Who else could care less about Multiplayer?

Everyone said COD4 was the EPIC multiplayer game: I didn't care much for it.

Everyone says Halo 3 is totally worth it for the ONLINE: I actually prefer split-screen coop and the campaign

Aside from a few computer games I play on occasion (TF2, WC3, ...), I'm not much of a online gamer. Is there anyone else out there who could care less? I want to go back to when Single Player was the emphasis, instead of today where we are getting Multiplayer games with a mediocre campaign attached to them.

For Example. People say Uncharted sucks because it's a short game, and NO MULTIPLAYER (When was this a requirement on games?). Uncharted was one of the funnest gaming experiences last year, and I'm still playing it.

I agree.

When I buy games its for the single player part of it not the multiplayer.

Multiplayer is fun, but it get old alot faster than single player for me.

Thats' why I often buy RPGs.

In generals I'd like games to last longer.

Games like call of duty 4 with a 6 hours single player are downright unacceptable for me.

I wish I could just pay like 15-20$ and buy the single player of call of duty, if I only want the single player part why can't I only pay for that?

Really, multiplayer is more of a luxury and a improvment on gameplay. I don't see why you would rather play splitscreen Halo over XBOX live HAlo. If you don't like multiplarer, fine, but having it, IMO, is better than not having it...FLamezero991

Because I'd rather have people in my physical viscinity rather than playing online against strangers or absent friends and improving a rank which in reality equates for nothing.

True, but what I'm concerned is that Multiplayer is slowly becoming the main attraction of the game, and campaigns are either getting shorter or less worked placed into them.

COD4 is a rare exception, where though the campaign is short, it is indeed memorable.

I'm all for people who want to play online for any circumstances, but I'd prefer to play next to my buds on the couch rather than the Internet when it's at all possible.

I agree.

When I buy games its for the single player part of it not the multiplayer.

Multiplayer is fun, but it get old alot faster than single player for me.

Thats' why I often buy RPGs.

In generals I'd like games to last longer.

Games like call of duty 4 with a 6 hours single player are downright unacceptable for me.

I wish I could just pay like 15-20$ and buy the single player of call of duty, if I only want the single player part why can't I only pay for that?

Sliverwarrior

Thats a pretty unusal statement if ask me. I'm not bashing the fact you like RPG's, I just don't understand how you could think a singleplayer campaign stays alive longer than multiplayer play..

Really, multiplayer is more of a luxury and a improvment on gameplay. I don't see why you would rather play splitscreen Halo over XBOX live HAlo. If you don't like multiplarer, fine, but having it, IMO, is better than not having it...FLamezero991

Well you see, it depends on the game.

Like in Halo 3, you get achievements, you have offline Co-op for play with your friends(if you got any)

The part I really like about Halo 3 is the fact that you can unlock pieces of armor to customize your character by doing special stuff in single player, that adds replay value to the single player part of the game.

That's just brilliant. To me thats a great way to add replay value without having to add TONS of content.

That's the kind of stuff the devs should do, adding small fun things to unnlock in single player so we can have replay value. Because paying 50$ for 6 hours of "scripted" single player with no replay value is not worth it.

its not impossible to have both.

I'd rather have a short great game with multiplayer than a long great game without.

Why? Because, 7-10 hour games with multiplayer means i'll be playing them on an off for the next few years. 20+ hour campeigns for me means that i play it once then never touch it again because i cant be bothered.

I care about co-op the most but I still like many single player games. The problem that you run into many times is devs neglecting the campaign and justifying it by saying MP is what people want the most.

Look at Bioshock, the way the devs explained it it was like they made it single player only as almost an answer to the growing backlash of other devs making the sp campaign a second thought.

[QUOTE="FLamezero991"]Really, multiplayer is more of a luxury and a improvment on gameplay. I don't see why you would rather play splitscreen Halo over XBOX live HAlo. If you don't like multiplarer, fine, but having it, IMO, is better than not having it...soulsofblayck

Because I'd rather have people in my physical viscinity rather than playing online against strangers or absent friends and improving a rank which in reality equates for nothing.

Ok, fine, forget rank, but I'd rather have my full HD screen, rather than half, or a quarter of it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some kind of nonsocial, internet badass wannabe, and I do like to hang out with my friends outside, in my house, and on Xbx. But I'd much rather have my full screen with the possibility of playing with other people. And yes, rank means nonthing, but I gotta stay competative with everything...

I am all about multiplayer...I love to play in clans...to me one of the best feelings in gaming is when you own another player.

that being said I love single player games also.

