# Crytek CEO says single-player experiences need to "evolve"



## Krory (Mar 1, 2013)

By which he means an "online" or "connected" single-player, a la _Guild Wars 2_ and Bungie's _Destiny_.



> Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli has stressed that the idea of closed, single-player only games must be culled moving forward. That?s not to say he doesn?t want single-player games to vanish, they simply must evolve. See what he means by that below the cut.
> 
> It?s no secret that Crytek views the free-to-play, multiplayer market as valuable. In fact Yerli recently stated that he expects Crytek to go full free-to-play within five years.
> 
> ...



.

Just... yeah...


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 1, 2013)

HAHAHAHH no.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Mar 1, 2013)

Is it just me or Crytek been spouting the most ignorant shit about the industry, as if they have any superior wisdom about it, for the entire last year?

I don't really follow them, but every time I look at the gaming news I seem to find "Crytek CEO says this stupid thing"; "Crytek CEO says that stupid thing"...


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 1, 2013)

Actually Crytek has shitload of insight into this stuff. What they are saying is mostly right and will appeal to a huge mass of people, but not the oldschool gamers. 

Me? I want my singleplayer lonely and offline. When I want to desocialize, I don't want to be bothered by other people, *especially* in my game. 

However, on the other hand, look at Journey, which is basicly what Crytek is saying here. That turned out really well, didn't it?

//HbS


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 1, 2013)

Journey is so simple that you wouldn't even know if you are playing a game like that till someone told you.


----------



## αshɘs (Mar 1, 2013)

Not too keen about this idea, but even Valve share this sentiment; Single-player Plus, as Gabe called it  It could work for certain games, I guess...

but I rather have them keep the traditional method too if they go through with this.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 1, 2013)

They want a subtle way to turn even singular focused games into a service. Restrict your access under the guise of making the game world and the single player universe connected to the internet like Diablo 3.

Then they'll stuff it with paymium shit to milk you dry.

Everyone sees through your bullshit crytek


----------



## Griever (Mar 1, 2013)

αshɘs said:


> Not too keen about this idea, but even Valve share this sentiment; Single-player Plus, as Gabe called it  It could work for certain games, I guess...
> 
> but I rather have them keep the traditional method too if they go through with this.



Yeah, so would i. Though i do agree with him about single-player games requiring you to be connected to the internet and (in some cases) logged on to a specific site, pretty foolish when it doesn't really offer anything....


----------



## Velocity (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't get how The Walking Dead would be more profitable on a free-to-play network... What would they do, lock out all but one choice so that you have to pay to be able to change the story's progression? Or would they just, I dunno, put obstructive product placement everywhere and throw in adverts every half hour like a real TV show?


----------



## LivingHitokiri (Mar 1, 2013)

I agree that there must but more focus on single player needs to evolve but not via online shit ,when i buy a game i want to able to play it whenever i want and not pray and that my ISP wont be fucked up during rainy days :/
Don't they realize that even if you get this shitty  online drm and all you do is losing people ?
Look what happen to d3 qq and HOM VI.
Just keep this shit for mmos and such.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Mar 1, 2013)

Hunted by sister said:


> Actually Crytek has shitload of insight into this stuff.


Hardly.


> What they are saying is mostly right


Not at all.


> and will appeal to a huge mass of people


That what ruins the industry.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Mar 1, 2013)

Hate this forced-online bullshit.


----------



## Naruto (Mar 1, 2013)

> I think the notion of a single-player experience has to go away



Fuck you.

Go die somewhere.


----------



## crazymtf (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't want single player to go away. however I do love when online is put into the game yet still getting quality by yourself play, similar to Dark Souls. I think more made like that would be great!


----------



## Overwatch (Mar 1, 2013)

So what happens to all the folks with shitty connections? Not everyone lives in South Korea.

Then there's the BS Inu mentioned.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 1, 2013)

Hatifnatten said:


> Hardly.
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> That what ruins the industry.


Well, cry some more. Unfortunetly, people who play Farmville on Facebook are considered gamers. They'll be all over that.


