#1 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/11/16/towerfall-ascension-coming-to-pc-online-play-not-planned-for-l/

[TowerFall] Ascension's revealing trailer notes a co-op quest mode, new powerups and 50 new multiplayer maps. Althoughthe game's focus lies in multiplayer, Thorson responded to a fan on Twitter to clarify that there "won't be any online at launch, sorry. It's really meant to be played together with friends."

Seriously, I'm in my 30's, and some of my friends have moved out of state, or they were met online in the first place. I shouldn't have to arrange a damn "play-date" with local friends to enjoy your co-op / competitive multiplayer game in 2014.

I get that programming multiplayer is probably a bitch to implement correctly, but if that's the case, either admit it or come up with a better way to brush the question aside.

But whatever you do, just don't suggest that I simply MUST see the faces of my friends to get the "true" TowerFall experience, and anything less wouldn't be worth playing.

#3 Edited by ajamafalous (12035 posts) -

Totally agree.

#4 Posted by Vuud (2033 posts) -

I must need glasses because when I look at this game I just see a colorful QR code.

#5 Posted by Hunkulese (2786 posts) -

Why would you want to play this without friends anyway? There are billions of games right now why do you feel so angry over the fact that a game designed around local multiplayer is making you play local multiplayer? Play something else.

#6 Edited by audioBusting (1619 posts) -

I'm in a similar situation, but I have to agree with him that playing online isn't the same with playing locally. It's not convenient but it's a fair point.

Anyway just calm down. It's just a Twitter conversation, not a press release; I don't think it's meant to be taken so seriously.

#7 Posted by Morningstar (2189 posts) -

Then maybe this game is not for you.

Online
#8 Edited by Xeiphyer (5606 posts) -

I'm totally on board with coop things in games, in fact I wish they would add more. However if there is no online, that really really blows.

#9 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

SO MUCH RAGE AT THIS BULLSHI--Oh, it's nothing, really.

#10 Edited by kindgineer (2768 posts) -

Why? It's a legitimate thing to say. Some genres, or games, will be better with friends on the couch. Is it wrong to say playing Madden gives a better experience for some if you can shove your friend at the last second to make him miss a play?

I'm not saying that local co-op is the only way to go, online is great, but developers have the freedom to negate said features in their game if they want to. It's silly to armchair develop a game that has certain roles it wants to adhere to.

#11 Edited by joshwent (2297 posts) -

How dare he want people to play his game the way he intended it to be played!

Fuuuuuuuuuuuck!

#12 Posted by megalowho (972 posts) -

I see nothing wrong with designing a pure local multiplayer game, there's been a fair amount of good ones as of late and even though I'm in a similar situation to the OP I like that they exist. Even if online would be an adequate experience I can respect focusing on what makes the game really shine.

#13 Edited by Yesiamaduck (1128 posts) -

The has been a severe lack of couch multiplayers games the past 8 years so I'm kind of happy some devs are focusing on local multiplayer a little more these days, that being said I'd always welcome an online option to anything.

#14 Edited by SaturdayNightSpecials (2416 posts) -

I would understand if the game's actual mechanical design relied on the physical presence of other players, but I can't see that it does. It's one thing to want your game to be played in the most enjoyable way, but it's another thing to totally exclude people from enjoying it based only on their circumstances.

If a console game, say Assassin's Creed, was ported to PC and didn't have any mouse/keyboard support, because it was only "meant" to be played with a controller, that would be shitty. Even though much less work is involved in that scenario, it's the same principle.

#15 Posted by DonutFever (3554 posts) -

@saturdaynightspecials said:

I would understand if the game's actual mechanical design relied on the physical presence of other players, but I can't see that it does. It's one thing to want your game to be played in the most enjoyable way, but it's another thing to totally exclude people from enjoying it based only on their circumstances.

If a console game, say Assassin's Creed, was ported to PC and didn't have any mouse/keyboard support, because it was only "meant" to be played with a controller, that would be shitty. Even though much less work is involved in that scenario, it's the same principle.

This is what I was going to say, but better.

