Does missing multiplayer equal missing single player?

So, we've all seen a game that's been highly rated, even without very many hours of gameplay and a multiplayer.

But we've also seen/heard/said that a game like Warhawk's score should be instantly reduced due to its missing a single player mode.

Is this equal?

i think gs should score multiplayer and singlplayer seperately, that way multyplayer only games dont get reduced scores for not having single player.nba532002

I think that's a verynovel idea. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

[QUOTE="nba532002"]i think gs should score multiplayer and singlplayer seperately, that way multyplayer only games dont get reduced scores for not having single player.dubvisions

I think that's a verynovel idea. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Why thank you :D

of course there has to be repurcusions such as if a multiplayer only game costs to much the score should be affected.

I think it depends on the game.

Ut and css don't have a sp but there still great games.

But games like shadowrun would be so much better with a sp.

[QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="nba532002"]i think gs should score multiplayer and singlplayer seperately, that way multyplayer only games dont get reduced scores for not having single player.nba532002

I think that's a verynovel idea. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Why thank you :D

of course there has to be repurcusions such as if a multiplayer only game costs to much the score should be affected.

I understand your side, the multiplayer is missing content so it should be cheaper. But isn't a 20 hours game that has no multiplayer missing content too? And if so, shouldn't it be cheaper?

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here.

I think it depends on the game.

Ut and css don't have a sp but there still great games.

But games like shadowrun would be so much better with a sp.

Lemmywinks_360

To me, you're saying that Shadowrun just wasn't a good multiplayer game. Plain and simple. It didn't need a single player added, it needed a better multiplayer.

The difference is that a single player game is enjoyable anytime, but a multiplayer-only game requires other people to play with. If there's few or no players available at any given time, then the game is worthless.shaggygrosser

I would buy a multiplayer only game. I would probably rent a single player only game.

[QUOTE="nba532002"][QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="nba532002"]i think gs should score multiplayer and singlplayer seperately, that way multyplayer only games dont get reduced scores for not having single player.dubvisions

I think that's a verynovel idea. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Why thank you :D

of course there has to be repurcusions such as if a multiplayer only game costs to much the score should be affected.

I understand your side, the multiplayer is missing content so it should be cheaper. But isn't a 20 hours game that has no multiplayer missing content too? And if so, shouldn't it be cheaper?

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here.

that is very true hmmmm

This is why The Crossing will be awesome. The game is a Single Player FPS, but all the enemies in the game are controlled by other people.Sir-Marwin105

Single player should be required, multiplayer shouldn't be.BioShockOwnz

Even though as a fan of multiplayer games, I agree with this.

[QUOTE="shaggygrosser"]The difference is that a single player game is enjoyable anytime, but a multiplayer-only game requires other people to play with. If there's few or no players available at any given time, then the game is worthless.PotatoSan

I would buy a multiplayer only game. I would probably rent a single player only game.

I'm with you totally.

How many of us have bought single player games, only to beat them, and then to have to let them sit collecting dust or sell them for much less than what we paid? But how many of us have bought a game with a multiplayer on it that gave it more life than any single player you've played.

Games like Halo and Socom brought a CRAZY amount of hours of gameplay to those online. the experience was like no other. But in the case of Socom (i never played single player Halo) the single player mode was garbage. Still, the series is one of my favorites.

Missing multiplayer isn't as bad as missing single player. But, if they do it right, it can work. It's just that the multiplayer has to be really good.BillGreen68

Like Counter Strike :D

Yeah it's a mod.. but hell, an official one so more or less a game.

[QUOTE="dubvisions"][QUOTE="nba532002"][QUOTE="dubvisions"]

[QUOTE="nba532002"]i think gs should score multiplayer and singlplayer seperately, that way multyplayer only games dont get reduced scores for not having single player.nba532002

I think that's a verynovel idea. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Why thank you :D

of course there has to be repurcusions such as if a multiplayer only game costs to much the score should be affected.

I understand your side, the multiplayer is missing content so it should be cheaper. But isn't a 20 hours game that has no multiplayer missing content too? And if so, shouldn't it be cheaper?

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here.

that is very true hmmmm

The greatest multiplayer games can be played over and over and over and not get old. I can't think of a single player game that I wanted to play for a 3rd or 4th time.

Like I said, I'd gladly buy a multiplayer only game for 50 or 60 bucks, but not a game like Bioshock that I won't be playing anymore in a few weeks.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Single player should be required, multiplayer shouldn't be.Eponique

Even though as a fan of multiplayer games, I agree with this.

i don't agree at all. there's plenty of games that are killer as multiplayers that sucked as single player. And if the devs spent more time on the multiplayer, the mulktiplayer would have been even better.

