Multi-player dropped from Force Unleashed

1 min read

Say it isn’t so…. In an interview with Eurogamer, Cameron Suey has revealed that the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed are not going to have any multi-player at all…

He says that it was a very easy difficult decision (?) but that they decided to ensure that it comes with a great single player story and not a mediocre single player and multi-player…

While I think he may have a point I do think they are going to suffer on the sales side for this decision. With the PSN and Live now integrated into every games brain it is hard to understand why any game is developed with no multi-player portion at all.

When that game is made up of people running around with light sabers then the mind completely boggles…

There is no mention of the Wii, PS2, DS and PSP platforms having multi-player or not…

Force Unleashed PS3/360 “indistinguishable” News // None /// Eurogamer

[Thanks to doobiwan for the tip]

Last Updated: May 14, 2008

Gavin Mannion

I for one welcome our future robotic overlords

  • Naudran

    This is a big disappointment. How can anyone in today’s age develop any game with out some sort of multiplayer…

    This game has just dropped from my “must buy” list. Except for my JRPG’s, I only really enjoy games that has some sort of replay value. Co-op is a must in any decent game, I usually don’t have the will power to finish games without the help of my online co-op buddies. *Sigh*

  • Naudran

    As an example, I would have never finished GoW without Co-op. Playing the campaign alone with just the AI was just not entertaining enough. πŸ™‚

  • PaasHaas

    I think what you mentioned now is exactly what they are trying to avoid.

    If a games single player becomes a chore to complete it has failed in that aspect and by dumping multiplayer they can “hopefully” prevent that and create a truely entertaining single player experiance wether it is through improved gameplay or story/plot.

    Weak story/plot singleplayer is the main reason I dont even touch 80+ percent of the games available mainly because they have weak single player and try to patch the game together with multiplayer.

    I fully support this and think it is a good thing imo
    There is more than enough multiplayer games available for the masses to enjoy

    If they drop MP and they single player is still not excellent then they are screwed tho πŸ˜•

  • Banana hammock

    Doesn’t bother me at all, i’d much rather have a better SP game than a 5 hour SP effort like COD4 and then MP after that.

    MP is great, but it should not be to the cost of the SP mode unless it’s specialising in that area like WarHawk.

  • Naudran

    I find games more enjoyable if I can share that experience with friends. I would rather buy a game for “single player”, if that single player includes co-op… it’s just so much moer fun.

    I used GoW as an example above and I’m giong to use it again. I’ve only ever played deathmatch GoW 3 times in my life but the co-op in the game is what got me to actually buy the game and finish it.

    This is where I think, rather delay a game for a year, but in some multi player/co-op and give the game so replay value. Otherwise you play the game, finish it but it on the rack and there it sits.

    Replay value is always a must in games I buy, otherwise it’s just a waste of money IMHO.

  • Naudran

    Excuse the horrific typo’s :mrgreen:

  • bhw

    I agree – I think the success of online MP has relegated many games SP campaigns to nothing more than MP training missions. I for one lament the demise of the well constructed SP campaign in FPS/Shooters

  • JimBob

    Good on them. I wish more developers would follow their example. Why not spend the energy on the singel-player game rather than having rubbish mutliplayer that no one plays (like the Darkness and Condemned 2).

    Too many games bolt on inadequate mutliplayer and/or co-op, which then compromises the single-player experience, too. I look forward to a focused, awesome single-player game and couldn’t care less that there is no MP.

  • While I agree with the principle of “do it right”, there are many that do get both right, Halo, CoD4, Gears etc. To say it can’t be don’t is just lazy. Heck even the Ultimate online only game, Battlefield is doing a solid story mode. I can definitely say it’s a bad idea for SW:FU. They’re just being cheap and lazy.

    Why the heck can the Wii get multiplayer and the “online consoles” don’t? I love star wars (I guess the tags a bit of a giver πŸ˜‰ ) but the universe is getting old and worn out. How many times can they rehash revenge and redemption?

    The shining light of all the Star wars games I’ve played was without a doubt Jedi knight/outcasts/Academies multiplayer, it just worked perfectly and was a thing of beauty in a crowded FPS market.

    Now in the ultimate Jedi game they’re ditching their crown jewels? Thanks but no thanks SW,FU. πŸ˜‰

  • bhw

    Even the games you mentioned (GOW & COD4) SP campaigns were only about 6-8 hrs in length and I just feel like we are gamers are getting shortchanged. The original Halflife had a SP campaign that took 20-30 hrs to complete and had an awesome MP as well (Death by exploding cockroaches FTW).

  • I guess I just play differently. When it comes to a shooter I find the ~8-10 hours ones are the perfect length for me before I get bored. To be honest I gave up on both BioShock and Half-Life2 because the story was just being drawn out.

Check Also

Twitch secures exclusive rights for the NBA G Leauge

Twitch TV, the most dominant online streaming platform, is taking the next crucial step in…