Jump to content

 

Multiplayer Achievements Confirmed


bryson 06
 Share

Recommended Posts

I understand that concern, but once again, it's an assumption. How do you know that they would've added more stuff to the SP if they had no MP? How do you know that they worked on MP alongside SP? Maybe they did MP after they finished everything with the SP? We just don't know.

 

Also, the MP hasn't seemed to the hurt the SP of the Uncharted franchise.

You're right, we don't know, so we're making assumptions of an unknown right now.

And Uncharted would be the first set of games I would buy if I ever purchased a PS3. Heard nothing but good praise about the series and they look absolutely gorgeous from what I have seen of them.

 

Okay, and since when should developers cater to just this one type of gamer? Developers should never ever cater to one type of crowd, they should be catering to gamers as a whole, for the most part.

 

Of course they can put in whatever they want, but only to a certain extent, yes. The decision has to be logical and ultimately has to be in favor of benefiting the fans, the people who choose to buy their product. But that doesn’t always mean include a MP. We, their target sales audience, are the ones who give our judgments to the developers on aspects we love and dislike in games, and yet at times it feels like the industry refuse to recognize them at all.

 

Historically, MP achievements are not well received by fans regardless of the developers’ intentions for including it in the first place. That’s just the way it is and developers always will receive backlash of any sort if they include them. And as sad as it sounds, MP and achievements together can affect sales and put people off.

 

If people decide to – judging from a few comments on this site and elsewhere – boycott or cancel their pre-order because of the decision to include a MP mode and a list of achievements along with it, then while they are the ones who miss out on what could be a great game, the developers still have lost out on sales there.

 

MP can improve sales for other games, but it’s a big risk that developers take that won’t always yield positive results as gamers often voice their opinion with their wallet and not purchase. I’m not quite in that boat just yet, thankfully.

And I’m pretty sure Tomb Raider alone appeals to a broad range of people anyway. Original fans would buy the game, people who enjoy exploration or puzzles and even the young males who get pleasure over the sight of Lara’s anatomy (you know the devs purposely add “jiggle” effects >_>) is a market in itself. ;)

 

It will sell regardless because the name is so huge. But if the addition of MP in any way, shape or form affects the game’s reputation or sales it’s going to be disastrous for Crystal Dynamics. I hope that is not the case.

 

If someone signed up to be a completionist, then they need to suck it up and stop complaining. If that's what they chose to do, then that's what they have to deal with. Me, I love achievements, that's why I'm on this site to begin with. However, if getting an achievement requires me to be completely frustrated, and playing a mode that I absolutely loathe, then I just don't see the point. It seems as though a lot of people forgot what gaming is supposed to be, fun. If I'm not having fun, what's the point?

 

That's not what I was getting at, I was getting at the points that have been made that 'MP is not needed in this game. Developers need to stop putting in MP and MP achievements.' That's basically dictating what developers should be putting in their games. There really is no rule(s) at all as to what certain games should be like, or what modes should be in certain game genres. Developers should be able to put in, and do what they want with their titles. They only time that it should be a problem is if said mode is not good at all, and falls flat.

 

I understand you here completely, but here me out for a second. Many people play games for different reasons and enjoy certain features more than others. Asking people to stop complaining about something is just never going to work and only causes arguments.

 

But there are reasons as to why people moan. For one there are few games that have relatively good MP in them. It is incredible difficult to make something work and that's just the issue there. Some MP modes feel so unimaginative and hurried. That can make people weary, particularly if a game in a certain franchise has never had MP before. The problem with MP achievements/trophies is that it affects the way people play the game today, sadly. It really does.

 

Putting a MP into Tomb Raider is very risky. Change is risky, as well as potentially rewarding, but you can’t assume in the meantime that people won’t voice their displeasure about, no matter how trivial it may seem. It is their free speech and right to spend their money as they see fit.

My main issue is with the one for reaching level 60, which is a general complaint I have for most games require you to reach the top rank as it is often tedious in approach. Don't get me wrong here - when done correctly achievements can improve the way you play and approach a game from a completely different angle, sometimes in fun and interesting ways.

 

That one in particular is not. Those types, which require grinding out hours, are often a ploy to keep their servers busy long after people have stopped playing it. In all fairness, though, reaching level 60 on this one might not even take that long for people to unlock at all. And at the same time it could very well take more hours to attain than completing the single player campaign run. But at least Crustal Dynamics could have put some more thought and produced a decent list of achievements compared to the uninspired list what we have now.

