Super Mario 3D World Excludes Online Multiplayer

[tronic307]

I honestly cannot see why people are making a fuss about this, apart from the usual Nintendo bashing. The inclusion of a local multiplayer option in a 3D platforming Mario is a major step forward in my opinion.

I believe this game's multiplayer mode is all about the social aspect and I have some REAL friends and family, not some voices in headsets. Its NOT the same thing at all.

I think it is quite sad some people cannot tell the difference between getting together with friends and playing a game online.

If the demo was super fun, playing locally with people I've never seen before and barely talked to, that's not very far removed from how fun online multiplayer would be. There are downsides to online multiplayer such as lag and cheating, but those are gamer's concerns; it's almost certainly a time and money issue for Nintendo.

 

[ForteGospel]

No one has showed me an example of a good online multiplayer 3D platformer yet, anyone?

trine 2 i believe, but it uses steam service so the online is with friends and supports voice chat

 

[TheCasketMan]

Why is Mario's cat costume yellow instead of red?
Back on topic, no online play doesn't surprise me. Nintendo is always forcing people to buy 3 more gamepad or wii motes if they wanna play coop.

 

[EzekielRage]

Which is their right. But truth be told, I imagine MOST Wii U owners bought a Wii and thus already have multiple Wiimotes.
I have two Wiir emotes with WM+, I have two Wm+ Wiimotes and the gamepad so my sessions are complete. But I have justone Classic Contoler.

Truth be told though, I'll probably play the game alone, maybe with my fiancee but thats that^^

Edit: The yellow costume is probably to distinguish it from the pink peach^^

 

[FAST6191]

with a platformer lag plays a much bigger role due to the precision involved when interacting with the world

....
No one has showed me an example of a good online multiplayer 3D platformer yet, anyone?

I would argue it actually matters less than a lot of other games-- enemies are fairly predictable if they are not already utterly predictable, character movement is perhaps not so inclined towards truly fine control as a gun game and it carries on like that for a while. Probably not enough to skip lag negation methods entirely but not an insurmountable issue.

Platforming.... it has yet to be called it but I would argue platformering elements are as common or more common than RPG elements (or, sadly, roguelike elements). Indeed I am fairly hard pressed to make a list of more than about 10 3d games where that is not the case.

To that end the question pick a good multiplayer game where you move in the 3d space as something more than an action focused camera.... do I even have to start making the list?

 

[chnkpk]

It isn't a deal breaker but I'd like the opportunity to play this game online plenty of my friends live in different parts of the country and we use Teamspeak to communicate while playing; it's disappointing certainly

 

[Pong20302000]

Why is Mario's cat costume yellow instead of red?
Back on topic, no online play doesn't surprise me. Nintendo is always forcing people to buy 3 more gamepad or wii motes if they wanna play coop.

because of Lucky Golden Cats I'd assume

what if they made this 5 player

 

[ForteGospel]

Why is Mario's cat costume yellow instead of red?
Back on topic, no online play doesn't surprise me. Nintendo is always forcing people to buy 3 more gamepad or wii motes if they wanna play coop.

you do understand that to play online co op you need to buy at least 2 games and 2 consoles right? and if 4 man co op that would be 4 games and 4 consoles?

 

[fluffykiwi]

Because God knows that they're completely mutually exclusive, right?

I don't get this line of thinking. The whole point of online interaction is that it can bring people together no matter how far apart they are. One of my best friends is currently living in the hotbox of a state known as Arizona. Online gaming means that we can still experience games together despite the huge distance between us. How is that any less legitimate? How is that not real? How is that bad?

I swear, for internet users, there seems to be a shit ton of luddites here.

My apology if my use of REAL has upset anyone. I simply use that to distinguish between friends I physically interact with compared to friends I interact with purely online. Not intended as any sort of judgement.

I agree that local multiplayer and online multiplayer are not mutually exclusive, but they are entirely different experiences. Some people are simply suggesting adding voice chat makes online the same as local multiplayer. As soon as a game includes local multiplayer, there is an outcry if it doesn't support online multiplayer, seems it may mean you are a luddite

I do want online multiplayer Wii U games, but not this particular one.

In my opinion the Mario Platformers are games that would not benefit from online multiplayer, in fact in my opinion platformers in general do not seem suited to an online multiplayer mode. I think this opinion is evidenced by the lack of quality multiplayer online platform games already out on any of the consoles. Feel free to provide examples of great online multiplayer platform games out there for any console. I do not doubt the technical ability to produce them, just the need for them.

