Ratchet & Clank Future : ToD Interview

[Gorvi]

IGN (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/787/787565p1.html) has an interview up with Creative Director Brian Allgeier of Insomniac Games, discussing their next Ratchet & Clank game for the PS3.

Probably one of the more interesting points of the interview is the direction they're taking with the game :

IGN: The past few Ratchets have had some cool multiplayer functionality. What sort of multiplayer goodies can we look forward to this time? Co-op? Deathmatch?

Allgeier: We've decided that for Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction it was best to focus solely on creating a massive single-player adventure. This decision is based on what we believe our fans would want (the vast majority who play single-player) and where our time would best be spent. After stepping back and looking at the franchise as a whole, we felt that crafting a massive single-player adventure would be more in line with the true essence of the series.

It's very nice to see that they're puting the focuse squarely back on the single player game and toning down the shooter feel. Hopefully we get some more solid information at Sony's Gamer's Day next week.

[The Continental]

I'm sorry, but that's just a cop out. If anything, this generation of consoles has placed incredible emphasis on the multiplayer capabilities of their respective networks and titles. For a franchise that has delivered some incredibly fun multiplayer experiences in the past, this is just a load of bull. Blame technical constraints, blame the network, blame anything, but don't claim you're intentionally leaving out a major feature many enjoy about the franchise for the sake of the fans.

Poor form Insomniac.

[Thrak]

This is awesome news for me, as someone who dabbles in multi, and definitely has fun on Tuesday nights with Gears, but is a single player fan at heart. Solo platforming really doesn't get much better for me than the R&C games, and to hear that their focus is right back on that kind of action makes me happy. Of course, unless I drive over to Gorvi's and make a heist, I still probably won't have a PS3 for a good long time - maybe by the time this is out though.

[Gorvi]

I'm sorry, but that's just a cop out. If anything, this generation of consoles has placed incredible emphasis on the multiplayer capabilities of their respective networks and titles. For a franchise that has delivered some incredibly fun multiplayer experiences in the past, this is just a load of bull. Blame technical constraints, blame the network, blame anything, but don't claim you're intentionally leaving out a major feature many enjoy about the franchise for the sake of the fans.

Poor form Insomniac.
You see it as a positive that this generation is placing a larger emphasis on multiplayer, but personally, I see it as a negative. Now, I know it's a difference in tastes, but to me, the multiplayer in games is largely an added bonus, I'm in it for the single player. Sure, there are exceptions, but I'd much rather see games that focus on a strong, complete single player game. If it means they can get R&C out this year by leaving out the multiplayer, then by all means they should.

[Draft]

I'm sorry, but that's just a cop out. If anything, this generation of consoles has placed incredible emphasis on the multiplayer capabilities of their respective networks and titles. For a franchise that has delivered some incredibly fun multiplayer experiences in the past, this is just a load of bull. Blame technical constraints, blame the network, blame anything, but don't claim you're intentionally leaving out a major feature many enjoy about the franchise for the sake of the fans.

Poor form Insomniac.Par for course for these guys. When Sony announced they were axing rumble, Ted Price or whoever's in charge of that studio went on 1UPYours or something and said it was a good thing, because now they could spend more time making games and less time implementing rumble. Like for real?

[The Continental]

You see it as a positive that this generation is placing a larger emphasis on multiplayer, but personally, I see it as a negative. Now, I know it's a difference in tastes, but to me, the multiplayer in games is largely an added bonus, I'm in it for the single player. Sure, there are exceptions, but I'd much rather see games that focus on a strong, complete single player game. If it means they can get R&C out this year by leaving out the multiplayer, then by all means they should. Why is it that an engrossing single player game and an equally fun multiplayer component need be mutually exclusive? Games like Jak & Daxter and Ratchet & Clank all but pioneered the "pair o' protagonists" action/platformer genre, and in doing so managed to create fun, endearing characters that are made all the better by being dependent on their other half. Now it seems you have every game in existence shoehorning in a shallow, AI controlled teammate into the singleplayer game, just to deliver online story mode coop.

Why should the realm of coop games be limited to such stale characters when franchises that have been built from the ground up to make use of a nicely fleshed out second character now have not only the technical capability, but the incentive (coop is all the rage now) to really provide a fantastic experience the likes of which they've delivered all these years in single player form?

