Does good multiplayer make up for poor single player?

I would seem to me that recently, well since the public sector have been given more access to MMO gaming that the emphasis of some games developers seems to be on the multiplayer aspects of games rather then a compelling addictive single player which personally i frown upon, i like to be able to do things on my own and i like a damn good story that i can sink my teeth into. Thats not to say i dont enjoy multiplayer gaming but i don't think the single player aspect of a game should come as a kind of step child to the multiplayer aspect. I appreciate that the experience of single player gaming can only go so far and my experience of Call of Duty 4 for example is not to buy it for the single player campaign but solely to buy it for the multiplayer kill fest.

You make a good point that I agree with, but at the same time, there isn't much that you and I can do about it, other than not buy the game.

But the biggest problem is that some people buy games specifically for the multiplayer aspect of it. Personally, if I'm buying a game, unless it's specifically an MMO, as you stated, then I am looking to buy it for the campaign aspect of the game, followed by the online multiplayer as a good bonus. I use for example Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. The single-player was absolutely outstanding for me, and then after I beat it, I went off to play Metal Gear Online, and I found it to be an excellent add-on to the game as a whole. But without MGS4 itself, I doubt I would have ever even tried playing the Online function.

None the less, in answer to your topic's question:

No, a good multiplayer still can't make up for a short or poor single-player mode, in my opinion.

I totally agree if a game interests me i will buy it for the main single player aspects, the multiplayer is a bonus that may well keep me coming back. The problem is i see the game market getting saturated with pish poor single player games that will sell on the promise of good multiplayer play leaving us with mindless, story-less on-line frag fests. in the instance of the 360 even though XBL isn't outlandishly expensive (aprox 11p per day) i still begrudge buying a game then having to pay for live to get the best out of it.

Think about this aspect then.

On the PlayStation 3, there are games specifically coming out for the reason of being a multiplayer game. Take for instance the game Warhawk, or the soon to be released SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Confrontation. These have NO single-player at all, yet, for both of these games, I have/will be getting them.

The biggest downfall is that with both of them, they take a lot of time, and sometimes skill, to be able to play online only games. But that was another topic that I got myself off on, haha. :P

No. Nothing beats a great single player mode.

And I'm not into multiplayer. I play games for the story. Sports game are the only non-story games I play. And I have no plans yet on connecting internet to my PS3.

Yes. Online is a whole new thing (For Computer games, it's almost the only thing.) Many people buy games for the multiplayer rather than the story. I personall think the Medal of Honor: Heroes Series would be useless without it. The good 32 person multiplayer makes up for the crappy campaign.

No. Nothing beats a great single player mode.

And I'm not into multiplayer. I play games for the story. Sports game are the only non-story games I play. And I have no plans yet on connecting internet to my PS3.

skp_16

I agree, but I think if the game had nothing going for it in the single player section.

Think about this aspect then.

On the PlayStation 3, there are games specifically coming out for the reason of being a multiplayer game. Take for instance the game Warhawk, or the soon to be released SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Confrontation. These have NO single-player at all, yet, for both of these games, I have/will be getting them.

The biggest downfall is that with both of them, they take a lot of time, and sometimes skill, to be able to play online only games. But that was another topic that I got myself off on, haha. :P

nweasel

those are a different case though, i feel. you know they are only multiplayer games and as such have no expectation of any single player action. my only problem with a game like warhawk is no demo..

Not always Poshkidney

AWESOME! Thank you for your AMAZING insight!!1!

Going back ON topic, yes, the games I mentioned WERE special cases since they were made for multiplayer only. But, again, restating, the main reason I haven't bought a game like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is because I've heard that the single-player campaign is short, and honestly, I don't want to go through the multiplayer of that game, because to me, by this time, I can't see it being fun anymore. :S

No.

An online mode eventually becomes antiquated and people stop playing it. In some cases, the servers are taken down. This makes games that focus heavily on multiplayer have a shelf life, and at $60, games shouldn't have that. The single-player or co-op experience is much more important, because eventually the multiplayer component will die out due to natural causes. I'm extremely careful about which heavily-focused online games I buy, because I know that the clock starts ticking the day they come out.

Then again, I hate it when developers shoehorn a crappy single-player mode in just so they can add a bullet point on the box. Last generation had tons of really great online shooters (Socom, RBS3, Unreal Championship) with awesome online play, but flat terrible single-player "campaigns" (they had the balls to call them this). Now those games are worthless, since the system is dead and the server support is removed, so I basically own a worthless hunk of silicon. But at any time, I can pop Fable, Panzer Dragoon Orta, God of War, or Shadow of the Colossus in, and my investment is still a good one. Online play is disposable at best. It's one of the best types of play out there, but there's definitely a shelf life for your investment.

