Red Steel 2, Yes, Multiplayer, No

@ExistentialEgg:

You could kind of pull it out, for quick stabs/slashes with a short gesture, but you couldn't have it out unless you were sword dueling.

@( shake cows, win a ) Milkshake!: Can't really think how Chrono Trigger would work with Multiplayer..

@CockroachMan: Imagine playing ALL those AMAZING SINGLE PLAYER games, but WITH MULTIPLAYER ASWELL.
Not hard.

@Ladi: "There's not a single scenario I can think of where the addition of multi-player is a bad thing."

.... Remind me to NEVER masturbate around you.... or always..?

That being said:
There is somethings you aren't taking into consideration about the idea of multiplayer in games.

A. Games built from the ground up can utilize ideas that are simply not viable in a multiplayer setting (See: Portal)

B. While you seem to think that it would not detract from the multiplayer experience that is very much untrue. First off, many people will forgo the single player experience just to play multiplayer (I but well over half of Halo3 players have never even gotten halfway through the single player game) This puts less importance on a high quality single player game

3. Man hours. Simply put, there is only so much money, time, and energy that can go into any product (except for Duke Nukem Forever) when you have a budget (whether financial or size or any other) then creating a multiplayer aspect takes away from the budget for the single player game. Think of it like a pie chart, when you have only single player then all 100% of your resources are going towards that, but if you split it up into making multiplayer than you have additional game modes/maps/programing/test/audio/ect and you are left with less of the pie to concentrate on the single player aspect.

EternalStar

@Ladi: Metroid Prime 2. The multiplayer was dumb and didn't work right because that's not what the game was meant for. Most people will also agree that MP2 is the weakest of the 3 Prime games and hey look it's the only one with multiplayer.

honestly who cares about the wii these days... oh right the people who cant afford something else =( my heart goes out to those without a ps3/360, companys try not to forget you but thats all they do is try and not really succeed just try =(...

Timothy Saskiewicz

@Methusalah: Legendary product? You mean a Sonic game. It's okay, some people get it confused.

@CockroachMan: There's not a single scenario I can think of where the addition of multi-player is a bad thing.

I can understand the argument that its inclusion may detract from the strength of the single player experience, but this in my mind doesn't hold up very well. A game is bad if the story or gameplay is bad. Multiplayer does nothing to the story, and indeed forces the gameplay to be tuned to a higher degree than a single player game.

The only problem is the forced addition of co-op play; when I was playing Resi 5 without a friend it was like one long Vanilla WoW escort quest. Otherwise, it's just extra on top of the standard game if you want it, nothing if you don't. I like my games to last a certain duration, especially if I'm laying £40-50 on each one.

@ps360blows: No, it was the controls that made it awful.

So it's going to be more RPG-like? No complaints. Lack of multiplayer is a little surprising, but unless WM+ is being used for versus sword fighting, then I won't miss it.

Ryodestined

Wait, Nintendo Power still exists? And people still read it??

Chad Bear

@Shak_0: BIG RED TRIFECTA COMPLETE

Good news

WhiskeyJak

@Xelioth: They learned what can be done with multiplayer. Bioshock 2.

I mean think of how awesome it would be to have "Splicers vs. Big Daddy. Where you try to get the little sister away from the big daddy and whoever gets it then becomes the big daddy.

@CockroachMan: There are people who hate multiplayer, people who love it, people who don't care . . .

Personally, I'm in the "I-don't-care" camp. As long as all aspects of a game are treated well, it can work out.

Although there are games where I think it is weird . . . BioShock 2 being one of them . . . I can just choose to ignore it if I want to.

@eclipsegryph: Red Steel is a guilty pleasure. It's like a B movie with a cult following, not very good but fun if you look at it right. And honestly, the multiplayer was pretty fun. But, like you said, I don't care about multiplayer, so lets hope they've refined the single player.

@oosiegewolfoo: Bioshock ring any bells?

@ShimodaNexus: Yeah, the first one is a good game, but definitely a rental. I think this game would have been a hell of a lot better if they didn't push to release it without removing all the bugs.

I'm hoping its fixed this time.

@EternalStar: and THAT whole team should then, finally, be sacked themselves and replaced by a team willing to collect the information in a completely different style.

@eclipsegryph: You know, I didn't even know the original HAD multiplayer. Of course, I played it and beat it on a rental.

Multiplayer in games doesn't really appeal to me too much. Last multiplayer game I played on the Wii was Mario Kart. I'm more the solo gaming type.

Although I could care less either way, as I'm also not the type to think multiplayer takes away from the core experience because I'm sure they have different devs who implement those features.

Kinda off topic, but strange how the last three posts were all about 'Red"

Sounds great. FPS with swords, rpg elements, guns, and most likely a ton of bugs and horrible performance (judging by the mess that was the first game). All they have to do is add a couple of useless sidekicks and delay the game a couple years and they have a legendary product on their hands.

