To people claiming Local Multiplayer is a 'rip-off'...

[Fake Squid]

How much did Super Smash Bros Melee go for at launch? $40, at least? How many quarters (and entrance fees) have classic competitive arcade games like Street Fighter or Marvel vs Capcom eaten up over the years, despite their early titles possessing no online multiplayer options whatsoever? Do you feel that literally every other of the hundreds of multiplayer games created before online matchmaking took hold were 'rip-offs'? Many of you may be too young to realize, but playing games against a friend or family member is an entirely different experience than online multiplayer, though neither is superior to the other.

I can tell you that, if they simply slapped on an online multiplayer matchmaking system to Gentlemen!, these same people who call the game as it is now a 'rip-off' would be complaining just as loudly. Why? Because Gentlemen! wasn't designed for online multiplayer, it's made for quick bursts of enjoyable gameplay with people who are with you in real life. The game is incredibly fast paced, and games last, at most, a couple minutes. The game was, from the very start, not made for online multiplayer.

Modern gamers need to understand that:

1. Not all games were made specifically to cater to YOUR interests. There are lots of gamers on earth, and they don't all have the same tastes as you. If you really hate the game so much, please just move on and stop attacking it mindlessly because it doesn't allow you to play with fellow foreveralones 'core gamers'.

2. There was a time when online multiplayer was not an option, and yet people still enjoyed competitive gaming all the same, at both casual and professional levels. How? Why is that? Because, in real life, people have things called "friends", who they spend time with in-person, though I'm curious if some of you have even considered this concept.

I know this 'isn't the 90s any more', and that many modern games have turned away from local multiplayer gameplay, but does that mean that EVERY game must?

This game has suffered quite a lot as it is, and angrily attacking it just to enforce your idea of what exactly videogame entertainment should entail on developers who've put a lot of work into creating something out-of-the-ordinary for people to enjoy is just plain rude. YES, it's a mechanically simple game, and YES, it isn't going to appeal to everyone who comes across it, but if you aren't in the target audience or you dislike the lack of online mutiplayer, PLEASE show some compassion and stop taking it out on others. Suggestions are fine, criticism is fine, but all this immature whining really has to stop.

Thanks.

[amazingrolo]

:)

[tarp]

I agree (that local multiplayer is cool, I didn't read the whole thing), but it would be nice if steam's tagging system wasn't so ambiguous.

[Fake Squid]

Originally posted by tarp:

I agree (that local multiplayer is cool, I didn't read the whole thing), but it would be nice if steam's tagging system wasn't so ambiguous.

Agreed on that reguard. A bit obnoxious how Steam's tagging system makes no distinction between two obviously different types of multiplayer. Hopefully those tagging issue will be fixed by Steam soon, so potential buyers will realize that it's local-multiplayer sooner, rather than later.

[Ꝙ Ghosthunter Ꝙ]

Originally posted by tarp:

I agree (that local multiplayer is cool, I didn't read the whole thing), but it would be nice if steam's tagging system wasn't so ambiguous.

The game description obviously say LOCAL multiplayer.
The steam tag only say multiplayer.

Multiplauer is NOT automaticly Online... Just read the description, it's the best way to do it.

[tarp]

While that is obvious to me, what isn't obvious is why there is a distinction between local coop and (online) coop but no distinction between local multiplayer and online multiplayer. Coop IS automatically online (according to steam), so why doesn't versus have a comparable system of tagging? You can just deal with it however you please, I chose to talk about it because it doesn't make sense and honestly I thought after all these years it would be fixed.

[Ꝙ Ghosthunter Ꝙ]

Originally posted by tarp:

While that is obvious to me, what isn't obvious is why there is a distinction between local coop and (online) coop but no distinction between local multiplayer and online multiplayer. Coop IS automatically online (according to steam), so why doesn't versus have a comparable system of tagging? You can just deal with it however you please, I chose to talk about it because it doesn't make sense and honestly I thought after all these years it would be fixed.