It just seems like back peddling to be honest.

[NeoSuplex]

Games like Jak & Daxter and Ratchet & Clank all but pioneered the "pair o' protagonists" action/platformer genre

Technically, Rare gets the credit for that with Banjo-Kazooie. As for the rest, I fully agree with you. Multi-Player elements (when well done) can add immensely to the replayability of a game. It's a shame they have to leave it out. And, while it does sound like backpedaling, I imagine they would love to put it in if they had the time.
Wonder what the odds of a Multiplayer DLC Pack showing up are...

[baz]

I'm all about the single player experience, especially when it comes to something like this. Typically I'll play one or two multiplayer games for a long time while going through lots of single player games.

For a while that has been halo 2 with some work buddies, in the past its been MOHAA, Dawn of War, whatever.

[The Continental]

Technically, Rare gets the credit for that with Banjo-Kazooie.I said "all but", I covered my ass. :)

And, while it does sound like backpedaling, I imagine they would love to put it in if they had the time.So say that! I want to hear that, I want to know that the harsh corporate task masters are responsible for denying me a feature that I was really looking forward to. I want to know that Insomniac isn't so out of touch with the industry they work in as to believe that multiplayer gaming isn't at this point damn near required in a AAA title. Tell me these things. Tell me that the next R&C title will deliver a full fledged, balls out, multiplayer experience, but due to time constraints they're only going to be able to go with single player for this one, but they intend it to be damn good. Don't take the easy way out and turn your fanbase against one another by claiming there is no multiplayer component because the majority of fans asked for a more compelling single player experience.

That's just a shady way of doing business.

[DeadlyDonkey]

People actually played Ratchet and Clank online?

[EvilBob46]

I want to know that Insomniac isn't so out of touch with the industry they work in as to believe that multiplayer gaming isn't at this point damn near required in a AAA title.

It absolutely is not. EDIT: Or are you telling me that story-driven Role-Playing games now need to have...coop? Or a Diablo-ish multiplayer mode? Or something?

[Vandenh]

Are we in 2007?

[Mason]

Now it seems you have every game in existence shoehorning in a shallow, AI controlled teammate into the singleplayer game, just to deliver online story mode coop.
R&C: Deadlocked technically did something close to this, although the ability to play the game in split-screen co-op (with Clank in a powered suit as the second player) was a lot more compelling for me than the multiplayer.

Co-op worked well in Deadlocked, but it isn't some huge backpedal for them to omit it in a future game. I think that everyone expected their coming PS3 title to be more in the vein of R&C3, with more plot and platforming.

The online components of R&C games were such oddities on the PS2 that it's little wonder the gamers didn't show up and that Insomniac might be soured of the whole venture. Given how much Sony wants to present the PS3 as a viable online platform, though, it's surprising that Insomniac can get away with a purely single-player experience.

[Guy Mariano]

People actually played Ratchet and Clank online?

No. The other game they are realeasing is single player only too. Insomniac sucks.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

People actually played Ratchet and Clank online?

Not really, I remember playing them online and the communtiy was dead within a month.

I think they're looking at it that way, maybe R&C isn't the type of game a lot of people want to play online. So they craft a wonderful single player game, and leave the guys that know multiplayer working on Resistance, which has a HUGE community.

[The Continental]

It absolutely is not. EDIT: Or are you telling me that story-driven Role-Playing games now need to have...coop? Or a Diablo-ish multiplayer mode? Or something?Considering Bioware managed to deliver two of the finest RPGs in the history of gaming in Baldur's Gate and its sequel, both complete with 6 person, online, cooperative story mode nearly a decade a go; I'd say yeah, it's about time the rest of the industry played a bit of catchup.

Broaden your horizons, just because you're being handed mediocrity doesn't mean you need to accept it.

