Ugh, Online doesn't equal replayability

It might not equal replayability if you aren't into playing online.

For me, it totally does add value and replayability. But that shouldn't come at the expense of the single-player. Games are more expensive than they've ever been, and they should deliver on all fronts at that price.

I've been thinking the same thing for a long time. I hate the "if it doesn't have multiplayer, it's worth ****!" argument.

Like CoD 4, the story's really short but people still love it. Although, it's still pretty awesome. But still too short. If Halo 3 and CoD 4 had no multiplayer, people wouldn't care about the game at all. Not that their single-player compensates. Just these damn shooters. Sick of 'em. Even though multiplayer is fun, sometimes I DON'T want to play a single game over and over again to increase its replayability. Just move on, Halo 3 addicts :roll:.

It might not equal replayability if you aren't into playing online.

For me, it totally does add value and replayability. But that shouldn't come at the expense of the single-player. Games are more expensive than they've ever been, and they should deliver on all fronts at that price.

Shame-usBlackley

It might not equal replayability if you aren't into playing online.

For me, it totally does add value and replayability. But that shouldn't come at the expense of the single-player. Games are more expensive than they've ever been, and they should deliver on all fronts at that price.

Shame-usBlackley

Why does it seem like no one remembers that before last gen, these prices were the norm or even higher? I vividly remember some N64 games being $70-$80.

Singleplayer games just don't interest me much anymore.

Limited AI, linear progression and predictable levels... it's not fun. It has to have a great story or atmosphere to keep me awake. Shadow of Colossus had both. The music, the art style and the battles were epic. Killing them made me feel guilty. CoD4... well not the most original story, but the way it's presented is clean. People say it's short, but that's because they don't require you to die a bunch of times or level grind to proceed.

Multiplayer games to me, is where replay is at. Playing with people will always have different outcomes. One problem is if you play with people that are completely better or worse than you. That's why I think matchmaking is key.

So yea, singleplayer is about story to me. Multiplayer is about matchmaking.

I hear you there. Back when I first started playing video games around the turn of the century, "Online Multiplayer" was just playing over a LAN connection. When XBL and PSU came out, I thought it was just a way of giving away personal info.

Now, though, it seems totally necessary. I suppose it's because everyone wants to integrate the newest technology into their games.

Obviously, some games aren't made for this (puzzles, party games, etc.) Those games just don't quite fit the worldwide theme because they're a more local, hang-with-your-friends-while-having-a-pint kinda experience.

On the other hand, it's fun because humans are naturally competitive. We like to face off against other people and prove that we are the best; yet, there's always someone better, so we strive to improve ourselves.

So really, Online Multiplayer is as much a way to improve oneself as it is to bring people together. That's the reason it's such a big plus for a game to have online capabilities.

I understand that a decent multiplayer isn't the only thing a game should have, unless it's made strictly for multiplayer (look at Warhawk PS3). Halo 3 would have gotten a 10/10 if it's last few levels of 1P weren't so dingy. But if the only replay you have is "go back through all the 1P levels and find all the secrets," it gets boring pretty quick. I have a really hard time staying captivated at that point. That's why multiplayer is considered the chief source of replay value; the competitive spirit. Plus, how would we have our Tournament TV? ;)

I've always thought multiplayer as a BONUS, not the thing that gets me to buy a game.

I mean, who's buying Crysis for multiplayer???

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

...Games are more expensive than they've ever been, and they should deliver on all fronts at that price.

Saruman1719

Why does it seem like no one remembers that before last gen, these prices were the norm or even higher? I vividly remember some N64 games being $70-$80.

Yup. And now we are back to the bad old days. Saw the collector's copy of Stranglehold today for $70 and I'm like... why? Just ...why?

But back to the topic, the replayability is there only as long as there are people online playing. This is a bad example, 'cause Crimson Skies was an awesome single player game in it's own right, but after 3 months it was impossible to find anyone online. It always blows my mind when I go to play a game online that might be almost a year old and you get the cricket sounds. Like, noone in the entire world wants to play 'fill in the blank' right now?

I've never played Crimson Skies. Call it heresy, but I only just found out about it yesterday...

