By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - So... Red Steel 2 has no online play

twesterm said:
EL_PATRAS said:
twesterm said:
Why?

Were games bad before you decided online gaming became the standard?

Would you rather they took away from the main game to make at a minimum a passable online mode?

Not every game needs a damn online mode.


Certainly you can't ignore the capabilities and limitless additional play time offered by online gaming.  Why would you not want that in every game you play?  50 euros or dollars for a game that lasts 10 hours just doesn't cut it anymore, at least not for me.  I prefer that the main game be well done than effort being spent on a half-assed online mode, I agree up to that point, but why not implement a good online mode.  With a good story mode.  What a concept!! 

It's not like we can only have one or the other.  And if we can't then it's about time we should.

It's not a question of why wouldn't I want it? it's a question of what do I want them to sacrifice?

Would you rather they make a game that did alright at the sword controls and had multiplayer or would you rather they concentrate their effort on sword controls so they make a game with the best sword motion controls we've seen yet?

Adding multiplayer isn't as simple as pressing a button and then done.  It takes a lot of time, effort, and money.  If they had put online multiplayer in there, the budget either would have grown far bigger than they could handle or other parts of the game would have suffered.  It's not worth it.

And if 50 Eurors for 10 hours doesn't cut it for you, then just don't buy it since it obviously isn't the game for you.  Go play your Call of Duties and all other multiplayer games, again, not every game needs it.

I am  fan of story mode over multiplayer anyway.  I just feel that you may be defending a cause blindly here.  I'm just saying that we should get online features for our money, and that game companies should invest more bloody money in making their games if they have to.  Maybe that way they'll manage to sell something.  I'm just confused as to why you aren't as demanding of game companies as I am.  Don't you want the very best for your money?  I certainly do.



                                                                           

Around the Network

I think that In this game having online could have meant sacrificing the M+.

That does not excuse though the lack of local multiplayer (which imo could have done wonders for sales).



Currently Playing: Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor Overclocked, Professor Layton and the Curious Village

Anticipating: Xenoblade, The Last Story, Mario Kart 7, Rayman Origins, Zelda SS, Crush3D, Tales of the Abyss 3DS, MGS:Snake Eater 3DS, RE:Revelations, Time Travellers, Professor Layton vs. Ace Attorney, Luigi's Mansion 2, MH TriG, DQ Monsters, Heroes of Ruin

EL_PATRAS said:
twesterm said:
EL_PATRAS said:
twesterm said:
Why?

Were games bad before you decided online gaming became the standard?

Would you rather they took away from the main game to make at a minimum a passable online mode?

Not every game needs a damn online mode.


Certainly you can't ignore the capabilities and limitless additional play time offered by online gaming.  Why would you not want that in every game you play?  50 euros or dollars for a game that lasts 10 hours just doesn't cut it anymore, at least not for me.  I prefer that the main game be well done than effort being spent on a half-assed online mode, I agree up to that point, but why not implement a good online mode.  With a good story mode.  What a concept!! 

It's not like we can only have one or the other.  And if we can't then it's about time we should.

It's not a question of why wouldn't I want it? it's a question of what do I want them to sacrifice?

Would you rather they make a game that did alright at the sword controls and had multiplayer or would you rather they concentrate their effort on sword controls so they make a game with the best sword motion controls we've seen yet?

Adding multiplayer isn't as simple as pressing a button and then done.  It takes a lot of time, effort, and money.  If they had put online multiplayer in there, the budget either would have grown far bigger than they could handle or other parts of the game would have suffered.  It's not worth it.

And if 50 Eurors for 10 hours doesn't cut it for you, then just don't buy it since it obviously isn't the game for you.  Go play your Call of Duties and all other multiplayer games, again, not every game needs it.

I am  fan of story mode over multiplayer anyway.  I just feel that you may be defending a cause blindly here.  I'm just saying that we should get online features for our money, and that game companies should invest more bloody money in making their games if they have to.  Maybe that way they'll manage to sell something.  I'm just confused as to why you aren't as demanding of game companies as I am.  Don't you want the very best for your money?  I certainly do.

I'm not demanding of it because it isn't a needed feature.

Red Steel 2 simply isn't a multiplayer game just like Super Mario Galaxy isn't an RPG.  That's just how it is.

Not every game needs to be a FPSWJRPG platformer with online multiplayer.  Red Steel 2 is simply an FPS and that's it.  If you don't like it, too bad.  There's no demanding of anything or any need to feel entitled to multiplayer because that's just the game they felt like making.

If you want a multiplayer game, go play a multiplayer game.



EL_PATRAS said:

I guess I'm probably the last person on the planet to find this out, but after seeing the review I was extremely dissappointed.  No matter how good the game is (and it looks excellent) I feel that online gaming should be a bare minimum and a standard feature for any game.  Why are us wiionites always getting the short end of the internet stick?

So, you suggesting people get Dante's Inferno over God of War III?  Also, do you think that Mass Effect II and also Final Fantasy XIII should also be ignored?  I am of the belief that some games can remain single-player only and it is ok.



EL_PATRAS said:
twesterm said:
EL_PATRAS said:
twesterm said:
Why?

Were games bad before you decided online gaming became the standard?

Would you rather they took away from the main game to make at a minimum a passable online mode?

Not every game needs a damn online mode.


