| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (52)

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 4:33PM Captain Planet Planeteer Power said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Not even co-op campaign? Come on!

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 4:41PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Agreed. You have to include some kind of multiplayer component in a shooter.
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 4:43PM Dr Blight said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
BioShock says 'hello'.
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 4:43PM Brother Unit No 4 said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
This.

I wish more shooters had co-op.
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 4:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
There's some kind of irony in the fact that people complained about Bioshock 2 having multiplayer, and how it was a gimmick and all of that. But then people questioning why this shooter doesn't.
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 5:17PM Captain Planet Planeteer Power said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I guess I'm just spoiled with games like Halo, Gears of War, L4D, etc that offer co-op capabilities for the single player mode. It adds a lot of value and it's just more fun to save the world with your best buddies.
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 5:18PM tenacioustoaster said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I just miss local multiplayer.
I was hoping Bad Company 2 would have some but it didn't...
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 5:24PM Brodo said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Resident Evil 4 say "hello" as well.
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 5:29PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While the typical MP match kinda stuff sin't as exciting and necessary for a FPS as it used to be (for me at least) I do like to see some coop in there - especially local coop if possible.
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 7:44PM NaeemTHM said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Metroid Prime kicks you right in the nads, then the sequel apologizes, then Metroid Prime kills Metroid Prime 2 for saying sorry.
Reply

Posted: Mar 6th 2010 4:09AM JamesHks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
captain planet.... downvoted?
*earth shatters beneath feet*
Reply

Posted: Jul 11th 2010 3:31PM Calcographer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) Pretty much the way I see it. With this being the initial game in a series (if successful that is), it may be one of those that just wouldn't feel as organic with MP (Bioshock being the best example of such.)

It's a "wait & see" for me. Nothing worse than "tacked on" anything.
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 4:40PM Dr Blight said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Good. Too many games throw in a multiplayer mode that's dead after a month.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 4:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'd rather know what makes it any different from the billions of other shooters coming out.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 5:57PM Hyams said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
It's a third person cover shooter (see: Gears of War), but with a heavy focus on speed (see: not Gears of War).

There's also no human enemies - all enemies are robots. Which might make a nice change, actually.
Reply

Posted: Mar 8th 2010 3:20PM Prox said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
...but are they humanoid robots?
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 4:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
COD4, Gears of War, Halo, etc... have great single-player campaigns, as well as great multiplayer modes. Plus, they have co-op and "invastion" type modes. You can have a great single player and multiplayer. If he is just going for a single player experience, it better be incredibly amazing. Just because it doesn't have a multiplayer mode doesn't mean it'll automatically be a better shooter.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 4:47PM Haywire said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I imagine that all of those games had larger budgets than this one. CoD was an established franchise and Halo and Gears were first-party titles, so they could afford to build great single-player and multiplayer experiences
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 5:17PM NIck PSN ID Rattlehead91 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wouldn't necessarily call the campaigns of GoW and Halo good...
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 6:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Yes, Halo 3, GOW, and GoW2, had great campaigns. They had co-op, and were very fun to play; also, they were around 10 hours.

Those games managed to get a great campaign, as well as a great multiplayer. This game is coming out for $60 and it wants to compete without having a multiplayer, or even co-op?

Vanquish will be a mediocre 10 hour campaign shooter. Save your money up for Halo:Reach, or Bad Company 2.
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 4:46PM Baron Milton Von Crompton said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Cut them some slack, for goodness sakes!

I believe I know what Mikami is on about; imagine a game as intense and as action packed as Bayonetta. Now throw in a second player or more, and the screen will get so convoluted that it'd be near impossible to make heads or tails out of the gameplay chaos. Lag too, in this case and going with the same formula, would be an issue for online multiplayer support to run smoothly.

Also to note is the fact that most shooters 'are' multiplayer in nature, and as such they can be fun but nothing really as intense as Bayonetta in a single player campaign.

If Vanguish is at all as intense as Bayonetta or even more so, but not to the extreme where it becomes a convoluted mess, then I'd gladly sign up for a copy of this game.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 6:16PM Baron Milton Von Crompton said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yep, although fun, but would have wished it to be so much more visceral and intense... also, the lag is an issue, as you've clearly noted.
Reply

Posted: Mar 6th 2010 4:25AM maveric101 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i felt like the gears 1 multi was much less glitchy than 2. in gears 2 i would shoot a guy 3 times with the shotgun, once in the face, he would finally turn to see me, take maybe one tiny step, shoot once and blow my head off. there was absolutely no consistency in how the shotgun killed people (in gears 2).
Reply

Posted: Mar 7th 2010 5:06PM SirUrza said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Mr.ESC: Go try some Gears 2 now. Most of the teabagging laggers aren't around anymore... why? They're all playing Modern Warfare 2 now. Every now and then you get inexplainably matched up with a group from china or something, but for the most part you can get two or three hours of enjoyment out of it without many problems.
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 4:46PM darthnazgul said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Saaaaay... wasn't Mikami the crazy Kira in Death Note!
;D

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 5:04PM ComicShaman said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Yes, I agree. Suddenly, this game is on my radar.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 5:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
well..... im honestley kind of excited about this cant remember the last time asian pplz made a shooter that caught my eye and im glad it doesnt have an mp because theres 2 many shooters coming out so i can play this and enjoy and no camping or bs or titanium looking suit TBAGING

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 5:21PM GuardianLegend said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wish all singleplayer games had the option for another player to log in as a "Dungeon Master" type player, where he could take direct control of any of the AI enemies, and use their abilities against the player. This was seen in Neverwinter Nights. Or perhaps a Demon's Souls-like system.

