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

Forums - Sony - inFAMOUS: Second Son Won’t Have Multiplayer, More Details on the Upcoming PS4 Exclusive Shared

fps_d0minat0r on 26 January 2014
JerCotter7 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Really didnt expect it to. The frame rate would have been uncontrollable.

I hope the side missions are unique and have more story to them.
in the previous games there were lots of missions but only really 5 different types and didnt have much depth to them.


How did you come to the conclusion about frame rate?

Also I would have liked a free roam MP. Wouldn't even need missions. Just say 32 people doing whatever they want and be able to kill each other.


Its just what happens naturally, the more characters there are on screen spamming powers, the more the frame rate will be hit.

Its why the online part of all games have graphics and effects downgraded compared to singleplayer.

You also have to consider that no other game has powers as crazy and random as infamous so even a downgraded version of it would be very intensive on the GPU. I honestly couldnt see more than 2 people online at once without significant downgrades being made which wouldnt be fun anymore.



Around the Network
iceboy151 on 26 January 2014
oldschoolfool said:
iceboy151 said:
oldschoolfool said:
iceboy151 said:
FlamingWeazel said:
iceboy151 said:
I don't understand why people are so against having multiplayer added in games. Adding it to The Last of Us didn't seem to hurt the game, neither did it hurt Tomb Raider. Or other games like the Uncharted series. I would love if they created a multiplayer component the right way. Even if it did suck, you don't have to play it.


Crteating a online component takes a lot of time and resources, taking dev time away from what is a way better SP game. User created content and replayability > MP for infamous.


Look at the games I just listed, did it take anything away from those games? Any game can have multiplayer, as long as its done right. 


why add it,just for the sake of adding it? That's what they seemed to do with tomb raider. Sure it did'nt take away from the single player,but it just seemed like a waste of time and resources. 

To give the game longevity. After you beat a game what's left to do?


play it again on  the hardest setting are just take your time with it. Are move on 2 something else,then come back to the game. Even multiplayer get's boring after awhile. After you've maxed out on call of duty and unlocked all the weapons,what's left to do?


But you've beaten the game already, the game is going to be the same every time. And I know multiplayer will get boring after awhile, but I never said add it in to make the game last forever. Just add it to extend the life of the game.



 

                          

 

FlamingWeazel on 26 January 2014
iceboy151 said:
FlamingWeazel said:
iceboy151 said:
I don't understand why people are so against having multiplayer added in games. Adding it to The Last of Us didn't seem to hurt the game, neither did it hurt Tomb Raider. Or other games like the Uncharted series. I would love if they created a multiplayer component the right way. Even if it did suck, you don't have to play it.


Crteating a online component takes a lot of time and resources, taking dev time away from what is a way better SP game. User created content and replayability > MP for infamous.


Look at the games I just listed, did it take anything away from those games? Any game can have multiplayer, as long as its done right. 

Thise games were all 6-8 hours long and shooters....................Infamous open world sp wirh 30-40 hours of gameplay, not the same.



FlamingWeazel on 26 January 2014
iceboy151 said:
oldschoolfool said:
iceboy151 said:
FlamingWeazel said:
iceboy151 said:
I don't understand why people are so against having multiplayer added in games. Adding it to The Last of Us didn't seem to hurt the game, neither did it hurt Tomb Raider. Or other games like the Uncharted series. I would love if they created a multiplayer component the right way. Even if it did suck, you don't have to play it.


Crteating a online component takes a lot of time and resources, taking dev time away from what is a way better SP game. User created content and replayability > MP for infamous.


Look at the games I just listed, did it take anything away from those games? Any game can have multiplayer, as long as its done right. 


why add it,just for the sake of adding it? That's what they seemed to do with tomb raider. Sure it did'nt take away from the single player,but it just seemed like a waste of time and resources. 

To give the game longevity. After you beat a game what's left to do?


Half the games powers are unaccessible depending on your karma, there is user generated content that makes the replay value endless. Not to mention its open world nature therre is no way you will do everything on 1 play through, it's easy to miss many missions, items and power to collect..............



iceboy151 on 26 January 2014
FlamingWeazel said:
iceboy151 said:
FlamingWeazel said:
iceboy151 said:
I don't understand why people are so against having multiplayer added in games. Adding it to The Last of Us didn't seem to hurt the game, neither did it hurt Tomb Raider. Or other games like the Uncharted series. I would love if they created a multiplayer component the right way. Even if it did suck, you don't have to play it.