I'm stupid, I guess. :D

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hear you; really games these days have HORRIBLE balancing. It seems a game with a good SP has a crappy multiplayer component, and vice versa. But its really gotten bad since games are shifting more to online, lets face it most shooters are the same, you only need to buy one game for multiplayer and your set (lets say COD 4 or Warhawk). I advise you don't buy any other shooters that are multiplayer focused, here's a good example, think of FPS multiplayer focused games as an OS, now think of the themes that are in an OS (like the classic theme for XP) but now imagine paying 60 dollars for that theme. That's basically what games are these days, the same online game with a new 'theme' (Halo for sci fi, COD for war). We've basically reached a peak in online gaming, to the point that some of these games are feeling like the same game online. But why do many online FPS multiplayer games have different themes? To differentiate itself, but mostly because of its Singleplayer component (That's why you're a Spartan in Halo 3) So why not focus on the singleplayer instead developers? Give me a good reason to get your game besides multiplayer (as I've mentioned before, they are very similar these days) It's singleplayer where FPS games are (or should) different, in COD 4 you are a soldier stationed in the middle east, while in Deus Ex (a good example of a singleplayer game that has near infinite replayabilty, and it's an FPS too!) you're an agent interacting with NPCs for clues to a conspiracy while working for various groups of people. It's completely different in multiplayer, since people know they aren't going to act as they would in campaign. developers seem to forget that once you've perfected a certain aspect of a game, you move on to perfect another, and not continue to work on that same aspect or because eventually that is what all other developers will ever do, only slightly better, as we are seeing in games with multiplayer. We're done with multiplayer, can we please move on to the singleplayer.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

It might not equal replayability if you aren't into playing online.

For me, it totally does add value and replayability. But that shouldn't come at the expense of the single-player. Games are more expensive than they've ever been, and they should deliver on all fronts at that price.

Saruman1719

Why does it seem like no one remembers that before last gen, these prices were the norm or even higher? I vividly remember some N64 games being $70-$80.

They were the norm for like 6 months. Then they realized that it was too high and they dropped them. Sure, there was the odd game that ran $80 (Final Fantasy III), $90 (Virtua Racing) and even Phantasy Star ($70 way back in the day), but those few anomalies are far from any established norm.

They tried to raise prices during the N64's day and got their asses handed to them in no small part because the PS1 was killing the 64 and the games ran (AT LEAST) $10 less at retail, because not only did Sony not charge as much in licensing fees, it flat didn't cost as much to press a disc as manufacture a cartridge, especially a cartridge that was made by Nintendo themselves. This was one of the main reasons (aside from a horrendous beating) that cartridges finally went the way of the dodo.

Using the N64 as a barometer for established pricing trends is a little off.In fact, it was the opposite.

Come on people, we're talking about whether multiplayer is the big seller here, not whether prices today are reasonable.

Although, as for prices, I just wait a year or two then buy the game for $20 or so... Works for me! :D

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It sure doesn't equal replayability if it is just thrown on for the sake of it being there. Many games could benefit from having online but many others do very good jobs at providing a highly replayable singleplayer campaign... which is one of the things lacking in a LOT of games these days. Far too many games have tacky singleplayers and tacked on multiplayers... making them pretty much useless as games.foxhound_fox

No kidding.

*cough*Kane & Lynch*cough

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It sure doesn't equal replayability if it is just thrown on for the sake of it being there. Many games could benefit from having online but many others do very good jobs at providing a highly replayable singleplayer campaign... which is one of the things lacking in a LOT of games these days. Far too many games have tacky singleplayers and tacked on multiplayers... making them pretty much useless as games.foxhound_fox

It might not equal replayability if you aren't into playing online.

For me, it totally does add value and replayability. But that shouldn't come at the expense of the single-player.

Shame-usBlackley

[QUOTE="Saruman1719"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

It might not equal replayability if you aren't into playing online.

For me, it totally does add value and replayability. But that shouldn't come at the expense of the single-player. Games are more expensive than they've ever been, and they should deliver on all fronts at that price.

Shame-usBlackley

Why does it seem like no one remembers that before last gen, these prices were the norm or even higher? I vividly remember some N64 games being $70-$80.

They were the norm for like 6 months. Then they realized that it was too high and they dropped them. Sure, there was the odd game that ran $80 (Final Fantasy III), $90 (Virtua Racing) and even Phantasy Star ($70 way back in the day), but those few anomalies are far from any established norm.

