Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus

[wheresthebeef]

These games don't need a tacked-on afterthought multiplayer component; it'll just bloat the game and give them an excuse to shoehorn in paid multiplayer DLC

[Mr. Freeze]

Doom's multiplayer couldn't make an impact, and it was attached to one of the bigger games in 2016. If Doom can't make multiplayer cool, how the shit is Wolf supposed to?

[Pencil of Doom]

Yeah right, MP in a Wolfenstein game, after the failure that DOOM's MP was?

No thanks.

[Jayextee]

"This ice cream is really good and cold. Just what I needed on a hot day, but if only it had some chilli sauce because that works well with hotdogs."

Pun not intended. Ja, ein... hot dog.

[DooM_RO]

16 hours ago, Mr. Freeze said:

Doom's multiplayer couldn't make an impact, and it was attached to one of the bigger games in 2016. If Doom can't make multiplayer cool, how the shit is Wolf supposed to?

 

Because people seem to have certain expectations from Doom MP (they want it to be exactly like Quake for some reason) and because of that it was a confused mess. With Wolfenstein they could make whatever they want.

 

They don't even have to make it themselves. Just give it to Certain Affinity. I mean, from a technical standpoint, Doom's MP was pretty solid and there was nothing objectively wrong with it. Plus, something like ET and a Horde Mode would fit a company like Certain Affinity a lot more.

[MFG38]

16 hours ago, Pencil of Doom said:

Yeah right, MP in a Wolfenstein game, after the failure that DOOM's MP was?

No thanks.

Wolfenstein is a game that really doesn't need MP anyway, far as I'm concerned. I mean The New Order had a fucking awesome SP campaign that stood on its own well enough and is even worth a replay or two. I honestly can't imagine that game having any sort of MP component shoehorned into it. And even if it did, it'd only have so many people actively playing it anyway. Hell, just look at RAGE - that game had MP and how many people played that at all? Not many. Same thing with DOOM's MP, only there's the additional factor of the MP beta that caused mixed reactions.

 

I say leave that shit to CoD and the like. Those games at the very least manage to deliver solid MP experiences despite copying themselves on an annual basis.

[DooM_RO]

29 minutes ago, MFG38 said:

Wolfenstein is a game that really doesn't need MP anyway, far as I'm concerned. I mean The New Order had a fucking awesome SP campaign that stood on its own well enough and is even worth a replay or two. I honestly can't imagine that game having any sort of MP component shoehorned into it. And even if it did, it'd only have so many people actively playing it anyway. Hell, just look at RAGE - that game had MP and how many people played that at all? Not many. Same thing with DOOM's MP, only there's the additional factor of the MP beta that caused mixed reactions.

 

I say leave that shit to CoD and the like. Those games at the very least manage to deliver solid MP experiences despite copying themselves on an annual basis.

People didn't play Doom and especially RAGE MP because they were a confused mess. If people do a good job people will play it and there is plenty of material to work with to make an interesting MP experience. How a 4 player coop horde mode would be shoehorned is beyond me.

 

I just want to hear those beautiful guns sing over and over but I can only play the campaign for so long.

Edited June 17, 2017 by DooM_RO

[june gloom]

The proper thing to do is to, instead of diluting a single-player experience with a tacked-on multiplayer, make a stand-alone multiplayer. Enemy Territory was hugely popular; a sequel would sell like gangbusters.

[DooM_RO]

31 minutes ago, dethtoll said:

The proper thing to do is to, instead of diluting a single-player experience with a tacked-on multiplayer, make a stand-alone multiplayer. Enemy Territory was hugely popular; a sequel would sell like gangbusters.

Why would it dilute it? Do you think Doom's Single Player was diluted because of the MP? I mean you could make the argument that those beautiful MP maps were wasted on it but the Single Player pretty much felt like a complete game and was far longer than your typical linear FPS.

[jazzmaster9]

I think having the SP and MP standalone would the best idea if they ever plan on doing multiplayer stuff.

Doom 2016 could have been a lot better if the money, manpower and resources used in the under whelming MP was used in single player instead.

