![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ostensibly, this is a review of the new Syndicate game (a game in which I have exactly zero interest, personally), but more than that it's an article about why it's kind of a bad idea to split resources between singleplayer and multiplayer components in the same game. Generally speaking, I agree with the guy. I'd rather have a game that is 100% purely singleplayer myself (*cough*Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2*cough*), rather than one that is 85-90% singleplayer with a completely separate, tacked on multiplayer component (*cough*Mass Effect 3*cough*). And I'm sure most of the people playing Call of Duty or whatever probably wish that the singleplayer part of that had just been removed altogether and more effort put into the multiplayer stuff.
On the other hand, you have games like those in the Diablo series where, with the previous games, half of the player-base (myself included) never touched the multiplayer and half of the player-base never touched the singleplayer (or at most just gave it a cursory once-over). However, the thing with the Diablo games was that the singleplayer and multiplayer components were essentially the same, just that one had more people going through it than the other. In this case, based on how things are shaping up with Diablo 3, it looks like the multiplayer guys have won, since Diablo 3 doesn't really support traditional singleplayer anymore. (To reiterate for the billionth time: having to log in to and always be connected to a distant server in order to play a singleplayer game, for any reason, is just retarded.) In Diablo 3's case, I'd have been perfectly fine with them releasing a version of the game that was completely, 100% singleplayer. No always online connection, no auction house, and no multiplayer. If they still wanted to release a version that had all that other stuff (i.e. the version they're planning to release now) that would be fine, too. Or, you know, just put the ability for offline singleplayer back into that version. I'd be fine with that as well. As it stands right now, however, Diablo 3 in its current incarnation sadly just isn't a game meant for me at all. And, thus, as I have said more than a few times before, I see no reason for me to buy it.
Found via The Penny Arcade Report.
On the other hand, you have games like those in the Diablo series where, with the previous games, half of the player-base (myself included) never touched the multiplayer and half of the player-base never touched the singleplayer (or at most just gave it a cursory once-over). However, the thing with the Diablo games was that the singleplayer and multiplayer components were essentially the same, just that one had more people going through it than the other. In this case, based on how things are shaping up with Diablo 3, it looks like the multiplayer guys have won, since Diablo 3 doesn't really support traditional singleplayer anymore. (To reiterate for the billionth time: having to log in to and always be connected to a distant server in order to play a singleplayer game, for any reason, is just retarded.) In Diablo 3's case, I'd have been perfectly fine with them releasing a version of the game that was completely, 100% singleplayer. No always online connection, no auction house, and no multiplayer. If they still wanted to release a version that had all that other stuff (i.e. the version they're planning to release now) that would be fine, too. Or, you know, just put the ability for offline singleplayer back into that version. I'd be fine with that as well. As it stands right now, however, Diablo 3 in its current incarnation sadly just isn't a game meant for me at all. And, thus, as I have said more than a few times before, I see no reason for me to buy it.
Found via The Penny Arcade Report.
