Naughty Dog’s upcoming PS3 exclusive, The Last of Us, is looking absolutely fantastic as a single player experience and now for the first time we get to see how the multiplayer portion will play out – and I’m very much in two minds about it.
It’s no surprise that the movement and aiming has taken a lot of cues from Uncharted and I have to say it’s starting to look a little dated. The stiff crouch movements and floaty aiming doesn’t match with the polish and hype that is surrounding this title.
But just as I was about to stop playing the video our hero hurdled a barrier and instantly swapped from bad shooting to beating the living daylights out of the enemy with planks and bare hands. That seamless swapping between shooting and fighting appeals to me. Hopefully all the actions aren’t simply canned and you can decide whether you are going to kick or punch the enemy.
What do you think? though, honestly – if you’re in this for the multiplayer, then you’re doing it wrong.
Last Updated: June 4, 2013
Sir Rants-a-Lot Llew
June 4, 2013 at 07:57
I don’t know hey. The game really seems to be a single player game. I don’t think multiplayer is needed or adds any real value to the game.
I guess a bit of co-op could be cool but wouldn’t it take away from the feeling that the game is trying to invoke?
Zubayr Bhyat
June 4, 2013 at 08:15
Must be this new sickness called required multiplayer. It’s spread to epidemic proportions hey.
Sir Rants-a-Lot Llew
June 4, 2013 at 08:31
I actually really don’t mind multiplayer. I reckon that multiplayer can really add something to a game if done right and with the right kind of game.
It’s just when certain games come out that have a certain feel to it (like Last of Us) that I feel it can easily destroy the atmosphere and all that. Look at Deadspace3. The addition of hop in co-op was not the best of choices because it forced the game to be more action orientated to warrant a 2nd player.
But then you look at a game such as Crysis and you can see how multiplayer can only be a good addition to it to help increase the value.
But yes, as you said, the curse of required multiplayer is not good and needs to be re investigated by the developers and publishers. Imagine if some games had spent the time they used for bolt on multiplayer for the single player portion instead and just not added multiplayer how good some of those could have been.
Argentil
June 4, 2013 at 08:34
I think a better comparison is the Uncharted series. Also story-driven, third person games by naughty dog with multiplayer added onto a single-player experience. The multiplayer did get progressively better with time, but it’s still not something I would play much at all. If it’s something that ties in well with the zombie apocalypse setting, like DayZ, or a co-op campaign, I’m all for it.
Sir Rants-a-Lot Llew
June 4, 2013 at 08:40
Ah yes. DayZ is the best example of good multiplayer (well MMO I guess). It’s perfect because the game mechanics allow for it. You still get that desolate feeling.
I think this is what devs and publishers are missing completely.
You can create one or the other. Not both. There are very few titles which allow both fantastic single player and multiplayer.
But, at the end of the day it’s the sales that count and the more people they can appeal to the more games will try to cover as much ground as possible on both sides of the fence.
Zubayr Bhyat
June 4, 2013 at 08:34
Agree about Crysis. If the multiplayer and single player was entirely separate for titles like Last of Us then the single player could still maintain its credibility.
Sir Rants-a-Lot Llew
June 4, 2013 at 08:50
Indeed. And people still want dedicated singleplayer. Just look at how well Bioshock Infinite and Skyrim did. Both decidedly singleplayer. Both very focused.
Look at CoD and Battlefield. Both decidedly Multiplayer (yes they have singleplayer but let’s be honest, in both these cases the single player is the bolt on section as the MP is what is really important to both these titles)
So it’s really focus that is needed. Too often I play a game and can’t decide where the devs were actually trying to focus their resources as both SP and MP in games usually feel like they are lacking a bit of polish that should have been there for at least one aspect.
Argentil
June 4, 2013 at 08:55
Multiplayer is easy to outsource and implement.
Sir Rants-a-Lot Llew
June 4, 2013 at 09:00
Ah, but therein lies a fundamental flaw. It’s outsourced.
That means that:
1) The feeling is lost because it’s being outsourced to people who didn’t have much to do with the original design and implementation phases and so they don’t understand the true atmosphere of the game.
2) It’s money being spent on something that could rather be spent in-house meaning either a better version of the multiplayer or a more polished singleplayer game.