#16 Posted by e30bmw (356 posts) -

If you don't like it, don't buy the game. The guy making the game has every right to make this design decision.

#17 Edited by Chaser324 (6650 posts) -

Then maybe this game is not for you.

@e30bmw said:

If you don't like it, don't buy the game. The guy making the game has every right to make this design decision.

Yeah. This is my opinion on the matter, too. There's far too many games out there to get upset because one guy developed the game he wanted instead of the game that you wanted.

Moderator
#18 Posted by Tarsier (1069 posts) -

ok theres no online, this game also doesnt look good, so take it easy!!

theres tons of great games with fun multiplayer. try raskulls (also fun with "REAL LIFE friends")

#19 Posted by Frobitz (197 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: Completely agree. I'm now 40 (ouch!) and this being the 21st century my gaming friends are scattered around the globe. Local multiplayer just makes this game a nice thought for the occasional party, but online multiplayer with my friends would improve it hugely.

Online
#20 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5801 posts) -

I don't usually play local coop games, but I'm glad they still exist in a world full of single player and online multiplayer games.

#21 Posted by Metzo_Paino (321 posts) -

Then maybe this game is not for you.

No reason why every game should fit into what you need it to be.

#22 Posted by alwaysbebombing (1621 posts) -

I don't even have any friends.

#23 Posted by Scrawnto (2456 posts) -

I'm only 25, but I am the friend who moved out of state for work in that scenario, so I know what you mean. I live in Wisconsin, thousands of miles from all my game-playing friends from college. I will probably never have a chance to play Samurai Gunn or Towerfall, and it's a bummer.

Is it the developers' right to make games that aren't playable online? Absolutely! Networking code is difficult to do well. I just think they're missing out on a huge segment of the market because of it. I bet Nidhoggr is way better without any lag, but with lag is the only way I'll play against my friends, so I'm fine with that sacrifice.

#24 Posted by Lyisa (372 posts) -

Just curious, what does local multiplayer offer that online doesn't? Your asshole friends are still assholes over the internet. This seems more like a way to limit your audience more than a valuable design decision.

#25 Posted by LikeaSsur (1565 posts) -

There are literally hundreds of other video games to play if you can't do couch co-op. Pick one and go for it.

Seriously, how pretentious is this topic? People are in a different situation than you; deal with it. They CAN do couch co-op, and you can't. Boo hoo, move on with your life.

#26 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -

@frobitz said:

@spaceinsomniac: Completely agree. I'm now 40 (ouch!) and this being the 21st century my gaming friends are scattered around the globe. Local multiplayer just makes this game a nice thought for the occasional party, but online multiplayer with my friends would improve it hugely.

@scrawnto said:

I'm only 25, but I am the friend who moved out of state for work in that scenario, so I know what you mean. I live in Wisconsin, thousands of miles from all my game-playing friends from college. I will probably never have a chance to play Samurai Gunn or Towerfall, and it's a bummer.

Is it the developers' right to make games that aren't playable online? Absolutely! Networking code is difficult to do well. I just think they're missing out on a huge segment of the market because of it. I bet Nidhoggr is way better without any lag, but with lag is the only way I'll play against my friends, so I'm fine with that sacrifice.

And that's the thing. While many seem to have missed the point, this is a thread about public relations and word choice, not about forcing every developer to make the product that I want.

#27 Posted by kishinfoulux (2398 posts) -

Except it's not an exuse? It's clearly a multiplayer focused game and always has been. You know what's worse? People bitching about it.

#28 Edited by Davvyk (694 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: Personally i think its the Devs right to do with their game as they wish. If they feel its a game they only want played locally then that's their choice. They will sell less copies but they have stayed true to their vision.

Us gaming fans are quick to shout at devs when they sell out so i don't think we can complain when a dev says "i want the game i have created to be XYZ" and the game is XYZ.

#29 Posted by Hunter5024 (5809 posts) -

I don't think it's an excuse. I agree with him.

#30 Edited by spookytapes (264 posts) -

boo hoo hoo why doesn't everyone cater to me?