Naka/Ogawa interview: New Sonic game

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:51 pm

Well in the case of the examples you gave, they all suck except for PSO

Funny you should say that considering PSO has the most shallow gameplay of the ones I mentioned.

and that one was intended to be a multiplayer game from the ground up (and I get the impression Halo 2 was as well, because there's really no reason at all to play the story mode in that).

As was MechAssault since it was made to be THE Xbox Live game and was for a time.

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:47 pm

It's funny considering PSO is easily one of the best of those.

ALL of those games you mentioned, with the sole exception of Pandora Tomorrow, were designed pretty much purely for multiplayer (and PT's multiplayer was completely different from the single player). And don't argue about Brute Force, because that game just sucked.

Anyways, if you are incapable of enjoying a single-player game for more than a few hours... I laugh.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:10 pm

Funny you should say that considering PSO has the most shallow gameplay of the ones I mentioned.

That's a debatable statement (especially considering PSO is the oldest of the ones you mentioned), but my point is that you're relying on the exterior stimulus of live interaction to fortify a game that is, by itself, pretty boring. If you admit that the game is boring but you only play it because you like chatting with friends... why not just pop into an IRC chat or go outside and play tag or something?

I'm not arguing against the idea of multiplayer games and certainly not against their potential, particularly online, but I would say that, if it's not something you'd play on your own as well as with friends - ie, if it's a repetitive, simple, shallow action game, as most multiplayer games currently are - it's not good enough, at least not anymore.

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:13 pm

I agree on both sides. I played more or less nothing, but single player games until I got Xbox Live back in '02. The only real exception to that was StarCraft. They are tons of fun, but so are multiplayer games. Like someone said earlier they really can't be compared. They are diferent expieriences.

Most of the games Chris mentioned were designed solely to be played multiplayer, I beat Mech Assault 2's campaign in one 4 hour sitting cause they just didn't care about it. The story didn't even make any sense. The whole campaigns purpose was too teach you the controls pretty much.

And now onto PSO. I probably played that game more than Any of you, I had like 1000 hours clocked in on the Xbox, but to be honest the game was more addicting that anything. All you do is tap A three times then do it again going through the exact same stages infinite amounts of time. I think what appealed about it so much was that you could pick it up and play it whenever. It was always there when you were bored. The voice chat did wonders for it also, I never played it on the Dreamcast, but I don't think it'd be nearly as enjoyable without the headset. To be honest I think you guys are kind of overrating the game a bit cause you're fanboys. I'm not saying its a bad game, but gameplay-wise its crap.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:31 pm

To be honest I think you guys are kind of overrating the game a bit cause you're fanboys. I'm not saying its a bad game, but gameplay-wise its crap.

No arguments there, it's one of the reasons that it blows me away they're still releasing the same shit over and over and over. Like most of the early online games, it was a great way to test the water, and I certainly can't say that progress hasn't been made at all, but y'know... what next? How do you use the idea of live human interaction and make it a part of the experience rather than simply a distraction to cover the fact that your game is banal?

Post by **Segaholic2** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:36 pm

I'm excited about the new PC version, so long as there's a crack for personal LAN games. That will rock.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:11 pm

I'm not arguing against the idea of multiplayer games and certainly not against their potential, particularly online, but I would say that, if it's not something you'd play on your own as well as with friends - ie, if it's a repetitive, simple, shallow action game, as most multiplayer games currently are - it's not good enough, at least not anymore.

The reason it's not as fun alone is because an AI can't possibly compete with a living opponent.

And don't even try an tell me Brute Force sucks. Squad deathmatches are fun as hell as is four player system link coop. It still surprises me that Halo 2 didn't follow the Brute Force model in terms of multiplayer options and limited the coop mode to two guys on one box.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:33 pm

The reason it's not as fun alone is because an AI can't possibly compete with a living opponent.

That, and the games you mentioned suck independently of that fact.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:02 pm

I'd like to know what a good multiplayer game would be then.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:18 pm

Hm... could be many things. As for what I personally consider to be the most successful multiplayer games out now, I think there are some one-on-one fighting games that fit the bill, especially Virtua Fighter. There are some online RPG's that I think are definitely heading in the right direction, but there are certain pitfalls that have yet to be overcome.

There's really nothing outstanding right now, or at least nothing with lasting appeal (even I don't feel like playing Smash Bros anymore). Hence my original stance.

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:22 am

Chris, you suck the fun out of EVERYTHING.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:52 am

Your mom fucks the sun out of everything.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:58 am

I read that as "fucks the sun out of everything."

And it was better that way.

The Doc · Post by **The Doc** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:45 am

The reason I keep playing PSO and liking it is because it's so random. No, seriously. There's literally hundreds of different items you can have and choose from, and that they can really pop up from out of nowhere really appeals to me.

Not to mention that I'm big on video game music. The tracks in Ep. I & II (well, most of them) are beautiful, in a word.

The biggest problem, though, is that anybody who'd play Multiplayer with me don't live around here anymore, and I'm not gonna bother going online 'cause of that whole player-killing, black-screen-of-deathing, item-stealing thing.

j-man · Post by **j-man** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:55 am

Counterstrike is fun with the microphone thing. Playing with 14-year-old chavs/townies/whatever you call them is awesome.

"Yo blud, you dropped da gun innit!"
"Shu'up you batty, I'm bare good at this game. You da one wot dropped da gun, yeah."
"You fuckin' clown wot, we is gettin nuff shot by da terrorists innit! Sort your fuckin life out you gay boy."

Good times.

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:57 am

GameSpot posts about the new Sonic games on rumor control. They cite SonicHQ, and claim you can't read the interview online. Ho ho ho. Losers.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/18 ... 16462.html

Post by **G.Silver** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:06 pm

Aren't they talking about the article that will appear next month, which can't be read online because it is has not been published in any form yet?

The Doc · Post by **The Doc** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:35 pm

Yeah, prob'ly.

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:33 pm

Read the first post in this thread.