So are the new Halo 2 maps going to be in Halo 3?

Maybe for a price....I feel that most people better prepared to get raped on the downloadable content/maps for Halo 3. "If you build them, people will download them".

Of course, they already did that with the Map Pack disc for Halo 2.

Well that's what I meant - I recognize the location, but as soon as they went in the building I thought "this is totally different."

My wife surprised me with DDR:Universe the other day and I just needed this post as an excuse to sit for a moment. Between this and Guitar Hero video games are not only more fun but they sure are more work too.

I'm sorry, unless you have an RPG or a platformer, most games are expected to have multi-player. At least local co-op would've been appreciated.

Catan is finally coming out in May.

Can I get a mod to unlock this thread? I have my 360 back.



Man - that was a long 17 days.

Uh, no. Every game is not meant to have multi-player, just like every movie doesn't do the buddy thing. Some games are meant to have a lone hero, and scary games like Condemned need to be single to keep the atmosphere.

I agree there are games that just beg for co-op, but not everygame.

For Condemned?
That game was made for playing alone and in the dark. The price tag for the game seemed high but I had more scares in that game than I do with most horror/slasher flicks. Having someone else playing would of made the game easier and far less frightening.

If game designers could come up with creative ways to add an online/multi-player aspect to a game I am fine with it. Just remember when people heard how small the teams would be for Gears of War way back when and pitched fits all over the internet. We need to show faith in developers so they are willing to take chances with the various game modes.

Agreed on all counts. What's the point of every FPS having multiplayer if they're all so identical? The most fun I've ever had with multiplayer have been games that took creative chances. Splinter Cell online was fun as hell. Resident Evil: Outbreak would have been great if not for the lack of voice. Gears co-op and deathmatch are nice. Counter-strike was fresh for its time.

I fully expect Halo 3 to do co-op online, and I can't wait for it. Army of Two should be really fun online as well. Funny thing you mention RPG's don't need online, but I would totally love playing a great rpg with a friend online. Why not? I think developers should start thinking of different things to do with online other than deathmatch.

I'd rather have a kick ass solo game than a half assed solo game with a tacked on multiplayer element, which is exactly what these endeavors usually end up being. The solo ends up suffering because time is spent developing a cheap MP aspect that no one ends up playing anyway.

Perfect example: Prey, which was a pretty solid solo effort but not quite perfect. The MP sucked ass. If only they took that extra time used on MP to tighten up the single player they would have had a kick ass game/franchise on their hands. Another solid example, Metroid Prime: Echoes. Metroid is a single player game. Period. They forced MP because someone in the food chain said they would sell more copies. The solo campaign suffered because of it and in the end they sold less than half of what the original, solo only, game sold.

All this adds up to why Condemned is still my favorite game on the 360, all time and energy went towards a single player game and it shows. The solo player experience is unmatched thus far in the 360 library. Still hoping for a sequel.

Am I the only gamer who doesn't give a flying fuck about multi-player in a game, ever?

Nope. Multiplayer is a nice bonus, but not a top priority for me.

I noticed that Blood Diamond was up in HD on the marketplace. I was thinking of downloading it but wasn't sure if it was in 5.1 or not. Has anybody downloaded it and can confirm whether or not it's 5.1?

I'm sure your not the only one but you are in the minority. Playing games with others is one hell of a good time if you ask me. Maybe you just haven't found a good group of folks to play with yet.

Actually, I highly doubt he is in the minority (maybe on this site, but not in general). I think there are many more casual gamers looking for the solo experience than those who want multiplayer standard. Yes, if the multiplayer is available, there are casual gamers who will play, but it is not a buying decision for them.

For myself, it varies by game. I do enjoy multiplayer, but I only need a few good games to keep me sustained in that department. I play both with a great group of gamer friends, and online, but most of my time is solo play, so that is of the utmost importance. Lack of multiplayer has never convinced me to not buy a game.

Excellent example. I played Prey for the single player game. I was already playing Call of Duty 2 online and getting my fill, so I did not need another first person shooter to go online with.

Some games just do not need multiplayer options.

And that is exactly how developers should treat it 98% of the time. A bonus. There are the 2% exceptions though like Halo, UT, & Gears to name a few.

Actually Gears of War is a perfect example of how developers should handle it. Epic developed the game in thirds: A solo experience, a co-op experience, and a MP experience. All were [in general] perfectly executed and none of the three felt tacked on.

I almost never play MP - when I do, it's usually just co-op with a friend at home, not online. I just like doing everything at my own pace. Plus, I generally don't have more than a half hour or so to play a day, so it's hard to get into a good MP match and then leave in the middle.

Agreed. Not sure if there are any others like it, but I loved that I could play SP for a while, then if somebody was over we could play co-op where I left off, then back to SP later.

Sorry, that's not a minority at all, not even close.

Well it probably depends on what audience you are referring to. Probably the minority of 360 owners are all about the single-player whereas the great majority of Nintendo owners probably only care about the single player. As for total number of gamers, you are probably right due in part to the large number of people who just play Popcap sorts of games. My mom has never played an online game in her life but has spent hours playing Peggle and Bookworm.

I'm in the middle. I'm a Nintendo fan that would love to have a more robust online experience. It's just the games that are currently on the 360 don't appeal to me beyond XBLA.

Xbox Live attach rate is 60%, and that's counting anybody that simply plugs their console into an ethernet port and does nothing else. Of that 60% I'm willing to bet that the majority of that is still Live Silver and aren't playing games online (the latest reports I've seen don't give those numbers). Then you don't even mention the PS2, which still way eclipses Xbox and Nintendo numbers and almost all games are being bought for single player experiences. Of course, then there's still GBA, DS, PSP, etc., etc.

Same here.

Agreed - but if you look at the titles that are the big sellers on the 360 you see racers (with heavy online play) and FPS. That is what appears to be driving the sales.

You are also correct on the PS2 front - i just didn't feel knowledgeable enough to make much of a claim in that area (i have never owned one) but from what i have seen the RPGs like FF and Kingdom Hearts and the other single player experiences like GTA seem to be driving that platform. I think gamers who are really drawn to online play probably have either stuck with the PC and the utility of that area or purchased an Xbox of some sort since they appear to cater to that audience.