Unlosing Ranger said:


> Journey is so simple that you wouldn't even know if you are playing a game like that till someone told you.


Or until you met someone. This is a great example of what Crytek is talking about done right.

//HbS


----------



## The World (Mar 1, 2013)

Demon/Dark Souls already did this perfectly.

I like them being unique for it.

Fuck you Crytek guy


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 1, 2013)

So your only rebuttal is "too bad" HBS? That's not an argument  That's taking it in the asshole like a good consumer


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 1, 2013)

I already said I don't like it, and I won't buy games like that, unless it's easly skippable (like Souls), so I already am doing the only kind of opposition they care about. 

However, that's the trend that's currently going on. If you implement it correctly, you win. There is no arguing here.

//HbS


----------



## Deathbringerpt (Mar 1, 2013)

Gaben said something sorta kinda similar yet much more grounded on fucking reality and without the delusion that single player needs to be completely assimilated to multiplayer. In short, he said something like connecting the single player and multiplayer in a way that feels natural so you actually have good context between both modes so that you can enjoy it mroe than usual.

Like in Portal 2, where GLADOS loses her interest in Chell because she found out plans to create the robots in the multiplayer mode of the game, they even make a short cameo in the campaign and every thing.

You know, small shit that adds to the experience instead of "retooling" the entire single player campaign for maximum dudebro shooting with awesome Doritos™ and Mountain Dew™ 5 dollar gun pack included. 

And really, in a way, it's not like he's completely wrong about his own titles, Crysis' single player campaign really needs to evolve because ever since 2, it became the most run of the mill, bland fucking FPS ever.


----------



## Doom85 (Mar 1, 2013)

......single-player being forced into an online experience? (I know Yerli says off-line single player should always exist, but it sounds like he wants to make it the exception and not the rule)



[YOUTUBE]31g0YE61PLQ[/YOUTUBE]

Edit: Hell, for that matter, how about making some more multiplayer experiences that are more of a blast with ACTUAL PEOPLE IN THE ROOM? Rayman Origins with 3 friends by my side was far more awesome than any online thing that's come out in a long time.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Mar 1, 2013)

There is such a disconnect from the consumers and the producers and top level people in this industry


----------



## dream (Mar 1, 2013)

Fuck off, Crytek, forever and ever.


----------



## KidTony (Mar 1, 2013)

says so after making three really shitty single player games.


----------



## Sephiroth (Mar 1, 2013)

Single player games need to evolve into multiplayer games? What? Why is he still calling it single player then.


----------



## bigduo209 (Mar 1, 2013)

Doom85 said:


> Edit: Hell, for that matter, how about making some more multiplayer experiences that are more of a blast with ACTUAL PEOPLE IN THE ROOM? Rayman Origins with 3 friends by my side was far more awesome than any online thing that's come out in a long time.



But that would mean decreasing your dependance on an internet connection and micro-transactions to play a game, why would they want that?

Also what are these things called 'families' and why don't more people not live together with another person? I mean that's just soooo 'forever' ago.


----------



## Axl Low (Mar 1, 2013)

Well bungie if u take this advice
have fun never making money again


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 1, 2013)

You guys are misinterpreting. Nowhere that dude is saying that singleplayer should turn multiplayer. I think it's more like Journey, D-Souls, that kind of stuff. It's the article that makes the retarded connection to MMOs.

//HbS


----------



## Velocity (Mar 1, 2013)

Hunted by sister said:


> You guys are misinterpreting. Nowhere that dude is saying that singleplayer should turn multiplayer. I think it's more like Journey, D-Souls, that kind of stuff. It's the article that makes the retarded connection to MMOs.
> 
> //HbS



They're novel experiences that wouldn't translate well into other genres. I mean, how the hell would you justify a random person showing up in the middle of your Uncharted play session, not having any way to communicate as they shoot a load of bad guys for you before disappearing as abruptly as they appeared?


