The problem with this game

  • 134 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

 Not competitive multiplayer.. seriusly!?     
 In theory you can make plenty of good intelligent arguments on why this shouldn´t matter..in practice the market has spoken... a 2011 FPS with no competitive multiplayer seems more like a joke to me.   
 
Note: I know it´s internet and whatever you post you gonna have some dipshit bashing and trowing an agression at you.. like no matter what  

Anyway I by no means think  bullestorm its a bad idea, in fact I pre order the epic edition, still I do think that the lack of competitive multiplayer missed oportunity for a fresh experience Epic and PCF are good studios they could have figure it out a system to make it work as a competitive experience. 
 
And yes Competitive and Co-Op its almost a basic feature nowadays you can´t let the standard go down, would you buy a laptop without wireless nowadays?  
 
After purchase Note: I picked the game early this morning I have to say im  getting military and kicking dicktits asses in this circle of awesomness.. so no hard feelings.  
cya arround lads. 

#2 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -

You're right. All games should be the same.

#3 Posted by Skald (4367 posts) -

If anything, less games need to have competitive multiplayer.

#4 Posted by Spoonman671 (4633 posts) -

Dumb.

#5 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -
@HandsomeDead said:
" You're right. All games should be the same. "  
yes people love to kill each other online that´s why they buy fps nowadays.  
 
still  i think they missed an oportunity to make a fresh competitive experience with the so call "kill with skill super powers combo system"  
#6 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -
@Spoonman671 said:
" Dumb. "
spoonman456643 I see you are dude with tons of creativity. 
Name and argument probe it. 
#7 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@DonPixel said:
"  Not competitive multiplayer.. seriusly!?      In theory you can make plenty of good intelligent arguments on why this shouldn´t matter..in practice the market has spoken... a 2011 FPS with no competitive multiplayer seems more like a joke to me.   "
This is what is wrong with people. Just because a game does not have multiplayer that you want does not make it bad. 
#8 Posted by PerryVandell (2103 posts) -

A game like Bulletstorm might have had some fun multiplayer, but I disagree with your statement that an fps made today has to have multiplayer in order to be good. If the campaign is fun, engaging, and re-playable, then I consider it a good game.  

#9 Edited by blueduck (964 posts) -

There hasn't been an FPS with competitive multiplayer to come out in years.

#10 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

I clicked on this thread, thinking that there was actually a problem with the game.

#11 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -
@DonPixel said:
" @HandsomeDead said:
" You're right. All games should be the same. "  
yes people love to kill each other online that´s why they buy fps nowadays.   still  i think they missed an oportunity to make a fresh competitive experience with the so call "kill with skill super powers combo system"   "
That kind of bullshit generalisation is likely to get you picked up by Activision's PR firm. Stick with it.
#13 Posted by Hailinel (24730 posts) -

Right, because people played Bioshock for the multiplayer.  Of course.
 
Bulletstorm isn't about K/D ratios, it's about amassing scores based on creative killing.  Unless the competitive multiplayer were to have players gunning down AI characters in ridiculous ways, there wouldn't be any point to such an option.  It's not a game built for deathmatches.

#14 Posted by XenoNick (1408 posts) -

I'm glad it doesnt MP. This game doesn't need it.

#15 Posted by BeachThunder (11929 posts) -

Yeah, same thing with Amnesia. That game would have been tons better with competitive multiplayer.

#16 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@BeachThunder said:
" Yeah, same thing with Amnesia. That game would have been tons better with competitive multiplayer. "
Whoever shits them self first loses? 
#17 Posted by XenoNick (1408 posts) -
@The_Laughing_Man said:
" @BeachThunder said:
" Yeah, same thing with Amnesia. That game would have been tons better with competitive multiplayer. "
Whoever shits them self first loses?  "
Great idea for betting money.
#18 Posted by GravityProof (282 posts) -
@The_Laughing_Man said:
" @BeachThunder said:
" Yeah, same thing with Amnesia. That game would have been tons better with competitive multiplayer. "
Whoever shits them self first loses?  "
No, wins.
#19 Posted by jozzy (2042 posts) -

Doesn't the game come with the GoW3 beta? I bet it will sell like hotcakes.

#20 Posted by blueduck (964 posts) -
@jozzy said:
" Doesn't the game come with the GoW3 beta? I bet it will sell like hotcakes. "  
Can we start calling it what it is? Preview or Demo.
#21 Posted by Heartagram (1182 posts) -

No one would have played it after about six months so just pretend you're playing it six months from now. 
 