Co-op just mean cooperation.

Accordingly to steam? They simply put a co-op tag... You areonly imagine its mean online.

[tarp]

If "co-op" doesn't imply online then what is the purpose of the tag "local co-op"?

[Ꝙ Ghosthunter Ꝙ]

Originally posted by tarp:

If "co-op" doesn't imply online then what is the purpose of the tag "local co-op"?

Because there's a LOCAL co-op mean co-op is online?


Do you see the word "ONLINE" beside co-op?

You only make an assumption of the co-op being online.
You only blindly purchase a game, hoping it's online co-op JUST because you see "co-op" tag.

Don't blame valve if you make assumption of it being online AND if you blindly purchase a game WITHOUT reading the game description saying it's LOCAL CO-OP.

[tarp]

Please explain how the tagging system is fine when it's plain to see the specific lack of coverage it affords to games of this genre, when even the dev is admitting the shortcomings of it.

Originally posted by amazingrolo:

Hey! I'd love to add a local multiplayer icon, but I can't seem to find where to do that...in our store management the options are "Single player", "Multi-player", "Cross Platform Multiplayer", "MMO", "Co-op" and "Local Co-op"

So naturally we currently have "Multiplayer" selected, but there's no option for Local Multiplayer. :(

I'll keep looking, but I'm not sure where it would be. Do you know of other local multiplayer games that have the icon you're mentioning, or are you thinking about the local co-op icon?

thanks for your interest in the game!

and furthurmore all of your assumptions about me were incorrect. I'm really confused where you get off acting like that. Either you're really confused, or really into arguing about stupid ♥♥♥♥.

[Ꝙ Ghosthunter Ꝙ]

Originally posted by tarp:

Please explain how the tagging system is fine when it's plain to see the specific lack of coverage it affords to games of this genre, when even the dev is admitting the shortcomings of it.

Originally posted by amazingrolo:

Hey! I'd love to add a local multiplayer icon, but I can't seem to find where to do that...in our store management the options are "Single player", "Multi-player", "Cross Platform Multiplayer", "MMO", "Co-op" and "Local Co-op"

So naturally we currently have "Multiplayer" selected, but there's no option for Local Multiplayer. :(

I'll keep looking, but I'm not sure where it would be. Do you know of other local multiplayer games that have the icon you're mentioning, or are you thinking about the local co-op icon?

thanks for your interest in the game!

and furthurmore all of your assumptions about me were incorrect. I'm really confused where you get off acting like that. Either you're really confused, or really into arguing about stupid ♥♥♥♥.

This problem wouldn't be there if the users would ACTUALLY READ the game description instead of blindly purchasing the game and imagine multiplayer automaticly mean online.

The game description ALWAYS being more precise

The dev just select multiplayer as it's allow multiplayer THEN they precise it's LOCAL in the game description, but at this point, not their problem if they don't read the game description.

Those days, users tend to purchase WAY TOO much their games in a blindly way.

Before i had to go to the store, reading the back of the cover and looking a bit online to find what i needed. Won't hurt you that much reading the game description.

[KayleSama]

yeah buy games like super smash bro's had single player and computers to fight, with this your limited to whomever you can scavenge up nearby >.>
I just looked up because i thought android/ipad version was online at least but nope? Must be even awkwarder to share an ipad with someone...
So they can go ahead and keep it local for some arbitrary reason, this is the digital age with internet and playing with people across the world, we're moving past local co-op anything just like in the way of arcades dying off. I think the emptiness of this games forums and group chat speak for how its doing..

[Fake Squid]

Originally posted by Mr Devious:

yeah buy games like super smash bro's had single player and computers to fight, with this your limited to whomever you can scavenge up nearby >.>
I just looked up because i thought android/ipad version was online at least but nope? Must be even awkwarder to share an ipad with someone...
So they can go ahead and keep it local for some arbitrary reason, this is the digital age with internet and playing with people across the world, we're moving past local co-op anything just like in the way of arcades dying off. I think the emptiness of this games forums and group chat speak for how its doing..