Certainly you can't ignore the capabilities and limitless additional play time offered by online gaming.  Why would you not want that in every game you play?  50 euros or dollars for a game that lasts 10 hours just doesn't cut it anymore, at least not for me.  I prefer that the main game be well done than effort being spent on a half-assed online mode, I agree up to that point, but why not implement a good online mode.  With a good story mode.  What a concept!! 

It's not like we can only have one or the other.  And if we can't then it's about time we should.

It's not a question of why wouldn't I want it? it's a question of what do I want them to sacrifice?

Would you rather they make a game that did alright at the sword controls and had multiplayer or would you rather they concentrate their effort on sword controls so they make a game with the best sword motion controls we've seen yet?

Adding multiplayer isn't as simple as pressing a button and then done.  It takes a lot of time, effort, and money.  If they had put online multiplayer in there, the budget either would have grown far bigger than they could handle or other parts of the game would have suffered.  It's not worth it.

And if 50 Eurors for 10 hours doesn't cut it for you, then just don't buy it since it obviously isn't the game for you.  Go play your Call of Duties and all other multiplayer games, again, not every game needs it.

I am  fan of story mode over multiplayer anyway.  I just feel that you may be defending a cause blindly here.  I'm just saying that we should get online features for our money, and that game companies should invest more bloody money in making their games if they have to.  Maybe that way they'll manage to sell something.  I'm just confused as to why you aren't as demanding of game companies as I am.  Don't you want the very best for your money?  I certainly do.

He's an actual game developer. I can't remember the studio's name, but they made the recent Ghostbusters on the HD systems. So he actually knows about game development.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network

Good that means the Single player mode won't suffer beacuse of it, I'm tired of games that can be completed in 5 hours and then it require me to go online to enjoy it wich doesn't always happens beacuse that all depends on who I meet.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

richardhutnik said:
EL_PATRAS said:

I guess I'm probably the last person on the planet to find this out, but after seeing the review I was extremely dissappointed.  No matter how good the game is (and it looks excellent) I feel that online gaming should be a bare minimum and a standard feature for any game.  Why are us wiionites always getting the short end of the internet stick?

So, you suggesting people get Dante's Inferno over God of War III?  Also, do you think that Mass Effect II and also Final Fantasy XIII should also be ignored?  I am of the belief that some games can remain single-player only and it is ok.


red steel is a 10 hour game.  For the money their asking for it, a multiplayer mode should be implemented imo



                                                                           

twesterm said:
EL_PATRAS said:
twesterm said:
EL_PATRAS said:
twesterm said:
Why?

Were games bad before you decided online gaming became the standard?

Would you rather they took away from the main game to make at a minimum a passable online mode?

Not every game needs a damn online mode.


Certainly you can't ignore the capabilities and limitless additional play time offered by online gaming.  Why would you not want that in every game you play?  50 euros or dollars for a game that lasts 10 hours just doesn't cut it anymore, at least not for me.  I prefer that the main game be well done than effort being spent on a half-assed online mode, I agree up to that point, but why not implement a good online mode.  With a good story mode.  What a concept!! 

It's not like we can only have one or the other.  And if we can't then it's about time we should.

It's not a question of why wouldn't I want it? it's a question of what do I want them to sacrifice?

Would you rather they make a game that did alright at the sword controls and had multiplayer or would you rather they concentrate their effort on sword controls so they make a game with the best sword motion controls we've seen yet?

Adding multiplayer isn't as simple as pressing a button and then done.  It takes a lot of time, effort, and money.  If they had put online multiplayer in there, the budget either would have grown far bigger than they could handle or other parts of the game would have suffered.  It's not worth it.

And if 50 Eurors for 10 hours doesn't cut it for you, then just don't buy it since it obviously isn't the game for you.  Go play your Call of Duties and all other multiplayer games, again, not every game needs it.

I am  fan of story mode over multiplayer anyway.  I just feel that you may be defending a cause blindly here.  I'm just saying that we should get online features for our money, and that game companies should invest more bloody money in making their games if they have to.  Maybe that way they'll manage to sell something.  I'm just confused as to why you aren't as demanding of game companies as I am.  Don't you want the very best for your money?  I certainly do.

I'm not demanding of it because it isn't a needed feature.

Red Steel 2 simply isn't a multiplayer game just like Super Mario Galaxy isn't an RPG.  That's just how it is.

Not every game needs to be a FPSWJRPG platformer with online multiplayer.  Red Steel 2 is simply an FPS and that's it.  If you don't like it, too bad.  There's no demanding of anything or any need to feel entitled to multiplayer because that's just the game they felt like making.

If you want a multiplayer game, go play a multiplayer game.

Ok.  Hopefully this game won't have mediocre sales though.



                                                                           

Not every game needs online play. Bioshock didn't have it. Metroid didn't have it.

Also, Red Steel 2 is NOT a standard FPS, therefore it doesn't need to follow any rules. As it is, I'm glad it doesn't have online, as less dev time would be spent on the single-player.



I agree with you. There are standards in the FPS shooter genre. Just because its a wii game we shouldn't give it a free pass, especially when the game is $49.99 and $59.99 if you want the Motion Plus thingy. Sure the campaign is quality, but when there are so many better games that offer way more replay value in the FPS category, unless you're a wii only owner, the game might seem overpriced.