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 1, 2013)

And where exactly did you get the idea that this is what Crytek is talking about? At this point, they are extremely vague. Can't judge yet, (like almost entire thread already is) just speculate. And my _opinion_ is that these are not going to be invasive on-line features. I atleast hope so. 

Read the second sentence in the article.

//HbS


----------



## Jak N Blak (Mar 1, 2013)

I need my Heavy Rains...God of Wars...Hitman's...


----------



## Buskuv (Mar 1, 2013)

Keep making your benchmark test shooters and leave creativity and originality to people who can actually pull it off, Crytek.


----------



## LivingHitokiri (Mar 1, 2013)

HBS, you're comparing facebook free games to the one that we pay full price .
They can put all their bullshit on free games and do w/e they want, but ruining my  single player experience because they just felt it would be good, no.

Remember what happen to Mind Jack that had the same concept ?


----------



## Geralt of Rivia (Mar 1, 2013)

Bad news for lonely nerds.


----------



## Stumpy (Mar 2, 2013)

Hunted by sister said:


> Actually Crytek has shitload of insight into this stuff. What they are saying is mostly right and will appeal to a huge mass of people, but not the oldschool gamers.
> 
> Me? I want my singleplayer lonely and offline. When I want to desocialize, I don't want to be bothered by other people, *especially* in my game.
> 
> ...





Hunted by sister said:


> You guys are misinterpreting. Nowhere that dude is saying that singleplayer should turn multiplayer. I think it's more like Journey, D-Souls, that kind of stuff. It's the article that makes the retarded connection to MMOs.
> 
> //HbS


It is where the industry is going. You are the only reasonable person in the thread so far.

AAA singleplayer games are no longer profitable to develop. That is why publishers like EA are talking about alternative ways of earning income in what we traditionally had cheat codes for or whatever. By making more games "connected" like Yerli suggests it can at least present developers with more unique design challenges on what else they can do with that idea.

It would not be so terrible if games cloned the floating player spirits from Fable 2 or the obvious stuff from the Souls games. That would be the lazy shit (design wise).


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 2, 2013)

Sorry if many of us don't like bending over for greedy as fuck publishers or developers who don't understand consumer choice and satisfaction. 

If your gonna treat me like a mindless money stream, fuck you. I will indeed vote with my money as Cliffy tells me. Good luck making your money back, don't blame the consumer for not buying your games.(even though you already are)


----------



## Jake CENA (Mar 2, 2013)

Go fuck yourself Mr. CEO. Singleplayer is always offline. You are just proposing an online singleplayer so you can force us to buy microtransaction bullshit like:

1. Pay $1 to unlock singleplayer




Fucking greedy assholes

It could work if all of us are millionaires and all of us have 4gbps internet connection.


----------



## Ultimania (Mar 2, 2013)

Dear Crytek,

Do me a favor and go fuck yourself...hard.

Sincerely,

Ultimania.


----------



## dream (Mar 2, 2013)

Can't wait for stuff like:

$1 for rechargeable shields/health. 
$1 for the ability to carry two weapons
$1 for the ability to sprint.


----------



## God Hand (Mar 2, 2013)

Solaris said:


> Can't wait for stuff like:
> 
> $1 for rechargeable shields/health.
> $1 for the ability to carry two weapons
> $1 for the ability to sprint.



Ughhh...I just threw up a little........

Why do people constantly have to push this idea of EVERYONE ONLINE HOLDING HANDS bullshit.  When I get home and want to relax, I don't want to listen to a bunch of dumbass kids cursing, sending angry messages, and dropping the N word every fuckin minute.

Glad to see like-minded peeps in here, gives me some hope yet.


----------



## Jake CENA (Mar 2, 2013)

$1 to unlock MAXIMUM STRENGTH! on Crysis 3


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 2, 2013)

God Hand said:


> Ughhh...I just threw up a little........
> 
> Why do people constantly have to push this idea of EVERYONE ONLINE HOLDING HANDS bullshit.  When I get home and want to relax, I don't want to listen to a bunch of dumbass kids cursing, sending angry messages, and dropping the N word every fuckin minute.
> 
> Glad to see like-minded peeps in here, gives me some hope yet.