You make an interesting point; I think this game might be able to benefit from an AI, though it's much more entertaining to play with friends/enemies of course. Perhaps one day :D

Regarding your other statements/accusations however: The audience for this type of a game is niche, but the audience does exist. However, there's such simplicity to this game that a forum isn't exactly neccesary for it (and lack of group chat should be obvious, lol). Not to mention the piracy issue, which was publicized a while back.

Also, did you read my original post? Online multiplayer for this game *wouldn't work*, the reason is NOT 'arbitrary', online multiplayer for this game wouldn't be fun: the game was designed to play with people next to you in real life. Do you whine and cry to Milton Bradely because Twister doesn't have random online matchmaking? This is one of those games that is played in quick bursts, and you have to experience it with others, it's that simple. Major gameplay changes would be needed in order for multiplayer to be captivating, and at that point it'd no longer be the same game.

Just because you don't like the game doesn't mean everyone else shares your opinion. If you don't think it's worth the money, then you aren't in the target audience; it's that simple.

P.S. From what I understand, Mobile version is just 1v1, which would make the controls much less cluttered than this version's 1v1v1v1 chaos. Just clarifying :)

[Robsen]

Originally posted by Stelpa:

Agreed on that reguard. A bit obnoxious how Steam's tagging system makes no distinction between two obviously different types of multiplayer.

It does, there are several games on the steam store where it says either "online multiplayer" or "local multiplayer". There is no problem with steam here, this is an issue the devs have to fix and if the devs decide not to put "local multiplayer" on their store page, then I can understand why people are upset and feel cheated.

Originally posted by ☽ ­✖­ Луна ­✖­ ☾:

Just read the description, it's the best way to do it.

That's not an excuse. Different people prefer different ways of information gathering. Some people prefer video material, some people prefer written material to decide whether or not a game is worth purchasing. That being said, the details on the store page of a product are designed to give you a quick overview about important features of a game, so people don't have to waste time reading through a lot of text when in reality they're only interested in a quick list of features. And if those details are ambiguous, then you shouldn't blame the consumer for not further informing themself, but rather blame the dev for making the quick fact list ambiguous in the first place.

[Ꝙ Ghosthunter Ꝙ]

Originally posted by Crusher:

Originally posted by ☽ ­✖­ Луна ­✖­ ☾:

Just read the description, it's the best way to do it.

That's not an excuse. Different people prefer different ways of information gathering. Some people prefer video material, some people prefer written material to decide whether or not a game is worth purchasing. That being said, the details on the store page of a product are designed to give you a quick overview about important features of a game, so people don't have to waste time reading through a lot of text when in reality they're only interested in a quick list of features. And if those details are ambiguous, then you shouldn't blame the consumer for not further informing themself, but rather blame the dev for making the quick fact list ambiguous in the first place.

Because it's a waste on time to read small text to avoid spending blindly on games?

Before internet was less accessible, i had to go at the store reading the back of the case, going back at home looking for review on my 56k, going back at the store, buying it then coming back at home.



NOW, you have the store RIGHT IN your face, anything can be bought in a matter of second, and you tell me it's a waste of time to verify what you buy before spending 10$ on it?

[TITOMOSQUITO187]

With the tag being multiplayer in general people amy still think it has online mp, which damn near every game on steam that has MP has now. Someone could read that it having Local MP is just another feature, but then see the tag of MP and think it still has online.Local MP is so rare now that the tag may confuse people. Most people have probably never even played Local MP before.

If you bought a game at the store and it jsut listed "Multi-player" on the back of the box what would you think it meant? You know those little rectangles at the bottom that have 1-2 players, Multiplayer, etc. in them?

AS for teh TC...sheesh. Get over yourself already.