 Not saying it would've been bad but people play what they like (COD,Halo,Gears,Killzone)

#22 Posted by agentboolen (1783 posts) -
@DonPixel: Wait this game is just co-op?!?!  I never seen any vs play but I just assumed it being a fps it would have some kind of vs multiplayer in it. Yea seems kind of lame, I downloaded the Xbox 360 demo but never played it yet, at this point it would have to be the most amazing addicting gameplay ever for me to buy it for $60. I guess its just a reason for people to get there greedy hands on the GOW3 beta, something PS3 people miss out on.
#23 Edited by Cazamalos (983 posts) -

yeah, every game should have a  competitive multiplayer, that's why i never bought that useless Braid game, i want to kill people on the internet like all those 10000 generic shooters do. 
 
no competitive multiplayer in limbo was a huge  let down! 
look how AMAZING is bioshock's 2 multiplayer , every developer should do that! 
 
/ sarcasm 

#24 Posted by RVonE (4638 posts) -

 I love this thread.
#25 Posted by HarlequinRiot (1098 posts) -

To have a fun multiplayer component, they would have to change the game pretty significantly to include defensive and counter  maneuvers. Otherwise, you'd just be stuck in some guys combo. Not to mention all the physics and camera problems that would arise from throwing players around the map. 

#26 Edited by GaspoweR (3022 posts) -

This game has a lot more in common with Pacman championship edition DX or Geometry Wars because of the point system. Who knows? Maybe they'll be able to implement a multiplayer component in the sequel. I'm just glad it isn't shoe horned and lets them focus on the core experience given that it is a new IP. The game is still fun even without the MP. Epic  should know what the market trends are but since this is essentially a very fresh concept being integrated into a genre that is mostly about twitch based reactions (with some exceptions of course, like BFBC2) and less about creativity, they are probably still testing the waters and are waiting with how the market reacts to it upon release.

#27 Posted by Xanth93 (485 posts) -

Whatever happened to buying a game for the single player? You rarely ever see that anymore.
 
I haven't checked out much of Bulletstorm, but if it's just stupid ways of gunning AI down, which is pretty much what I've heard, a competitive multiplayer would fail.

#28 Posted by iDarktread (1206 posts) -
@drag said:
" @DonPixel said:
" @Spoonman671 said:
" Dumb. "
spoonman456643 I see you are dude with tons of creativity. Name and argument probe it.  "
He's spot on tbh, nothing more needs to be said.  "
#29 Posted by mazik765 (2315 posts) -

Competitive multiplayer is exactly what this game doesn't need. People Can Fly are smart enough to know that anyone who wants to play a competitive multiplayer game are going to go with titles like Black Ops or Halo:Reach. This is a fault a TON of games make and end up including a multiplayer that no one plays.

#30 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

I know I won't be getting it because FPS games without multiplayers don't necessarily justify a $60 price tag to me when there are plenty that do have multiplayer and do it well. the way I see it I could pay $60 to get 8-10 hours of enjoyment or pay the same price and get potentially 100 hours or more out of it.
 
I also don't really find the core mechanics that fun or engaging either, but hey that's just me.

#31 Posted by MikkaQ (10288 posts) -

I think a game of this style would pretty much only need like a good leaderboards/replay sharing system to inspire faster and higher scoring runs through levels. Deathmatch... eh there's a million other games you could use for that. 

#32 Posted by Jethuty (1023 posts) -
@DonPixel said:
"  Not competitive multiplayer.. seriusly!?      In theory you can make plenty of good intelligent arguments on why this shouldn´t matter..in practice the market has spoken... a 2011 FPS with no competitive multiplayer seems more like a joke to me.   "
I have a strange feeling that this is a troll... 
 
YES YES, CALL ME CRAZY 
 
 
#33 Posted by masterherocard (419 posts) -

I think that of all the fps' to come out this year, Bulletstorm is probably the one that needs it the least. 
The whole kill with skill system is, as far as I can see, designed with killing masses of enemies in interesting, and entertaining ways. In multiplayer, everyone would be too focused on staying alive, and simply scoring kills to really pay much attention to it.
 
Co-Op might work better as far as multiplayer content is concerned, but even then, you'd have two people trying tons of crazy things on a limited number of people, and unless the game comes up with some pretty interesting ways to tackle it, then you'd end up just clearing rooms too fast to really experiment.

