Why I think Multiplayer > Singleplayer

I think people should actually try a variety of multiplayer games, and stop thinking singleplayer is always more important than multiplayer.

I'm sure UT fans find it somewhat disgusting when people say they'll only get UT3 if the campaign mode is good. UT3 doesn't need a freaking campaign mode. Why does a game need to have a mode against bots for it to be worth buying? The best multiplayer games last far longer than the best single player games. And depending on who you are, they can be a lot more fun too.

I think multiplayer is generally more fun than singleplayer because..

-You can't "beat" a multiplayer game - Usually will last longer

-You aren't killing enemies designed to be killed by you (example - enemies are hiding behind desks with heads exposed, spraying with guns that do very little damage).

-Bots are stupid. Feels better to do well vs opponents not waiting to be killed by you

-Very challenging

-You can have a social experience while playing

It's also hard for me to get into the story in a single player game. Possibly because I haven't found a SP game that was able to immerse me into a story nearly as much as a good book can.

I don't mind if people really like singleplayer more than multi, but give it a chance first!

I have an idea, maybe the developers have thought of this because if they have, it's ingenius. Why not have both good Multiplayer and Single player? Face it, a game is better if it has a good story with characters you can interact with.

I still prefer singleplayer over multiplayer.

IMO, sp>>>co-op>>>pvp multiplayer

I have an idea, maybe the developers have thought of this because if they have, it's ingenius. Why not have both good Multiplayer and Single player? Face it, a game is better if it has a good story with characters you can interact with.

lfc_legend2006

They're both just as important.

I hate when fanboys claim one is better than the other.

I think people should actually try a variety of multiplayer games, and stop thinking singleplayer is always more important than multiplayer.

I'm sure UT fans find it somewhat disgusting when people say they'll only get UT3 if the campaign mode is good. UT3 doesn't need a freaking campaign mode. Why does a game need to have a mode against bots for it to be worth buying? The best multiplayer games last far longer than the best single player games. And depending on who you are, they can be a lot more fun too.

I think multiplayer is generally more fun than singleplayer because..

-You can't "beat" a multiplayer game - Usually will last longer

-You aren't killing enemies designed to be killed by you (example - enemies are hiding behind desks with heads exposed, spraying with guns that do very little damage).

-Bots are stupid. Feels better to do well vs opponents not waiting to be killed by you

-Very challenging

-You can have a social experience while playing

It's also hard for me to get into the story in a single player game. Possibly because I haven't found a SP game that was able to immerse me into a story nearly as much as a good book can.

I don't mind if people really like singleplayer more than multi, but give it a chance first!

PotatoSan

How about. I go find a game with both a good single player AND multiplayer.

CNC3

Halo

Half Life 2

I could go on for hours.

Problem is that many times develoeprs implement one type of mode that clearly ends up sacrificng the game. Tacked on multiplayer is becoming rather common, especially in FPS games, as a way to increase the game's lifespan (and to get you to buy the game instead of renting it). yet, they could have spent that time balancing and developing the singleplayer instead. Notice how Bioshock is getting awesome reviews without multiplayer?

Meanwhile, you've got games like, The Darkness, thats moderately fun, but the multiplayer feels tacked on and the singleplayer could have used some more polishing.

multiplayer > singleplayer only when the game has both a good singleplayer and multiplayer component. Most games dont.

I prefer single player personally. I'm an adult w/ a 9 - 5. That means I have to help the little lady w/ chores, pay bills, spend time with the wife, cook the occasional dinner, and work after hours on occasion. Plus, over time, you lose touch with your gaming buddies from college. Life takes you different places, friends have their own obligations....it's not easy to find the time and the gaming buddies to put any time in multi-player.

That being said, w/ about and hour and a half to game in the evenings, single-player is about all the time I can afford.

They're both just as important.

I hate when fanboys claim one is better than the other.

UssjTrunks

Why I think Singleplayer > Multiplayer

Single player game have stories.

Problem is that many times develoeprs implement one type of mode that clearly ends up sacrificng the game. Tacked on multiplayer is becoming rather common, especially in FPS games, as a way to increase the game's lifespan (and to get you to buy the game instead of renting it). yet, they could have spent that time balancing and developing the singleplayer instead. Notice how Bioshock is getting awesome reviews without multiplayer?

Meanwhile, you've got games like, The Darkness, thats moderately fun, but the multiplayer feels tacked on and the singleplayer could have used some more polishing.

multiplayer > singleplayer only when the game has both a good singleplayer and multiplayer component. Most games dont.

XaosII

I think people should actually try a variety of multiplayer games, and stop thinking singleplayer is always more important than multiplayer.

I'm sure UT fans find it somewhat disgusting when people say they'll only get UT3 if the campaign mode is good.PotatoSan

Whoever buys an Epic game for campaign mode has problems..

