Since when was online a given?

#11P_A_N_D_A_M_A_NPosted 8/28/2013 2:00:07 PM
My expectation is that if a game has online, then there is no reason for it not to have local. Local is much easier to implement and should be a given when there is multiplayer. Why do devs make games online only?
---
NNID: Ko-san
"SUUUPERRR!"
#12NovaLevossidaPosted 8/28/2013 2:04:27 PM(edited)
P_A_N_D_A_M_A_N posted...
My expectation is that if a game has online, then there is no reason for it not to have local. Local is much easier to implement and should be a given when there is multiplayer. Why do devs make games online only?


In the case of FPS and racing games, a lot of the time the system cannot process local multiplayer due to system resources. You basically have to render everything twice for two players or 3-4 times for 3-4 players. I think it was Goldeneye or Mario Kart 64 or Diddy Kong Racing or something like that on the N64 in which 4 players in multiplayer left you with no music so the system could process the divided resources and still run. Then you have things like Battlefield 3 that were pushing the systems so hard at the time (on PS3 / 360) that you just couldn't divide the resources in half.

Platformers though? No real excuse because everyone's on the same screen.
---
-C- GET EQUIPPED WITH: [ ] KLOBB [ ] BFG
[ ] METAL BLADE [X] CUTSCENE MURDER PISTOL
#13P_A_N_D_A_M_A_NPosted 8/28/2013 2:12:19 PM
If the dev chooses to spend their time learning how to maintain all the mess pertaining to online over making sure their game runs right, that's on them. But I expect your game to be stable if you are thinking about multiplayer at all.
---
NNID: Ko-san
"SUUUPERRR!"
#14Skill4ReelPosted 8/28/2013 2:20:14 PM(edited)
SyCo_VeNoM posted...
squatch22 posted...
If Nintendo made Rayman, the amount of troll topics about it would crash this site


and IGN woulda gave it a 8


Yep, and the IGN review score for Mario 3D World is already right here folks. Review scores are way too predictable.