Of course, that doesn't mean it's not another iPhone game. We'll just have to wait and see.
Assassin's Creed 2 MP on iPhone isn't the teased multiplayer game
by Richard Mitchell 
on Feb 4th 2010 6:10PM
16
Of course, that doesn't mean it's not another iPhone game. We'll just have to wait and see.
Reader Comments (16)
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 6:17PM (Unverified) said
This game doesn't need multiplayer.
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 6:33PM Ryuk said
Not understanding the need to put multiplayer in all the games that were amazing single player games. it's just unnecessary. Bioshock 2? Dead Space 2? AC? C'mon, we don't need this, just focus on the great single player story!
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 6:51PM AoE said
Yeah, honestly this trend to add multiplayer to everything is rather frustrating. What about those of us who like great single-player experiences? How about instead of shoehorning multiplayer in where it doesn't belong you spend those extra development monies on more polish and content for the single player experience.
No one really gives a crap about Bioshock 2 multiplayer... if you're gonna go for MP there FPS out there who do such an excellent job in that area that everyone else's MP is just redundant.
Reply
No one really gives a crap about Bioshock 2 multiplayer... if you're gonna go for MP there FPS out there who do such an excellent job in that area that everyone else's MP is just redundant.
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:08PM Zoinks said
I guess the new Internet thing is to bash any game that adds multiplayer in a sequel. It worked out great for Uncharted 2 so it is definitely possible for something like this to turn out good.
Having a multiplayer component helps the longevity of the game and reduces the amount of people instantly reselling it after they finish the story. This potentially allows more money to be spent on development leading to a better game.
Of course it's entirely possible for the single player to suffer because of resources being used elsewhere, but let's not automatically assume this will happen.
Reply
Having a multiplayer component helps the longevity of the game and reduces the amount of people instantly reselling it after they finish the story. This potentially allows more money to be spent on development leading to a better game.
Of course it's entirely possible for the single player to suffer because of resources being used elsewhere, but let's not automatically assume this will happen.
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:22PM AoE said
@Zoinks,
If it makes you feel better, I've been unhappy with the trend toward multiplayer since it started last generation. Likewise the trend away from splitscreen multiplayer. If I am going to play an MP console game, most often I prefer to do so with people sitting in the same room. I grew up a gamer with gamer friends, we like to play video games together as a social activity.
Reply
If it makes you feel better, I've been unhappy with the trend toward multiplayer since it started last generation. Likewise the trend away from splitscreen multiplayer. If I am going to play an MP console game, most often I prefer to do so with people sitting in the same room. I grew up a gamer with gamer friends, we like to play video games together as a social activity.
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:49PM (Unverified) said
I think the reason most game developers are putting multiplayer in games , is that people would buy rather than rent and keep rather than sell.
Reply
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 9:14PM Steven4 said
Not at all frustrating for me. I enjoy single player games, but fighting AI gets boring after a while. And single player games are usually a finite experience, like books and movies. How many times can you play it before you already know whats going to happen?
I'd rather play against a real human who thinks, strategizes, and is an actual challenge to beat. Multiplayer matches never play out the same way.
And for $60, single player just isn't enough unless it's a truly massive game like Fallout 3, or Oblivion.
Reply
I'd rather play against a real human who thinks, strategizes, and is an actual challenge to beat. Multiplayer matches never play out the same way.
And for $60, single player just isn't enough unless it's a truly massive game like Fallout 3, or Oblivion.
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 6:51PM Sora said
While unnecessary, tacked-on multiplayer isn't bad as long as aspects of the single-player game weren't sacrificed to create it. You don't have to play it if you don't want to, and multiplayer brings an entire new audience to a series which might otherwise not see that audience. At best, it just means more people will decide to buy (and enjoy) the game, allowing the developer to continue the series.
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 6:56PM YuponYumble said
The four Links?
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 8:17PM Cjgrimmreaper PSN Xbox LIVE said
Yeah the picture's a total reference to that crappy multiplayer addon to the best game of all time
Reply
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:41PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said
I wonder what the multiplayer mode will actually encompass. Is it going to be co-op or some kind of challenge modes (like in the carnival) versus other player or a straight up deathmatch mode, which would get old because everyone would be waiting to counter. I'd guess speed run assassination missions.
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 7:53PM Fromps said
I hope it's not the basic TDM/CTF/KOTH (I hate acronyms) and hopefully has Co-Op, I'll never complain about tacked on Co-Op unless it's online only. I miss Split-Screening.
Posted: Feb 4th 2010 8:06PM Deone said
Co-op with Assassin's Creed would be really cool. Dual assassination animations could be really awesome if they had more than ONE for the frontal attacks.
Competitive multiplayer on the other hand, i just don't know. If the little capture the flag segment in the single player mission was an indication of things to come, I'm not sold, especially as an individual title.
Any comparisons to splinter cell aren't really fair. Splinter Cell did something different with online multiplayer, and it's not easy to innovate. For every Kane & Lynch and Splinter Cell there are dozens of Darkness, GR's, COD 3's, etc.
For the record - I'm not defending K&L as a good game on its own merits, simply that they did something different with multiplayer.
Competitive multiplayer on the other hand, i just don't know. If the little capture the flag segment in the single player mission was an indication of things to come, I'm not sold, especially as an individual title.
Any comparisons to splinter cell aren't really fair. Splinter Cell did something different with online multiplayer, and it's not easy to innovate. For every Kane & Lynch and Splinter Cell there are dozens of Darkness, GR's, COD 3's, etc.
For the record - I'm not defending K&L as a good game on its own merits, simply that they did something different with multiplayer.
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM