PlayStation®3 Games

[Cloudedpaul]

---

TheBigSpringbok wrote:

I think the only 12 year old around here is this Scorpio fellow..(judging by his avatar and sig, and ongoing rants anyways..)

I for one love MP in games. It adds much needed longevity to my purchases.

---

hey say what you want about scorpio, but dont ever diss sephiroth.........

[pinhead9810]

I would buy the full version, don't play much online.

[Max_Ping]

---

 <<<<<  IXIScorpioIXI wrote:

Uncharted 2 for example was in development for two years, they probably spent around 6-8 months on the multiplayer part of the game which could have been 6-8 months more onto the single player part of the game. >>>>>

IF the game takes two years to develop how is adding another 6 months going to improve it, they dont develop the game and say "well it could have been much better but we had to get it finished  in the 12 months we promised the customers"

<<<< The game has replayability because people keep repeating the storymode over and over again, I am currently on my 3rd playthrough and have yet to get bored. >>>>>

There is no right or wrong here but  I cannot imagine anything more boring than replaying a game over and over, for me the MP is where the challenge is  and every game is different unlike the SP.

---

[techwondo]

---

IXIScorpioIXI wrote:

Call of Duty

Call of Duty 2

Call of Duty 3

Call of Duty 4

Call of Duty 5

Call of Duty 6

Warhawk

---

How dare you place Warhawk next to CoD?

With its lag free connection, wide choice of weapons, varied areanas, challenging gameplay, high calibre of players and generaly sublime gameplay experience, Warhawk is head and shoulders above the disfigured and limping CoD series.

[Max_Ping]

That being said - I tend to enjoy single player experiences more than MOST multiplayer games. When multiplayer games come out they are good until you come across the people who don't have lives and sit on it day in, day out to unlock every advantage the makers reward them with for choosing their game over real-life. Then it tends to get tedious. I don't have the time to throw into gaming anymore with work and a wife (also 12) to balance; gaming takes a back seat.

---

I would agree that some pople obviously spend a lot of time online and rank up fast however good players also rank up faster than those who are not as good due to the points system.

I hope one of the devs realises how frustrating new players find going into a match with a choice of the worst guns aginst  players with more experience (read practice)  and have the full choice of perks and weapons, on-line play should be on a level playing field, no "deep impact" and noob rubbish just the choice of a few guns for each class and let skill be the deciding factor.

[IXIScorpioIXI]

---

Max_Ping wrote:

---

 <<<<<  IXIScorpioIXI wrote:

Uncharted 2 for example was in development for two years, they probably spent around 6-8 months on the multiplayer part of the game which could have been 6-8 months more onto the single player part of the game. >>>>>

IF the game takes two years to develop how is adding another 6 months going to improve it, they dont develop the game and say "well it could have been much better but we had to get it finished  in the 12 months we promised the customers"

<<<< The game has replayability because people keep repeating the storymode over and over again, I am currently on my 3rd playthrough and have yet to get bored. >>>>>

There is no right or wrong here but  I cannot imagine anything more boring than replaying a game over and over, for me the MP is where the challenge is  and every game is different unlike the SP.

---

 What the hell are you on about. I said the game took two years to develop. Not that they should have spent 2 and 1/2 years developing the storyline. Merely that they spent 6-8 months out of them two years creating a multiplayer instead of spending 6-8 months instead on the single player.

[slimpervy]

What's to say the same people work on the single player that work on the multiplayer???

For all your know Team A could work on the single player campaign whilst Team B could work on the multiplayer. Just because you are a billy-no-mates you sound off because you are fed up with multiplayer which, I believe, adds longevity to the game should you choose to make use of it. In the case of Uncharted - the game wasn't spoilt and it added an extra dimension to it. The co-op mode is fun with friends, the single player campaign is awesome.

If the game didnt have multiplayer mode - it doesnt mean it would have come out any sooner either.

You're just obviously ungrateful - the sort of person to kick up about anything ("No, mummy I said I wanted PEAS and NOT carrots"). The sort of person that likes to sit in the field and look the gift horse directly in the mouth. Hell, if they released the game WITHOUT multiplayer, you'd probably moan about that.

