Reply
Gaming Beast
Registered: 11/04/2010
Offline
2055 posts
 

Re: Why no multiplayer trailer might be a good thing.

[ Edited ]
May 11, 2013

KillaCam7I3 wrote:

calcunnon wrote:

Trailers are made to attract as many of the general public as possible towards purchasing a product. So far, all the single-player trailers have done a good job of that; the game is fairly well-publicised, at least within the gaming market, and there's a lot of buzz around how exciting the game looks.

 

Do you remember the multiplayer trailer for Uncharted 3? Full of explosions, shooting, taunts, customisation, and so on. All of which were shown in an exciting, action-packed display of eye-candy. That's bound to attract some of the casual market who love mindlessly shooting everything that moves.

 

Perhaps The Last of Us' multiplayer portion won't feature all of these casual-gamer-pleasing setups that the FPS generation has come to expect. Maybe the game will be more about patience, teamwork and careful thinking. Although I prefer these traits in a game and genuinely hope they're the focus, they don't necessarily make for a good trailer.

 

Just a thought. A hopeful thought.


I like how internet forum regulars describe constant action and confrontation as "mindless." Meanwhile, they describe petty camping and slowing the gameplay down to a crawl as "being patient and careful thinking." If the gameplay becomes a boring campsite, where people are incredibly afraid to die in a videogame, this multiplayer probably won't last long.

 

And before the obligatory moron says "go bak 2 cod lulz," I feel like I should note that I haven't played it in over three years...



He just doesn't want the game to be all about shooting and fighting. There as, we have plenty of those types of games already.  

 

He wants an objective based multiplayer, where the main focus isn't to kill the opposing team but, to capture a base, acquire intel etc, etc.  

 

Having the game to be more patient and slow-paced doesn't equal camping, sorry. Just a focus on working together with teammates to acheive a common goal, with some killing along the way. Rather than shoot everyone in the face to win.   

 

Besides, a slower pace fits this game. It wouldn't make sense to have a campaign focused on scavenging, avoiding enemies and survival, just to boot up the MP and it's all loudouts and automatic weaponry, in an apocolyptic world. Wouldn't make any sense.

 

Having the MP like this is a nice change of pace. Rather than UC3 with explosins(for some reason I forgot how to spell this) all over the place.  


Joel: That's alright. I believe him.
Message 31 of 48 (185 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 06/05/2011
Offline
3354 posts
 

Re: Why no multiplayer trailer might be a good thing.

May 11, 2013

calcunnon wrote:
You're always going to get lag, even with lots of players.

I'd rather the game appeal to a more select audience. I honestly don't want to play another typical online shooter.

Well, thanks for stating the obvious.

 

EyeCue86 is a symbol of free speech. Any attempt to censor EyeCue86 is an act of evil.


"It's that time of the month again, Joel." -Ellie, The Last of Us


"It's that time of the month again, Joel"
-Ellie, The Last of Us
Message 32 of 48 (171 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 04/20/2010
Online
3510 posts
 

Re: Why no multiplayer trailer might be a good thing.

May 11, 2013

EyeCue86 wrote:

calcunnon wrote:
You're always going to get lag, even with lots of players.

I'd rather the game appeal to a more select audience. I honestly don't want to play another typical online shooter.

Well, thanks for stating the obvious.

 


he needed to state the obvious because you were commenting against the obvious, silly Smiley Tongue

Message 33 of 48 (158 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 06/05/2011
Offline
3354 posts
 

Re: Why no multiplayer trailer might be a good thing.

[ Edited ]
May 11, 2013

Matthijs_17 wrote:

EyeCue86 wrote:

calcunnon wrote:
You're always going to get lag, even with lots of players.

I'd rather the game appeal to a more select audience. I honestly don't want to play another typical online shooter.

Well, thanks for stating the obvious.

