When Wanted: Weapons of Fate arrives for the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and PC next month, gamers who pick up the interactive sequel to last year's action film will get the chance to try out their bullet curving technique on the game's many assassin adversaries. However, they won't be able to twist lead into one another, as the third-person shooter lacks a multiplayer mode.
During an appearance on the latest installment of GameSpot's HotSpot podcast, Universal Pictures Digital Platforms Group's Pete Wanat--the executive producer on Weapons of Fate--explained the reasons behind that decision. Wanat said most people who play multiplayer games just play the best of the bunch, and that developers spend too much effort putting multiplayer modes into games that don't need them.
"For the most part, we waste our money and our time building multiplayer levels," Wanat said. "And why do we do this? Because a couple years ago the press was all about saying, 'This game has to have multiplayer, there's no replayability.' F*** that. That's a bad joke."
Hardcore Gamer: Despite the fact that hundreds of games release every year, the vast majority tend to go ignored by the gaming populace at large. Whether this is a failing of marketing, critical drubbing or just not living up to the expansive heights that we as gamers crave, the bargain bins are littered with titles that go unnoticed or maligned. With Lowered Expectations, we scrape the craggy underbelly of releases gone by to see if a change of perspective can reveal something worthwhile.
I played this game when it released on 360 and I actually enjoyed it. The game was super short but it was really cool bending the bullets and all that. I was thinking of picking it up for PS3 so I can get the Platinum trophy. I am sure the game is super cheap now.
One of the few games I actually finished, the short length had something to do with that. I remember it being fun.
Everyone has a favorite game mechanic, the one that makes a game stand out, shine and earn the crown of our hearts. Alexander of Gamer Assault Weekly takes a look into some of the best mechanics in games.
These are all pretty solid mechanics, but originals like rocket jumping and jump dodging from Unreal Tournament.
One of my favorites was in Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds. The way Link was able to traverse the map by shifting into the wall was fun, and challenging in some spots.
UM writes: I get really pissed off when I throw down good money on a new game, and it ends up being less than eight hours long. If your game is eight hours, and it is decent, you get a pass. If your game is UNDER eight hours, it better blow my mind from the first frame to the last, or I will make an evil face, hiss at it, and bring it back (for full refund) to Gamestop. That is the curse of short games. I make sure they get NONE Of my money. Don’t get me wrong, if I buy a used game and it is short, that is not as big of a deal. 20 bucks for six hours is not a horrible exchange rate.
But if I forked over sixty (very hard earned) dollars, the game I am playing better be an 8-10 hour experience or more, or else we are going to have some issues. Now that I laid down those perimeters, here are six games that I felt were WAY too short to garner the sixty dollar price tag. Also, Portal is not on the list because Portal’s damn near perfection and replayability have it in a category all by itself.
Of course not, it's just that I'd take a short game like Mirror's Edge over a long one like Assassin's Creed 3
While I agree, when you are paying X price for a certain game you want your moneys worth. The titles listed in the article all came out at the 59.99 price. With the exception of Star Fox with inflation it was around 69.99.
What a about a 16 hour mirrors edge? with enough extra content to keep it feeling fresh of course.
Mirrors Edge... was not short. If it was, then you didn't get the full experience. You should have beaten the single player, then 5 starred all of the challenges. Otherwise, you only got half of the experience.
I think there needs to be a new pricing point for games below a certain amount in hours of game-time.
E.G. A game which has 4-hours or below story mode should be cheaper then a game which has like 8-12 hours for the current price of a game.
That's an awful idea. Developers nowadays already create terrible ways to extend a game's life. If they could charge more because of that, every game would be like this. Imagine God of War with RPG-like grinding to level up and be able to beat the boss... Terrible, terrible idea.
I agree with this article, can't talk about the specific games that I have not played but with the concept that there is nothing as annoying as short games priced as full length games.
Jericho was a very short game. Took me around 6 hours on hard difficulty. Don't get me wrong though, I enjoyed it very much, I love the Clive barker stuff.
Wondering if after this news sales will be hurt?
They'll be hard pressed to make a game from a film license that doesn't suck, much less provide good enough single player to make people want to drop $60 to own it.
Good games from films and vice versa are pretty few and far between.