Are you okay with SP being used mainly as a tutorial for MP? Who does it best?

After StarHawk's recent review, I was thinking about games that do this.

Uncharted 2 is my favorite example of SP to MP back when it was launching, except it focused on SP rather than MP like some games.

Are you okay with this idea, and which game manages to have that great SP that gears you up for MP?

It's lame, SP over MP any day. Don't take that as I hate online gaming. It's great fun but single player will always be better to me.

No one does it best.

The only game I can think of that had both a good SP and MP this gen was Resistance 2. If a game is going to be MP focused, then focus on it and stop worrying about making some tacked on SP crap campaign just to use as a bullet point on the box.

All the BFs and CoDs this gen are prime examples of games that would be better off if they just went MP and put all the funds wasted on their garbage SP modes into ironing out their netcode/matchmaking/server setups so they don't play like garbage online.

Warhawk was an excellent online game. It's server setup was near flawless in its implementation. Sure, it had its bugs at launch, but they ironed those out quickly and it's still the most lag free and smooth playing online game I've ever experienced.

I have a feeling Starhawk's online suffered from this SP tutorial development, though I hope I am wrong.

My biggest problem this gen is that every game has a multiplayer, it sucks.

I would much rather have a developer make a great single player game and then add on a meaningful as well. I can't think of any devs who excel at both aside from maybe Bungie

I am not okay with SP being used as training for MP . Its completely pointless rather than wasting resources on designing an SP they could have spent that time making the MP much much better and people could learn the MP well by actually playing it. Yeah you may not know what is going on at first but you will learn as time goes on.

I guess though that the industry is afraid to make online only games because that scares people away and that's true but i mean taking on crappy SP doesn't really help out all too much either imo.

I would much rather have a developer make a great single player game and then add on a meaningful as well. I can't think of any devs who excel at both aside from maybe Bungie

BPoole96

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

I would much rather have a developer make a great single player game and then add on a meaningful as well. I can't think of any devs who excel at both aside from maybe Bungie

vashkey

I don't care for it. If you're going to make your game MP focused, don't waste time or resources making a crappy, tacked on single player campaign. That time could used to improve the game. Personally, I think the best way learn is to simply play the multiplayer.

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

I would much rather have a developer make a great single player game and then add on a meaningful as well. I can't think of any devs who excel at both aside from maybe Bungie

vashkey

Yes Rockstar does do a good job with both. Max Payne 3's MP also doesn't look too bad either despite that being a SP oriented game

After StarHawk's recent review, I was thinking about games that do this.

Uncharted 2 is my favorite example of SP to MP back when it was launching, except it focused on SP rather than MP like some games.

Are you okay with this idea, and which game manages to have that great SP that gears you up for MP?

Blabadon

unreal tournament on pc in 1999 is an awesome example for that :)

that game still works on windows 7 with no patches and has servers still active, it is more alive than ut3 :)

SP >>> MP

After StarHawk's recent review, I was thinking about games that do this.

Uncharted 2 is my favorite example of SP to MP back when it was launching, except it focused on SP rather than MP like some games.

Are you okay with this idea, and which game manages to have that great SP that gears you up for MP?

Blabadon

Ummm no. SP is the main component to a game. Gears of war and CoD's SP are both over blown tutorials and thats very sad.The_Pacific

gears 3 had an outstanding SP.

[QUOTE="The_Pacific"]Ummm no. SP is the main component to a game. Gears of war and CoD's SP are both over blown tutorials and thats very sad.vitalogy23

gears 3 had an outstanding SP.

Games in the 90s were made for older hardcore gamers you could tell when i was a kid playing them and i loved that.

Games now are made for little kids, the industry has actually devolved into childish garbage.

Games in the 90s were made for older hardcore gamers you could tell when i was a kid playing them and i loved that.

Games now are made for little kids, the industry has actually devolved into childish garbage.

xboxownzuall545

Then find a new hobby

i was 9/10 years old playing doom on atari jaguar in 1994 lol.