I avoid multiplayer for a reason unless I know the person.
The last thing we need is some random dick in games.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 2, 2013)

Wow. All the guy said was "SP needs to evolve" and "on-line is cool for enhancements". And you guys are jumping to some retarded conclusions. Who said anything about DLC? Microtransactions? 

LivingHitokiri, they are most likely talking about only F2P games, since they're switching to F2P. 

//HbS


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 2, 2013)

Inuhanyou said:


> Sorry if many of us don't like bending over for greedy as fuck publishers or developers who don't understand consumer choice and satisfaction.


It is by not buying the game when you're not taking it up the ass. Join me in this endevour, and let's not buy shitty games, but good ones, instead! Who knows, maybe Crytek will release a good game with enhanced singleplayer. You never know.

//HbS


----------



## Death Certificate (Mar 2, 2013)

Solaris said:


> Can't wait for stuff like:
> 
> $1 for rechargeable shields/health.
> $1 for the ability to carry two weapons
> $1 for the ability to sprint.



Reminds me of this video
[YOUTUBE]h472NmF1HEQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 2, 2013)

There is not a single mention of DLC here. What the fuck, people?  some retarded conclusions here ITT

//HbS


----------



## Patchouli (Mar 2, 2013)

This could be okay if done right, and if there's a "play completely offline" option available. 

Just thinking back to Dark Souls and Journey. Both pulled this sort of thing off pretty well, and I'd like to see this kind of interaction used in other games. Obviously, this won't work well in all games - so the option to play offline and all alone is a must.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Mar 2, 2013)

Best games of all time were single player. So no, they don't.


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Mar 2, 2013)

as long as you can it off, sure neve- FUCK OFF CRYTEK


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 3, 2013)

Hunted by sister said:


> There is not a single mention of DLC here. What the fuck, people?  some retarded conclusions here ITT
> 
> //HbS



You're forgetting to look at history.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 3, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]LNM6i7RhwQ0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 3, 2013)

Alphaomegasin knocks it out of the park once again


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> You're forgetting to look at history.


Crytek has no history on on-line enhanced singleplayer games.


Inuhanyou said:


> Alphaomegasin knocks it out of the park once again


More like jumping to retarded conclusions. I understand people should be sceptical and realistic, but holy fuck that's being stupidly paranoid.

//HbS


----------



## Deimos (Mar 3, 2013)

herp  derp


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 3, 2013)

Before you irrationally defend them HBS, you should understand what it is they actually said. They didn't even imply "evolve", they said "go away". As in, "single player experiences without online only need to die".








So yeah, as long as Yearli means what he says, fuck him and his company with a brick.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 3, 2013)

Hunted by sister said:


> Crytek has no history on on-line enhanced singleplayer games.
> 
> More like jumping to retarded conclusions. I understand people should be sceptical and realistic, but holy fuck that's being stupidly paranoid.
> 
> //HbS



Which is why they shouldn't be talking about all single-player experiences needing to evolve.
No, there is no such thing anymore.
If you paid attention to the gaming industry at all.


Inuhanyou said:


> Before you irrationally defend them HBS, you should understand what it is they actually said. They didn't even imply "evolve", they said "go away". As in, "single player experiences without online only need to die".


That just drives the point even further.
Telling it to evolve into something that isn't a single player experience has the same meaning to me. I would hate to see what Disgaea would be like with that kind of thing.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 3, 2013)

I fucking agree. I just wanna be by myself without having shit shoved in my face. If this the direction the police force is going, they can have my badge


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

Inuhanyou said:


> Before you irrationally defend them HBS, you should understand what it is they actually said. They didn't even imply "evolve", they said "go away". As in, "single player experiences without online only need to die".


And I will keep repeating Journey and D-Souls. I will wait with my judgement until they actually *say what they want to do* and not jump to ridiculus conclusions like a paranoid little mouse. 

