how can they expect the standard rigs to get onto a multiplayer setup...... even if they wanted to, the rig would just not take it.
And most people ain't going to spend a 1000$ just to play Crysis online.... so that's what's killing them, for a multiplayer setup, they need to get the requirements down and keep the effects and graphics up.... it's not undo-able.... but it's tough , no doubt.....
Crysis 2 lands on Microsoft Windows, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3I know I have seen this 50 times before but I now just put two and two together, Microsoft = Xbox. They have managed to account for two massive gaming platforms, thats insane.
yeah i always think fot his when i see annoyign sony fanboys ranting on a bout how xbox will die ect ect. now i'm no fanboy myself , i own a xbox 360 a PS 3 and a decent gaming PC rig. just think it's funy because as yiou said MS is BIG int eh industry on two paltforms (granted their only real PC competition is Steam and they Trail behind steam greatly ) These sony fanboys fail to realize Ms is jsut as big of a company as sony is if not bigger. both companys got cash to spare if they loose the fight one genration the only company in any real danger is Nintendo , they don't make OSes nor do they make sterios tv's phones or any pc software , if nintendo fail miserably a fewgnerations in a row , they have nothign to fall back on (one reason why i'm glad teh Wii was a sucess finacially even if i didnt care for it myself) it kept nintendo in the "game" I was upset teh day sega pulled out of hardware would hate to see nintedo ever have to do the same ., but i got side tracked the point was that Nintendo only makes console games and handheld games , they ahve no otehr buisness to fall back on if one or both thier devices fail on teh market. while sony and MS , are pretty secure since they both gain money from a boat load of other departments , like sony msuic , or MS's operating systems.
Yeah but like the first Crysis if this one is going to be 10 times more demanding and taxing on the rig how can they expect the standard rigs to get onto a multiplayer setup...... even if they wanted to, the rig would just not take it.And most people ain't going to spend a 1000$ just to play Crysis online.... so that's what's killing them, for a multiplayer setup, they need to get the requirements down and keep the effects and graphics up.... it's not undo-able.... but it's tough , no doubt.....
There's a reason they put low , medium , high as well as very high settings , people don't have to play it on maximum settings.
It's going to run better than Crysis 1 anyways.
Back in the day you could find an awesome Single-player FPS campaign and play it over and over again, one example being Unreal Gold (not the only one, though, remember Half-Life). Now, devs are too freaking lazy and/or cheap to put money in developing a compelling story, so they slap a couple hours of single-player campaign and let the multiplayer ( which is equivalent to dumping originality on the consumer) to do the rest.
Also, back in the day piracy was not a big deal, because the games were so good, people had to have them. Now, all kinds of protection schemes only hurt the actual buyers, while the pirates, bored and unwilling to shell money for a non-compelling piece, always find a way to at least enjoy that piece unrestricted.
Pi$$ poor judgment on developer's part...