I think online multiplayer gaming with online friends is entirely legitimate, an entirely real experience and isn't a bad thing. I personally have online only friends and do play online multiplayer games, mostly on PC, but not every game with local multiplayer either needs, or benefits from the inclusion of an on-line multiplayer mode. Some games really benefit from making the effort to gather your friends and family together in a single room to play, and this sounds like it may be one of those. The sharing of alcohol also helps.

Some posters seem to be suggesting adding this feature should be automatic for any modern game, or any game without it is outdated.

I would rather Nintendo release their major AAA games as quickly as possible and not spend time adding features that are unlikely to add much to the experience for most people, or add more development expense to the company, or result in additional running costs such as running dedicated servers, etc.

The majority of people who will buy this game, will still purchase it whether it has online multiplayer or not. The inclusion of online chat may discourage some parents from opening up their kids to voice chat, even if just with "friends"... I mean no-one ever befriends kids online for the wrong reasons...right?

It's also just horrendously shitty to say "Well it's your fault for not being able to get people in the same room" because any fucking adult would know that the issue isn't them, the issue is being a busy person.

EDIT: I'm in general getting really sick of the "blame everyone else" attitude around Nintendo's issues. Nintendo doesn't include a basic feature that would enhance the game, well you shouldn't complain because it's YOUR fault that you can't get people to play with in the same room....

I never said anything about blaming anyone for not being able to get people in the same room, as I fully understand being a busy adult, having distant friends, and having constraints on your time, but it still doesn't mean the developers should include online multiplayer in every multiplayer game, especially this one.

I simply do not think inclusion of on-line multiplayer would enhance this game in any way. I actually think the addition of online multiplayer may actually make this game worse, especially without a whole lot of time and money being spent on it, and I do not want Nintendo to delay this game further.

I do not think that the people who do not agree this game needs online multiplayer are some sort of Nintendo apologists or luddites.

I am entirely able to call Nintendo on their errors, especially releasing a modern console with so few games available at launch or any credible release schedule afterwards, BUT I do not agree this decision for this game is an error.

Please note this is simply my opinion and I could of course be wrong, maybe there will be a online multiplayer platformer released that will change my mind, but until then I think I'm entitled to my opinion.

 

[Pleng]

I forgot that it's stupid of us to criticize Nintendo for having a basic feature that in no way impedes the rest of the game and can only add to it.

Of course it impedes the rest of the game. Not directly when you're sitting in front of it, but unless you have a development team with unlimited time, money, and manpower, then by implementing an online multiplayer mode you be default have to take resources away from another area of the game.

 

[The Milkman]

You know what I find funny about this. If they never made a statement, nobody would care. They would have expected this game not to have online. Think about that.

 

[Gahars]

Of course it impedes the rest of the game. Not directly when you're sitting in front of it, but unless you have a development team with unlimited time, money, and manpower, then by implementing an online multiplayer mode you be default have to take resources away from another area of the game.

Or you decide to invest more resources into the project to begin with to compensate for the added feature?

Sure, it costs more at the start, but you're also ensuring the game has lasting longevity, which is an extremely enticing prospect for developers.

You know what I find funny about this. If they never made a statement, nobody would care. They would have expected this game not to have online. Think about that.

"If Nintendo didn't rule out the possibility of a feature being added then people would not be disappointed that there was no possibility of the feature being added."

Um, duh?

 

[Pleng]

Or you decide to invest more resources into the project to begin with to compensate for the added feature?

There are a finite amount of resources. If you decide to add additional resources, they are still resources that could be being spent on the main game

Sure, it costs more at the start, but you're also ensuring the game has lasting longevity, which is an extremely enticing prospect for developers.

It may be an enticing prospect for developers but not necessarily for publishers, unless they are monetizing the online side of things. Having a million people buy a game and play it four times means no more profit (in fact less, if you could the cost of running the servers) than having a million people buy a game and play it for 5 years.

 

[Gahars]

There are a finite amount of resources. If you decide to add additional resources, they are still resources that could be being spent on the main game

Could be but wouldn't have been. Plus, there's a peak amount of money that you can throw at a game - you can only hire so many designers, animators, etc. before the impact becomes negligible.

(Not to mention that the online mode wouldn't have to be built from the ground up, just integrated with the multiplayer that the game was already designed around.)

It may be an enticing prospect for developers but not necessarily for publishers, unless they are monetizing the online side of things. Having a million people buy a game and play it four times means no more profit (in fact less, if you could the cost of running the servers) than having a million people buy a game and play it for 5 years.

Of course it's an enticing prospect for publishers, too. Longevity is (according to many in the industry, at least - here's just a recent example) a good protection against used game sales, which helps maximize profit. Players kept on board by online multiplayer might also be more willing to purchase additional content for the game. Promoting the fact that people can now take the Mario experience online with their friends could also be a great marketing draw.