Single player modes, usually, end.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Single player should be required, multiplayer shouldn't be.Eponique

Even though as a fan of multiplayer games, I agree with this.

[QUOTE="Eponique"]

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Single player should be required, multiplayer shouldn't be.PotatoSan

Even though as a fan of multiplayer games, I agree with this.

If, for whatever reason, you are unable to play multiplayer, it's a good idea to have single-player to fall back on. That's my reason to have single-player mandatory, anyway.

[QUOTE="Sir-Marwin105"]This is why The Crossing will be awesome. The game is a Single Player FPS, but all the enemies in the game are controlled by other people.PotatoSan

[QUOTE="Eponique"]

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Single player should be required, multiplayer shouldn't be.PotatoSan

Even though as a fan of multiplayer games, I agree with this.

Heh... I dunno. I used to be a big fan of the Mario Party series. Mario Party 1, 2 and 3, and kind of, 4. They included a story. 5 didn't have one, but I just went "It's okay... right?", I also bought 6 and 7 with the same excuse, I liked 6 because it tried to be different... But 7 was the nail in the coffin, I just got fed up, the game is pathetic without the single-player it used to have.

So yeah, that's why I agree with him :3

So, we've all seen a game that's been highly rated, even without very many hours of gameplay and a multiplayer.

But we've also seen/heard/said that a game like Warhawk's score should be instantly reduced due to its missing a single player mode.

Is this equal?

dubvisions

[QUOTE="PotatoSan"][QUOTE="Eponique"]

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Single player should be required, multiplayer shouldn't be.DaAznSaN

Even though as a fan of multiplayer games, I agree with this.

If, for whatever reason, you are unable to play multiplayer, it's a good idea to have single-player to fall back on. That's my reason to have single-player mandatory, anyway.

Why not just play a different game when you are unable to play multiplayer? Not every game is made to suit everybody's personal gaming needs.

Give a reason that makes sense!

[QUOTE="PotatoSan"][QUOTE="Eponique"]

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Single player should be required, multiplayer shouldn't be.Eponique

Even though as a fan of multiplayer games, I agree with this.

Heh... I dunno. I used to be a big fan of the Mario Party series. Mario Party 1, 2 and 3, and kind of, 4. They included a story. 5 didn't have one, but I just went "It's okay... right?", I also bought 6 and 7 with the same excuse, I liked 6 because it tried to be different... But 7 was the nail in the coffin, I just got fed up, the game is pathetic without the single-player it used to have.

So yeah, that's why I agree with him :3

[QUOTE="DaAznSaN"][QUOTE="PotatoSan"][QUOTE="Eponique"]

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Single player should be required, multiplayer shouldn't be.PotatoSan

Even though as a fan of multiplayer games, I agree with this.

If, for whatever reason, you are unable to play multiplayer, it's a good idea to have single-player to fall back on. That's my reason to have single-player mandatory, anyway.

Why not just play a different game when you are unable to play multiplayer? Not every game is made to suit everybody's personal gaming needs.

Give a reason that makes sense!

How does that not make sense? What if I want to play a Warhawk-like game on my own? Or if I want to just practice with the game? Know the maps? Try out new tactics? I'm not saying it has to have a robust single-player. I don't even care for this particular game. But this is something I do even in multiplayer heavy games like UT, for example.

[QUOTE="Lemmywinks_360"]

I think it depends on the game.

Ut and css don't have a sp but there still great games.

But games like shadowrun would be so much better with a sp.

dubvisions

To me, you're saying that Shadowrun just wasn't a good multiplayer game. Plain and simple. It didn't need a single player added, it needed a better multiplayer.

It had a decent multiplayer but not many maps, but an sp wouldve gotten it alot better score.

How does that not make sense? What if I want to play a Warhawk-like game on my own? Or if I want to just practice with the game? Know the maps? Try out new tactics? I'm not saying it has to have a robust single-player. I don't even care for this particular game. But this is something I do even in multiplayer heavy games like UT, for example.

DaAznSaN

You STILL have not given a reason that makes any sense as to why single player modes should be required in a game.

Do you think for a game to be good, it has to be made with all of your personal gaming needs in mind? Why not have multiplayer only games, and single player only games, and playing them at different times?

u look at warhawk and then u look at shadowrun. imo the gs score was bad. if they put more then like 3 hours into the game they would see how fun and great it is. imo it should have got in the 8's.xbox360isgr8t

This is exactly why the scoring needs to be reformulated to take single and multiplayer only titles into account. there should be some variation on how those games are grading when comparing to a title with both modes.