@ExistentialEgg: wait, really? That's retarded. No wonder everyone thought the first one sucked, the whole game was hyped on the sword fighting.

ps360blows

I don't care what others say, i enjoyed the first, and thoroughly looking forward for this. Samurai cowboys for Pete's sake, SAMURAI COWBOYS!!

Steffanic

That's three consecutive headlines with red in the title. Kommietaku?

@CockroachMan: FPS w/o multiplayer = confused panda.

I don't understand what this big deal about multiplayer these days.. best games I've ever played were single player experiences, if the developers think it's better to focus on single player, I'm fine with it.

@CockroachMan: Whomever is your information provider should be sacked, and then the people who provided him information should be sacked.

EternalStar

I think of this as a good thing. I rented Red Steel once, and it took a long while to get used to the controls, but it was far from unplayable (I'm _still_ learning Virtual On for the 360 ^_^). A focus on the singleplayer is the best bet until they get it working better.

I mean, how well can a game's multiplayer do if the singleplayer experience is fractured?

ShimodaNexus

@Derek Rumpler: I'm right there with you. As long as the devs focus on giving us a solid single player experience, I could care less about multi-player.

Hell, when I first saw the headline my first thought was "Yes!"

Bummer, I was really kinda hoping for online sword battles, if switching to your sword at will is even possible this time. :/
Loved the first game but it really bugged me that you couldn't use the sword whenever you wanted to.

@BethesdaDione: No, it's supposed to be about sword fighting with the MotionPlus

@mitch_93: hopefully you can USE the sword against a gunning bad guy. That was a big let down in the first one, you could only use the sword in arena boss areas. You couldn't even pull it out, it was automatic. I wanted to try and play through the whole game only using the sword but it wouldn't let me.

Sounds good. I liked the first (I'm probably one of the few) and can't wait for this game, even if I think the Wild West theme is a complete and total stretch from the original.

Hopefully they're in character. The last got me extremely interested in the Yakuza, who I later learned are nothing like the game.

@DylanGallagher: Play this game... No

James Sorensen

Wasn't this game supposed to be about the online multiplayer? Whatever...

BethesdaDione

You mean bigger swords. I cannot wait to try and be an idiot hitting bullets with a sword.

mitch_93

Ouch

DylanGallagher

Red Steel 1's multiplayer was quite basic and archaic. The single player mode was decent at best and quite long.

Personally, I'd much rather have Ubisoft focus on the single player experience for Red Steel 2.Hopefully the developer has learned from its past mistakes with the original game and Motion + should solve any swordplay control issues.

@ Timothy Saskiewicz

Uh if you don't care about the Wii then why the hell are you here? Oh right, you're an anti-Wii fanboy.Do everyone a favor and leave.

Killer7

If they make single player "juuuuust right," then that'll only make me yearn for multiplayer! Though, if they did add multiplayer, it would likely be online and include Friend Codes. So ... I'll take the reworked single player.

Gortexfogg

@Ueziel as well: how do you know MP2 would have been better without the multiplayer? Honestly I'm surprised it didn't work well; I would have thought that kind of gameplay would have lent itself to playing with others.

I think of it in the same way as ( shake cows, win a ) Milkshake!; of all the games I enjoy playing there's not one of them that'd be worse off with the addition of multi-player or co-op. Chrono Trigger wouldn't work in a competitive setting, but individual characters being controlled by other people (ala Tales of Symphonia, FFIX) is perfectly reasonable. The same could be said for Portal: it could perhaps even allow for even more difficult puzzles, with one person going ahead and helping the other person advance or whatnot.

Maken X-2. Please.

@Chad Bear: ya bet they do.

They are gushing a lot money fo rexclusives

@CockroachMan: I think the argument that has to be made for multiplayer is that it prolongs the life of the game.You can get far more out of a game that has an added multiplayer component than you would have if it was simply a one dimensional single player game. Of course, there are noted exceptions, ie. fallout, chrono trigger, games that just wouldn't work with multiplayer. What I'm far more interested in is co-op. I think RE5 was made endlessly better than 4 simply for the fact that I got to share the experience with someone else, rather than having just the other person watching. But that's just me, I like to game with friends. If you're a lone wolf, so be it.

@Phydeaux: Kinda going for daikatana, but ok.

@CockroachMan:

You're completely right ;D

Multiplayer is a gimmick if you're tacking it on for the sake of it. Don't people realize that? It's completely absurd to believe that tacking on multiplayer will make a game more worth it.

Heck, while you're buying all the games for extras I'm sure the developer will catch on and maybe tag in extra guns, a platforming mode, and maybe a mcdonalds meal.

pyropetey

I'm sorry, this game looks so good, ya know how much affect the "hardcore's" rain will have on its parade?

Not much!

Crash__Man

Wasn't multiplayer the ONLY redeeming feature in Red Steel 1? Why the hell would they choose to take out the one aspect of the game that made the previous one actually enjoyable?