I don't think so. Multiplayer is fun for a little while, but single players is where I find the value in a game. It does bother me that there's so much focus on multiplayer and less on single player. And what bothers me more is that local multiplayer is being phased out in favour of online.

If a game focuses on online, it will essentially become useless when the online community dies. At least I can still go back to 10 year old single player games and still have a fun time.

An online mode eventually becomes antiquated and people stop playing it. In some cases, the servers are taken down. This makes games that focus heavily on multiplayer have a shelf life, and at $60, games shouldn't have that.

Now those games are worthless, since the system is dead and the server support is removed, so I basically own a worthless hunk of silicon. But at any time, I can pop Fable, Panzer Dragoon Orta, God of War, or Shadow of the Colossus in, and my investment is still a good one. Online play is disposable at best. It's one of the best types of play out there, but there's definitely a shelf life for your investment. Shame-usBlackley

I never consider the multiplayer experience when pondering what game to purchase next.

For that matter, I love many of the campaigns which the majority of the shooter market claim to be absent of any replay value. Gears of War, Call of Duty 4, and Halo 3 are a few examples.

No.

An online mode eventually becomes antiquated and people stop playing it. In some cases, the servers are taken down. This makes games that focus heavily on multiplayer have a shelf life, and at $60, games shouldn't have that. The single-player or co-op experience is much more important, because eventually the multiplayer component will die out due to natural causes. I'm extremely careful about which heavily-focused online games I buy, because I know that the clock starts ticking the day they come out.

Then again, I hate it when developers shoehorn a crappy single-player mode in just so they can add a bullet point on the box. Last generation had tons of really great online shooters (Socom, RBS3, Unreal Championship) with awesome online play, but flat terrible single-player "campaigns" (they had the balls to call them this). Now those games are worthless, since the system is dead and the server support is removed, so I basically own a worthless hunk of silicon. But at any time, I can pop Fable, Panzer Dragoon Orta, God of War, or Shadow of the Colossus in, and my investment is still a good one. Online play is disposable at best. It's one of the best types of play out there, but there's definitely a shelf life for your investment.

Shame-usBlackley

Did you actually try the campaigns of SOCOM 2 and 3? They were good (strong AI, varied mission objectives, etc.). I speak as a guy who played the SOCOMs offline only (I avoided the first because I heard bad things about the campaign mode).

I agree that online games don't last forever, but while they last the good ones are great stuff. People don't like to lose and designers like people to walk away from games happy, so single player games tend to set the default difficulty of their games low (making truly challenging difficulties unlockable only after a playthrough or three) and sometimes tone themselves down if the play is having too hard a time. In online games, if you do well, its not because the other team is cutting you any slack.

Did you actually try the campaigns of SOCOM 2 and 3? They were good (strong AI, varied mission objectives, etc.). I speak as a guy who played the SOCOMs offline only (I avoided the first because I heard bad things about the campaign mode).

I agree that online games don't last forever, but while they last the good ones are great stuff. People don't like to lose and designers like people to walk away from games happy, so single player games tend to set the default difficulty of their games low (making truly challenging difficulties unlockable only after a playthrough or three) and sometimes tone themselves down if the play is having too hard a time. In online games, if you do well, its not because the other team is cutting you any slack.

CarnageHeart

I played through Socom I & II's campaigns, and for the most part, they were pretty terrible. I honestly can't believe you (an admitted AI buff) liked them. Socom II was so brilliant online that I completely was willing to look past it, UNTIL the rampant cheating started. Truthfully, Socom I & II both died before Sony ever took the servers down. The cheating became so rampant that the games were essentially unplayable online, which left the underwhelming offline mode.

And yeah, as long as the player is willing to accept the fact that an online game is nothing more than a lease for an undetermined amount of time, they're great. There's no substitute for a real human opponent, and since split-screen play is garbage, that leaves online. I've just gotten to where I'm very picky about buying games that fit that bill, because there are so many of them, and also because of their temporary nature where you're left with a worthless disc.

I always need one multiplayer fps at all times, the others I like to have sport games and party games that I can play with someone next to me. And then A good single player game like MGS4 or Fallout 3! So I just look for the best in one category and then buy one of each.

I own 3 games.

COD4

MSG4

Fifa 08

Want to get

Madden 09

Killzone 2

Fallout 3