[DesignerKid]

I said "all but", I covered my ass. :)

So say that! I want to hear that, I want to know that the harsh corporate task masters are responsible for denying me a feature that I was really looking forward to. I want to know that Insomniac isn't so out of touch with the industry they work in as to believe that multiplayer gaming isn't at this point damn near required in a AAA title. Tell me these things. Tell me that the next R&C title will deliver a full fledged, balls out, multiplayer experience, but due to time constraints they're only going to be able to go with single player for this one, but they intend it to be damn good. Don't take the easy way out and turn your fanbase against one another by claiming there is no multiplayer component because the majority of fans asked for a more compelling single player experience.

That's just a shady way of doing business.

In response to your earlier post, there was no back pedaling. They never said that online was incredibly important to this franchise. Why should it be expected for this version of the game?

I love the series and never once touched their online component. You know how well Deadlocked sold? Not very when compared to the others in the series. That's probably one good reason they're not bothering this time around.

Online is highly overrated by the vocal minority... It's great for delivering demos, videos, etc. but quickly falls apart when playing against opponents for any number of reasons. I'm sure many will disagree but the fact remains that tons of games sell incredibly well but very few have any longevity online. Why bother wasting resources on a mode people will play for a very time unless you're game is designed with online in mind. That's not this game...

And what sense would it make to tell everyone what the next version of R&C would include (modes, features, etc)? None.

[The Continental]

Everything you said.Agreed on all counts. I'm not mourning the loss of the deathmatch component ala Deadlocked, but a robust online cooperative experience just seemed the next logical step for the series, particularly with Sony pushing the online functionality of the PS3 so hard. You know, now that I say that I realize just how many of the hotly anticpated PS3 titles are single player only. R&C, Lair, Heavenly Sword... It would appear Sony is sending a bit of a mixed message to its developers and its customers.

[albrnick]

Broaden your horizons, just because you're being handed mediocrity doesn't mean you need to accept it.

<Laugh!> OK, I shouldn't respond, but I found his comment so funny. Apparently not having multiplayer means that a game is mediocre. Just like Viva Pinata, Oblivion were mediocre games. And any game that doesn't have MP is bound to be, regardless of how it plays. = )

Peace

[DesignerKid]

Agreed on all counts. I'm not mourning the loss of the deathmatch component ala Deadlocked, but a robust online cooperative experience just seemed the next logical step for the series, particularly with Sony pushing the online functionality of the PS3 so hard. You know, now that I say that I realize just how many of the hotly anticpated PS3 titles are single player only. R&C, Lair, Heavenly Sword... It would appear Sony is sending a bit of a mixed message to its developers and its customers.

You do realize there are countless games for Xbox 360 that have little, or no, online gaming support? By your logic, the 360 is sending mixed messages as well. I would agree with your arguement if you said this about Nintendo, considering they touted the fact that they would be online with the Wii, but we have yet to see an online game (except in Japan) but it's simply untrue about Sony.

There are plenty of games with online support for the PS3 and more are coming every day.

[DeadlyDonkey]

<Laugh!> OK, I shouldn't respond, but I found his comment so funny. Apparently not having multiplayer means that a game is mediocre. Just like Viva Pinata, Oblivion were mediocre games. And any game that doesn't have MP is bound to be, regardless of how it plays. = )

Peace

This. Seriously, R&C was never a multiplayer-focused game, and multiplayer modes in previous games seemed tacked on.

Anyway, when you have a game that looks like:

http://www.threespeech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/Kerchu_City_08.jpg

Who cares about multiplayer?

[lockwoodx]

I said "all but", I covered my ass. :)

So say that! I want to hear that, I want to know that the harsh corporate task masters are responsible for denying me a feature that I was really looking forward to. I want to know that Insomniac isn't so out of touch with the industry they work in as to believe that multiplayer gaming isn't at this point damn near required in a AAA title. Tell me these things. Tell me that the next R&C title will deliver a full fledged, balls out, multiplayer experience, but due to time constraints they're only going to be able to go with single player for this one, but they intend it to be damn good. Don't take the easy way out and turn your fanbase against one another by claiming there is no multiplayer component because the majority of fans asked for a more compelling single player experience.

That's just a shady way of doing business.


You guys are both wrong. A boy and his blob started it all

[Phhhh]

When you have more people making multiplayer than playing it... well maybe thats why they didn't do it. :P
How would co-op work with the series? Would someone control clank as he's a backpack?

