Please, please explain to me how people can defend no online at this day and age

#31maximumbarmagePosted 12/12/2012 2:16:40 PM
By being brainwashed Nintendo mascot nostalgia grasping junkies it appears.

Online/competent hardware/games don't matter... just give me Mario doing anything in anything and my credit card number is yours Ninty!
---
"Maybe it would be quicker to list the Wii U multiplatform titles that AREN'T vastly inferior ports..." - SimeonSays
#32Fou LuPosted 12/12/2012 2:16:42 PM
Because after 2-3 weeks, most people move on to another game, leaving an online community dead. The only games that are capable of keeping an online community are Halo and Call of Duty, every other game will suffer a massive drop in the online player base. It's simply a waste of development time and resources to work on online multiplayer that will just die out.

As an example, go play BioShock 2 on whatever console. The community is tiny. Or maybe Duke Nukem Forever, where you might see 5 games total running. Or Wolfenstein (the modern one), where you're lucky to see 1 game running.
---
I smolder with generic rage.
#33BurgerTime79Posted 12/12/2012 2:18:36 PM(edited)
Darth_Elusive posted...
Bioshock Infinite will have no online.


Bioshock Infinite has no online multiplayer?
Then why the **** did they decide to cater to the online FPS demographic with it's cover?! I sense a higher increase in trade-ins and returns for this game from the people who strictly play online, thinking the game is online without reading the back of the box or a review.
---
Gordon Ramsay, the Mr Resetti of cooking
#34TriforceBunPosted 12/12/2012 2:17:41 PM
SnakePaws posted...
However having them over at your place and playing Nintendo land is a great thing to do once a week.

What adults that actually have jobs and lives get together once a week to play Nintendo Land? Are you ****ing serious?


Says a man posting on a video game message board.
---
My Kirby/Smash comics: www.brawlinthefamily.com
Mother 3 = Game of the Year 2006
#35DiscostewSMPosted 12/12/2012 2:17:58 PM
Baha05 posted...
HeaderHog posted...
"Hey, Lindsey, Ya wanna play some Nintendo Land?"
"Sorry, babe, I can't tonight. I have to work at the mall tonight."
"Oh."

Later That Night...

"Hello, random person #10... Pleas hit that Bulborb. I can't."


Yup because playing with randoms will be the same thing as playing with close friends.


Who would have to own the system and game separate from yours if they were that interested.
---
http://lazerlight.x10.mx/ - Lazer Light Studios - Home of the MM2 PTC project
#36Baha05Posted 12/12/2012 2:19:13 PM
MegaWinFTW posted...
There is no defending it. The simple truth is that if a game is multiplayer centric then to omit any online options and only offer local is just plain stupid.

However a disturbingly large proportion of this board seem to think that it's totally impossible to continue liking Nintendo products while also admitting their faults. This is a glaring and undeniable problem and just goes to show that Nintendo still doesn't "get" online at all, however the more their fanbase makes excuses the less inclined Nintendo will be to actually improve.

Someone in this topic even said that the demographic for online multiplayer was small, what kind of rock do you have to be living under to honestly think that?


There is defending it when you think of content and context. I mean with a game like Nintendo Land you can put online in it but it's not going to be anything fantastic, hell it will be just bare minimum. Some games just aren't going to give a lot of content in terms of online and Nintendo Land is just one of those games that is more suited for local rather then online.
---
"LOL fail, SMG and GTA5 aren't even from the same decade. gj." - War_Fail
#37Enigma149Posted 12/12/2012 2:19:45 PM
TC, you're wrong about one thing: adding online actually would be a detrement to the game. For one thing, games have a budget, and adding online would take away some of that budget. Likewise, many games nowadays are sacrificing local multiplayer options for a robust online mode.

And although this does not apply to Nintendo Land, I feel as though you were making a generalized statement, so I'll say it anyway: games with very complex things going on, or even a large number of simple things, cannot exist in an online environment where data needs to be transferred from a controller to a console to a router to a server to another router to another console and back again - it would result in too much latency. When developers try to incorporate online into such games, they either a) make online an inferior mode, or b) reduce the quality of the other modes the game offers.
---
3DS:4897-5935-1924; PS3 sold in anticipation of PS4. If you added CrimsonEnigma, I no longer use the account.
'Your opinion does not matter.' -DesperateMonkey
#38MegaWinFTWPosted 12/12/2012 2:20:32 PM
Fou Lu posted...
Because after 2-3 weeks, most people move on to another game, leaving an online community dead. The only games that are capable of keeping an online community are Halo and Call of Duty, every other game will suffer a massive drop in the online player base. It's simply a waste of development time and resources to work on online multiplayer that will just die out.

As an example, go play BioShock 2 on whatever console. The community is tiny. Or maybe Duke Nukem Forever, where you might see 5 games total running. Or Wolfenstein (the modern one), where you're lucky to see 1 game running.


The multiplayer options for those games aren't very good though. Go to something like Uncharted 3 or LittleBigPlanet and you'll still find a strong community. It's like saying single player games suck because of the Beowulf game.

Not only that, but there is a massive difference between a primarily single player game with tacked on multiplayer and a game in which multiplayer is a major focus but is only possible locally, the latter is what is being addressed here.
#39MegaWinFTWPosted 12/12/2012 2:26:26 PM
Baha05 posted...
MegaWinFTW posted...
There is no defending it. The simple truth is that if a game is multiplayer centric then to omit any online options and only offer local is just plain stupid.

However a disturbingly large proportion of this board seem to think that it's totally impossible to continue liking Nintendo products while also admitting their faults. This is a glaring and undeniable problem and just goes to show that Nintendo still doesn't "get" online at all, however the more their fanbase makes excuses the less inclined Nintendo will be to actually improve.

Someone in this topic even said that the demographic for online multiplayer was small, what kind of rock do you have to be living under to honestly think that?


There is defending it when you think of content and context. I mean with a game like Nintendo Land you can put online in it but it's not going to be anything fantastic, hell it will be just bare minimum. Some games just aren't going to give a lot of content in terms of online and Nintendo Land is just one of those games that is more suited for local rather then online.


What exactly is the harm though? Does allowing the option of online multiplayer restrict your options for playing it locally? Does letting people who don't have the option of playing locally actually utilise the multiplayer somehow dampen your enjoyment? Is online multiplayer not a much better option than playing the game entirely alone? Why exactly would anyone be opposed to allowing the option when it would do nothing but improve the game?
#40Baha05Posted 12/12/2012 2:28:46 PM
MegaWinFTW posted...
What exactly is the harm though? Does allowing the option of online multiplayer restrict your options for playing it locally? Does letting people who don't have the option of playing locally actually utilise the multiplayer somehow dampen your enjoyment? Is online multiplayer not a much better option than playing the game entirely alone? Why exactly would anyone be opposed to allowing the option when it would do nothing but improve the game?


There is really no harm outside maybe funding, and with Nintendo land they'd have to block screen usage for some of the mini games. The fact of the matter is though the game not having it in no way damages it either and when you think about it the number of games with local only multiplayer in this generation is really small thus doesn't warrant a lot of complaining about it in the first place.
---
"LOL fail, SMG and GTA5 aren't even from the same decade. gj." - War_Fail