My mom had no problem with me playing the game that's the type of games i wanted to play.

e3 2011 they show kids older than 9 years old playing kinectimals tell me if video games arent some kiddie **** now lol.

doom on jaguar had no music and i actually like my shooters that way because you can hear the ambient sounds from level and enemies and **** it made the original doom more freaky actually.

I play all my shooters without music today because of that.

[QUOTE="vitalogy23"]

[QUOTE="The_Pacific"]Ummm no. SP is the main component to a game. Gears of war and CoD's SP are both over blown tutorials and thats very sad.xboxownzuall545

gears 3 had an outstanding SP.

i thought it was great. lengthy by todays standards, great gunplay, alot more variety than the previous two, pacing was excellent and the visuals were great.

if you don't like it, you should sell it.

I liked the way BF2 did it. Bots for singleplayer games. Otherwise, it made no pretensions to being a fully multiplayer game.

If something is going to be a tutorial for online, it should be called that or they should use bots, they shouldn't pretend its a campaign and give us 5 hours of repetitive, linear gameplay using mechanics we will use online.

Like, don't lie to us. Battlefield 3, the BC games had great campaigns, so don't stop now and give me a crappy online tutorial for 5 hours that apes CoD at every turn.

I liked the way BF2 did it. Bots for singleplayer games. Otherwise, it made no pretensions to being a fully multiplayer game.

jun_aka_pekto

I miss the reaper bots ( a mod) for GLQuake. At the hardest difficulty levels, they were quite difficult to kill. But, they made for good training and helped me prepare for the time I joined in GLQuake LANfests and online.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows how much I'd rather SP so nnnnope.

Games that have the SP as a tutorial for the MP are MP focused. i.e Call of Duty, Halo, etc. Not saying the SP can't be good but that's usually what they are. I'm an SP man so I generally dislike it when games do that. mrmusicman247

In short, no.

Strategy games tend to do this alot: introducing units one by one, guiding you through progressions in a tech tree presenting scenarios to better prepare you for MP. It's how the excellent Warcraft 3 campaigns were structured--while remaining compelling as a well designed SP experience.

But if a dev were to just string up a half-assed SP campaign/tutorial, I think a proper focused tutorial would serve to be a better solution.

No I'm not really OK with that.

If I wanted a multiplayer centric game I would've gotten a multiplayer centric game; I really hate how some developers do that and have a pitiful tacked on singleplayer just for the heck of it. I mean, if you wanted it multiplayer centric then DON'T @#$%ING HAVE A SINGLEPLAYER. It takes time and money away from the multiplayer (which is your focus) and makes both sides of the spectrum dissappointed. Seriously, it's not really hard to do...look at Team Fortress 2 or Super Monday Night Combat, the "singleplayer" is really just a tutorial. In games like Brink, for instance, the singleplayer is a blown out tutorial with a crappy narrative that tries to tie it all together and just ends up weakening the overall game.

Be multiplayer centric or not just pick one so that you don't end up dissappointing one side or the other.

Well take Starhawk as an example. In the SP, you aren't just learning the controls, you're learning potential tactics. Seing strategies that work, and learning how to counter them. I think that's a HUGE benefit, and it reaches out farther than a tutorial that's just controls. I'm not usually OK with it, but Starhawk is a game for MP, and I don't think by including a SP that they should have to delay it to refine the part of the game people will only use as a tutorial.

I prefer multiplayer games to SP games, but for a game like Starhawk, the successor to Warhawk, an all MP game, I can't say I have a problem with it. Halo, Uncharted, or Gears all should have great SP campaigns though imo. Starhawk is more of an exception than the rule. The game shouldn't score worse than it would if it were not included, and if the package is great without it, then it should be discounted.

My biggest problem this gen is that every game has a multiplayer, it sucks.

crimsonman1245

Games that have the SP as a tutorial for the MP are MP focused. i.e Call of Duty, Halo, etc. Not saying the SP can't be good but that's usually what they are. I'm an SP man so I generally dislike it when games do that. mrmusicman247

if everyone knows the game is primarily a multiplayer game (battlefield, starhawk, socom etc) then its fine. but thats the only time i accept a ho hum single player mode.

It's lame, SP over MP any day. Don't take that as I hate online gaming. It's great fun but single player will always be better to me.

Randoggy