They tried to raise prices during the N64's day and got their asses handed to them in no small part because the PS1 was killing the 64 and the games ran (AT LEAST) $10 less at retail, because not only did Sony not charge as much in licensing fees, it flat didn't cost as much to press a disc as manufacture a cartridge, especially a cartridge that was made by Nintendo themselves. This was one of the main reasons (aside from a horrendous beating) that cartridges finally went the way of the dodo.

Using the N64 as a barometer for established pricing trends is a little off.In fact, it was the opposite.

They were the norm at $60 before. As you said, there were the odd ones that were higher.....but I never said that the prices of $70-$80 were the standard, only that they were out there. And since I was a kid during the SNES/GEN days and prior, I can only go on first hand accounts and such, but I do remember some instances where I would see certain GEN games for $60. No one ever said more than $60 was the norm before. We were just plain spoiled last generation, with the "low" initial price of $50 and then seeing it drop down to $20 in a lot of cases after a year. Do I want to pay less? Of course. But it always amuses me when people go on about these prices as if they had never happened before. The one good thing about them is that I buy less than I normally would, weeding out even more.

Every time a new action game comes out, there's the inevitable reaction of "9/10!" :D "7-10 hours and no online" :evil: No sale! I want to know what people feel is even the point of single-player if this is such a common perception? Is story the only reason people play single player now? Even then, aren't movies watchable and books readable more than once? And isn't online just the same few 10 minute games over and over again? It seems as if the advent of Xbox Live has shifted priorities significantly, which is ironic considering that at the start of this generation people seemed to be really enjoying Geometry Wars. How long is that game? I'll wager an outlandish theory for the sake of it that those who have this perspective have been playing too many online shooters and have forgotten that games can actually have a well-structured, unrepetitive enjoyable single-player campaign >_> Mainly, I want to know who's left that actually will play a game because it's entertaining, which includes playing it again.yodariquo

I don't play online often, and if I do I only play with close friends.

I'd rather play an awesome single player that's 7-20 hours long than have online multiplayer. I mean, without single player, what's a game going to do for me? I'll play multiplayer a few times and never touch it again, unless it's a game like PSO Ep1&2.

I actually dread the day where offline multiplayer doesn't exist. Playing 4 player Gauntlet, or 3 player Secret of mana in the same soom > the online variation by far. Maybe FPS games have an argument, since a large portion of the screen is quite nice to have, and it prevents screen-hacking, but everything else tends to be better in the same room than Online.

As for single player replayability...I figure any good SP experience is replayable, whether the story is spoiled or not. I mean, Metroid Prime has no multiplayer. I never did beat the game, but I played it over and over up until nearly the final boss multiple times. It was a fun game. In comparison, Supreme Commander has a short, annoying Single Player that I finished once for a single faction, and never touched again. It's a rare exception in that I come back a few times per month to play a friend online, or a skirmish against the AI.

I agree, all this focus on multiplayer and online is ridiculous. Didnt they dock Fire Emblem because it had no online? ITS FIRE EMBLEM. Games are single player first and fart around with multiplayer now and then for me.GodModeEnabled

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="Saruman1719"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

It might not equal replayability if you aren't into playing online.

For me, it totally does add value and replayability. But that shouldn't come at the expense of the single-player. Games are more expensive than they've ever been, and they should deliver on all fronts at that price.

Saruman1719

Why does it seem like no one remembers that before last gen, these prices were the norm or even higher? I vividly remember some N64 games being $70-$80.

They were the norm for like 6 months. Then they realized that it was too high and they dropped them. Sure, there was the odd game that ran $80 (Final Fantasy III), $90 (Virtua Racing) and even Phantasy Star ($70 way back in the day), but those few anomalies are far from any established norm.

They tried to raise prices during the N64's day and got their asses handed to them in no small part because the PS1 was killing the 64 and the games ran (AT LEAST) $10 less at retail, because not only did Sony not charge as much in licensing fees, it flat didn't cost as much to press a disc as manufacture a cartridge, especially a cartridge that was made by Nintendo themselves. This was one of the main reasons (aside from a horrendous beating) that cartridges finally went the way of the dodo.

Using the N64 as a barometer for established pricing trends is a little off.In fact, it was the opposite.

