{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Tyger:
8/22/2014 12:19:52 PM
32
will always online and "seamless matchmaking" define this gen?
This is definitely the trend at the moment.
The Crew, Destiny, The Division, The Tomorrow Children, No Man's Sky, Warframe and kind of Titanfall and Evolve... I'm sure many more as well. All these games are always connected to the internet and need that for many of the games mechanics. The foundation of these games was built around you being connected to other people.
Is this what we can expect from this gen? Devs trying to create living worlds full of players? We're also seeing a major influx of MMO's coming to consoles. FF14, ESO, planet side, day z, and more.
I personally hope this is just a fad. While I love co op, I would rather see devs use other methods to bring their worlds to life rather than throwing other players into mine.
What's your opinion on the trend?
English
#Gaming
-
I think the always online is super rad as a bonus feature, and it's great that so many games have it as an option. But I think it's pathetic if that defines the "next gen experience," because games like Dark Souls and Destiny basically have those features already on the last generation of consoles. Hopefully we just keep it as a great feature and don't try to milk it for the next 10 years until new consoles come out.
-
People are social - you need other people always.
-
Hopefully not. I want games to still have offline features that should stay offline. Games like Skyrim don't need internet and I certainly hope it never happens where all single player games need to be online for the sake of having internet. Servers, internet, and online features are always temporary. One day that server will get shut down or company will move there servers to more 'important' games. Then the game you enjoyed so much is gone and a dud, completely useless and unplayable because whatever online service was required is now dead. It's a temporary situation and I don't like that one bit. I like my games to be everlasting that can be played decades later. Games like KOTOR, Battlefront, Elder Scrolls, and so on won't exist in a generation that believes every game need online always.
-
[quote]seemless[/quote] -_- It's seamless.
-
It's just an excuse to collect data for all their tests and other things, I mean, look at Diablo III, 24/7 internet connection should NOT be required for that, but yet it was on the PC. (granted, the console versions aren't required to be connected, but that furthers my point.)
-
I think what we are going for in the gen of PS4 & the like is perfecting. Real graphics, great online, a alive world, good gameplay & so forth. Then starting here you'll see Oculous Rift & the like rising, by PS5 Oculous like stuff will be a big thing every where on all platiforms & it'll start to be refined. By PS6 &/or PS7 the rise of Sword Art Online Games will appear (hopefully) from companies/people combining to work towards it with they're millions/billions of dollars & we'll be going inside the game. IF we really push it, it can get here sooner.
-
I think its a good idea for them to focus on these aspects to make them better.
-
I would not call "always online" and "seamless matchmaking" fads, but they are certainly not sufficient to make a quality game. I look forward to Planetside 2, but I was bored with Destiny within the first day and spent the rest of the beta in the Crucible except for the Moon mission. As a PvPer, I obviously love online, but outside of BF and PS2, I am looking for a select few stories that I find interesting. It is to the point I might try COD:AW for the story and Kevin Spacey without playing COD PvP.
-
2 RepliesI really hope not. That's the only thing I dislike about Destiny to be honest, always having to be online. It wouldn't be so bad if they gave us the option to be offline, especially given how unreliable servers can be.
-
I don't mind it, then again I have an awesome ISP.
-
I think it'll be incorporated a lot more this gen but I personally don't really like it. Like Mystic said, you won't be able to play that game after a couple years if the servers go down.
-
I really hope it's just a fad. While some games are more fun with friends, I've always liked playing single player games more. I like the idea of No Mans Sky, where it is a multiplayer game, but you'll almost never run into another player. It gives it more of a single player feel while still being online.
-
Co - Op is defining this gen.
-
First the technology will have to advance. Having a more powerful machine to play games on is one thing, but I think the "living worlds full of players" requires an advancement not of gaming hardware but the internet's infrastructure, something on par with the widespread adoption of DSL and broadband a decade ago. Unfortunately, the thing holding that advancement back is a bunch of crooked cable companies that charge more and more for internet access all while trying to convince people they need television subscriptions. And while those games you've mentioned are definitely moving in that direction, many games are not. So, I'm kind of on the fence on this one.
-
Edited by Berk: 8/31/2015 11:36:57 PMRedacted
-
I hate always online for games with a singleplayer, it makes more since with a game like titanfall as its all MP, but even then that always online will kill LAN gameplay. Also as we have seen both with EA and Blizzard, there can be a day one crash and you will get pissed off people, because first impressions count, and if I can't play the game I just paid for, not very good is it?
-
Yea and I'm okay with it. As long as there is the option to keep it off. Playing Wind Waker and picking up bottles left by others on the shore, looking over and seeing a new squad mate in Destiny, etc. is really cool.
-
2 RepliesEdited by Astraeos: 8/21/2014 4:51:30 AMHonestly, the always online isn't bad. I really liked playing watchdogs and in the middle of doing something someone would come into my world and spice things up a bit. I also really enjoyed when I went online and did a death match, when the game ended all the destruction that was caused during the match was still there and it was as if I was in single player the whole time. I think its pretty cool, they are making games more social and having the community interact more. In my mind, I can see it completely change the way we play games, and the way the world feels. As an example, The next Elder Scrolls/Fall out game will allow you to see a few people here and there out in the wild, and maybe give you an option to interact with them, you could trade with them, group up, maybe challenge them to a duel. When you go to a city (a perfect example is sanctuary in Destiny) you see a lot more players and interact with each of them, maybe find a few people to party up with then go out into the wild (I would be a lot like a MMO but random other players wont get in the way of you playing a single player/co-op game) But this would also demand more open world games (which almost every game now is an open world)
-
1 ReplyAlways online and seamless matchmaking are two different things but can go together. Such as Warframe, Titanfall and Evolve are online only games but they are in no sense seamless. You find matches cause you want to find matches to play with others. While games like Destiny are always online but allow for seamless matchmaking by not forcing the player to search for people and instead randomly encounter but not open the floodgates to full blown MMO status of player size. And probably for Bloodborne it won't be always online I would imagine but they intend for players to have a more "seamless" connections to each other like bumping into each other while playing like in Destiny.
-
100% agreed. I cant believe more people aren't pissed about it. Microsoft, the enemy in many cases, got slaughtered for it.
-
2 RepliesThis is the socialization generation, as far as gaming goes. Both Xbox One and PS4 can share videos in the press of a button, hell on the XBOX you can record them without pressing anything. Then there's Twitch support, the ability to comment on other players' content, even GameShare. Even Nintendo is doing it to an extent with StreetPass and SpotPass. All those things are well and good, natural even, but we're slowly getting to a point where we only socialize when we're alone, and I think that's a problem. I would much rather have a friend over at my house to play vidya than do it over the Internet but it's not really a feasible option anymore. Soon games are probably going to start being published on consoles and produced by Facebook.
-
You can still play on your own. And you should start excepting that its not this gen its every gen from now till the end of the internet.
-
2 RepliesIt very well could be. But I think it can be done better than in destiny.
-
1 ReplyProbably not
-
I prefer co-op games in general but that doesn't mean I always want strangers in there also
-
I'm sure always online and mmo -ish qualities will abound in games this gen. But I wouldn't be too worried about single player games going down the drain. There is a good amount of people who still want that personal story only single player games can give. So devs who want to make a great story will probably still focus on that rather than shoving you into an always online world.