 

I agree, there should've been a beta, but do you really think that would've stopped the 'MP and MP achievements is not needed in Tomb Raider,' comments? It wouldn't have, no matter what measures they would take.

Oh, god no, it wouldn’t stop the moaning. But then there probably wouldn’t be any cause for concern if a MP wasn't included in the first place, no? I mean, what does it say (and this could just be me) about how much confidence Crystal Dynamics has in their own attempt at a MP when they waited so long to announce it just before it’s released to the public?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wow, don't even know where to begin. No shit that's what MP is for, to extend the time you play the game. That is the purpose of MP, and it always has been. Do you think people would've played nearly as much time as they have with Goldeneye, Halo, COD, almost any fighter, if it did not have MP? Nope, they wouldn't have, and that's why MP is there.

 

In my humble opinion MP should not be about extending the playtime of a game. Rather it should be about enhancing my experience with a game. Give me a good experience, with great game play, solid controls, etc and I will keep playing it. It's really that simple.

 

You can not agrue (well you probably can and will) that there are some games that MP is a logical extension of. Shooters, fighting games, racing games, etc. I can logically expect some type of MP game play. Rather it be full on MP, Co- Op or what have you.

 

However, when I think of Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, Fallout, Skyrim etc there is not a very logical extension to reach for MP. Granted logic and profit are two totally different things. There are some games I want to play with friends, and there are others that I don't.

 

As a consumer, I like to think I am educated and make good purchasing decisions. Sure, sometimes I miss, but most often I do some research to know what I am buying.

 

There was a video I watched from the Dev of TR that made this leap of logic. The guy said (and I may misquote the exact phrase) That they wanted to add MP to TR because of the sucess of Lara Croft Guardian of Light.

 

The problem with that logic is LC:GoL was a Co-Op game from the start. That's how it was meant to be played. The MP in the new TR from everything I have read and watched looks, and sounds terrible. So, I am choosing not to play it.

 

But, with 25% of the achievements (and by that math 25% of the game experience) not being something I am interested in I have decided to not buy the game. I will wait until there is a big price drop/sale/etc so that the cost of what I pay is more in line to how much I expect to play it. But, I will try extra hard to find it used so that I don't support the Devs decesion which I think is wrong.

 

That's my choice as a consumer, which is disappointing to me because I have always been a huge fan of the TR franchise. I have had the game preorded for months and had upgraded to the CE edition. Just like it is your right to stick up for it and give it a chance. I don't think you're wrong for that, and I'd expect you to not think I am wrong for not getting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion MP should not be about extending the playtime of a game. Rather it should be about enhancing my experience with a game. Give me a good experience, with great game play, solid controls, etc and I will keep playing it. It's really that simple.

 

You can not agrue (well you probably can and will) that there are some games that MP is a logical extension of. Shooters, fighting games, racing games, etc. I can logically expect some type of MP game play. Rather it be full on MP, Co- Op or what have you.

 

I agree with you, the problem is that you're assuming that this MP will not do that at all. It just might, you won't know unless you give it shot.

 

On your second point here, I do agree to an extent. However, you won't know what certain modes will work with a game unless you give it a try. Otherwise it just becomes a 'what if' scenario. If they try it, and it ends up not being good at all, they will not do it again.

 

However, when I think of Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, Fallout, Skyrim etc there is not a very logical extension to reach for MP. Granted logic and profit are two totally different things. There are some games I want to play with friends, and there are others that I don't.

 

However that is what you think. That doesn't mean that everybody thinks that way, and that doesn't mean that developers should be catering to just one specific mindset. A lot of people enjoy playing AC online, for example. Hell I know someone in real life that finds it really fun, and it's her favorite MP online game. Why can't that be left alone for people like her that enjoy it, and the people that don't can just ignore it and move on?

 

There was a video I watched from the Dev of TR that made this leap of logic. The guy said (and I may misquote the exact phrase) That they wanted to add MP to TR because of the sucess of Lara Croft Guardian of Light.

 

The problem with that logic is LC:GoL was a Co-Op game from the start. That's how it was meant to be played. The MP in the new TR from everything I have read and watched looks, and sounds terrible. So, I am choosing not to play it.

 

The problem with what you're saying here is that once the game comes out, it will have MP from the start, just like GoL had co-op from the start. You're assuming that they didn't have this MP in their mindset from the start and only started doing it way later on after development.

 

There's also a difference between looking at something, and then playing it. When I first saw my friend play Halo online, I didn't see what the big deal was. Then I started playing it, and I had a lot of fun.

 

You never know unless you try first, and then you can make your judgment.