And where do you all see DLC and microtransactions here?


Unlosing Ranger said:


> Which is why they shouldn't be talking about all single-player experiences needing to evolve.
> No, there is no such thing anymore.
> If you paid attention to the gaming industry at all.
> 
> ...


Yeah, since Crytek's strenght is singleplayer, they obviously can't speak about it.

They are surely right about one thing. There is generation fatigue. We're constantly getting "more of the same". Innovation is not supported by biggest publishers. Neither are new IPs. How many new triple A IPs did we get last year? One (Dishonored)? We're tired of it and we're not buying it anymore, but we buy sequels because we're already invested in the series.


Inuhanyou said:


> I fucking agree. I just wanna be by myself without having shit shoved in my face. If this the direction the police force is going, they can have my badge


Once more. I will wait until they say something that is not so fucking vague, something concrete. You guys are hating *becasue*. It's like running away from a job because your boss said something vague about big changes in your office, and later it might turn out it was a raise for everyone.

Of course, the two of you can be right. We don't know *yet*. And that's the whole fucking point of my posts. We have no idea what they mean, and people assume it's some sick bullshit. Change can be good. 

//HbS


----------



## Deathbringerpt (Mar 3, 2013)

> And I will keep repeating Journey and D-Souls. I will wait with my judgement until they actually say what they want to do and not jump to ridiculus conclusions like a paranoid little mouse.



So we shouldn't consider their words despite how asinine they are? They might as well keep their mouth shut if they're making broad statements with no actual proposal behind them. This is not even about DLC or micro-transactions, it's about how stupid the very idea of "strict single player needs to die just because" is in the first place. That's what most people are commenting about. Why you think it's above reproach is beyond me.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 3, 2013)

Although i didn't mention it myself, in the case of DLC and micro-transactions...

Crytek have been pushing their pay2win model for years incase you didn't notice. And they are going toward a fully pay2win model after all of their obligations are completed. That in conjunction with their super push towards always online functionality should obviously tell you where they are heading.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

I already said I don't like the notion that offline SP is not viable anymore. I do *only* offline singleplayer. The only multiplayer I play is Blacklight: Retribution and Starcraft 2. 

What I am arguing about are these bullshit assumptions and conclusions people make. Have a little objectivity, guys. We know not everyone will follow Crytek, and they just might make a good game around that on-line enhanced singleplayer. *We will see*.


Inuhanyou said:


> Crytek have been pushing their pay2win model for years incase you didn't notice. That in conjunction with their super push towards always online functionality should obviously tell you where they are heading.


Pay2Win? For years? The fuck are you talking about? They only have one F2P game on the market, and it's only a couple of months old, still beta, it's a 2013 release. And it has a standard F2P model which isn't more unfair than any other standard model. Timesavers and cosmeticts. 

They said they want to switch to F2P games, but in 5 years *from now*.

I'm sorry, but do you even know about things you argue about?

//HbS


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 3, 2013)

The slippy slope that is Diablo 3 I will not risk to become popular with the "give it a chance bit".
Objectivity is the last thing that it deserves because things like this effect the industry as a whole.
Don't want them running away with it.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

Diablo 3 was going to be shit from the very beginning. People got the game only because it has a Diablo on it and got burned, it's your own fault, should've paid attention.

Being objective is the best thing you can do while judging something. Otherwise, you're just a child pouting or boasting and your opinion has absolutely no value. If Crytek fucks this up, I will be all up in your face with it. If they don't, I will happily play it. Either way, behaving like a pessimistic spoiled child is not something I am going to do. Wait, and see.

//HbS


----------



## Deathbringerpt (Mar 3, 2013)

Hunted by sister said:


> Diablo 3 was going to be shit from the very beginning. People got the game only because it has a Diablo on it and got burned, it's your own fault, should've paid attention.



Right, because the titanic online error filled, connection dropping disaster that was its launch didn't massively contributed to people' s perception about the game and why the game is shunned to this day. Hell, people love the fuck out of always online DRM outside Diablo 3, right?