Crteating a online component takes a lot of time and resources, taking dev time away from what is a way better SP game. User created content and replayability > MP for infamous.


Look at the games I just listed, did it take anything away from those games? Any game can have multiplayer, as long as its done right. 

Thise games were all 6-8 hours long and shooters....................Infamous open world sp wirh 30-40 hours of gameplay, not the same.

That wasn't the point. Did those game's campaign suffer? All I'm saying is that it's nothing wrong with a game adding a multiplayer component to it, as long as it's done right.



 

                          

 

Around the Network
FlamingWeazel on 26 January 2014
iceboy151 said:
FlamingWeazel said:
iceboy151 said:
FlamingWeazel said:
iceboy151 said:
I don't understand why people are so against having multiplayer added in games. Adding it to The Last of Us didn't seem to hurt the game, neither did it hurt Tomb Raider. Or other games like the Uncharted series. I would love if they created a multiplayer component the right way. Even if it did suck, you don't have to play it.


Crteating a online component takes a lot of time and resources, taking dev time away from what is a way better SP game. User created content and replayability > MP for infamous.


Look at the games I just listed, did it take anything away from those games? Any game can have multiplayer, as long as its done right. 

Thise games were all 6-8 hours long and shooters....................Infamous open world sp wirh 30-40 hours of gameplay, not the same.

That wasn't the point. Did those game's campaign suffer? All I'm saying is that it's nothing wrong with a game adding a multiplayer component to it, as long as it's done right.

That is the point, when you campaign can be breezed through in 1 day, it is easier to make a good MP mode, infamous with its huge open world would require a tonne of work to get a good MP mode and maintain a robust SP. The game simply doesn't need it. Some kind of Co-op would be cool though.



iceboy151 on 26 January 2014
FlamingWeazel said:

That is the point, when you campaign can be breezed through in 1 day, it is easier to make a good MP mode, infamous with its huge open world would require a tonne of work to get a good MP mode and maintain a robust SP. The game simply doesn't need it. Some kind of Co-op would be cool though.

No game truly needs a multiplayer, but it's added to give the game longevity. I don't recall GTA IV/V or an Assassin's Ceed game suffer because it had multiplayer. I don't understand why people are against a game having it. Sucker Punch adding multiplayer won't make Second Son a bad game.



 

                          

 

FlamingWeazel on 26 January 2014
iceboy151 said:
FlamingWeazel said:

That is the point, when you campaign can be breezed through in 1 day, it is easier to make a good MP mode, infamous with its huge open world would require a tonne of work to get a good MP mode and maintain a robust SP. The game simply doesn't need it. Some kind of Co-op would be cool though.

No game truly needs a multiplayer, but it's added to give the game longevity. I don't recall GTA IV/V or an Assassin's Ceed game suffer because it had multiplayer. I don't understand why people are against a game having it. Sucker Punch adding multiplayer won't make Second Son a bad game.

But it could sucker punch is a small dev , most teams are not as huge as rockstar............................



Munkeh111 on 26 January 2014
iceboy151 said:
FlamingWeazel said:

That is the point, when you campaign can be breezed through in 1 day, it is easier to make a good MP mode, infamous with its huge open world would require a tonne of work to get a good MP mode and maintain a robust SP. The game simply doesn't need it. Some kind of Co-op would be cool though.

No game truly needs a multiplayer, but it's added to give the game longevity. I don't recall GTA IV/V or an Assassin's Ceed game suffer because it had multiplayer. I don't understand why people are against a game having it. Sucker Punch adding multiplayer won't make Second Son a bad game.

Small studio and it's their first next gen game. Do you really think it's sensible to stretch themselves further to make their first ever multiplayer mode?



iceboy151 on 26 January 2014
Munkeh111 said:
iceboy151 said:
FlamingWeazel said:

That is the point, when you campaign can be breezed through in 1 day, it is easier to make a good MP mode, infamous with its huge open world would require a tonne of work to get a good MP mode and maintain a robust SP. The game simply doesn't need it. Some kind of Co-op would be cool though.

No game truly needs a multiplayer, but it's added to give the game longevity. I don't recall GTA IV/V or an Assassin's Ceed game suffer because it had multiplayer. I don't understand why people are against a game having it. Sucker Punch adding multiplayer won't make Second Son a bad game.

Small studio and it's their first next gen game. Do you really think it's sensible to stretch themselves further to make their first ever multiplayer mode?

I never said they needed to add multiplayer in this game. I just said I wouldn't mind it.