Beyond profits, it makes the game an overall better product for the players. For a company that strives to produce quality titles, that alone should be pretty important.

 

[The Milkman]

"If Nintendo didn't rule out the possibility of a feature being added then people would not be disappointed that there was no possibility of the feature being added."

Um, duh?

You don't seem to have quite understood me Gahars old boy, let me re-literate it.

If Nintendo had not said "We didnt put online in this game" then all the little ones who feel the need to make a big shit out of this would not have expected nor complained about this game having not online multiplayer.

The reason? Simple. When was the last time anyone played a Mario platformer that actually had Online multiplayer? How can you expect an experience from something that never offered it, or attempted to make you think it would need it in the first place.

But of course, your earlier post which twisted my statement and misinterpreted it and then you giving a response to said statement as if it were obvious when it wasn't what I said was quite close. I mean, practically the same thing and surely contributed to the discussion.

And before you point it out. I am indeed, srs.

 

[Gahars]

You don't seem to have quite understood me Gahars old boy, let me re-literate it.

Not to pull a ComeTurism0 or anything, but do you mean "reiterate"?

If Nintendo had not said "We didnt put online in this game" then all the little ones who feel the need to make a big shit out of this would not have expected nor complained about this game having not online multiplayer.

The reason? Simple. When was the last time anyone played a Mario platformer that actually had Online multiplayer? How can you expect an experience from something that never offered it, or attempted to make you think it would need it in the first place.

Because franchises and genres are expected to evolve over time and adapt to the gaming landscape in order to provide players with the best experiences possible. Giving players exactly what came before and nothing else is a bad thing - that's stagnation.

Now, demanding online play in a Mario title clearly designed as a standalone affair (64, Sunshine, Galaxy 1/2 besides the periphery 2nd player function, etc.) would be puzzling, don't get me wrong. However, hoping for it in a title like this, one that is clearly designed from the ground up with multiplayer in mind? One where the online play would be a natural extension of the local experience? I don't know about you, but that seems pretty far from unreasonable to me.

But of course, your earlier post which twisted my statement and misinterpreted it and then you giving a response to said statement as if it were obvious when it wasn't what I said was quite close. I mean, practically the same thing and surely contributed to the discussion.

Because there was really all that much to twist around in the first place? Are we talking about the same post here?

The obvious deflection of the issue was, to be frank, pretty obvious.

 

[Pleng]

Could be but wouldn't have been. Plus, there's a peak amount of money that you can throw at a game - you can only hire so many designers, animators, etc. before the impact becomes negligible.

Given the complaints about the size of the recent Mario games, I'd say that the resources being given to to them are far from that peak point

(Not to mention that the online mode wouldn't have to be built from the ground up, just integrated with the multiplayer that the game was already designed around.)

Yes and no. There's a lot more to think about when you have network latency and player sync, connection dropouts etc to worry about. It's not simply a case of "here's multiplayer now lets add in a connection"

Of course it's an enticing prospect for publishers, too. Longevity is (according to many in the industry, at least - here's just a recent example) a good protection against used game sales, which helps maximize profit.

Yes a fair point. Although Nintendo recently claimed they have the lowest sell-on rates of the big three

Players kept on board by online multiplayer might also be more willing to purchase additional content for the game. Promoting the fact that people can now take the Mario experience online with their friends could also be a great marketing draw.

Yes I already eluded to the fact that if you can monetize it then it's clearly a positive. But Mario games have a pretty quick turn around. You don't necessarily want people to still be playing your game when the next in the series comes around.

Beyond profits, it makes the game an overall better product for the players.

That's subjective, and what we're debating in the first place, so you can't use it as an argument

Personally I'd rather have additional content in a Mario game than an online multiplay mode. Even if the amount of resources spared only allowed for one extra level, I'd take that.

 

[Eerpow]

I would argue it actually matters less than a lot of other games-- enemies are fairly predictable if they are not already utterly predictable, character movement is perhaps not so inclined towards truly fine control as a gun game and it carries on like that for a while. Probably not enough to skip lag negation methods entirely but not an insurmountable issue.

Platforming.... it has yet to be called it but I would argue platformering elements are as common or more common than RPG elements (or, sadly, roguelike elements). Indeed I am fairly hard pressed to make a list of more than about 10 3d games where that is not the case.

To that end the question pick a good multiplayer game where you move in the 3d space as something more than an action focused camera.... do I even have to start making the list?