3) It increases development costs by a large sum of money as outsourcing isn’t always cheap and so it damages the chances of the game being a real success (money wise)
So yes, it can be outsourced but personally I don’t think it’s the best choice.
I’m no expert though. So I maybe wrong on my little narrow viewpoint.
Argentil
June 4, 2013 at 09:05
Just sayin’
I think Naughty Dog’s team B were working on multiplayer anyway.
Sir Rants-a-Lot Llew
June 4, 2013 at 09:10
Well as long as it was still in house then they probably managed to keep the feel of it. People will have to play it first though before being able to really comment on it.
I think that is the most important aspect. Do as much in house as possible to avoid huge differences that could destroy the game.
Zubayr Bhyat
June 4, 2013 at 09:03
Outsourcing can happen in single player too. This disappoints me because in Human Revolution one of the most annoying aspects of the game happened to be the bosses, which incidentally was an outsourced component. That’s why Outsourcing is a risky venture at best.
Umar Kiiroi Senk?
June 4, 2013 at 08:14
Looks cool, A survival mode with friends could be really fun, but for me, as a forever aloner, Single player is where it’s at. I think this game’s strong point and focal point should and always remain the single player campaign. I do agree with the clumsiness of the controls, but I don’t know why it seems better suited in the single player campaign, based on the demo footage I’ve seen.
ElimiNathan
June 4, 2013 at 08:24
I think it looks pretty cool actually
Admiral Chief Commander
June 4, 2013 at 08:26
You can see its console, aiming is all up to sh!t.
That being said, it does look fun though
Umar Kiiroi Senk?
June 4, 2013 at 08:28
Aiming ain’t that bad on console
Jakster
June 4, 2013 at 09:31
PC fanboi troll is PC fanboi troll. Clearly you haven’t played KZ, Halo and Gears.
Admiral Chief Commander
June 4, 2013 at 09:32
Be that as it may, aiming is and always will be better with mouse
Argentil
June 4, 2013 at 09:41
Elitism aside; I prefer mouse and keyboard to analogue controller any day. Just play Dust514. It has Mouse and keyboard support, but you get people playing with controllers also. It’s very clear who is using a controller and who isn’t. Why would you deliberately choose a clunky, slow, inaccurate method, over something faster and more accurate?
I do appreciate the appeal of a controller, it’s comfortable, and it feels better with most games. I actually prefer third-person shooters on console, for example.
Admiral Chief Commander
June 4, 2013 at 09:53
Not being elite, I actually think the game looks awesome, but I’m not a fan of the aiming with controllers, be it on PC, console etc.
OVG
June 4, 2013 at 08:45
I suppose if the single player is as epic as Tomb Raider then we do not mind the extra fluff.
Admiral Chief Commander
June 4, 2013 at 08:47
As long as the fluff is as awesome as this:
OVG
June 4, 2013 at 08:51
lol
Argentil
June 4, 2013 at 08:48
Wut? This looks fantastic, are you smoking something? It has so much atmosphere, and the animations are wonderful, as is always the case with ND. Such a negative Nancy you are, Gavin.
The one thing that bothered me about Uncharted’s multiplayer is that it didn’t make sense to me at all. Seeing 2 Nathan Drakes, a Drake in a tux, Elena zipping by chasing after Cole Mcgrath. It was fun, sure, but after building up the single player campaign, I never liked the idea of shooting some of my favourite characters in a deathmatch-styled environment. My main issue with Uncharted’s multiplayer was context and setting. This game has rectified those issues for me entirely.
Jakster
June 4, 2013 at 09:29
My two biggest gripes with Uncharted were the boss fights and the shooting. Everything else
Naughty Dog has mastered. Also, I’m disappointed that Naughty Dog are
following Activision into evolving this engine rather than a new one for
the next-gen
Argentil
June 4, 2013 at 09:50
I share in your disappointment. Naughty Dog are a large part of why the PS3 had such great looking exclusives. Sony’s studios share all of their expertise and resources. LittleBigPlanet was made on God of War 3’s engine, for example.
I remain positive that it’s a matter of the engine upgrading well enough to warrant not
creating a new one, for now. That and the ability to release games across playstation platforms would be handy. It could also be that the architecture of the console is less complicated, and so there is less need to develop a specialised engine?
Jakal
June 4, 2013 at 13:27
This looks great to me!