He won't buy a game if it doesn't have multiplayer. So he won't touch games like Zelda and Metroid. No single player games at all, no matter how good. Is he crazy or what?
I'm not going to waste $80 CAD on a game that can be completed in only 10 hours. I rarely break this tenet of mine, unless the game is older and goes for cheap. If I absolutely cannot wait to play a SP-only game, I rent.
I agree with him for the most part. Single-player experiences have to be mind-blowing. Like a Grandia game or something.
Otherwise, I play for accomplishment, and single-player games don't offer any accomplishments that thousands (if not millions) of other gamers can't reasonably access. There's only so much that can be said for beating any given single-player game.
I'm not going to waste $80 CAD on a game that can be completed in only 10 hours. I rarely break this tenet of mine, unless the game is older and goes for cheap. If I absolutely cannot wait to play a SP-only game, I rent.soultron
He doesn't say 10 hours he just says ANY game only SP. It could be 60 hours and he wouldn't buy it.
I'm almost the complete opposite- I only buy games based off their single-player. So if GS takes down the score of a game for a lack of online, well, then I know to add at least half a point.
With how many obnoxious kids or overally-serious people online, I don't even want to play online most of the time. Personally, I think anyone that HAS to have online is crazy.
I'm almost the complete opposite- I only buy games based off their single-player. So if GS takes down the score of a game for a lack of online, well, then I know to add at least half a point.
With how many obnoxious kids or overally-serious people online, I don't even want to play online most of the time. Personally, I think anyone that HAS to have online is crazy.
Vampyronight
Not talking about you cause you like single player; the gist of the game.
He won't buy a game if it doesn't have multiplayer. So he won't touch games like Zelda and Metroid. No single player games at all, no matter how good. Is he crazy or what?Duckman5
Honestly I can understand if it's not a long entralling RPG... because if its a single player game with no multi player or online options it's going to get played out pretty fast and Itd be a waste to pay for something thats just going to sit and collect dust on a shelf.. should just rent it.. i.e. Virtua Fighter 5.. yea that got played out pretty fast... about $50 saved because I rented it
He has a point...Why should I waste my 60 now on that single player? I can wait 6months till it is 10bucks. Not like the single player is ever going to change. And to be honest...Games like GOW? Was something that took under 7hours with hardly any replay value worth 60bucks?
To be honest...Thats pretty much how I view games. About the only ones I will buy solely for single player are the must have...I know will be incridible can not wait. Like Eternal Sonota comming out this fall.
the premise sounds pretty reasonable to me but your friend seems to take it to extremes.
I'm pretty much the same way if I find out a game has no multiplayer I tend to put off buying it until it's fairly cheap.
It's not that I don't like single player it's just I don't think most single player games are worth $50 since I'll pretty much play them for 50 hours. If that's the case I'm better off renting the game cause I'm sure to get more than $1 an hour's worth out of it (especially with services like gameznflicks, or gamefly)
If he plays games for competition, I can underdstand. Sounds like even if you talked him into buying a good single player game, he'd skip the cutscenes, not explore, and generally skip over all those things that make the single player an experience.
Especially when some games doesn't supposed to have multi-player. It would just contradict everything the game is doing. When Irrational Games announced not to support multi-player in Bioshock some people where very disappointed. But why? In Bioshock the player needs to evaluate the situation carefully to overcome obstacles. If you had a multi-player version of this game you would have a frag-fest with plasmids. Something that could never be as good as other multi-player games like Unreal Tournament for example that where especially designed for multi-player.
If I weren't as big of a gamer as I am, I would probably adopt the same philosophy. Nowadays at 60 bucks a pop, you want to know that you'll have something with some staying power and real replay value. I kicked around the idea of only buying games that supported multiplayer online, because a singelplayer only experience at that price would turn into financial suicide at some point.
In the end, I decided that I would either just wait awhile before buying non-online games until they are cheaper, or only buy the best of the best non-online games at full price. As a long time gamer, I've grown too attached to singleplayer experiences to give them up entirely. But with the rising costs of games, it's awfully tempting.
If a game is great, it needs to be bought. MGS is single player only, it's of course a must-have. Counter-Strike is multiplayer only, it also is must-have. Doesn't matter if a game is SP, MP, or both: it just needs to be good.
I'm not going to waste $80 CAD on a game that can be completed in only 10 hours. I rarely break this tenet of mine, unless the game is older and goes for cheap. If I absolutely cannot wait to play a SP-only game, I rent.soultron
imo, games that only have a 10-hour single-player campaign aren't worth buying, even if they have multiplayer (there are exceptions to this, but they're rare).
Multiplayer modes should never be an excuse for releasing an unfinished game - and a 10 hour long game certainly sounds unfinished.
Back on topic: your friend certainly is crazy, but if he only enjoys multiplayer games, let him buy them. As long as he is enjoying himself, then it doesn't really matter what sort of games he plays.
Well, to me it's ll about fun. Doesn't mtter if the game is multi or single-player or both. Story-based games, though, seldom work in multiplayer, so I'd say he's missing a lot of stuff. Doesn't matter though, everyone should play what works for him/her.
It makes sense. If you're only going to play through a game once, than it really is a waste of money buying it. Renting is a good option here.
[QUOTE="EmilioDigsIt"]
My friend is just like that, except he only plays games that have ONLINE.
If they dont, he doesnt play.
Duckman5
Wow, that's even worse.......what the hell is wrong with some people? They'll take 1 aspect of a game and only buy it if it has that aspect?They're looking for value. See it from that point.
This is crazy.
Especially when some games doesn't supposed to have multi-player. It would just contradict everything the game is doing. When Irrational Games announced not to support multi-player in Bioshock some people where very disappointed. But why? In Bioshock the player needs to evaluate the situation carefully to overcome obstacles. If you had a multi-player version of this game you would have a frag-fest with plasmids. Something that could never be as good as other multi-player games like Unreal Tournament for example that where especially designed for multi-player.
XeONE
While that may be true, it will hurt sales of Bioshock. Having a game only have an single player experience in this day and age is taking a chance on your audience. People are asking to play games for longer, and if games don't step up, everyone will just be renting.
Not that unusual or crazy at all. Single player games are finite experiences and can often be completed in a single rental. Why buy a game you only intend to play through one time? Not everyone is interested in collecting every coin and finding every little secret.
Multiplayer ensures 100% replayability. When I consider a purchase I'm either looking for a single player game I know I want to find every last bit of goodies or a game with some good multiplayer that will last me for ages.
Log in to comment