How Online corrupted the industry.

[Red Ninja Koopa]

So I was doing some research on the Bit. Trip series of Wiiware games and I found out that IGN gave Bit. Trip Beat an 8/10. That's a pretty respectable score and based on the demo, it certainly deserves it. However, I soon found out that IGN marked points off of it because it lacked online leader boards. This was disgusting. How could a rhythm game receive the same treatment as New Super Mari0 Bros. Wii? Nay. This is worse treatment than what NSMBW got. There is absolutely NO need or any ONLINE in the Bit. Trip series. In fact, I have come to believe that online gaming has corrupted the industry.

1. It has caused the media to believe that online functionality is necessary for any video game.
2. It has caused video game fans to believe that as well.
3. It causes developers to neglect the single player experience
4. It has caused the FPS genre to turn into a over blown digital NRA. Or for those who like the NRA, online has caused the FPS genre to turn a little too popular and a lot more generic.
5. It does not promote good communication.
6. It is not as fun as local multiplayer because it lacks your friends being around you.
7. It has made playing certain games to the fullest more expensive.
8. These games potentially create internet forums that are fueled by large egos and competitive playing. Of course, any multiplayer game can be subject to this, but online only makes it worse because you are able to get these strangers to face each other in heartless bouts.

[Toadster]

1. Any? Not quite. Most? I'll agree.
2. Only some; but I think this is an exaggeration, as well as a generalization. Many people like the online experience, and so like it when games have that function available. It depends on the game, the genre, and the player.
3. Now this I completely disagree with. There are tonnes of games around today that are 1) Single player only or 2) Have a primary single player experience. Some examples? Metal Gear Solid 4, Dragon Age: Origins (and just about any RPG), the Fire Emblem series.
4. What's wrong with popularity? It seems you think that just because something is popular, that it's a bad thing. And generic? If you ask me, FPS have always been that way.
5. I don't see the problem. Most games don't have a dire need of communication, and nothing that a few mics won't cover.
6. There are positives and negatives to everything. But I don't see how this adds to your point; this seems more like a "local is better than online" argument rather than a "online corrupts the industry" argument. It seems to me you're just biased against online.
7. Sure, but it's the price to pay to get certain services. Online is not mandatory to play any game, unless I'm mistaken.
8. Yes, I agree. These types of things are a direct biproduct of online gaming. I just avoid them.

[Roy Koopa]

Fire Emblem isn't an example for online taking over the industry. Quite the opposite, in fact. The only Fire Emblem game released in the past two years was Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon, which as any fan of the series will tell you, had its single-player horrifically warped and mangled to, like so many others, improve the online multiplayer.

And the multiplayer is horrible, anyway.

[Ludwig Von Koopa]

"Online is not mandatory to play any game, unless I'm mistaken."


Wot about the games distributed digitally?

[Toadster]

Nov 30, 2009 19:01:04 GMT -5 Ludwig Von Koopa said:

"Online is not mandatory to play any game, unless I'm mistaken."


Wot about the games distributed digitally?

I was referring to online multiplayer.

[Ludwig Von Koopa]

Nov 30, 2009 20:26:01 GMT -5 Toadster said:

Nov 30, 2009 19:01:04 GMT -5 Ludwig Von Koopa said:

"Online is not mandatory to play any game, unless I'm mistaken."


Wot about the games distributed digitally?

I was referring to online multiplayer.

It is still relevant to online in general and the industry.

[Toadster]

Nov 30, 2009 20:27:07 GMT -5 Ludwig Von Koopa said:

Nov 30, 2009 20:26:01 GMT -5 Toadster said:

I was referring to online multiplayer.

It is still relevant to online in general and the industry.

I thought RNK was referring his argument to online multiplayer, based on his points.
ie:
6. It is not as fun as local multiplayer because it lacks your friends being around you.

A direct comparison between the two.

7. It has made playing certain games to the fullest more expensive.

But digitally distributed games are less expensive.

So my reply was specifically toward RNK's use of online multiplayer, since he doesn't reference digital distribution, but I do see how it's relevence.