 


he needed to state the obvious because you were commenting against the obvious, silly Smiley Tongue


No, I wasn't. Hold on a sec, while I go get the quote...

 


EyeCue86 wrote:

Zidane_Finito wrote:

EyeCue86 wrote:

Matthijs_17 wrote:

EyeCue86 wrote:
I'd rather have more casuals than deal with a **bleep**ton of lag.

lag won't be much of a problem in cooperative multiplayer, which is what I hope the only multiplayer in the last of us...


It will be a problem if it's competitive. 


CMP can work in TLOU, considering the fact that humans are also killing each other in the game just to survive, the infected aren't the only enemy. 

 

CMP can work with select groups of human fighting for survival & to control a base for example.


That's not what we were talking about. we were talking about the goddamn lag. OP thinks that less publicity will mean less casuals. That's bad because less casuals means more lag. Quote guy, whats-his-face, wants tlou to be a co-op multiplayer, so lag won't be as bad. I'm saying if it's competitive, with less casuals, lag will be awful.


Now please, explain to me how I'm commenting against the obvious.

EyeCue86 is a symbol of free speech. Any attempt to censor EyeCue86 is an act of evil.


"It's that time of the month again, Joel." -Ellie, The Last of Us


"It's that time of the month again, Joel"
-Ellie, The Last of Us
Message 34 of 48 (152 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 04/20/2010
Online
3510 posts
 

Re: Why no multiplayer trailer might be a good thing.

May 11, 2013

EyeCue86 wrote:

Matthijs_17 wrote:

EyeCue86 wrote:

calcunnon wrote:
You're always going to get lag, even with lots of players.

I'd rather the game appeal to a more select audience. I honestly don't want to play another typical online shooter.

Well, thanks for stating the obvious.

 


he needed to state the obvious because you were commenting against the obvious, silly Smiley Tongue


No, I wasn't. Hold on a sec, while I go get the quote...

 


EyeCue86 wrote:

Zidane_Finito wrote:

EyeCue86 wrote:

Matthijs_17 wrote:

EyeCue86 wrote:
I'd rather have more casuals than deal with a **bleep**ton of lag.

lag won't be much of a problem in cooperative multiplayer, which is what I hope the only multiplayer in the last of us...


It will be a problem if it's competitive. 


CMP can work in TLOU, considering the fact that humans are also killing each other in the game just to survive, the infected aren't the only enemy. 

 

CMP can work with select groups of human fighting for survival & to control a base for example.


That's not what we were talking about. we were talking about the goddamn lag. OP thinks that less publicity will mean less casuals. That's bad because less casuals means more lag. Quote guy, whats-his-face, wants tlou to be a co-op multiplayer, so lag won't be as bad. I'm saying if it's competitive, with less casuals, lag will be awful.


Now please, explain to me how I'm commenting against the obvious.

you said you wanted more casuals (so more players in total) instead of having more lag, out of that comment I can assume you believe that more players means less lag, then calcunnon says that you always have lag, even with lots of players, and then you say sarcasticly thanks for stating the obvious, while you just said the complete opposite of what he said, not that's you commenting against the obvious Smiley Wink

Message 35 of 48 (137 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 06/05/2011
Offline
3354 posts
 

Re: Why no multiplayer trailer might be a good thing.

May 11, 2013

Matthijs_17 wrote:

EyeCue86 wrote:

Matthijs_17 wrote:

EyeCue86 wrote:

calcunnon wrote:
You're always going to get lag, even with lots of players.

I'd rather the game appeal to a more select audience. I honestly don't want to play another typical online shooter.

Well, thanks for stating the obvious.

 


he needed to state the obvious because you were commenting against the obvious, silly Smiley Tongue


No, I wasn't. Hold on a sec, while I go get the quote...

 


EyeCue86 wrote:

Zidane_Finito wrote:

EyeCue86 wrote:

Matthijs_17 wrote:

EyeCue86 wrote:
I'd rather have more casuals than deal with a **bleep**ton of lag.

lag won't be much of a problem in cooperative multiplayer, which is what I hope the only multiplayer in the last of us...


