Spec Ops: The Line Dev: Multiplayer Was "Bullshit"

[Pale Ale]

Originally Posted by DoctorFinger

For shooters? Absolutely. It sucks, but it's true. To some people they look at it as getting two games for the price of one: the campaign and the MP. There are a lot of shooter gamers who simply won't buy a game without multiplayer. There are gamers who feel the opposite, but marketing studies have shown that they're the minority.

When you write your magnum opus about the midteen gameing crash. This will definitely be an important chapter.


Sent from a phone, so all the words are tiny.

[Ravenlock]

I didn't buy Spec Ops to enjoy a long playtime, or for replayability, or for multiplayer. I bought it because it quickly earned a reputation as having done something narratively interesting, and I wanted to support that with my dollars.

I also bought it for less than $30, because it was on sale for less than $30 only a week or two after release.

Playtime is a number that should be reported because it will matter to some people. I don't think it should impact a review score, because "providing a lengthy play experience" may not be part of what a game is trying to accomplish and I think ideally games ought to be judged on how well they pull off what they're trying to do.

Multiplayer's in the same bag for me. I'm sure it was lackluster, and I don't care. It clearly wasn't their focus, and unlike some other games that hype the hell out of something they gave short shrift to, I don't think they ever misled anybody on that.

EDIT: DoctorFinger, I do think you're right that it would have done better commercially on PC with a tighter focus and a lower price point, though I do wonder if the digital market is broad enough that it would have gotten customers on consoles as a download. Would've done well on PC, but that might not be enough.

[Vigil80]

Originally Posted by DoctorFinger

I know i sound like a broken record, but I have to say it again. Had Spec Ops released as an SP-only game for $30 instead of $60 I'd bet a ton that it would have been successful...

More successful, anyway.

And I think it's not only right, it may be inevitable. The bubble of super-expensive, AAA-wannabe titles can only go on so long.

Originally Posted by Ravenlock

Playtime is a number that should be reported because it will matter to some people. I don't think it should impact a review score, because "providing a lengthy play experience" may not be part of what a game is trying to accomplish and I think ideally games ought to be judged on how well they pull off what they're trying to do.

I can't agree with that. If a game falls short of pulling off what it's "trying to accomplish" because it's too short, has rushed pacing, etcetera, that absolutely belongs in the review and score.

I'm not saying that's the case with Spec Ops. But I do think it's a valid factor.

[MosBen]

Hmmm, I think a post got eaten in the ether. Anyway, Gorvi, as you point out, price and length matter, but it's such an individual determination that I think it should be left out of a review. Something like evaluating the quality of the gameplay or how engaging the story is obviously also going to be related to personal taste, but we also rely on reviewers (in any medium) to apply their expertise to their evaluation. Ebert has seen lots of movies and thought critically about them, so we're willing to accept that to some degree he knows what he's talking about when he says the camera work is good. We may disagree with him, but we know his credentials. We don't necessarily invest reviewers with wisdom regarding our personal finances because there's no way they can know what those are. Ebert doesn't tell us whether a movie is worth the money you'll spend to see it at a theater vs the money you'll spend to watch it on Netflix streaming. He just tells us if it's a good movie worth seeing or not. Value is left to the consumer.

And that's how it should be for games. Some games will buy the game for $60, some on sale for $30, some will borrow it from a friend for free or rent it from Gamefly. Some gamers are looking to maximize the hours of gameplay for their gaming dollar, others are more interested in interesting experiences. That's something unique to each individual gamer in a way that "it presents a compelling story about PTSD and shooter games" is not.

Now, keep in mind that there's still plenty of room for disagreement and reviewers to make subjective statements, etc. The reviews I read of Spec Ops faulted the gameplay as being somewhat dated, while the EC episodes argue that the gameplay is part of the point the game is making. It's entirely fine for a reviewer to miss the point or EC to have read meaning into gameplay that really wasn't supposed to mean what they think it means.

But a game shouldn't get another point in the review because it's 20 hours instead of 10, or even 5. The review should indicate to the reader whether this is a good, compelling experience, or whether it's not something worth checking out. Leave the value per dollar calculation to the people with the wallets.

[MosBen]

Vigil80, but you can't simply assert that a game failed at what it was trying to accomplish, from a gameplay or story perspective, based solely on the hours it takes to complete. If the story actually is rushed or there are big gaps in the narrative, that's one thing, but that's a separate argument from "the game is too short" for $60.

I agree with Ravenlock that the length of a game should absolutely be included in a review, and a reviewer should absolutely talk about whether they felt the story wasn't finished and include that as part of the review, but X hours of gameplay shouldn't translate into the score on its own.

I'm also not sure whether we can really say for sure if the game would have been successful at $30 with no multiplayer. It's certainly possible, but I don't know how much the multiplayer cost to make, or how much they spent to make it. Maybe they spent so much on the engine that they had to sell it as a AAA game. I wish we had more studios willing to sell games with decent, but not great graphics, at the $30 price point, but I can see the draw of having great graphics as a sales tool. But we can't just say that they should have cut the multiplayer and sold it for $30 and assume that it would have been a success.