Retarded Ubisoft is retarded. Here I was thinking they learn from their mistakes, but good 'ole Ubisoft still shows us how it can't do one thing right without fucking up another.

RockyRan

@EternalStar:Portals would work perfectly fine in multiplayer. Just the game play wouldn't.

My biggest problem is that what makes good multiplayer (balance) can detract from single player. This doesn't matter unless of course they decide the player must behave identically in both single and multiplayer, when the single player game can suffer because of it.

RabidZombie

@CockroachMan: Try harder.

Title needs a semicolon, yes; semicolon used, no.
All gaming magazines and online articles need a new editor, yes. Will this happen? no.

Everyday, I see an obvious error in elementary grammar on these gaming sites and usually they are not typos. It makes me ask myself why I'm not editing the gaming news stories for the half dozen news feeds that I follow, even with my shitty lack of writing skills. I can't write half as well as most of the authors on Kotaku, but I could definitely do a better job editing.
That having been said, I'll bet there's some kind of error in this very paragraph. :)

marble10

@NeVeRMoRe666 RROD'd and is sad: Oh yeah, it was definitely not scary, the storyline is a convoluted mess, the inventory system isn't as good, but I'm still loving it anyway.

@pyropetey: I think the case here is that if the game is well done, whether Single or multiplayer, then it has to stand on its own. Of course, if the MP is lacking, its never going to be good. Same with the single player.

As to your RE question, Yes, I've played both, I've played four several times over, but in the end I just like five better because I get to play co-op with someone else. It's all personal taste really. I can see why five would be horrible if you had to play by yourself, but the addition of someone else really heightened the experience for me. However, I respect your opinion, as well as several others who have thought less of five. While five was by no means a revolution of the series four was, I though it was a strong addition, an evolution if you will, to the franchise.

@excel_excel: Wii will have to announce something bloody fantastic this year before I even think about caring about them again.

i enjoyed the multiplayer in the first one~ NOH!!!!

@CockroachMan: i like multiplayer games because it adds to the replayability there are very few single player games i buy like zelda and final fantasy most other single player games can be beaten in a week or two. Ive played SSBM for probably over a month straight if we oculd count all the hours somewhere not for the single player but the fun with friends the only game that might be somewhere close would be some final fantasy game

@NeVeRMoRe666 RROD'd and is sad:

Actually... RE5 is endlessly worse than RE4 -_-
You have played both right ;D? RE5 was clumsier, not scary, and broke all the traditions of old and given it's next gen status, still wasnt as a good as RE4.

I agree though, coop is a great experience but not all games need be coop games. Its a new phase in gaming but let the appropriate games explore it.

Dont tack on a multipler mode for the sake of a multiplayer mode. While the general consensus is that multiplayer extends the games life its not really a viable argument. For those games with worthy multiplayer and enough pull, yes. For games that dont make a big splash, that dont that that intriguing of a multiplayer mode then no. It feels cheap and most people wouldnt play it aside from giving it a few goes. Thats like maybe one hour of extra playing that'll leave the person with a bad taste afterwards.

pyropetey

@Xelioth:

The game would have to be as good as Bioshock in order to even think of that argument.

And Red Steel was a drowning.

@Derek Rumpler: I liked Red Steel, too! Although my wrist hurt when playing and I was wondering if it was the games controls, or the wii (DUH XD), and so I stopped playing. Multiplayer was fun for me, and I found a bunch of glitches with my friend. Glad they're making the single player experience great, and the system sounds great so far. Maybe they'll have a Red Steel 3 with wifi multiplayer :)

sentroshi

Eh? They said ages ago this would have online multiplayer. As long as its a great single player experience I guess thats ok but still....

@Timothy Saskiewicz: Sad troll is sad

Man the only enjoyable part of RS was the multiplayer.

I hated the multiplayer on red steel so this is good for me.

@Methusalah: Hell, I thought you were actually making reference to FFVII. Fooled me.

How about just ditch the stupid single-player crap and just tailor it to multiplayer. Who the hell cares about the story when you and your friends each have a freaking sword?!?

@Ladi:

Umm in a HUGE amount of Irony I actually know one of the main programmers from Metroid Prime 2 (he was the guy who created the Quake 1/2 CTF mod and was hired by iD to create the official Q3Arena CTF) SOOO I can tell you for a FACT that the effort put into the single player game suffered due to trying to also create the multiplayer aspect.

----

Not to insult you btw, but chrono trigger WOULDN'T work co-op. I don't know the last time you played it but the game was turn based A-LA final fantasy, it had an active battle choice and dual/triple techs but when it came down to it the game was turn based more or less. It would either require an entirely new combat system (potentially ruining the game and costing lots of time money and effort to create) or it would be exceedinly boring as you would control 1 character and have to wait till your turn timer came up to input 1 command and wait again.

EternalStar