On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 04:57:50 -0500, Xocyll <
Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:
Not always, it works both ways. If you're a player of both, you
really see how some games strive to do both, but get unbalanced on one
side. Far Cry 3 is an example of a recent MP disappointment. They
spent a lot of resources trying to compensate for the SP shortcomings
of FC2 and please a wider audience. In the process, they lost A LOT
of what made the MP mode in FC2 great, sadly enough. That's just one
example but I see this all the time.
>>I think you're speaking about the achievements aspect of it, but I
>>think that is more of a side thing than the social club's reason for
>>being. Most "social" features in MP games use that term because its
>>the current trendy buzzword, and I guess it does apply in some ways,
>>but most of the time social simply means jumping into games with the
>>people you want to be playing with, as opposed to random fucktards
>>that might diminish the fun.
>
>What's wrong with "multiplayer" and "friends list" - in use for the
>better part of 2 decades - that they have to try and redefine "social"
>to mean those?
Some marketing douche thought adding some "social media" tags to his
resume would be a good career move, that's all.
>It was one of the complaints of the "have no achievements in real life"
>set that they couldn't show off their GTA:SA etc achievements.
>
>Doesn't steam also do this? I know games that have achievements of any
>kind like fallout3 store them on steam to be shown off.
A lot of games have Steam achievements. You don't have to make them
publicly viewable by others unless you want to.
They are useful in many ways though, not just for showing off. For
example, in Bioshock Infinite, one of the achievements is basically a
counter of how many voxaphone or kinetoscope locations you've found
(like 15 of 90 or whatever). This can give you a sense of how much of
the total map you've explored. Also, in some games the achievements
themselves, how they are worded by the game's designers and when you
get them can sometimes be quite funny. As I said, not necessarily
just for bragging rights. I'm sure there are some 10 year olds out
there that see it that way, but I actually see very few young kids in
the multiplayer world. I don't ask everyone their age, but the
majority of players I encounter are in the 30-60 age group. Younger
players just can't afford to keep buying new games. I suspect after
the game has been out for sale longer, and discounted to a much lower
price, they might be able to talk Mommy into typing in a credit card
number, but usually by that time months or years have elapsed and I
have moved on to a different game, so I just don't see them.
If you play a lot of free to play games, you see a much more immature
user base.
>If those types want that, fine, but I wish they'd stop forcing the rest
>of us to join their club.
>
>Why the fuck do I have to be online with GFWL and this social club in
>order to play the purely local, single player game?
>It's not a "if you want to play multi you have to link to these," it's
>"if you want to play at all," and that's fucking retarded.
I don't know the whole GFWL thing sucks. If I'm using Steam I don't
want to have to authenticate under another account, and it really
doesn't matter if its GFWL or UPlay or MyCrysis or Blizzardnet or
whatever.. However, my wish is not granted since most games have gone
to this anyway. I understand their business reasons for doing it.