Games without multiplayer worth your $59.99?

I was having an interesting conversation with my friends on xbox live yesterday. We were all chatting in an xbox live party and were anticipating the release of L.A Noire when one of my buddies asked if the game included multiplayer. Immediately groans and moans started, included from myself. Basically, we were saying it doesn't matter if there isn't multiplayer; it's going to be a great game. My friend who asked about multiplayer said that he refuses to buy single player-only games unless it was an RPG.

I was actually frustrated with my friend for saying such a thing. Personally, I feel as though if a game has a quality single player experience, I will suppport the developer/publisher by buying the game, regardless of whether it has multiplayer or not. But, I started thinking, and I realized that my friend is definitely not alone. Today, let's be real here, most games have multiplayer. Many publishers feel as though in order for their game to sell, they need to stick that multiplayer bullet on the back of the box. Let's take the Assassin's Creed franchise for example, the first two games were an amazing experience in my opinion. Great games, but when Assassin's Creed Brotherhood rolled around, it had multiplayer. Granted, the multiplayer was great and innovative in my opinion; I really liked it. But did it really need it? What do you guys think? Will you not buy a game if it doesn't have multiiplayer? Do you agree with what I said? If not, why? Does a game have to have a minimum number of hours in single player for you to buy it if it doesn't have multiplayer. Would you rather rent the game if it doesn't have multiplayer? Anything else? Post your thoughts!

I've bought maybe... two games this generation that had a worthwhile multiplayer (FM2 and FM3)... and never regretted paying $60 (and sometimes $70) for some of these games. Others, I've found aren't worth even $20. When I enjoy my time spent with a game, the money spent is justified.

I don't understand the obsession with multiplayer. But then again, its something "new" for consoles gamers, so they are excited to try it in everything, even if it doesn't work most of the time.

Multiplayer I think has been the excuse people use to justify paying for a short play game, that it will have more. Last one I played going through every single side track objective i could find, taking my time, still was maybe 10 hours. Do it a few more times in different modes, you tend to have seen enough.

Couch co-op is what I would like to see. Having family and 5 computers laying around, to play a few things together. Any of this lately has been only in consoles. So for me anyways, multiplayer to try to get a little more time out of it means little. Games hit that $5 mark or something, than its worth getting the multiple copies and such. That even then has become so questionable, with online and malware and such.

The direct answer to you question, no. Multiplayer with the multiple game requirements is also a no thanks to paying double.

It doesn't bother me if a game has a multi-player component or not to be honest as long as all aspects of the title are good, sometimes games are hurt by having a poorly made multi-player mode tacked on to an otherwise stellar single player experience and vise versa.

Of course. Gamers have paid much more than $60 for games in the past before multiplayer was popular. I barely play Multiplayer anyway, if at all.Legolas_Katarn

Agreed.

Games like Fallout 1, 2, 3 and New Vegas (plus Oblivion) are worth a lot more to me, than any COD, BC2 or Halo put together...

Unless I really can't wait to play it, nothing. The experience will be exactly the same 3/6/12 months down the line and it will cost you a fraction of the price. I rarely buy games on release nowadays.kamikaze_pigmy

thissss - however I do agree that games should not be required to have multiplayer to be "good"

It depends on the game for me. I would never buy an fps without online multiplayer.

As for RPGs and action adventure games, I really don't care.

[QUOTE="Legolas_Katarn"]Of course. Gamers have paid much more than $60 for games in the past before multiplayer was popular. I barely play Multiplayer anyway, if at all.EvilSelf

Agreed.

Games like Fallout 1, 2, 3 and New Vegas (plus Oblivion) are worth a lot more to me, than any COD, BC2 or Halo put together...

It depends on the game for me. I would never buy an fps without online multiplayer.

As for RPGs and action adventure games, I really don't care.

A_Mobile_Doll

I almost never play multiplayer games on the 360.Allicrombie

Of course! Take a look at Batman: Arkham Asylum. A game that needed no multiplayer at all, because the single-player campaign was THAT GOOD. Some games are better off without any multiplayer at all.

[QUOTE="Allicrombie"]I almost never play multiplayer games on the 360.Dracula68

[QUOTE="Dracula68"][QUOTE="Allicrombie"]I almost never play multiplayer games on the 360.Allicrombie

Is that an XBL game? It sounds vaguely familiar.

I will pay the £40 ($60) if know it will be a great game or it's a series I like regardless of whether it's single player only or has multiplayer tagged on. I always try and buy games I like new so that it supports the developer.

Actually I prefer most games to not include multiplayer because they usually take away from the SP portion of a game.

Same games thrive on Multiplayer, other only need the single player. It doesn't hurt for a mostly single player to try multiplayer (Dead Space 2 for example) but those that thrive on multiplayer (like COD for example) or don't have much of SP should put in multiplayer matches with AI bots for practice like Unreal Tournament (There is a small SP Mode where you can fight through all levels to eventually face off against the top guy in a final 1 on 1 match). Thats what COD ought to do is implement a Single player mode where you can battle zombies with an AI (preferebly a good AI) and fight against AI bots that can have their skill level adjustedon the maps if you don't want to play online.