#34 Posted by habster3 (3595 posts) -
@Axxol said:
"I clicked on this thread, thinking that there was actually a problem with the game. "

Same
#35 Posted by wickedsc3 (1046 posts) -

I think they made a good decision for leaving it out.  Because it probably wouldnt perform as well as BFBC2 or Black ops.  So instead of wasting time on making a multplayer i hope the focused on the single player.

#36 Posted by Edwardryu (437 posts) -

well, you guys have been brain wash by dumb activision, EA FPS. then you have prejudice by yourself. so if other games are different from what you think, they are so wrong? what a typical numb nut. before playing it, you never know. 

#37 Posted by Gizmo (5389 posts) -

TC has got a point. There is no way in hell I am paying £40 for a 6-8 hour singleplayer game. I make an exception for Rockstar.

#38 Posted by shivermetimbers (772 posts) -

The problem with this game is that it's trying to be immature, but it doesn't have sexy women in it. That's why Duke Nukem will shit on this game.

Online
#39 Posted by DystopiaX (5310 posts) -

Because a game of this type calls for competitive multiplayer...be honest, OP. If they had MP you would have played it, yelled something like "YO THIS GAME SUCKS IT'S LIKE THE CALL OF DUTYZZZZZ BUT I DONT HAVE BLUNT TRAMA WTFFF 0 STARZ DONT BY LOLOLOLOL"

#40 Posted by Gamer_152 (14077 posts) -
@DonPixel said:
"In theory you can make plenty of good intelligent arguments on why this shouldn´t matter..in practice the market has spoken"
So games should strive to appeal to as many people as possible instead of aiming for the highest quality possible?
Moderator
#41 Posted by JoelTGM (5596 posts) -

I never even thought about multiplayer for it.  I was just looking forward to doing all the stuff I saw in the trailers.  There's so many multiplayer shooters from 2010 and into 2011 that I don't really care that Bulletstorm won't have any.

#42 Posted by Gerhabio (1977 posts) -
@DonPixel: Diggin' your avatar, but you are terribly wrong.
#43 Posted by Skytylz (4033 posts) -

I agree, this definitely seems like a game that should have multiplayer.  I wouldn't get it either way, I didn't think it was very fun.

#44 Posted by SomeJerk (3245 posts) -

Instead of a PC demo they gave PC players Duty Calls.
 
Bulletstorm has a larger problem than lacking multiplayer.
 
Furthermore,

Online
#45 Posted by blueaniman93 (604 posts) -

It does have competitive multiplayer 
its just not at the same time, you know, like pacman 
bulletstorm looks really awesome and im kinda happy they  
didn't try adding synchronous competitive multiplayer into that gameif they couldn't figure out how to make it fit kinda like vanquish
#46 Posted by Enigma777 (6073 posts) -

I'll take an FPS with no MP that focused solely on the SP than one with a tacked on MP that brings the whole experience down. Just look at Bioshock! 

#47 Edited by Skytylz (4033 posts) -
@Gamer_152 said:

" @DonPixel said:

"In theory you can make plenty of good intelligent arguments on why this shouldn´t matter..in practice the market has spoken"
So games should strive to appeal to as many people as possible instead of aiming for the highest quality possible? "
Yes, it's a business not a charity.  In theory those should be hand in hand. 
 
@Enigma777 said:
" I'll take an FPS with no MP that focused solely on the SP than one with a tacked on MP that brings the whole experience down. Just look at Bioshock!  "
Bioshock 2 was great. Same cool world(which is what the fist game was all about) and the gameplay was improved.  Maybe the story wasn't as good, one could argue that the first didn't have that great of a story, but that's about the only thing you could argue against it.  
#48 Posted by MikeFightNight (1110 posts) -
@Axxol said:
" I clicked on this thread, thinking that there was actually a problem with the game. "
yup me too...I love all the sane GB community, you are what makes me come back to this site...that and the main GB crew of course;)
#49 Posted by Gamer_152 (14077 posts) -
@Skytylz said:
" @Gamer_152 said:

" @DonPixel said:

"In theory you can make plenty of good intelligent arguments on why this shouldn´t matter..in practice the market has spoken"
So games should strive to appeal to as many people as possible instead of aiming for the highest quality possible? "
Yes, it's a business not a charity."
I'm sure that's the way the publishers see it but as for the developers, just like anybody working in a creative medium, I don't think they should prioritise financial gain above all else.
Moderator
#50 Posted by MisterDunlap (245 posts) -

I am by no means a multiplayer person, but I do think that the developers are missing out on some great gameplay opportunistic. Of course, it might not be too fun watching your character have his/her ass shot out...

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.