I really enjoy this game, but I refuse to buy it...

#1 Edited by HatKing (6108 posts) -

I have had a small interest in this game since I saw the trailers for it a month or so ago.  It came out and I heard great things, I downloaded the trial and played bits of it, enjoying it.  TNT came out and confirmed this game is pretty awesome.  I played more of the trial and enjoyed playing with other people(something I normally hate). 
 
I will not buy this game. 
 
I know that seems backwards.  The reason I can't justify buying this game is, sadly, because it is a online dependent XBLA game.  This means, or will likely mean, that in about two months it will be a struggle to play this game.  In three months it will be nigh impossible.  And by January, you might as well not even own it.  Even if I'd be done with it by then, I just can't buy something that I know I won't be able to use in that short of time. 
 
If the game had offered a single player component: bot matches, a story, anything, I could maybe justify it.  Okay, I guess I shouldn't say anything, there is that "tower defense" mode that you can play solo, but I hardly count that considering you pretty much need more people to stand a chance. 
 
Do you guys think I'm wrong?  Will this game last?  Will it defy the norm that has been set for, almost, all previous XBLA games and stand the test of time?  Perhaps I'm missing something else.  Is there a single player component that I have missed or overlooked? 
 
I know it seems irrational, but I like this game, I just can't justify buying it.
#2 Posted by Malakhii (1443 posts) -

For 15 bucks if you get a week or two out of it, that's more then enough value for me.  I don't expect a $15 game to keep me enthralled forever, but the time I played it was very fun. So if you enjoy it buy it, I know the team at Uber has pledged to support it, so it should have some legs. 

#3 Posted by supermike6 (3641 posts) -

I completely agree. I like this game, but I can't get myself to buy it. I ended up saving my money for Lara Croft.

#4 Posted by dantheman1515 (297 posts) -

It will always have people playing it. There is only one gametype so the community won't be segmented.

#5 Posted by HatKing (6108 posts) -
@Malakhii:
You do bring up an interesting point.  They've created a unique system for delivering updates to the game, or at least that's what I heard; it does not require updates.  Perhaps this means that they can keep it fresh?  I don't know.   I just don't like the idea that if I get the urge to play it again in a few months that I won't be able to.  I mean, sure maybe I will get to play $15 worth of it for the next few weeks, but... I bought it... shouldn't that mean I can play it on my time not while it's convenient for everybody else? 
 
Sorry, this seems whiney.  Maybe I'll just suck it up and buy it.  Perhaps it's worth the risk.  I'm certainly not solving this XBLA abandonship problem by avoiding the games entirely.
#6 Posted by HatKing (6108 posts) -
@dantheman1515:
I'd like to think you're right, but there really is no way to guarantee that.
#7 Posted by MasterOfPenguins_Zell (2093 posts) -

I've played around 100 hours of it already, and am likely to play some more before Reach comes out, so I'd say it was worth it.

#8 Posted by illmatic19 (964 posts) -

I played the trial on three different accounts. I had my fun with it.

#9 Posted by xyzygy (10078 posts) -

It's an online only game, a headliner from the Summer of Arcade, and it got great reviews. I think there'll be people playing it for a while. 
 
Usually I find the online games that don't have anyone playing anymore are either really old games like Castle Crashers or games with a single player component as well as multiplayer, like Assault on Dark Athena. 

#10 Posted by Hamst3r (4563 posts) -

You say that no one is going to be playing the game in 3 months, so you - and a whole lot of other people who think the same way as you - are going to make sure that's true by not buying it.
  
Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
You should buy the game rather than assisting in it's death.
#11 Posted by HatKing (6108 posts) -
@Hamst3r said:
"You say that no one is going to be playing the game in 3 months, so you - and a whole lot of other people who think the same way as you - are going to make sure that's true by not buying it.   Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy.   You should buy the game rather than assisting in it's death. "

You're very right. : )  
 
Being morally against this idea, it should be my duty to buy this game.
#12 Posted by tracerace11 (289 posts) -

bought it.... love it.......  i think it will be around for awhile because of the focus on mutliplayer.... and a focus on one game mode....

#13 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

I'm sure people will be playing it for a while.. It's like a console players TF2, because well.. console TF2 is terrible.

#14 Posted by HatKing (6108 posts) -

Okay, after seeing a few of the responses here, and realizing I'm only exacerbating the abandonship problem by not buying it, I decided to dive in. 
 
I bought the game at some point last night and have enjoyed almost every second of it since.  My only complaints are some lag issues, and some small annoyances with players abusing certain abilities(though this is to be expected with any game).  The frame rate problems really only came up in Blitz mode, but there I'm just fighting NPCs so I don't care so much. 
 
Love the game, I just hope it keeps going so I can come back to it in a few months.

#15 Edited by lclay (380 posts) -

Battlefield 1943 came out during last year's summer of arcade and there's still tonnes of people playing that.

#16 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

People still play Marble Blast, your argument is invalid.
 

