It seems silly to produce a shooter without a multiplayer component these days.

But that's precisely what Machine Games and Bethesda is doing with Wolfenstein: The New Order . FPS fans want to know why, and Bethesda marketing vice president Pete Hines recently explained .

He says the publisher didn't push multiplayer on Machine Games, because it didn't fit the creative vision for the project. Simply, Hines said "multiplayer wasn't in their thought process," and Bethesda was just fine with that:

"We're not going to force it down their throats and say, 'Well, the last games did, so you have to do it.' These guys do cool stuff. If you look at The Chronicles of Riddick or you look at The Darkness, those games have a creative element to them that is similar to the things they're doing in Wolfenstein and that's what attracted us to them, and that's what attracted us to their vision of Wolfenstein.

And we said 'Okay, run with that.' We're not going to say, 'Oh, we'll find somebody else to do the multiplayer.'"

Sure, why not? The Chronicles of Riddick and The Darkness are two excellent examples of single-player-only first-person games that did not need multiplayer. Furthermore, don't forget that Bethesda's primary franchises aren't about multiplayer; The Elder Scrolls and Fallout , for instance, or hardcore RPGs. Then there's last year's Dishonored , which also only boasted a single-player campaign.

…and it wound up being our Game of the Year .

Related Game(s): Wolfenstein: The New Order

Subscribe
Notify of
11 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Temjin001
Temjin001
7 years ago
Cho_Quin
Cho_Quin
7 years ago

In todays market, a shooter without multiplayer, that is not called CoD, its gonna have a bad time

Kryten1029a
Kryten1029a
7 years ago

I would say that the problem is shooters that throw in multiplayer in hopes of competing with CoD. Look at Bioshock 2; I enjoyed the multiplayer but it really didn't need to be there and within six months it was hard to even find enough players on to play a game. Sometimes it does work (Mass Effect 3) but there's no way to predict it and devs shouldn't do it unless they have a very clear vision of how to make it function.

ProfPlayStation
ProfPlayStation
7 years ago

A more accurate statement: "In todays market, a shooter…that is not called CoD, its gonna have a bad time."

The assumption that every game needs multiplayer is one of the reasons why the industry is in trouble. Very few games NEED multiplayer, and very few games have a substantial amount of players online after the launch week. Even crap like the Golden Axe digital re-release, where everyone clamored that it HAD to have multiplayer, just because; there was no one online! Ever!

For most games, all multiplayer does is to waste development time and money, and create a consistent drain with the servers and maintenance. Unless there is a reason for it to be there–besides "everyone else is doing it"–then it shouldn't be there!

The other assumption, that you can gain sales by fighting shooters with more shooters, is another major reason that the industry is in trouble. When the vast majority of the shooter crowd is only playing one shooter, there's no point in making another shooter–they won't buy it! Make something else. (that's a general statement; not knocking Wolfenstein, in particular, though Wolfenstein isn't helping the situation)

rogers71
rogers71
7 years ago

GOOD!

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
7 years ago

Makes it more attractive to me, you know where the focus is.

Tim Speed24
Tim Speed24
7 years ago

Good for them……clap,clap,clap,clap.

Most games do not need multiplayer IMHO.

ProfPlayStation
ProfPlayStation
7 years ago

But…but it NEEDS multiplayer!! Just like Tomb Raider!!

/sarcasm

Neo_Aeon666
Neo_Aeon666
7 years ago

I'm actually sad. I remember one of the games I had most fun in online multiplayer was: Return To Castle Wolfenstein! The beach and quite a few maps always got me pumped! Schnell! Schnell!

That game was Epic story + awesome multiplayer. Also loved all the custom toysoldier maps people created afterwards ūüėÄ

Anyway to me that was the whole Wolfenstein experience. Having just singleplayer and never going back to that nice multiplayer they had makes me sad. I did not really enjoy the PS3 Wolfenstein that was last released either. Had some fun in singleplayer but multiplayer was a letdown… That might be why they dropped it but if only they could do it like the time before that T-T


Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 6/21/2013 11:11:59 PM

___________
___________
7 years ago

nice to see someone has their head screwed on straight!
looking forward to this the E3 demo actually surprised me, definitely not what i was expecting it to be which was a good thing.

Masszt3r
Masszt3r
7 years ago

I'm glad Bethesda has had a firm stance on this. I hate it when developers and fans want multiplayer on every single game that is realeased, especially FPSs. FPSs can be perfectly fun without multiplayer; Turok 2's campaign was awesome; Red Faction was breathtaking; Bioshock 1 was great; Goldeneye's campaign is to me one of the best FPS campaigns ever, and the list goes on.