[Mr. Freeze]

2 hours ago, jazzmaster9 said:

Doom 2016 could have been a lot better if the money, manpower and resources used in the under whelming MP was used in single player instead.

How?

[Varis Alpha]

3 hours ago, jazzmaster9 said:

I think having the SP and MP standalone would the best idea if they ever plan on doing multiplayer stuff.

Doom 2016 could have been a lot better if the money, manpower and resources used in the under whelming MP was used in single player instead.

but the multiplayer was outsourced to a different company. i'm pretty sure the entire reason they did this was so id wouldn't have to spend time developing it.

[MrGlide]

Ya, I personally really liked Dooms mp, and am in full agreeance With Doom_Ro about it not needing to be just like quake. We already have quake and I'd love to see Doom have it's own qualities when it comes to the mp experience. But we'll see what happends after the massive shit storm we saw over the MP.

 

Anyone who thinks The Mp detracted from the Campaign is delusional, and Doesn't have a clue. Now as to how the mp engine affected Snapmap might be different story. It's hard to guess where they'll go with MP in D5 if any at all with how people reacted.

 

As for Mp for wolfenstein, it could work, I'd rather See something more in the Cooperative vein Like stated above rather than yet another PvP Experience though. I think there are many fans out there that would love to see a Arcade like survival experience or a horde mode made by ether id or Machine Games with the respected Ip's, Both of their single player content is so good it makes a lot of sense that fans want to see these things, Look at the most popular modes for snapmap.

[SaladBadger]

RTCW MP was overall pretty fun but I dunno if it would work out as well with TNO's mechanics. I think it could, but I really do get the impression that the time is better spent on working with the SP campaign.

[june gloom]

7 hours ago, DooM_RO said:

Why would it dilute it? Do you think Doom's Single Player was diluted because of the MP? I mean you could make the argument that those beautiful MP maps were wasted on it but the Single Player pretty much felt like a complete game and was far longer than your typical linear FPS.

Money and resources drained from the single player campaign to do the multi. It's happened before (System Shock 2, Spec Ops: The Line) and will happen again. I'd much rather they focused all their resources on either a great campaign or a great multi, not try to do both.

 

Just because it's outsourced to a different company doesn't guarantee that it'll be good, and anyway that's still money being spent. Every budget has its limits, even in today's game industry that's flush with cash.

[wheresthebeef]

17 hours ago, DooM_RO said:

 

Because people seem to have certain expectations from Doom MP (they want it to be exactly like Quake for some reason) and because of that it was a confused mess. With Wolfenstein they could make whatever they want.

No, people would expect an Enemy Territory-type multiplayer mode which they wouldn't be able to deliver on so it would just be abandoned immediately after launch; see Wolfenstein 2009

There's no reason to have multiplayer in this game. I can't even argue for a separate co-op campaign because they could easily be forgotten just like Rage's. It will shine as a great singleplayer game and that's all it would need; no need for fluff.

You also have to remember this is the year Call of Duty is going back to WWII, people will just write off Wolf's multiplayer as a clone and if it was outsourced to a different team, it would probably end up a rip on CoD anyways.

Plus MP files would bloat the filesize even more

Edited June 18, 2017 by wheresthebeef

[Jaxxoon R]

"We've listened closely to what fans have wanted during the development of Wolfenstein™ II: The New Colossus, thanks to all your vocal feedback we've been working hard to bring to you the best version of this game we could possible make. We're proud to announce that The New Colossus will feature an expansive Holo-Kaurt multiplayer mode, where up to 8 players can go head to head on 16 different tracks inspired by locales from both previous Wolfenstein™ titles and this latest iteration in the series. Players can expect to take control of the likes of Fergus Reid, Greta, Jimi Hendrix, and other fan-favorite characters in this bloody romp due to ship with the game in late 2017."

[MrDeAD1313]

Hmm. Well then I wonder what exactly they plan on giving us with MP. There was Enemy territory then the "Wolfenstein" game MP that comes to mind immediately. This seems to be something totally different maybe? Interested in this.