MARBLE BLAST IS FUCKING AWESOME BY THE WAY

#17 Posted by Jeust (10857 posts) -
@supermike6 said:
" I completely agree. I like this game, but I can't get myself to buy it. I ended up saving my money for Lara Croft. "
It's not really that different. Lara Croft is though to play with friends. It has single player, but seems an afterthought. 
#18 Posted by EpicSteve (6499 posts) -

For $15 would that really matter? Can you seriously see yourself caring about MNC in January? People do still play Battlefield 1943 btw.

#19 Posted by supermike6 (3641 posts) -
@Jeust said:
" @supermike6 said:
" I completely agree. I like this game, but I can't get myself to buy it. I ended up saving my money for Lara Croft. "
It's not really that different. Lara Croft is though to play with friends. It has single player, but seems an afterthought.  "
Yeah, but I have a brother to play split-screen with. He won't be gone in a month. Also, the single-player is surprisingly good.
#20 Edited by ImperiousRix (2963 posts) -

I think you certainly make a point, but there will ALWAYS be a contingent of people that play this game.  Okay... perhaps not always, but at least for a couple years to come now.  I got Shadowrun... yes... Shadow-fucking-Run about a year after its release.  Every time I played that game, there were full lobbies  Sure, it only had a few hundred players still faithfully active, but they were there. 
I find you don't really need a justification for not purchasing a game that you actually like.  I've sincerely liked quite a few games, followed them, got the demos, etc., only to not pick them up at release time.  Sometimes some games just fall through the cracks, regardless of quality or previous interest in them. 
 
EDIT:  And now I see that you actually bought the game... IGNORE MEEE!

#21 Posted by Jeust (10857 posts) -
@supermike6 said:
" @Jeust said:
" @supermike6 said:
" I completely agree. I like this game, but I can't get myself to buy it. I ended up saving my money for Lara Croft. "
It's not really that different. Lara Croft is though to play with friends. It has single player, but seems an afterthought.  "
Yeah, but I have a brother to play split-screen with. He won't be gone in a month. Also, the single-player is surprisingly good. "
Then that is different. :)
#22 Posted by louiedog (2335 posts) -
@Jeust said:
" @supermike6 said:
" I completely agree. I like this game, but I can't get myself to buy it. I ended up saving my money for Lara Croft. "
It's not really that different. Lara Croft is though to play with friends. It has single player, but seems an afterthought.  "
I'm not sure how you define afterthought. They redid all of the puzzles for a single player. What did you want, an entirely new campaign? The single player in the game is excellent.
#23 Posted by Afroman269 (7387 posts) -

Same way that I feel

#24 Posted by Colt (110 posts) -

dude i played big bumping at like 3 am a few months ago and got a game going in one try. yknow.. the burger king game from 4 years ago.  
 
a game like this will never stop having available players.

#25 Posted by Jeust (10857 posts) -
@louiedog said:
" @Jeust said:
" @supermike6 said:
" I completely agree. I like this game, but I can't get myself to buy it. I ended up saving my money for Lara Croft. "
It's not really that different. Lara Croft is though to play with friends. It has single player, but seems an afterthought.  "
I'm not sure how you define afterthought. They redid all of the puzzles for a single player. What did you want, an entirely new campaign? The single player in the game is excellent. "
yep, but they for no reason, to suppress the need of the indian counterpart gave her the ability to act like him in the puzzles that would need him. It seems like it was first thought as a co-op experience and then as a single player one. 
#26 Posted by Empirepaintball (1397 posts) -

That's true with some games, but this one seems like it could have lasting value. I played the hell out of it. It was worth the 15
#27 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

The argument works both ways. With a single-player only game, you'll play it once or twice and probably not play it again. You're more likely to play a MP-only game for longer than a SP-only game.

#28 Posted by YoungFrey (1321 posts) -
@HatKing said:
" @Malakhii:
You do bring up an interesting point.  They've created a unique system for delivering updates to the game, or at least that's what I heard; it does not require updates.  Perhaps this means that they can keep it fresh?  I don't know.   I just don't like the idea that if I get the urge to play it again in a few months that I won't be able to.  I mean, sure maybe I will get to play $15 worth of it for the next few weeks, but... I bought it... shouldn't that mean I can play it on my time not while it's convenient for everybody else?  Sorry, this seems whiney.  Maybe I'll just suck it up and buy it.  Perhaps it's worth the risk.  I'm certainly not solving this XBLA abandonship problem by avoiding the games entirely. "
I don't know about fresh, but as I understand it, the current "instant update" system allows them to change variables.  I don't think they will be dropping new modes or classes that way.  But it sounds like it's well suited to keeping the game balanced though.   And look at Battlefield 1943.  That game is still popular.  I know any online system has a finite number of players, but MNC does fill a niche that no other game is.  Heavily class based combat.  I know TF2 does it, but lacking any patches, everyone plays that on the PC.  So I think MNC has a real shot at longevity.  
#29 Posted by MikkaQ (10344 posts) -

15 bucks for a month's worth of entertainment? I'd buy that.  
 
But I haven't heard a lot about this game so far, so I still dunno. 

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.