WARNING: The following is totally opinionated...
Hi, well, I have been reading the recent reviews of this game and the reviewers seem to cry and complain over the lake of multiplayer options. Well I have this to say, if Indy3d had multiplayer, do you realize how incredibly stupid it would look to have a bunch of Indy's running around in
a "room", scratch that, the levels in the game are HUGE, I would never want to even attempt trying to find someone to kill in one of these "worlds". Now I don't like reviewers whining and crying about the lack of multiplayer in a game if it just doesn't need it.
Second, I would never stop playing this game if there were a level editor....'knock on wood'
feel free to comment....
I agree. There are two many game players that think EVERY GAME and I mean EVERY GAME has to be multiplayer. That's what games like Quake, Unreal and Diablo are made for. These type of adventure games, (Indy, Tomb Raider...etc) are not made as multiplayer adventures. When I play either one of those two, my wife sits right next to me and watches me as I play. She goes through all the same emotions I do as I play the game. That to me makes it more fun.
I'm actually kinda tired of listening to people whine about why this isn't multiplayer, or why that isn't multiplayer. Single players games are sometimes the best. Every thing doesn't have to be a deathmatch.
------------------
-Damian
Fear is the path to the darkside.
100% agree, many games that imvolve puzzels of this nature just dont need and are not made to be multiplayer. Anyway if there was multiplayer, the levels and puzzels would be really tough, because one person would have to do one thing while another presses a button, and people would get really ticked off if they were left behind with no one else to help out, stuck in a room or a pool full of sharks. So just like i tell every one else quit your darn whining.
Personally, I'd like Multiplayer, but not competeitive, co-operative. I think it would be nice to have someone help you take out the commies. Just double the number of enemies. It would be fair. It would be easier to solve puzzles with more than one person working on it. If they made an extra set of Multiplayer levels for co-op, it would be nice. But there shouldn't be any puzzles that cause one person to be left behind. Competetative would be dumb, but co-op would be great.
Dan
But that's the whole idea behind these puzzles. Is so you can figure them out on your own. I would personally get mad if there was somebody else in the room with me hitting buttons, when I wanted them to pull pulling levers instead.
I just read an article in Incite magazine about how multiplayer is the craze. There was something that I really liked that was said in the article. It said that there is a real lack or stories these days because everything is going to multiplayer. More then 75% of gamers don't play multiplayer and that they shouldn't be forgotten.
I agree with that. Everytime there is a multiplayer game, there is no story. The basis of it is to run around and kill each other off. Don't get me wrong, I love fraggin' as much as the next fellow. But most if the time I prefer to sit down, play and game and move along with some sort of story line. I just haven't found that sort fullfillment from a multiplayer yet.
------------------
-Damian
Fear is the path to the darkside.
[This message has been edited by Damian (edited December 10, 1999).]
u all made perfect points. this game is just not fit to be a multiplay game. although it would be o.k. to be a multiplay game too but, na, who wants it? oh by the way what was indys game ratings. i give it a 97.
Well, if you look at Jedi Knight, it has a good storyline, but also has multiplayer. I wouldn't like it if Indy was just multiplayer, but had an option for it so once I've beat the game many times, it doesn't get too boring. I have Jedi Knight and it would be old to me if it didn't have multiplayer.
Dan