Diablo 3 was a disappointment but the intrinsic changes to the experience that were a direct consequence of turning it into a constant online game were the biggest factors to it.

"It's bad when other companies do it but don't judge when Crytek says that they want to do similar shit, guys!"

How fucking defensive can you get, jesus.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

Deathbringerpt said:


> Right, because the titanic online error filled, connection dropping disaster that was its launch didn't massively contributed to people' s perception about the game and why the game is shunned to this day. Hell, people love the fuck out of always online DRM outside Diablo 3, right?


You're not making much sense.


Deathbringerpt said:


> Diablo 3 was a disappointment but the intrinsic changes to the experience that were a direct consequence of turning it into a constant online game were the biggest factors to it.


Because someone had the bright idea of making a dungeon crawler an on-line game with servers too weak to handle all the customers. Retarded decisions during development cycle, that popped out halfway. Never a good thing.

If a game is designed around that (Journey), it can turn out alright.


Deathbringerpt said:


> "It's bad when other companies do it but don't judge when Crytek says that they want to do similar shit, guys!"
> 
> How fucking defensive can you get, jesus.


Am I in 2013? Or is it 2017? Because from what I know, Crytek didn't release any concrete info or done that in any of their games. 

I already said. Crytek may fuck this up. Or they won't. *We don't know yet*. If they give us details and they will be bad, of course I will shit on them, but I can't do that yet, because *we don't know yet* if it's going to turn out alright or not.

I am trying to think of games where it turned out alright.

*Journey*
*D-Souls *series
*Anno 2070 *- community votes on senators and council, no in-game interaction, in-game consequences of these votes
*Little Big Planets* - maps exchange, community
Half a million of on-line leaderboard games
can't think of anything else

//HbS


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 3, 2013)

Hunted by sister said:


> You're not making much sense.
> 
> Because someone had the bright idea of making a dungeon crawler an on-line game with servers too weak to handle all the customers. Retarded decisions during development cycle, that popped out halfway. Never a good thing.
> 
> ...


I didn't buy Diablo 3.
online leader boards aren't what come to mind, because like said it's everywhere they aren't talking about that at all.
Anno 2070 never heard of it.
Little Big planet, that is what it is based around not single player it's a community game not single player even if it has it. It's even advertised as a community game.
If you decide to do community you sacrifice the single player aspect.
Would Journey even be half of a itself offline?


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> online leader boards aren't what come to mind, because like said it's everywhere they aren't talking about that at all.


Why are you so sure? And ever heard of an "example"?


Unlosing Ranger said:


> Anno 2070 never heard of it.


Well, sucks to be you.


Unlosing Ranger said:


> Little Big planet, that is what it is based around not single player it's a community game not single player even if it has it. It's even advertised as a community game.


Go on 


Unlosing Ranger said:


> If you decide to do community you sacrifice the single player aspect.
> Would Journey even be half of a itself offline?


That's a question I should be asking you.

//HbS


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 3, 2013)

Your basically just ignoring every single point he brings up 

Always online brings real issues, and Crytek is trying to dive head first into that system without any respect for offline players


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

Wouldn't be so sure. While in 5 years they will switch to F2P which is obviously only online, they know people bought Crysis only for offline singleplayer.

//HbS


----------



## Yoburi (Mar 3, 2013)

Inuhanyou said:


> Your basically just ignoring every single point he brings up
> 
> Always online brings real issues, and Crytek is trying to dive head first into that system without any respect for offline players



True and true! this guy thinks the idea of ​​a normal single player is old so he must fix and change...how arrogant.

This is an individual don't care about other people opinions or preferences... everyone is entitled to be stupid but some people just exaggerate a bit ...


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

Yeah. Innovation and evolution. Holy fuck what horrible ideas.

//HbS


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 3, 2013)

Hunted by sister said:


> Yeah. Innovation and evolution. Holy fuck what horrible ideas.
> 
> //HbS



In an area that doesn't need it compared to areas that actually do, yes.
Fix the broken stuff before going over to the stuff that isn't broken and possibly breaking it while trying to "improve" it.