 

But, with 25% of the achievements (and by that math 25% of the game experience) not being something I am interested in I have decided to not buy the game. I will wait until there is a big price drop/sale/etc so that the cost of what I pay is more in line to how much I expect to play it. But, I will try extra hard to find it used so that I don't support the Devs decesion which I think is wrong.

 

That's my choice as a consumer, which is disappointing to me because I have always been a huge fan of the TR franchise. I have had the game preorded for months and had upgraded to the CE edition. Just like it is your right to stick up for it and give it a chance. I don't think you're wrong for that, and I'd expect you to not think I am wrong for not getting it.

 

This is what I don't get...You're saying that you're a huge fan of this franchise, yet you're letting something like achievements get in the way of a franchise that you like? I'm sorry, but that mindset doesn't make that much sense to me. I mean, what if the older TR games had achievements you didn't like. Would you push those the side as well, and never have played them?

 

I'm not 'sticking up for it' per se (It doesn't matter to me whether the MP ends up being good or not) I just don't get the mindset of that we should just ignore the entire game, for what it has to offer just because of something trivial like MP achievements, or pass judgment without even trying it out first. I don't let achievements dictate the games that I purchase. I play games that I feel that I will have fun with, and I will go after the achievements that I would like to.

Edited by CelticWarriorDB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not 'sticking up for it' per se, I just don't get the mindset of that we should just ignore the entire game, for what it has to offer just because of something trivial like MP achievements. I don't let achievements dictate the games that I purchase. I play games that I feel that I will have fun with, and I will go after the achievements that I would like to.

 

I understand what you're saying, really I do. At the same point, do you see what I mean when I say I don't want to pay $60 for a game to try something I'm reasonably certain I won't like?

 

I'm not letting the achievements dictate my purchase. What I am saying is that if they are using (just based ON the achievement percentage) 25% of their resources/budget, etc on making the MP that's a 25% decrease in what I was expecting to enjoy.

 

I have watched, and read everything that has been released about the MP. I'm just not interested in it. I don't want/need another MP game, I have plenty of those already. I absolutely agree that others may want and embrace this. If they do, hey more power to them. They are more than welcome to support Crystal Dynamics and pay the $60. I'm just not willing to do that for a mode(s) I legitimately don't think I'll enjoy or every want to play.

 

I absolutely dispise the MP for Assassin's Creed as well. Tried it a couple times and will never try it again. Like I said before, the only way I can really voice my displeasure is by buying the game or not buying the game. That's the only power I have as a consumer. If I buy it and bitch about it, then it doesn't matter because Crystal Dynamics already has my money. Know what I mean?

 

PS: I love good discussions without people getting bent out of shape. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we should voice our concerns on their forums if they have any.

 

Why, it won't do a damn bit of good. They've already made the MP, and are "polishing" it up for release in March. Do you think they'll say "Oh, some people don't want it maybe we should take it out."?

 

Like I said above. The only way to truely voice your displeasure is to not buy the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boo! Now we are forced to play this tacked on multiplayer if we want to complete the game.

 

You can still complete the game, and not play multiplayer. I know you meant 100% the game, but I'm sick of people whining, "Oh, now the game is going to suck, cause there are MP cheeves." Hey, I hate them too... shit, I hate MP, so I don't play it. Not the end of the world. If the game is good, then MP be damned. If the game feels shorted, then damn MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned the fact that Mass Effect 3 had the addition of multiplayer.. first off.. that is not multiplayer.. that's ME's answer to horde mode.. there's no competitive play against other players. 2 different things.

 

Also between Dead Space 2 adding mp (but no achievements thankfully) which was fine.. DS2 was a fun game without it. now in DS3 you have to have an online pass to 1k the game with the addition of co-op and lack of split screen. Devs are basically holding achievements hostage and forcing you to either buy the game new, or buy a pass.

Edited by Xenolith666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can still complete the game, and not play multiplayer. I know you meant 100% the game, but I'm sick of people whining, "Oh, now the game is going to suck, cause there are MP cheeves." Hey, I hate them too... shit, I hate MP, so I don't play it. Not the end of the world. If the game is good, then MP be damned. If the game feels shorted, then damn MP.