I say both have there place

I miss a good single player. Multiplayer has corrupted the good single players out there. 95% of the 360's shooter library shows this. Thank god for games like BioShock and Guns of the Patriots.NAPK1NS

Why can't you just Bioshock and MGS? Guns of the Patriots didn't come out yet, so don't say its a great singleplayer game unless you've played and beat it...

Memorable Single Player Games have I replayed...

RE4: Must of beaten that 4-5 times on Gamecube, and once on my Wii.

FFX: Twice

Kotor: A lot

Shadow of the Colossus: 3 times

Halo 1: probably can't count, it was the first coop game me and my friends together beat countless times.

The ones in bold are games are the ones I consider the best on their respective consoles. And though Halo 3 is one of the worst examples today: HALO CE was pretty sweet, maybe cause it only had splitscreen multiplayer :).

I laugh at those who pick one of the first two...the first one moreso.

:lol:

No multiplayer, no problem. I play games for the single player experience, therefor my personal reviews of games are solely based on the single player campaigns.Bigboi500

Mutiplayer can be nice, especially offline or online Co-op.

Like I said earlier sometimes its the replay value that makes the game really awesome.

Take tales of Symphonia for example, I finished the game in about 45 hours the first time, but because the game had replay value, I ended up playing more than 150 hours on it.

I only buy games for SP content when it comes to consoles. Reason being is that most of the games I play online are FPS's, RTS, or MMO's, all of which, I prefer to play on the PC.

But besides those three genres, I really could care less if MP was offered or not. Games that provide astonishing SP experiences tend to be more memorable for me than those with MP. Its easier to get sucked into a good story without someone in the background text spamming or yelling off curses.

The only game I'm currently looking forward to both SP and MP wise is Starcraft 2.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]No multiplayer, no problem. I play games for the single player experience, therefor my personal reviews of games are solely based on the single player campaigns.Sliverwarrior

Mutiplayer can be nice, especially offline or online Co-op.

Like I said earlier sometimes its the replay value that makes the game really awesome.

Take tales of Symphonia for example, I finished the game in about 45 hours the first time, but because the game had replay value, I ended up playing more than 150 hours on it.

Depends if the multiplayer is worth it, there have been a few games come out lately that are taken up by the masses like GeOW or Halo 3 that I honestly can't play for longer then 20 minutes tops without being bored out of my skull and personally don't even waste my time anymore.

But you give me something like battlefield 2 where the game is built specially with multiplayer in mind, where your accomplishments are rewarded, you have a true sense of a multiplayer experience and are having a blast whilst playing it then you have my attention and even time investment to play the multiplayer experience.

I think COD4 did well in this respect (even though I don't enjoy it myself). The single player was fun, short and about as hard as trying to shoot a man with two broken legs but the multiplayer was thought out enough that it in its own right is a whole other game in and of itself.

If it merits the worth of playing it and I like the style of game then I'm all for the multiplayer experience but if its tacked on like 80% of the titles out there then its a complete waste of my time.

The poll choices don't reflect how I feel.

I like having multiplayer but it's not always the selling point. Like say The Darkness...it has multiplayer it's not why I am going to buy it.

Just like single player it has to be good to be worth it.

I play online quite a bit.

[QUOTE="NAPK1NS"]I miss a good single player. Multiplayer has corrupted the good single players out there. 95% of the 360's shooter library shows this. Thank god for games like BioShock and Guns of the Patriots.FLamezero991

Why can't you just Bioshock and MGS? Guns of the Patriots didn't come out yet, so don't say its a great singleplayer game unless you've played and beat it...

My friend, I don't need to play MGS4 to know that it will be amazing. Kojima's baby has been a long time coming, and it will be perfect when it comes.

I prefer an incredible singleplayer experience as after playing WoW and competitive fps on the PC I hate multiplayer fps on consoles lol.

BTW it's COULDN'T care less!

BTW it's COULDN'T care less!

the_one34

I was just about to say that

[QUOTE="NAPK1NS"]I miss a good single player. Multiplayer has corrupted the good single players out there. 95% of the 360's shooter library shows this. Thank god for games like BioShock and Guns of the Patriots.FLamezero991

Why can't you just Bioshock and MGS? Guns of the Patriots didn't come out yet, so don't say its a great singleplayer game unless you've played and beat it...

imo, any game based in its multiplayer is inherently inferior to one based on its single player experience. There can be a multiplayer, but made after the fact and as a kind of supplement.