[TheKeck]

For me

It's valid to say: This game felt too short for these reasons.

It's not valid to say: This game was 5 hours long and that's bad.

[Spigot]

I just played through this on the weekend. It is short, but I honestly don't think I would have wanted it to be any longer than it was as it already started to feel like they were padding it out in some of the last few firefights.

As a $60 game, it definitely felt short. I only rented it, but I'd be very comfortable recommending it for $25 or so given what it does on the SP side of things.

As for the MP, I didn't even glance at it. Granted, I'm a SP guy most of the time anyway, but for most shooters, there's no draw to the MP side of things if it's not one of the big guys (like Battlefield or CoD). If a game that is primarily about its SP campaign does bother to make a MP mode and puts the effort into making it something different but true to the vision of the game, like the Assassin's Creed one does, then kudos to the devs.

It seems to come again from this insistence on a $60 price tag for games, at least on the consoles. Put it out for $40 if it's shorter/riskier. At the very least you save on the dev costs for the MP suite.

[Gorvi]

Originally Posted by TheKeck

For me

It's valid to say: This game felt too short for these reasons.

It's not valid to say: This game was 5 hours long and that's bad.

Agreed 100%, many games just don't need to be long, and repetitive filler just to make a game longer is rarely ever a good thing.

Regardless, though, if I can finish a game in 2 evenings there's no way it's worth $60 to me. I'd rather take the missus out to dinner. It may be a fantastic experience, but I'll wait until I can get it for something I deem appropriate for what you get.

[Vigil80]

Originally Posted by MosBen

But we can't just say that they should have cut the multiplayer and sold it for $30 and assume that it would have been a success.

Sure we can. It's as good as any educated guess, at least. We know games have a lot of overhead. Cut the multiplayer that noone will be playing after the initial weeks, and save a wheelbarrow of money. Now you aren't starting out in as deep a hole before the game even goes gold.

We also know that games make money at price points other than $60. So you say you've got a 3rd person, cover-based, modern military, bog-standard shooter? But you think you've done some interesting things with the narrative, and want people to see it? Well then, let's do our best to make it an easy choice for players. Cut the crap, cut the price.

Originally Posted by MosBen

Vigil80, but you can't simply assert that a game failed at what it was trying to accomplish, from a gameplay or story perspective, based solely on the hours it takes to complete...

I never said one should. I don't think anyone here has ever argued for a flat threshold, ≥8 hours is good, <8 is bad. But, to Keck and Gorvi's points, it isn't hard to know if a game feels short, either in general or in terms of the value proposition.

If a reviewer was not satisfied after finishing a game, and the length was a part of that, I want to know. I want to see it in the score. And when I listen to a podcast where they say "wait for a sale," I appreciate that information.

[Wilkz07]

i played the mp once and it was utter garbage. Bought the game just for the solo campaign and it kept me hooked for a long time.

still waiting for EA to admit that the campaign for Battlefield 3 was tacked on bullshit. or the Multiplayer for Bioshock 2.

[MosBen]

Vigil80, a "wheelbarrow full of money" isn't exactly a defined term. If creating the multiplayer component cost $200k, but they'd lose $250,000 by lowering the price to $30, then it wouldn't make sense to do them both. Now, maybe cutting the $200k cost of the multiplayer wouldn't cost them any sales, since everyone's playing for the MP anyway, so they could have a bit more profit if they kept it at $60. But we can't just assume that cutting the price of the game in half is balanced by eliminating the cost of the MP component whose costs we don't know. Maybe they'd sell more copies at $30, and maybe it'd be enough to make up the difference in lose revenue from cutting the price in half, but we can't just assume that that's true. Again, I'd like to see more companies try to make more non-AAA games for the $30-$40 price range, but we can't just assert that things all would have worked out for Spec Ops at $30. Maybe it would have been more of a flop.

[MosBen]

Vigil80, I agree that it's valid that games can feel long or short, but I still disagree that that should be reflected in the score outside of things like "the game was boring and went on forever". I don't think there's some standard for what $60 should buy you in a game, and I don't think games should be punished for not hitting a reviewer's value proposition. If the reviewer doesn't like it, that's fine, that's what they're there to report. The review should reflect the quality of the game and that's it, not the quality of the game compared with a specific price point and the reviewer's opinion of what a marginal dollar should buy you from a game.

If the reviewer wants to add a post script to the effect that, "This is an awesome game, but at 7 hours I would have a hard time spending $60 on it." then I don't have a problem with that. But a phenomenal game is phenomenal whether it's 6 hours or 60. This is just another way in which the reviews part of the industry is too close to the commerce side.

[Vigil80]

I still affirm that the reasoning is sound. Besides, your asserting that it wouldn't work is based on... what? An undefined term isn't worse than a defined but made-up term.

By the dev's own admission, the multiplayer brought nothing to the package, and people are down on the game's price point. That's as good a place to start as any.