They were the norm at $60 before. As you said, there were the odd ones that were higher.....but I never said that the prices of $70-$80 were the standard, only that they were out there. And since I was a kid during the SNES/GEN days and prior, I can only go on first hand accounts and such, but I do remember some instances where I would see certain GEN games for $60. No one ever said more than $60 was the norm before. We were just plain spoiled last generation, with the "low" initial price of $50 and then seeing it drop down to $20 in a lot of cases after a year. Do I want to pay less? Of course. But it always amuses me when people go on about these prices as if they had never happened before. The one good thing about them is that I buy less than I normally would, weeding out even more.

i dont think its that people go on because they never happened before, but more because it has been proven a bad business model, and it is totally unnecessary as no one is using carts anymore. there is just no reason to have prices anywhere near $70.

Come on people, we're talking about whether multiplayer is the big seller here, not whether prices today are reasonable.

Although, as for prices, I just wait a year or two then buy the game for $20 or so... Works for me! :D athenian29

Same here. The Warhammer 40K Drawn of War games? They are still coming out but sooner or later they will be done with the sub series and release a complete collection for $20-$40 you would pay $200 or more buy buying them every year when they first come out! :P There will be more player mods at the time too.

I agree, all this focus on multiplayer and online is ridiculous. Didnt they dock Fire Emblem because it had no online? ITS FIRE EMBLEM. Games are single player first and fart around with multiplayer now and then for me.GodModeEnabled

This new wave of ADHD "gamers" are the ones who are killing SP within games and turning the industry into crap. I have no interest in hearing sound bytes filter through without a face or familiarity with that person. I'd much rather have people PHYSICALLY play near me, you know, actual people and friends where if I severely PWN I can shove it in thier face where it actually counts and is hillarious. This new wave are essentially babies who think if a game doesn't have multi-player its trash and deserves a lower score. Because of this, companies look at this and say, "Well, the main focus will be on multi-player but we have to look at the minority of actual gamers who like SP so let's make the SP 4-7 hours long." Thus to me, multi-player is pointless unless it's a lan party or if I'm with a group of friends. I find that 60 dollars is indeed too much for these short campaigns geared toward these "gamers" and I hope piracy increases for this.soulsofblayck

[QUOTE="soulsofblayck"]This new wave of ADHD "gamers" are the ones who are killing SP within games and turning the industry into crap. I have no interest in hearing sound bytes filter through without a face or familiarity with that person. I'd much rather have people PHYSICALLY play near me, you know, actual people and friends where if I severely PWN I can shove it in thier face where it actually counts and is hillarious. This new wave are essentially babies who think if a game doesn't have multi-player its trash and deserves a lower score. Because of this, companies look at this and say, "Well, the main focus will be on multi-player but we have to look at the minority of actual gamers who like SP so let's make the SP 4-7 hours long." Thus to me, multi-player is pointless unless it's a lan party or if I'm with a group of friends. I find that 60 dollars is indeed too much for these short campaigns geared toward these "gamers" and I hope piracy increases for this.tiedye_duality_

I was referring to the fact that lately, newer gamers have trouble being engrossed in a story and simply want the SP to be short and to the point.

MGS4 online and the main game can be ought seperatly if ppl reli don't want online.. from the sound of this thread that sounds like a good idea!tiedye_duality_

Absolutely. Why pay once when you can pay twice?

Absolutely. Why pay once when you can pay twice?Shame-usBlackley

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]Absolutely. Why pay once when you can pay twice?foxhound_fox

That would be fine by me. Not gonna happen, but theoretically speaking I'd be fine with it.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]Absolutely. Why pay once when you can pay twice?Shame-usBlackley

That would be fine by me. Not gonna happen, but theoretically speaking I'd be fine with it.

I suck at online multiplayer shooters. That's why I don't care about them much.

Its just personal preference for different people.

I suck at online multiplayer shooters. That's why I don't care about them much.

Its just personal preference for different people.

redchina

Unless online is the focus of the game (like WoW), it doesn't hold a lot of interest for me, anymore. I'm just not into multi-player like I used to be. In general, I dislike this trend towards making games shorter and shorter. It used to annoy me when a lot of single-player games I was playing started clocking in at 12-15 hours. Now I see more and more closer to the 7-10 mark.

I can see why someone would want some other value added for the money. $60 is an awful lot for something that's going to be over in a couple of evenings without something else to do in game. Unless the single-player is going to have enough life to keep the player's interest long term. I don't see that with a lot of these short games. I'd prefer single-player games be a bit lengthier again, but multi-player seems to be where most folk's interest lies.