----------



## Krory (Mar 3, 2013)

So is HbS still handjobbing Crytek in this thread?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 3, 2013)

Yes 

changing things for the sake of change is stupid. If there's nothing broke don't 'fix' it.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> In an area that doesn't need it compared to areas that actually do, yes.
> Fix the broken stuff before going over to the stuff that isn't broken and possibly breaking it while trying to "improve" it.





Inuhanyou said:


> changing things for the sake of change is stupid. If there's nothing broke don't 'fix' it.


Maybe not broken, but it is stale, which is horrbiel! Stir shit up! Make it interesting again! Now ever game we're getting is the same as previous one, sans details. When was the last time we had a genre-defining innovation in FPS? CoD4 (which is a 7 years old game)?

Why do you think F2P and co-op are/were so popular? Because it was fresh and cool.


Krory said:


> So is HbS still handjobbing Crytek in this thread?


Oh please, talk some more, Mr. EA's anal sex boytoy. Talk more about me trying to be objective observer is handjobbing Crytek as you moan in pleasure choking on cum while John Riccitiello shoves a sixth dick up your cashcow asshole. 

//HbS


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 3, 2013)

Hunted by sister said:


> Maybe not broken, but it is stale, which is horrbiel! Stir shit up! Make it interesting again! Now ever game we're getting is the same as previous one, sans details. When was the last time we had a genre-defining innovation in FPS? CoD4 (which is a 7 years old game)?
> 
> Why do you think F2P and co-op are/were so popular? Because it was fresh and cool.
> 
> ...



That was pretty funny.
That has less to do with single player than anything.
Have you seen MGR? That's how new things get done and it's single player.
F2P is popular because it's free though it is more original than most there are bad ones as well.


----------



## Velocity (Mar 3, 2013)

Hunted by sister said:


> Yeah. Innovation and evolution. Holy fuck what horrible ideas.
> 
> //HbS



Evolution is a natural progression, such as going from Super Mario World 2 to Super Mario 64, and innovation is exploration of new ideas. Turning single player into "connected single player" just means adding unnecessary social features or intrusive multiplayer components, which isn't innovative at all and it certainly isn't evolution. It's developers being lazy sods who think Facebook integration somehow deepens the experience (hyperbole I know, but it gets the point across).


----------



## Krory (Mar 3, 2013)

I love everyone and we all have nice opinions!

:33


----------



## Buskuv (Mar 3, 2013)

Oh no you don't.

Anyways, I don't know who they think is buying this benign, silver-tongued nonsense about it being a way to innovate and/or enhance the single player experience.  There are some genuinely good integrations of the two, but it's become fairly apparently most of it revolves around DRM and other nefarious practices.

There is no advantage to 'always online.'

Not one.


----------



## Furious George (Mar 3, 2013)

*Furious George says Crytek CEO needs to "shut up".*


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

I will still say that these "unnecessary features" sometimes enhance the singleplayer experience. I will keep bringing Journey up. And always-online *DRM* is never good, but being always online just because you can... why not? As UR asked earlier, what would Journey be without it's online component?

Crytek may very well fuck this up. But at the same time, they just might pull it off. We'll see when they actually tell us what they are trying to do in details. That's my humble opinion.

PS: F2P being free is an invalid point. Many, many people pay anyway for cosmetics and timesavers. Just look at LoL. Even a game with a small community like Blacklight Retribution holds it's own.

//HbS


----------



## Krory (Mar 3, 2013)

Furious George said:


> *Furious George says Crytek CEO needs to "shut up".*



You shut up!  Stop trying to hinder innovation!


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 3, 2013)

I LOVE INNOVATION, BRING ON THE FURTHER DISMANTLING OF CONSUMER CHOICE!


----------



## Krory (Mar 3, 2013)

You want innovation? BAM! You can see raindrops on foliage in real-time. _Single-player gaming experience has been saved_.