It's not the end of the world if we whine and choose not to buy the game, either. Maybe some of us are sick of you "get over it" types popping up in every discussion and comments section to tell us what whiny nerds we are for caring, and how we are making a huge mistake if we dare to exercise discretion with our own money. Just a thought (nothing personal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not happy about the mp ach's but a lot of games have them now, AC3 needs u to get to lvl 20 which takes a few hours so if u want the 1000 u have to play the mp for at least a couple of hours and its pretty different type of mp and its pretty good to be honest. But then these a hole devs must of said fuck that we want the paying players to be on this mp shite forever trying to get the 1000, make it lvl 60. Because of this cancel my pre and will skip this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not happy about the mp ach's but a lot of games have them now, AC3 needs u to get to lvl 20 which takes a few hours so if u want the 1000 u have to play the mp for at least a couple of hours and its pretty different type of mp and its pretty good to be honest. But then these a hole devs must of said fuck that we want the paying players to be on this mp shite forever trying to get the 1000, make it lvl 60. Because of this cancel my pre and will skip this game.

 

Pretty much that.

 

I won't skip the game entirely. But I sure as hell won't pay full price for it. One of the few games I'll actively look to get used so I don't give the Dev any of my money. Enough is enough with the forciing every game to have MP crap.

 

Like I said before. The only way I can truly voice my opinion to Crystal Dynamics is to not buy it. So that's what I'm doing. Dead Space 3 and Metro will get my money now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why I'm even in this theard since I can neither play multiplayer (60 dollar wireless adaptor + 60 dollar yearly fee? no thanks!) nor care about 100 percenting achievement. However, I'm glad I came here because I think I'll cancel my pre-order as well.

 

considering the campaign is short and they seem to have focused so much time on a multiplayer function I don't care about I definitely don't want to pay full price.

 

Probably get it on Ebay for like 20 bucks in a few months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't understand why people complain about mp before even having played it. I also I think that people who say boo mp because its a predominately a single player franchise are just setting it up to fail and will be stuck in that mindset. I do however, understand that it makes that much harder to 100% on that same note though I feel like 100% should be for the ENTIRE game not just one part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can still complete the game, and not play multiplayer. I know you meant 100% the game, but I'm sick of people whining, "Oh, now the game is going to suck, cause there are MP cheeves." Hey, I hate them too... shit, I hate MP, so I don't play it. Not the end of the world. If the game is good, then MP be damned. If the game feels shorted, then damn MP.

 

Personally I don't understand why people complain about mp before even having played it. I also I think that people who say boo mp because its a predominately a single player franchise are just setting it up to fail and will be stuck in that mindset. I do however, understand that it makes that much harder to 100% on that same note though I feel like 100% should be for the ENTIRE game not just one part of it.

 

The reason many people, myself included, complain is because MP takes away time and resources from the SP experience. There are many games out there like the battlefield series that are primarily MP games and always have been, but when you look at games like Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect 3 and now Tomb Raider, that became popular games because of their SP, that then go ahead an add MP in the sequels, there is a definite drop in the SP experience.

 

I have no problem with MP and i couldn't care less about achievements, but i cancelled my pre-order after i heard about the MP simply because i am going to wait to see what others say about the SP experience before i go out and pay full price. I would rather have a fulfilling SP experience or an amazing MP experience, but what i don't want is a game that has a decent but short SP and an MP experience that feels tacked on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't understand why people complain about mp before even having played it. I also I think that people who say boo mp because its a predominately a single player franchise are just setting it up to fail and will be stuck in that mindset. I do however, understand that it makes that much harder to 100% on that same note though I feel like 100% should be for the ENTIRE game not just one part of it.

 

It has nothing to do with 100% for me.

 

Rather a Tomb Raider game should have a 20+ SP campaign. My fear is with the jammed in MP the SP campaign will now be around 10 hours or so. I'm sorry, I'm not going to pay $60 for a 10 hour campaign when I have no interest at all in playing the MP. It doesn't make sense cost wise.

 

As Deg said, there are games that are MP and we expect them to be MP focuses. Most FPS, Sports games, etc But when a traditionally SP game goes out of their way to jam a MP down my throat then nope not going to buy it.

 

Also, Crystal Dynamics has said there would be no demo for the game because they don't want to ruin the story. Fair enough. But, everyone that is complaining about the game is complaining about the MP. Why not have a demo for that? Then we can play it and make up our mind before it's released. But, they know it's not going to go over well so they want you to pay $60 to realize it's not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned the fact that Mass Effect 3 had the addition of multiplayer.. first off.. that is not multiplayer.. that's ME's answer to horde mode.. there's no competitive play against other players. 2 different things.

 

I'm not sure which part of "multi" and "player" lost you, but ME3's online mode sure as hell is multiplayer. It's right there is the name.

 

If what you mean to say is that ME3's co-operative multiplayer is a different beast to TR's competitive/vs multiplayer, then say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
  • Create New...