Why the Demand for Multiplayer?

Multiplayer can ruin a game.

Granted, multiplayer needs to be included in some games, such as shooters or racers. But many games that people have wanted multiplayer for wouldn't work.

For example, the first Bioshock; if there had been two player co-op, like many asked for, the atmosphere would have been ruined, a horror game isn't horror if there is another person with you.

In games like Skyrim and Oblivion, the story is focused around one player. The entire story of Skyrim is focused around the Dragonborn, and his/her quest to save Skyrim. The story wouldn't have worked if multiplayer had been added.

The second and third Fable games were highly criticised for the terrible co-op, when it really shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Fable was built around one hero saving Albion, not two. The series wasn’t designed for two heroes. The series was designed to tell the story of one hero, saving their homeland from an approaching evil. The decision to add multiplayer to Fable was a mistake.

You might be interested


Reply Attach
  • 1

    It's more fun with friends. I don't even play singleplayer only games anymore really. For me, I don't care if it ruins the story. No one is forcing you to play with other people.

    Dead Space 3 blocks off missions in the single player campaign, forcing you to play with someone else to complete them.
    - Firecracker119 September 16, 2013, 6:50 am
    Dead Space 3 blocks off optional missions in the single player campaign, forcing you to play with someone else to complete them.

    - casper667 September 16, 2013, 7:10 pm
    Games shouldn't be blocking off entire missions, all missions should be optional to complete in either single player or co-op.

    This video talks about it a bit: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6891-Dead-Space-3
    - Firecracker119 September 16, 2013, 8:16 pm
    Sry, could not watch. Guy in video obviously needs a whambulance for all that crying. If you are so off-put by a feature, don't buy the game. Then the developer will know not to do that next time.
    - casper667 September 16, 2013, 10:45 pm
  • 1

    You speak of story when it comes to multiplayer. Fable 2 and 3 didn't include the second player into the story, only the gameplay, so it's not as if the story changed anyways, only a few gameplay mechanics (Shared camera)
    Also if necessary, why not put it into Skyrim (Considering there are still limitations) they can make it a split screen. Focused around the dragonborn? Well I played the entire game with Lidia, why not take out the AI and add a real life player? I like that idea.

    Well, one of the big reasons people criticized Fable II and III were because of the multiplayer, which is pretty bad, even if it isn't involved in the story. Me and my friend would keep having arguments over which way to walk, and end up having really long tug-of-war matches. Although your Skyrim idea works on paper, there would be many flaws, for example, most dungeons only have one or two decent pieces of loot, and money would be difficult to split, and toward the end of the main questline, you need to go to Skuldafn. Odahving will only take your character, leaving your follower behind. This will cause one player to sit the last part of the game out.
    - Firecracker119 September 16, 2013, 6:49 am
  • 1

    • Vans
    • September 16, 2013, 4:14 pm
  • 1

    fable 3, a bunch of us got it because it was free, and it was a laugh to play together

    playing it by myself was just boring

    so i completely disagree with you there

Related Posts