[Rafer]

Pulling multiplayer seems to be a trend. I specifically remember an interview with the makers of BioShock and they were asked why no multiplayer since it's predecessor System Shock II had it and it's a 360 fps. They said something along the lines that they've done it in previous games and had like 6 people playing at a time, so I guess the attitude is that the market for multiplayer is so competitive right now that you shouldn't do it unless it's a main focus. Go big or go home.

[laggerific]

It certainly is nice to see developers get that we want quality single player games first at least some of the time. Tycho explained why Blizzard would want to go the MMO route for Starcraft well, but to me it seems like Blizzard is selling out if they go there. Seriously, they may need to create the next big thing so there cash engine doesn't run out of fuel, but they don't need to act like a publisher about it. They could do RTS SC and then use that to hype an MMO around it.

Either way...it's great to see. It's true that we are no longer in the days of Quake II where that was practically the only MP game out there and was extended so well that the community played it for years. These days, it seems you really need a core group of players you can rely on to get your multi on for a particular game you enjoy.

[torrefaction]

Resize the damn picture. I can't read the thread.

[OrangePulp]

Considering Bioware managed to deliver two of the finest RPGs in the history of gaming in Baldur's Gate and its sequel, both complete with 6 person, online, cooperative story mode nearly a decade a go; I'd say yeah, it's about time the rest of the industry played a bit of catchup.

Broaden your horizons, just because you're being handed mediocrity doesn't mean you need to accept it.

Talk about a false analogy. Baldur's Gate is based on a multiplayer game: Pen and Paper D&D. It's a game where you control multiple characters, and multiplayer is a logical extension of that, just handing the control to some of the characters to other people. Ratchet and Clank isn't anything like that. Sure, there are two protagonists, but they're meant to be controlled as one package. Where would be the fun in controlling Clank? He's strapped on Ratchet's back most of the time, and when he isn't, Ratchet usually is out of the picture (those sequences where you control robots and such).

You seem to place a lot of importance on multiplayer in a R&C title, but I think a large majority of the playerbase do not. They had multiplayer in past games, and it really did a whole lot of nothing. As has been pointed out in this thread before, there are many AAA titles that don't have multiplayer.

[Siraris]

Resize the damn picture. I can't read the thread.

Get a bigger monitor or stop complaining

[Khash]

Broaden your horizons, just because you're being handed mediocrity doesn't mean you need to accept it.
Have you even played a Ratchet and Clank game? There's nothing mediocre about them. Mutliplayer for the sake of mulitiplayer does not a good game make.

[mister_slim]

I don't mind the loss of deathmatch-style online multiplayer, but I am going to miss the co-op from Deadlocked. I think I played through Deadlocked an extra four times with two different buddies. I can see how implementing co-op would be problematic with an increase in platforming, as that was where Deadlocked was weakest (remember those areas with the cable, where the death countdown would start while the first player was still on his way over? That was annoying). It's something that would be fairly easy to solve though, with a gadget that allowed either player to teleport to the other player at any time. That way only one player has to be good at platforming.

[Mason]

I don't mind the loss of deathmatch-style online multiplayer, but I am going to miss the co-op from Deadlocked. I think I played through Deadlocked an extra four times with two different buddies. I can see how implementing co-op would be problematic with an increase in platforming, as that was where Deadlocked was weakest (remember those areas with the cable, where the death countdown would start while the first player was still on his way over? That was annoying). It's something that would be fairly easy to solve though, with a gadget that allowed either player to teleport to the other player at any time. That way only one player has to be good at platforming.
Alternately, give each player a translocater which could only teleport the other player, such that player A can choose to teleport to the beacon that player B shoots, and vice versa. Add some devious puzzles involving suicidal leaps to place your buddies translocater.

Co-op platforming could work well (as the excitement around Little Big World clearly indicates), and there are lots of interesting possibilities. Deadlocked had some good basic ideas, and while the implementation was rough, it was still pretty rewarding. Perhaps the concepts will get readdressed in future titles, or a spin-off franchise.

[torrefaction]

Get a bigger monitor or stop complaining

Or maybe, I don't like desktop resolutions higher than 1280x1024, and the size of the picture is obnoxious for a forum thread.