It will be a problem if it's competitive. 


CMP can work in TLOU, considering the fact that humans are also killing each other in the game just to survive, the infected aren't the only enemy. 

 

CMP can work with select groups of human fighting for survival & to control a base for example.


That's not what we were talking about. we were talking about the goddamn lag. OP thinks that less publicity will mean less casuals. That's bad because less casuals means more lag. Quote guy, whats-his-face, wants tlou to be a co-op multiplayer, so lag won't be as bad. I'm saying if it's competitive, with less casuals, lag will be awful.


Now please, explain to me how I'm commenting against the obvious.

you said you wanted more casuals (so more players in total) instead of having more lag, out of that comment I can assume you believe that more players means less lag, then calcunnon says that you always have lag, even with lots of players, and then you say sarcasticly thanks for stating the obvious, while you just said the complete opposite of what he said, not that's you commenting against the obvious Smiley Wink


You're the problem; you don't understand.

 

I know that just because more players play a game, it won't eliminate lag. I simply want to reduce the amount of it by having more casuals. 

 

 

 

EyeCue86 is a symbol of free speech. Any attempt to censor EyeCue86 is an act of evil.


"It's that time of the month again, Joel." -Ellie, The Last of Us


"It's that time of the month again, Joel"
-Ellie, The Last of Us
Message 36 of 48 (126 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 09/30/2011
Offline
381 posts
 

Re: Why no multiplayer trailer might be a good thing.

May 11, 2013

calcunnon wrote:

Trailers are made to attract as many of the general public as possible towards purchasing a product. So far, all the single-player trailers have done a good job of that; the game is fairly well-publicised, at least within the gaming market, and there's a lot of buzz around how exciting the game looks.

 

Do you remember the multiplayer trailer for Uncharted 3? Full of explosions, shooting, taunts, customisation, and so on. All of which were shown in an exciting, action-packed display of eye-candy. That's bound to attract some of the casual market who love mindlessly shooting everything that moves.

 

Perhaps The Last of Us' multiplayer portion won't feature all of these casual-gamer-pleasing setups that the FPS generation has come to expect. Maybe the game will be more about patience, teamwork and careful thinking. Although I prefer these traits in a game and genuinely hope they're the focus, they don't necessarily make for a good trailer.

 

Just a thought. A hopeful thought.


Didn't you pay attention? The Last of Us is an 18+ game...

 

Which means it isn't meant to appeal to the wider audience, if Naughty Dog wanted that they would have chosen for another 15+ or 12+ kiddy game, but they didn't. (Therefor, they aren't aiming for the cod gamers this time around.)

 

Having said that, Naughty Dog did/does try to appeal to the 18+ casual gamers from what I have seen, limbs blowing off, bus crashing into a car... (So that means they still are trying to appeal to a wide audience, just not the casual kids..)

Message 37 of 48 (113 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 12/07/2011
Offline
5547 posts
 

Re: Why no multiplayer trailer might be a good thing.

May 12, 2013
Didn't you pay attention? An 18+ rating never stopped kids playing a game.
Message 38 of 48 (97 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Wastelander
Registered: 05/01/2013
Offline
769 posts
 

Re: Why no multiplayer trailer might be a good thing.

May 12, 2013

Call of Duty is rated M lol.

 

I was playing GTA III at nine. Ratings don't mean crap.

sig.png

Message 39 of 48 (90 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 10/06/2008
Online
1201 posts
 

Re: Why no multiplayer trailer might be a good thing.

May 12, 2013
honnestly, i think having no MP info will just make people not want to play it. Thats what building hype is for; getting people pumped for your game and ND arent getting people excited for the MP at all. It'll only harm the game, imo.
Message 40 of 48 (83 Views)
Reply
0 Likes