If you want multiplayer, the Wii version seems to have the right idea. This game seems to be one of balance; no version is going to have it all. If you want the best graphcs and physics systems, you go for the X360 or PS3, but if you'd prefer multiplayer and a couple extra levels, you go for the Wii. I guess the question is, is having multiplayer enough to make up for slightly lower quality graphics and physics?
Not really in balance. Wii can barely play over the internet without crashing or having serious lag, and not just a little lower quality graphics and physics, a LOT. If you want to see good graphics, look at SSBB, and they barely fit that on one disc. The Wii version doesn't even use the same physics system.
But I feel th PS2 version is getting the short end of the stick. It's not getting extra levels, multiplayer, graphics or anything.
I'm glad my bro and I forked over the money to buy an X360, but the multiplayer should have been included on the 360 version, keeping Wii-exclusive is a bad idea.
I concede your point, even though I do find those game lacking a vast amount of entertainment after the first play through. But there again is what I am talking about, sure they are awesome games, but after you finish not many people will play it again. I need to have alot of reasons to put a game back into my 360, not all of them multiplayer mind you, but that is one reason.
I am not one of those people that thinks my $60 on a game gets me a say, but I am not the only person who wants MP. I don't think a single person out there would say no to multiplayer, so why leave it out.
Now I see where you're trying to get at.
Yes, I agree that multiplayer increases the life span of games, no exception (even when they're pitiable). But as for a motivation as why to run it on your console again... there comes the extras or the unbellivable difficult settings.
Because, IMO, they better focus and use their time trying to improve what we'll all pay for: A kickass single-player experience. ;)
In a perfect world, TFU would have outstanding multiplayer on all systems (including PC...). Assuming it's not going to be amazingly perfect, however, which would you rather have: a multiplayer mode that feels tacked-on just for the sake of having it, or no multiplayer and a possibly better single-player experience because they had more time to focus on it?
In a perfect world, TFU would have outstanding multiplayer on all systems (including PC...). Assuming it's not going to be amazingly perfect, however, which would you rather have: a multiplayer mode that feels tacked-on just for the sake of having it, or no multiplayer and a possibly better single-player experience because they had more time to focus on it?
Option A. Single player is great, but even a tacked on multiplayer can be fun times, and often I would play ****ty multiplayer for triple the amount of time then the singleplayer. Unless it was something like Oblivion or other free roaming games. Single player is a vital component to a game, but playing with a friend is great too. Alot of people think of gamers as social outcasts and shut-ins, but I like to think of them as a social beast themselves, getting together to enjoy games as one. Without multiplayer it's hard to enjoy a game as long. Unless of course all you do is play games and shun friends, but barring that...
Yeah I agree
I have medal of honor airborne and Call of duty uo and I play coduo more because it has a better multiplayer.