Is online too important a component?

posted by MindfullofGears

Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 06:06:42 PM EST

I know everybody loves going online and playing a few rounds of halo of COD2.  I know I love it myself, and after I got XBL, I dont know how I ever lived without it.  But it just seems today that everybody thinks EVERY game should have online capability to play with other people.  I know that games are becoming more and more online capable, but the other side of that sword is that it is becoming harder and harder to play a game without the online capability.  I know how it feels, I really just got XBL about 4 months ago with my upgrade to high speed, and I even back then felt as if games just were not as fun without XBL.  Is this a bad thing?  Are we going too fast into the future of broadband and DSL were eventually one day, you need it to actually just play games?  I still know alot of people without high speed internet, who still play games that are fun without it, but at the same time you are slowely cutting out a bigger and bigger piece of something that you do with the same Xbox and going into the new age of High Speed.  Even Cliffy said it, Split Screen multi is just the last option you have when you are bored (if you want to know were, sorry, that just sticks out in my head).  If we grow completely relaint on online capability for games, well, I think games are going to take one huge step back.


Tags: (all tags)

Comments Disabled | 7 comments

  •  i (none / 0)

    think that we kind of do rely on online a little too much.  Take me for example: im sitting in a hotel room right now because im visiting my sister at college and i brought my 360 because they have HD tv's and an internet connection...the bad thing is i cant connect because it says their MTU is too low...idk what that means but i cant do anything about it...so im sitting here bored as hell because i cant go on live...i guess i think thats what gives video games their replay value for me...so i guess u could say i agree with you...man im bored tho...

    Im "Geared Up" are you?

    by Scotty247 on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 06:36:17 PM EST

  •  Personally, (none / 0)

    i miss the good old days of campaign and co-op. I wish more developers would take a clue from GOW and include these features. But multiplayer is not a bad thing by any means. Developers should just spend more time on games and include full quality in both aspects. :)

    Not all who wander are lost

    by Zoso Fan on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 06:48:45 PM EST

  •  IMO (none / 0)

    Online gaming is really a great option because you can find someone to play games 24hrs a day. Scotty hit it on the head with replay-ablity too. You can't just blow 70 dollars on a limited edition game and decide that it's crap two days later to trade it in. You really have to think about what your buying. But developers shouldn't ignore single player cough Halo 2, they should work to make both fun and interesting enough to play more than once through. GOW is trying to capitalize on this because Cliffy has tried to make both a great experience. Thats my two cents at least.

    by Windowlicker77 on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:01:28 PM EST

  •  I think.. (none / 0)

    that throwing down $70 for a game it better be damn good. The way you describe online is that its always vs. mode. While I can appreciate a good multiplayer match. I personally love co-op with a buddy. Especially being able to go through the entire campaign with them. Some of my favs that are just good old fashioned co-op are: Double Dragon || (Nes) and Ninja Turtles 3 (NES). Even after you beat the game (Turtles), which I did many many times, it was still fun to play together. It must have been that hidden competition to kill the most enemies, or get the last hit on the boss to get the extra life or something. But for some reason it was just plain good old mindless fun. To me, it seems developers focus online with killing each other. Why not kill stuff together? Gears is shaping up to be that game that delivers the same kind of co-op experience as Turtles. Hopefully the campaign is fun to play over and over, because if it is, I definately will be. Sorry for the rant hehe

    by BoxinLeprechaun on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:56:08 PM EST

  •  I (none / 0)

    personaly look at the single player aspect of the game before the multiplayer. I am an old school gamer so I am used to playing games alone. If it has a great single player experence then the multiplayer doesnt matter. Then you have games that are based on multiplayer and throw in the single player as an after thought(Battlefield:2). I read that the game is mainly a single player/co op game. I am sure the multiplayer part of it will be good. I just dont think that was the main focus behind it.

    "I have got a fever and the only cure is more cowbell"

    by SG zprhead on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 08:55:38 AM EST

  •  i think online is (none / 0)

    imperative....look at games like Halo 2. They just had their 4 BILLIONTH game played. Do you think as many people would still be playing halo if it didnt have XBL, but another great game did?

    "d00d how did mack win the Free for All?" Mack: "because i rape. You Novices"

    by Ra1n on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 10:22:57 PM EST

  •  Sure (none / 0)

      I think online is being pushed pretty hard on us, I love it, it's great most of the time.  But I agree that the good old single/ co-op game that we grew up with has a void.  I've got my staying off-line product, Marvel Ult. Alliance, you can play live but I don't want to that game is too damn long to just pick up for a few hours and put down, so I just play on forever and don't have to depend on anyone.  We do need these games.

    Let's get it own!

    by Macaface on Mon Nov 06, 2006 at 02:45:14 PM EST

Comments Disabled | 7 comments