[DooM_RO]

@wheresthebeef

 

People will play it if it's good, they won't if it's not. It's that simple. It might not be the new Overwatch but people who are invested in the world they created and want to play more of the game will play it. If MachineGames are not confident in their MP skills just outsource it to another company like Splash Damage (the creators of ET) or Certain Affinity.

 

RAGE is a pretty bad example as that game was all around mediocre (aside from a few things). In order for the MP to be successful people need to love the game itself and I am quite confident The New Colossus will be a hit.

 

@dethtoll

 

Doom's MP didn't seem to make the SP a lesser game to me nor did it seem to take away from its budget. I just want a reason to play the game more after I have finished the campaign 4 times since we are most likely not getting mod tools. After finishing TNO and Doom 2016 I kept getting this itch to play more of the game but replaying the campaigns the 7th-8th time didn't quite do it for me.

 

As for Single Player, I hope this time the gold collectibles will be more useful. They should just take the formula from Wolf 2009 where you could buy upgrades with gold. One thing I loved in Doom 2016 was that every collectible was useful. In TNO gold was really just a useless collectible.

Edited June 18, 2017 by DooM_RO

[Edward850]

10 hours ago, dethtoll said:

Money and resources drained from the single player campaign to do the multi. It's happened before (System Shock 2, Spec Ops: The Line) and will happen again. I'd much rather they focused all their resources on either a great campaign or a great multi, not try to do both.

This is not really how modern game development works. Money not being allocated to multiplayer (or any other encompassing feature) is simply money not allocated, in addition to developers not being assigned to the project; it's never a resource taken away from something else.

 

In essence, the more features, the bigger the budget and bigger the team.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Edward850

[DooM_RO]

 

[MrGlide]

What I want to know is what is up with the rat in the old blood?

[DooM_RO]

4 hours ago, MrGlide said:

What I want to know is what is up with the rat in the old blood?

 

I finished it again yesterday and I wondered the same thing. He appears in almost every cutscene.

[Woolie Wool]

On 6/17/2017 at 10:04 AM, DooM_RO said:

Why would it dilute it? Do you think Doom's Single Player was diluted because of the MP? I mean you could make the argument that those beautiful MP maps were wasted on it but the Single Player pretty much felt like a complete game and was far longer than your typical linear FPS.

Everything a company does comes with a cost in money, a cost in employee hours, and a cost in opportunity to do other things. Even if you outsource it, you still lose the first and third things because you could have spent that money on something else. Why not focus on the core experience?

[DooM_RO]

5 hours ago, Woolie Wool said:

Everything a company does comes with a cost in money, a cost in employee hours, and a cost in opportunity to do other things. Even if you outsource it, you still lose the first and third things because you could have spent that money on something else. Why not focus on the core experience?

 

But despite that Doom's SP felt more than complete. Don't see why this wouldn't apply to Wolf.

 

Regardless, the game is coming out in 4 months so it's too late anyway.

[june gloom]

On 6/18/2017 at 3:09 AM, Edward850 said:

This is not really how modern game development works. Money not being allocated to multiplayer (or any other encompassing feature) is simply money not allocated, in addition to developers not being assigned to the project; it's never a resource taken away from something else.

 

In essence, the more features, the bigger the budget and bigger the team.

Spec Ops: The Line is modern and the multi was a piece of shit that the developers themselves hated.

[DooM_RO]

6 hours ago, dethtoll said:

Spec Ops: The Line is modern and the multi was a piece of shit that the developers themselves hated.

 

So, what's your point? If they do a good job people will play it and more people will buy it which means more money made.

[jazzmaster9]

6 hours ago, DooM_RO said:

 

So, what's your point? If they do a good job people will play it and more people will buy it which means more money made.

If it doesn't need multiplayer, don't shoehorn it in. Same is true vice versa for Multiplayer centric games.

[june gloom]

6 hours ago, DooM_RO said:

 

So, what's your point? If they do a good job people will play it and more people will buy it which means more money made.

My point is that money isn't magic and bigger budgets don't equate to better games.

[wheresthebeef]

I think all your guy's arguments are fruitless, any point is just going to be ignored; luckily Machinegames/Bethesda/Zenimax know this and aren't bothering with MP for Wolf