And other than the Call of Duty series - which you obviously hate (fair enough) I don't know any other games that have been released with a multiplayer option where the single player has become ruined or shorted because of it. The only game of recent times, that I recall, is Uncharted and that felt longer than the first game. The other games you mentioned as to have multiplayer aren't even out yet so you have no place to say that the single player has suffered.

The devs are simply giving us more for our money. But, like I said, you're the sort of person that would moan about anything, I'm sure.

For me - single player games are great but I certainly see a place in the market to have the option for some online gaming too.

Perhaps you should go back to the Commodore 64 (ask your dad).

[renegadefunk6]

I don't really know what this thread is about, but I'l talk about SP vs. MP

I do not prefer one over the other, I enjoy both for different reasons. I like to sit back and get immersed in a huge single player world and do my own thing. But then sometimes fighting AI enemies can be a hollow experience, killing your friends or randomers online can be much more satisfying

So yeh I like both for different reasons, one thing I don't like is SP games 'tacking on' MP for the sake of it, for it to really work the devs need to spend a lot of time creating a full and balanced multiplayer.

[IXIScorpioIXI]

---

slimpervy wrote:

What's to say the same people work on the single player that work on the multiplayer???

For all your know Team A could work on the single player campaign whilst Team B could work on the multiplayer. Just because you are a billy-no-mates you sound off because you are fed up with multiplayer which, I believe, adds longevity to the game should you choose to make use of it. In the case of Uncharted - the game wasn't spoilt and it added an extra dimension to it. The co-op mode is fun with friends, the single player campaign is awesome.

If the game didnt have multiplayer mode - it doesnt mean it would have come out any sooner either.

You're just obviously ungrateful - the sort of person to kick up about anything ("No, mummy I said I wanted PEAS and NOT carrots"). The sort of person that likes to sit in the field and look the gift horse directly in the mouth. Hell, if they released the game WITHOUT multiplayer, you'd probably moan about that.

And other than the Call of Duty series - which you obviously hate (fair enough) I don't know any other games that have been released with a multiplayer option where the single player has become ruined or shorted because of it. The only game of recent times, that I recall, is Uncharted and that felt longer than the first game. The other games you mentioned as to have multiplayer aren't even out yet so you have no place to say that the single player has suffered.

The devs are simply giving us more for our money. But, like I said, you're the sort of person that would moan about anything, I'm sure.

For me - single player games are great but I certainly see a place in the market to have the option for some online gaming too.

Perhaps you should go back to the Commodore 64 (ask your dad).

---

I stopped reading when you said I was a billy no mates because I don't like multiplayer (ignoring the fact that 99% if games with multiplayer only allow 1 player on the console to play )

[keatesy]

---

IXIScorpioIXI wrote:

I think it is more a question of single player based games vs multiplayer based games

Final fantasy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8,9,10, 12

Metal gear Solid 1, 2, 3, 4

Fallout 3

Oblivion

Grand Theft Auto 3, Vice City, San Andreas, IV

Uncharted 1, 2

Bioshock

Dead Space

Batman: Arkham Asylum

Zelda: Ocarina of Time

ratchet and Clank: ACIT

ratchet and clank: FTOD

Mercenaries

Assassins Creed

Assassins Creed II

God of War

God of War 2

Demon's Souls

Valkyrie Chronicles

Resident Evil

resident evil 2

Resident Evil 3

Resident Evil 4

resident evil 5

vs

Call of Duty

Call of Duty 2

Call of Duty 3

Call of Duty 4

Call of Duty 5

Call of Duty 6

Warhawk

---

That list is so flawed it's unreal, oooooh theres one right there, Unreal Tournament III (multiplayer based) Ok here's a few more: Battlefield Bad Company 1&2 BF2142 BF2 BF1943 Americas Army Unreal tournament GOTY Killzone 2 Counter Strike Team Fortress 2 Need i carry on! I suggest you grow up before compiling your pathetic lists in an attempt to belittle COD fans.