In the end, I really prefer those games that dont even bother with the multiplayer

imo, any game based in its multiplayer is inherently inferior to one based on its single player experience. There can be a multiplayer, but made after the fact and as a kind of supplement.

In the end, I really prefer those games that dont even bother with the multiplayer

GunSmith1_basic

Bad opinion is bad. Inherently inferior? No...just...no.

Everyone said COD4 was the EPIC multiplayer game: I didn't care much for it.

Everyone says Halo 3 is totally worth it for the ONLINE: I actually prefer split-screen coop and the campaign

Aside from a few computer games I play on occasion (TF2, WC3, ...), I'm not much of a online gamer. Is there anyone else out there who could care less? I want to go back to when Single Player was the emphasis, instead of today where we are getting Multiplayer games with a mediocre campaign attached to them.

For Example. People say Uncharted sucks because it's a short game, and NO MULTIPLAYER (When was this a requirement on games?). Uncharted was one of the funnest gaming experiences last year, and I'm still playing it.

Jodan77

I agree.

When I buy games its for the single player part of it not the multiplayer.

Multiplayer is fun, but it get old alot faster than single player for me.

Thats' why I often buy RPGs.

In generals I'd like games to last longer.

Games like call of duty 4 with a 6 hours single player are downright unacceptable for me.

I wish I could just pay like 15-20$ and buy the single player of call of duty, if I only want the single player part why can't I only pay for that?

Sliverwarrior

I like my FPS's and I like my multiplayer. I also like a good length to a game. Everyone is complaining that thier games last for 6-10 and thats it. I don't know what difficulty you have it on (mine is always on the hardest). It took me about 2 months to work my way through Gears of War alone. I spent about 20-25 hours playing it from start to finish. Meanwhile eveyone is on here saying they blasted through in 12 hours. This leads me to belive that they just do this so that they can say it was short. Take your time. Also, I don't play STRAIGHT through, I aways play for no more than 2 hours at a time.

Halo 3 I've spent most of my time in Multiplayer and spent about 15 hours so far on the campaign on Legendary single player. I still have at least 5-8 hours left of single player.

Call of Duty 4 I set it to Hard and spent 3 hours a night for 6 days till I made my way through. So in my house, COD4 was an 18 hour game because I take my seet time and set that difficulty higher.

I don't like split screen because I dont like to share my screen. Multiplayer is fun as hell and offers hundreds of hours of action youve never seen before. I love playing online

I miss a good single player. Multiplayer has corrupted the good single players out there. 95% of the 360's shooter library shows this. Thank god for games like BioShock and Guns of the Patriots.NAPK1NS

thats BS, every FPS on the 360 and PS3 have had a pretty good single player campaign. Gears of War was my favorite, followed by Halo 3 and COD4, Rainbow six Vegas was pretty good too. The problem is that the focus is usually on the multiplayer because that's what we end up playing after we finish the single player.

i generally dont buy single player because i never play them after i beat them (replay is boring) so i just rent them and buy games that will be good with friends, multiplayer obviously.Games-Sage

Same here, I rent all games I don't intend to play online

Everyone said COD4 was the EPIC multiplayer game: I didn't care much for it.

Everyone says Halo 3 is totally worth it for the ONLINE: I actually prefer split-screen coop and the campaign

Aside from a few computer games I play on occasion (TF2, WC3, ...), I'm not much of a online gamer. Is there anyone else out there who could care less? I want to go back to when Single Player was the emphasis, instead of today where we are getting Multiplayer games with a mediocre campaign attached to them.

For Example. People say Uncharted sucks because it's a short game, and NO MULTIPLAYER (When was this a requirement on games?). Uncharted was one of the funnest gaming experiences last year, and I'm still playing it.

Jodan77

You spoke my mind, that's what I'm thinking about game industry lately. More and more devs just focus on MP and slap on a half-assed SP. I can't say I blame them because not many people can afford to buy a lot of games so they just rent games with only SP, and buy games that has MP, which in turn, force devs to focus more on MP. But yeah, I'm a more SP gamer.

To me, games are like books and movies, if they are good, I'll buy them to keep them so in the future, I can look back and said "Arh, that's a good book/game/movie, and show them to my kids/grandkids.

Depends. When it comes to the FPS genre, yes, I most definitely care. Most of my FPS game purchases are for the games' multiplayer components (naturally, there are exceptions to this.)

When it comes to other genres..I don't really care.

Games to me are a medium, like film or television. I play them for the experience, not as an actual game. I don't play to compete, therefore multiplayer is generally wasted on me.