If you've played the previous 3D Land game you'll see that there's a variety of unpredictable platforms, switches and enemies that depends on player actions and position, like platforms that the player balances on for example. You can't simply lag compensate and make the CPU make assumptions as all players are interacting with the same 3D world to a higher degree than in an FPS.
There are so many more options for lag compensation in FPS. In FPS's or racing games the CPU makes a prediction based on current speed and location.

In Mario we can rule out extrapolation since a computer can't predict some of the world changing actions a player can make like for example activating a switch or kicking a shell making it bounce off walls hitting enemies or other players on its way. All this has to be synced so the same thing happens on all systems. This isn't 2D, enemy and fireball trajectories can't be predicted. In an FPS all the computer has to do is calculate player 1's positions and aim in reference to player 2 in a single point in time. It doesn't matter if the killing gets registered with a delay since the death animation starts playing for the shooter first, no one notices a difference.
A grenade for example has a large margin for errors as the blast radius is big enough for delays to go unnoticed.

"Another way to address the issue is to store past game states for a certain length of time, then rewind player locations when processing a command."
You can't do that because again, actions are world changing, it would result in glitches and stuff which is simply not acceptable in this kind of game. Minecraft has a high degree of world interaction and suffers from a few of them.

The cover up techniques for lag are most of the time only applicable in FPS's or Racing games. Wikipedia has a nice article on the lag subject.
There's a reason why we don't have interactive 3D world multiplayer games. They do not work well. For it to somewhat work everyone would need good connection speeds, be within a single country and not only that but Nintendo would have to spend tons of money on research to get rid of all the bugs involved, invest in expensive servers capable of doing calculations from there instead of having game consoles syncing with each other etc etc. And all for a game that doesn't need it, there are other titles for that sort of thing.

It's ridiculous to expect online multiplayer in a title of this genre.

 

[FAST6191]

If you've played the previous 3D Land game you'll see that there's a variety of unpredictable platforms, switches and enemies that depends on player actions and position, like platforms that the player balances on for example. You can't simply lag compensate and make the CPU make assumptions as all players are interacting with the same 3D world to a higher degree than in an FPS.
There are so many more options for lag compensation in FPS. In FPS's or racing games the CPU makes a prediction based on current speed and location.

In Mario we can rule out extrapolation since a computer can't predict some of the world changing actions a player can make like for example activating a switch or kicking a shell making it bounce off walls hitting enemies or other players on its way. All this has to be synced so the same thing happens on all systems. This isn't 2D, enemy and fireball trajectories can't be predicted. In an FPS all the computer has to do is calculate player 1's positions and aim in reference to player 2 in a single point in time. It doesn't matter if the killing gets registered with a delay since the death animation starts playing for the shooter first, no one notices a difference.
A grenade for example has a large margin for errors as the blast radius is big enough for delays to go unnoticed.

"Another way to address the issue is to store past game states for a certain length of time, then rewind player locations when processing a command."
You can't do that because again, actions are world changing, it would result in glitches and stuff which is simply not acceptable in this kind of game. Minecraft has a high degree of world interaction and suffers from a few of them.

The cover up techniques for lag are most of the time only applicable in FPS's or Racing games. Wikipedia has a nice article on the lag subject.
There's a reason why we don't have interactive 3D world multiplayer games. They do not work well. For it to somewhat work everyone would need good connection speeds, be within a single country and not only that but Nintendo would have to spend tons of money on research to get rid of all the bugs involved, invest in expensive servers capable of doing calculations from there instead of having game consoles syncing with each other etc etc. And all for a game that doesn't need it, there are other titles for that sort of thing.

It's ridiculous to expect online multiplayer in a title of this genre.

Interesting logic. I would argue all that 1) some of your examples are "what ifs" for seconds in the future which is near impossible and not what this is about.
2) Your examples exist within FPS games -- doors, turrets, vehicles which block fire, vehicles in general (especially ones you can bail out of), destructible environments/objects, "fortress levels". I will give that many of these are omitted from certain games and doubly so in multiplayer but they are present in enough (especially co-op games) that it can not be easily dismissed. Numbers wise I would reckon it is about parity or if restricted to a given area (players need to be within so much distance) possibly even less.

"be within a single country/[area]"
You mean like things are already?

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Of course it impedes the rest of the game. Not directly when you're sitting in front of it, but unless you have a development team with unlimited time, money, and manpower, then by implementing an online multiplayer mode you be default have to take resources away from another area of the game.

I'm sure for a struggling, money-strapped team like Nintendo it's a real hard task.

Like if it was a small dev with little funding yeah, I could see it not making the cut. But for a company as big as Nintendo it's called just being goddamn lazy.