does a purely multiplayer game require less Time and money to make

[eastyy]

id always wonder about this.....really thinking about fps rpgs and rts games really

Got the game demigod....its good fun but there is no proper story mode or campaign just a series of battles and arenas

but was thinking obviously multiplayer games need to be balanced but if they dont have to wory about story ....lots of voice acting....cutscenes like it would have for single player does it make it cheaper and faster to make overall ?

[Psyduck]

saves a ton in terms of AI or lack of.

[averybluemonkey]

Two of my favourite games recently were Left 4 Dead and Shadowrun, both of these have fantastic balancing and depth such that I'm still learning stuff years on. I think to properly create a multiplayer level is far more time consuming than a single player one as the playtesting needs to be far more extensive.

[Malc]

Yeah but contract testers are cheap and any poor sod will work for you if they are trying to get there foot in the door, and most developers exploit this unfortunately.

I'd imagine a multiplayer game would require less money and time to make as the experience of the game would come from the people playing it online. Whereas if it's a single player game then the art design, level design, music, AI, Scripting, story etc. all needs to be planned by the developer. Which would take a much longer time i'd imagine than making a few levels which are empty, some guns, and letting the 16 people make their own fun.

Despite it being cheaper to make a Multiplayer game, it doesn't mean it will be a good one. A developer would have to put in a lot of development time and money in order to produce something enjoyable. Like Valve with L4D for example.

[averybluemonkey]

Yeah but I'm not talking about bug testers I'm talking about repeated testing by the game designers and level editors - the people making the game. Bug testers wouldn't have the skillset needed for this work. Each change needs to be tested in isolation, from minor changes in speed, to weapon weight affects, recoil changes, etc. These are all things not that important in single player design but are crucial for multiplayer.

Multiplayer level design, when done properly, is far more difficult than you describe. A decent level can take over a 100 hours, most single player levels can be knocked up far more quickly.

[eastyy]

well basically why i thought about this was playing the game demi gods which i know was a multiplayer only game

But after playing gas powered games previous games like dungeon siege 2 and supereme commander i couldnt help but feel that demi god was lacking in content (and there previous games a multiplayer component to it )

[Flabio]

Short answer? Yes, they do.

[chopemon]

The money you save comes from not scripting levels. Getting a single player level into a shippable state is time consuming nightmare compared to a multiplayer level.

[Malc]

Multiplayer level design, when done properly, is far more diffict than you describe. A decent level can take over a 100 hours

Which is what I mentioned in my last paragraph.

Multiplayer games are more about giving the tools to the players to have fun. Whereas SP games are about creating that whole experience for the player, which is much more resource consuming.

[Matt]

The money you save comes from not scripting levels. Getting a single player level into a shippable state is time consuming nightmare compared to a multiplayer level.

Multiplayer tends to be smaller levels, so less assets - plus graphically you won't need as much fidelity. Without scripting and the subsequent bug fixes, you spend the time on multiplayer testing to get the level as good as you can.

Once you've made the "game", the multiplayer levels just sit on top of it, so to speak. Of course, you'd still spend ages developing the game, and balancing is very important.

Not sure about MMORPGs like WOW, as I've not played it; get the impression that would have a bit of scripting in the levels, but I've not played it so wouldn't know.

[merf]

didn't Valve mention that with a title like L4D 2 as gameplay was procedural based, as opposed to scripted with big set piece moments, it was the primary reason they could get a full featured sequel out far quicker than for say Half Life.

[Malc]

didn't Valve mention that with a title like L4D 2 as gameplay was procedural based, as opposed to scripted with big set piece moments, it was the primary reason they could get a full featured sequel out far quicker than for say Half Life.

No, it was in fact that Valve are not loyal to their fanbase in any way and wanted to screw them over by releasing another full priced game that we'd have to pay for, instead of giving us free DLC for L4D 1 and support the game like they have always said.

I'm now joing the L4D2 boycott group on Steam.

[Matt]

With L4D2, I imagine you're getting a tweaked "Director". They may have tidied the code up a little, and added a few more variables to allow more varied situations.

I still maintain that the Director itself is a fairly simple piece of tech, and it was just the "tweaking" that took [a lot of] time to get the possible gaming experience out of it. You'd include a load of variables and leave it to the designers to play around for the best settings in their levels

[EvilBoris]

They've discussed a little about the new director already

Looking back, was the Orange Box a ripoff?" He said, on initial complaints at having to "buy" Half-Life 2 again in the compilation. "Give us a fair shake on this, read more about it, find out about it, we've already let people play it [at E3]... After that, if you want to vent, post to the forums. We do read them, we read all the forums."

Apparently the developer was expecting backlash from the sequel before it was even announced, deciding to text prominent map makers minutes after its reveal to let them know that their work would not be affected negatively by the sequel.

But according to Faliszek, Left 4 Dead 2's five new campaigns, new weapons, special infected and zombie dismemberment are simply too huge to put in an update.

"We had some meetings about it, and we all talked about our ideas, and everyone was pretty focused and thoughtful, a lot of the same ideas were happening," Faliszek told Ars Technica. "We wanted the Director to be smarter, but to be smarter it needed more special infected in its stable. For example, the Charger that we see today.

"It just became very clear that this was a cohesive, singular statement we wanted to make, not a more slow update thing... too much stuff was tied together with too many other things.

"The Common Infected-now there is destruction in different parts of their body, to ship all the new Common Infected, even with an update, would be a huge thing."