I'm just really, really tired of fighting AI. For me, they are never very satisfying to play against anymore.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 5:32PM RKN said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
May single player never die!

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 5:42PM Ashkental said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Japanese people making shooters?

That's like having DICE or Bungie making JRPGs

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 6:01PM armageddon said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I've bought one game based on the multiplayer (second 8) and that's it, otherwise I buy a game for the single player as that is the part that truly offers an experience. Multiplayer is nearly always just a place for frat boys to show off their digital penises.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 6:05PM acefondu said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Companies shouldn't have to force in multiplayer. A game's intention should either be for multiplayer or for single player from the start. When a product knows what it is it has a better chance of being awesome.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 6:14PM Baron Milton Von Crompton said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Here! Here!

I am thinking the exact same thing. :D

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 6:28PM BoBsS said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Okay I'll accept his argument only on a few grounds though.

The campaign needs to be relatively long, not a "intense" 8 hour campaign. I'm talking at least 12 hours+.

It can't be repetitive.

and so on and so on ...

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 6:30PM TonyGeezy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm interested in the game specifically for its single player content, but I'm not so sure about its use of bullet time, I'm really tired of that gimmick. Hopefully it's fun.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 6:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hyams

..So playing as a Vanguard in ME2 the game?

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 6:51PM kenny goo said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Somebody's been playing too much Mass Effect.

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/276/930279_20051004_screen001.jpg

I'm gonna keep posting this picture on every news article for this game. How horribly uninspired does this game look?

Posted: Mar 6th 2010 1:54PM JeezWhiz87 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
At this point your posts are looking horribly uninspired.
Reply

Posted: Mar 6th 2010 6:21PM kenny goo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
When I start making a video game out of my comments on Joystiq, I'll be sure to take your criticism in mind. Until then, I'm gonna continue to laugh at how cheesy that is when I can put an old screenshot of ME1 next to it and they look nearly identical.
Reply

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 8:01PM Nintendo Tim said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Good.

Frankly, he doesn't have to explain; the only multiplayer games people will play, not complain about, and play until the servers get turned off are Halo and Call of Duty.

If you can put more resources towards developing a single-player experience that is absolutely phenomenal, then why do one of two things, hampering that experience: (1) Same dev time, but reduce people on SP to focus on MP or (2) Increase dev time while making both components. Doing (1) will detract from the game's overall quality, and (2) will cost more money, require more people, and piss gamers off, having them wait 2 more years for the thing to come out.

I'm all for spending as much time as you need to make a game it's absolute best, but when you're detracting from one aspect to make one better, then the game falls short. Hell, look at Metroid Prime 2. Campaign wasn't the greatest (it was still a damned good game), but the tacked on MP felt just that: tacked on.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 8:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree. It's about time that someone excludes multiplayer to make a good game. Bioshock 2 is including multiplayer, right? Won't buy it. Condemned 2 had multiplayer and the storyline sucked. If they weren't working on multiplayer, the game might have been good.

And screw the original Bioshock. It doesn't even support alternate controls.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 8:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Crap, and neither did Condemned. I hate when I mention things and leave other things out.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 8:23PM husher said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i like the trailer's style more then the current in-game style. the armor in the trailer just looked smooth and polished with soft tones to it. very clean.
now it just looks like something out of michael bay damn workshop.

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 9:15PM Shiaoran said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
To all the multiplayertards:

IN YOUR FACE!

Posted: Mar 5th 2010 9:34PM neoXmahi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What he's really trying to say is what was said with 'Lost Planet 2' so many weeks ago.. "Yeah, uh... we only have about 8GB total to work with so, in order to the keep the Xbox 360 most popular, we're willing to sacrifice for the good of their gamers by cutting off part of the game so we can fit it onto a single disc. Even though Blu-ray has 50GB maybe 58GB, we don't really care, cause we have to save face with 360 gamers." That's why its only single player.

Posted: Jun 28th 2010 9:23PM Chyld989 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

Please stop.
Reply

Posted: Mar 6th 2010 1:23AM ftank1 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'm glad he had the balls to say "No" to what would most likely be slapped on multiplayer.
For the most part, the multiplayer in most games is as big a novelty/gimmick as the motion controls for all those crappy, 3rd party Wii games nobody buys - so why bother spending all that time/money/resources on something that noone will want to touch a week after getting the game and probably wouldn't touch again unless it were for achievements/trophies

Posted: Mar 6th 2010 10:34AM BanditKing said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My hats off to Mikami for making a game and not some online multiplayer component with a single player training mission. Games are all about the single player and better that he make a great game then dillute it by having to focus on multiplayer balancing. Single player for the win!

Posted: Mar 6th 2010 10:36AM BanditKing said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My hats off to Mikami for making a game and not some online multiplayer with a single player training mode. Its better that he focus on making a great game and not have to worry about multiplayer balancing that will only degrade the over the top action.

Posted: Mar 6th 2010 1:56PM JeezWhiz87 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I really don't give a damn about multi-player, so as such I'm really glad when devs focus on the single player experience. I salute you Mikami.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW