would you reather their being a "tacked on" multiplayer or would you rather have the development team focus on single player only?
to add to that, focus on online gameplay (Battefield 1942 is a perfect example of a great game with its focus solely on online multiplayer. single player was multiplayer online, but real people are replaced with bots)
you could also go with "How important is multiplayer support" with choices like not important at all, all types Very important, Split-Screen/Co-op, online multiplayer only
Or focus on other things like "Which makes a game more enjoyable?" with choices like A good story, Great graphics, Exceptional voicework, intuitive and responsive controls, the skill level, a multiplayer component, etc.
what were they?
Sinlock's poll is live. @ Thepreppymonk how's this?
How important is multiplayer support?
Focus on single player only
Focus on online gameplay only
I want Split-Screen/Co-op
I want "tacked on" multiplayer
Not important at all
@ JimmyMagnum how's this?
Which makes a game more enjoyable?
A good story
Intuitive and responsive controls
The skill level
A multiplayer component
New Poll is live. A idea I had for a new poll:
What is your favorite gaming generation?
Gen1 = Atari, Intellivision, Com 64
Gen2 = Nintendo, Sega, TurboGrafx-16
Gen4 = Playstation, N-64, Sega Saturn
Gen3 = SNES, Sega Genesis, CD-i
Gen5 = PS2, Dreamcast, Gamecube, XBox
Gen6 = PS3, XBox360, Wii
My first was a handheld i.e. Gameboy, Lynx, PSP, N-DS
I want "tacked on" multiplayer
Unless it's a MMO, games should focus on having an excellent single player first because spending 60+ bucks on a game with limited multiplayer with no or weak single player always makes a game feel incomplete. Games that have a great single player side with multiplayer tacked on usually end up being the games that gives you the most bang for your buck because you can enjoy them online or off. Good examples are:
Ultimate Alliance 2
Metal Gear 4
Red Faction: Gurrilla
Single player first, multiplayer if I'm in the mood, or not playing a MMO. Non-MMO games should always have both imo.
heres an idea for a future one:
Sex in video games?
with the choices being
- Too much
- They could go further
- Not enough
- They went too far with God of War
- Nothing today still compares to Custer's Revenge
had to google it myself.. lmao never heard of that one
Had Custer\'s Revenge come out in the robot-heavy early 1990\'s it probably would have been called \"Rape Simulator 2000\". That\'s right, this is the only game in the history of the interactive entertainment (to my knowledge) where the goal is to rape a helpless woman! While we don\'t condone rape here at Arthur\'s Hall, it suddenly becomes pretty damn harmless (not to mention hilarious) once you put it in the context of a Atari 2600 video game that was released over 20 years ago.
The gameplay is simple. you are a naked and horny General Custer with a big fat 4-bit boner. On the far right of the screen is a naked Indian maiden tied to a stake. The goal is to have sex with her as much as possible without getting hit by the arrows falling from the sky. The action button is the \"rape button\" and can be pressed once you work your way over to the maiden to ravage her. If you rape her for two long, you will no doubt be hit by the falling arrows. It\'s best to move away and wait for an opening to rape her some more. You are awarded points for every thrust of course.
Yes, this is sick and depraved, and whoever programmed this game should probably be sent to prison. Still, who else would have had the balls to make a game like this? The whole concept is just insane. Custer\'s Revenge just might be the most politically incorrect thing I\'ve ever witnessed, and that makes it manly as hell.
Most Users Ever Online: 349
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 188
Newest Members: Young_Gun137