Originally Posted by MosBen

I don't think there's some standard for what $60 should buy you in a game, and I don't think games should be punished for not hitting a reviewer's value proposition. If the reviewer doesn't like it, that's fine, that's what they're there to report. The review should reflect the quality of the game and that's it, not the quality of the game compared with a specific price point and the reviewer's opinion of what a marginal dollar should buy you from a game.

Except that telling me whether a game hit his value proposition and other subjective metrics, and whether it's worth my dollars, is a reviewer's job.

Reviews aren't just academic. People are making purchase decisions with their limited money. If a reviewer thinks a game is fun, but not $60 fun, that's a distinction that's important to me to know. I don't get to ask for the difference back afterwards.

[Gorvi]

Ya know what would be better than tacking on multiplayer? Maybe put some sort of incentive in place for players to replay your great, but rather short, single player campaign. Make gameplay tweaks or challenges for subsequent playthroughs that make you want to go back again, not just a harder difficulty setting. Damn it, just do something more creative than tacking on a deathmatch mode that nobody is going to play.

[cppcrusader]

Wow, the marketing failed this horribly. I wasn't even considering picking up Spec Ops on the cheap until reading this article.

"low-quality Call of Duty clone in third-person,"

This was how all the marketing I had seen for this game framed it, which promptly put it on my ignore list.

diverges from the Call of Duty standard by favoring character, pacing and story over 'splosions

If they had marketed it like this, then I would definitely have considered it as a purchase.

[Deadend]

Multiplayer was probably pretty cheap to do, as it was using an engine that handles MP, with existing assets. They were also fighting the stigma of the Spec Ops name which was about low-rent shitty shooters.

Now, the Spec Ops name is about thought-provoking gameplay and dark stories that you just don't see in games. Did it make bank? No, was anyone really expecting it to? Not really, but they were hoping that it would be like BioShock which was a massive and unexpected success, no one expected a game like that to sell as well as it did.

Did the PR goof it a bit? Yeah, but the devs were also trying to not let too much of the story leak out and "spoil" things, so before the game launched, no one knew why they should care. It looked like a 3rd person shooter.

But now the next Spec Ops game.. or maybe The Line game, it will sell better and have people paying attention to it.

[MosBen]

I'm not saying that cutting the MP couldn't conceivably have made the game profitable at $30 or even some other lower price point, say, $40. My point is that we don't know, so it's silly to just proclaim that they should have cut the MP and lowered the price to $30. It's possible that that could work, but it's wild speculation based on nothing more than we'd prefer to pay less for things. It's a fine wish, but you can't simply assert it as a really great idea that they should have done instead of what they did. We don't know if it is a great idea or not.

re: price in review, yes, as I've said, it's worth knowing if the reviewer thinks a game is long enough to justify the cost. I'm not saying that information shouldn't be in the review. I'm saying it shouldn't be in the numerical score. A great movie is a great movie, and the cost of the movie theater ticket or the Blu Ray disc, or a Netflix streaming subscription shouldn't be factored into the score the movie receives in the review. Similarly, a game review score should be about the content, and whether it's compelling, not factoring in whether people got it through Gamefly, borrowed it from a friend, or bought it full price. It's certainly fair game to say, "I wouldn't buy this at full price", but like I said a few posts ago, a review should be just as relevant a year from now when the game is discounted. Spec Ops shouldn't be a 7 out of 10 today, but a 9 out of 10 in six months when you can pick it up for a discount.

[JayK47]

Originally Posted by Gorvi

Ya know what would be better than tacking on multiplayer? Maybe put some sort of incentive in place for players to replay your great, but rather short, single player campaign. Make gameplay tweaks or challenges for subsequent playthroughs that make you want to go back again, not just a harder difficulty setting. Damn it, just do something more creative than tacking on a deathmatch mode that nobody is going to play.

I agree with this 100%. And I would much rather see this any day than see some half assed multi tossed in. Throw in a no narrative coop mode, or tweak the narrative for coop only and single player only essentially giving you two different play throughs. Have a couple of areas where you can make a choice and the story branches. Remember Resident Evil 2? Two discs, two different characters. Best RE ever and a great idea that nobody seems to be copying.

I am one of those gamers that feels mulitplayer tends to take away from the single player portion of the game. There are so many examples of this, and yet no end in site.

[Ravenlock]

I haven't read through all the comments after mine 'cause I don't have time yet. I'll go back and do that later.

What I meant, however, was that length of play should not impact a review score if it does not impact what the game sets out to accomplish. If it does, obviously it should impact the score. Sometimes a game being short HELPS it achieve its goals (Portal is a fine example), and in that case I'd even say the brevity would increase my score of it if I were writing a review.

It just isn't always relevant, is all.

[TheKeck]

Agreed whole-heartedly with Ravenlock.

In the same vein, you'll often hear people ding a game for padding it with fluff or having too much similar content or the like. But they won't say, "this game takes over 100 hours to complete. That's just much too long." I'd like to see more reviews like that.