You're welcome.

Love, Crytek


----------



## Furious George (Mar 3, 2013)

Hunted by sister said:


> I will still say that these "unnecessary features" sometimes enhance the singleplayer experience. I will keep bringing Journey up. And always-online *DRM* is never good, but being always online just because you can... why not? As UR asked earlier, what would Journey be without it's online component?
> 
> Crytek may very well fuck this up. But at the same time, they just might pull it off. We'll see when they actually tell us what they are trying to do in details. That's my humble opinion.
> 
> ...



As for the Journey experience, yes, it would not have been what it was without its online component. 

As has been said countless times, it is not so much the idea of connected single-player that is bothering people (at least not me, since I'm not a smelly distrustful conspiracy theorist who vomits whenever words like "social community" come up). Its the insane notion that just playing a game completely by yourself needs to "go away" and we all have to get with the times. Its just a foolish statement.


----------



## Deathbringerpt (Mar 3, 2013)

Krory said:


> You want innovation? BAM! You can see raindrops on foliage in real-time. _Single-player gaming experience has been saved_.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Love, Crytek



Truly the saviors of the gaming industry. Because good graphics makes a shell-of-its-former-glory-FPS fucking awesome.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 3, 2013)

Hunted by sister said:


> I will still say that these "unnecessary features" sometimes enhance the singleplayer experience. I will keep bringing Journey up. And always-online *DRM* is never good, but being always online just because you can... why not? As UR asked earlier, what would Journey be without it's online component?
> 
> Crytek may very well fuck this up. But at the same time, they just might pull it off. We'll see when they actually tell us what they are trying to do in details. That's my humble opinion.
> 
> ...


That's a double edged sword on a game being good or bad in the best conditions. Bad being if you don't have online.
It isn't because the fact it is free means it's the most accessible and good F2P games are in reality few and far apart.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

Furious George said:


> As for the Journey experience, yes, it would not have been what it was without its online component.
> 
> As has been said countless times, it is not so much the idea of connected single-player that is bothering people (at least not me, since I'm not a smelly distrustful conspiracy theorist who vomits whenever words like "social community" come up). Its the insane notion that just playing a game completely by yourself needs to "go away" and we all have to get with the times. Its just a foolish statement.


Oh yeah. Singleplayer came to existance for the sole reason of people needing some "me" time, locked away from any other people. However, trying to enhance it in a non-intrusive way? Give it a shot!

And seriously, if anyone thinks this statement will affect more than Crytek itself is a fool. They have only control over themselves, it's not like singleplayer will disappear overnight from the entire industry.

As I said countless times before - let's actually see what they will be offering in their future games.

//HbS


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 3, 2013)

Synchronous single player can be a good thing if done right. As has been said, Demons and Dark do it well, and many online MMO's do it just fine, i'm assuming Destiny is going to be like that as well.

But i don't want it intruding on every game, and i sure as hell want an option to play the game by myself and without the need of being online to do it.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

They don't have to intrude. It's up to the developer to design the game around that.

And even if the developed doesn't give us a big button saying "go offline", we still can. Why do you think always on-line DRM was as much of a failure as any other DRM? Of course I understand some people don't want to tinker, but hey. We've got brains, let's use them for a change.

//HbS


----------



## Yoburi (Mar 3, 2013)

Dr. Boskov Krevorkian said:


> Oh no you don't.
> 
> Anyways, I don't know who they think is buying this benign, silver-tongued nonsense about it being a way to innovate and/or enhance the single player experience.  There are some genuinely good integrations of the two, but it's become fairly apparently most of it revolves around DRM and other nefarious practices.
> 
> ...



I know who bought Mr. Hunted by sister i mean wow this guy is tied in this CEO testicles and persists in describing them us.


----------



## Hunted by sister (Mar 3, 2013)

Wow, I urge people not to jump to retarded conclusions and suddenly I am on someone's payroll. Nice. I wish it was THAT easy to get paid. You know... some of us actually have to work 

//HbS


----------