I almost always prefer singleplayer only games, unless coop is included (I would rather them focus on 1 player first and foremost). Competitive multiplayer pretty well ruins every game.

its very rare to find a good game worth that much without multiplayer. But it hink mass effect 2 is well worth that.

I buy the games I want when I want to and when I can, I don't care whether a game has multiplayer or not so much as it has a good singleplayer.

the witcher 2 i think is gonna be worth it...i think that unless i get 50+ hours out of a game its not worth 59.99usd...and i hope the witcher gives me that much game

Don't agree. Mass Effect 2 was the game this gen that proved otherwise. Definitely worth $60 for that game.

I don't do much multiplayer. I buy games mainly for the story, characters, setting, and campaign. So, yes, a game without multiplayer (great examples include Alan Wake and the first Dead Space) is definitely worth my $59.99.

Really depends on the game. Good RPGs are worth it because of the amount of gameplay you get out of them. Also, any games with Zelda in the title are pretty much guaranteed to be worth the cost.

Considering I don't play multiplayer anymore, yes, 60 bucks is worth it to me.

There have been many superb games that I played only for the singleplayer content and were easily worth their full price. This idea that all games must include multiplayer is rubbish. The trend of game companies sacrificing making a great singleplayer experience at the expense of adding status quo multiplayer must stop.

I don't even really play MP, so yes (though I don't usually buy games at $60). However, good MP is a nice bonus.

depends...if it's a good story and in depth(kinda like FF) then yea because the playtime and story speaks for it self

depends really. i mean i bought red dead full price for the single player. haven't touched the multiplayer.altairs_mentor

I hate the attitude that everything needs multiplayer. Well, that's because I'm more of a single-player gamer. The current trend that I've been seeing for a long time is that the single-player campaigns are becoming shorter while multiplayer modes are becoming larger, with much more DLC support for multiplayer than add-ons for the single-player. So in reality, I'm having a harder time coughing up 60 bucks for a game WITH multiplayer than a game that has a competent single player.JustPlainLucas

Definitly worth it from my point of view. I value story and plot above everything else, and single player games always have better story then multiplayer games.

and i always compare things in time played vs money paid to movies. a movie ticket costs $10 for 2-3 hours of entertainment. so about $5 an hour. I've already played 80 hours of Dragon Age 2 for my $60, or about $0.75 an hour. good deal to me.

Well first off I don't pay full price for any of my games, the sweetness of having a PC and buying games at huge discounts. Secondly I don't play multiplayer games, at least FPS ones or anything of that nature. I had a very short duration trying out multiplayer games like that and it seems that the competitiveness is too much for me to care for and there's a very small if any casual crowd that plays multiplayer FPS. I don't care to invest countless hours of gameplay just to see my name at the top of some list.

I couldn't care less for multi player, single player is the make or break deal for me. If the single player is a rich one with a good amount of replayability and always has you coming back for more, then it's well worth the money.

Multiplayer is pretty much killing gaming to be fair, sure it might extend a game's length but what if the multiplayer servers don't work or have been shut down, or if it's been populated by skilless losers who have to cheat and have their hand held because they lack the patience nad ability to actually play a game?
Multiplayer shouldn't be slapped onto a game just to make the Halo/COD crowd happy, single player is more important.

Multiplayer is so low on my list of what makes me buy a game that it may as well not exist. I buy for the single player, no single player or a weak single player, then I'm not buying.

I buy games mainly for the single player experience for the most part, as there aren't many multiplayer games I enjoy. So for me, multiplayer is just an added bonus. Like others have mentioned, if the game is only singleplayer I won't buy it at launch, but wait for a price drop. I don't really enjoy FPS multiplayer like CoD but I do play the campaign, in which case I simply try to borrow it for a few days from a friend. Sadly, games focused on multiplayer tend to make the singleplayer experience less enjoyable. Like you OP, I have friends that refuse to buy games without multiplayer (some even if its an RPG). I can understand some peoples need for multiplayer as a way to add longevity to their purchase. Some like to play campaign once and never touch it again, and some don't even bother with it and go straight to multiplayer (I have a friend that this this for Black Ops, lol). But personally, I don't need multiplayer for that. If a game has a great singleplayer and some RPG elements (like Bioshock and Fallout 3), I don't mind replaying it a few times.

Yes, for me SP > MP, there are tons of games I don't even play the MP part

In my opinion, even if Crysis 2 didn't have multi-player, it would be worth its full $60.00 price tag. It was one hell of an experience.

I agree about Crysis not needing a multiplayer. The singleplayer in this game was great.

I thought some games (like Resident Evil 5) would have been better if they didn't have multiplayer.

Absolutely. Not everyone is into multiplayer.