Why can't you have both done well ala starcraft.NobuoMusicMaker

Games that do both well are great. But I think often times the game would have been better had the developers decided to leave the tacked on part out, and improved the main part as much as possible (Ex- The Darkness, like Xaosll said).

[QUOTE="PotatoSan"]

I think people should actually try a variety of multiplayer games, and stop thinking singleplayer is always more important than multiplayer.

I'm sure UT fans find it somewhat disgusting when people say they'll only get UT3 if the campaign mode is good.xDonRobx

Whoever buys an Epic game for campaign mode has problems..

Why I think Singleplayer > Multiplayer

Single player game have stories.

TriangleHard

I only beat like 25% of the games i buy.....If it doesnt have online i get bored really really fast....

Who the hell wants to play a single player game where you shoot mindless AI when you could be playing with real people, real challenge, talking and laughing and having a good time??

I think too many people on this board are too "hardcore" about playing games.....I play them for fun and a good time with friends....i dont play them to beat them....in reality beating a games does aboslutley nothing.....might as well have a great time playing online with friends, and real challenge.....getting a high rank on an online leader board or level like in Halo 2 is a hell of a lot better achievement than beating a game....

[QUOTE="lfc_legend2006"]

I have an idea, maybe the developers have thought of this because if they have, it's ingenius. Why not have both good Multiplayer and Single player? Face it, a game is better if it has a good story with characters you can interact with.

PotatoSan

Single player games can have replay value, especially if you like collecting stuff and completing the game on harder difficulties. I like multiplayer games but some are just so hard to get into because people become so good at them. If you buy a game 2 months after it has been released, you get put off when you get killed all the time and you're not contributing especially in team games like rainbow six vegas or Halo.

Like one of the posters said, The Darkness could have been a great game if the developers didn't tack on the multiplayer and spent more time on the single player. If you're going to invest loads of time into a game, then you could probably have both good single player and multiplayer i.e Halo but I wouldn't buy multiplayer only games because I would suck at them unless I bought them from day 1.

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Why I think Singleplayer > Multiplayer

Single player game have stories.

PotatoSan

How is it difficult to get into games with story? lol

Also I've found many fine quality storylines in games that I can't find in books. Also like watching movies, stories told in games are much different experience compared to books.

I find it really difficult for me to get into games without stories.

[QUOTE="PotatoSan"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Why I think Singleplayer > Multiplayer

Single player game have stories.

TriangleHard

How is it difficult to get into games with story? lol

Also I've found many fine quality storylines in games that I can't find in books. Also like watching movies, stories told in games are much different experience compared to books.

I find it really difficult for me to get into games without stories.

I agree with PotatoSan....i never can really follow a games story...

Just because i play...then i stop for a while...and when i come back i forget whats going on.....I cant even play zelda anymore because i forgot whats going on and where im supposed to be going....

For me, order of importance goes like this: Single player > Offline multiplayer > Online multiplayer.

But, it always saddens me to see a game sacarfice one for the other.

[QUOTE="_MURS_"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="PotatoSan"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Why I think Singleplayer > Multiplayer

Single player game have stories.

TriangleHard

How is it difficult to get into games with story? lol

Also I've found many fine quality storylines in games that I can't find in books. Also like watching movies, stories told in games are much different experience compared to books.

I find it really difficult for me to get into games without stories.

I agree with PotatoSan....i never can really follow a games story...

Just because i play...then i stop for a while...and when i come back i forget whats going on.....I cant even play zelda anymore because i forgot whats going on and where im supposed to be going....

ADD is serious issue in today's world.

actaully if i just sat down and played a game day after day after day Id know what the hell is going on....but thats not the case....I play a game for a few hours, dont play that game for a couple weeks, and when i come back i dont know whats going on...

It has nothing to do with ADD...its just my life isnt focused around that game....thats why Online play is better...i can just turn it on and start playing, have a great time, and turn it off....

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="_MURS_"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="PotatoSan"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Why I think Singleplayer > Multiplayer

Single player game have stories.

_MURS_

How is it difficult to get into games with story? lol

Also I've found many fine quality storylines in games that I can't find in books. Also like watching movies, stories told in games are much different experience compared to books.

I find it really difficult for me to get into games without stories.

I agree with PotatoSan....i never can really follow a games story...

Just because i play...then i stop for a while...and when i come back i forget whats going on.....I cant even play zelda anymore because i forgot whats going on and where im supposed to be going....

ADD is serious issue in today's world.

actaully if i just sat down and played a game day after day after day Id know what the hell is going on....but thats not the case....I play a game for a few hours, dont play that game for a couple weeks, and when i come back i dont know whats going on...

It has nothing to do with ADD...its just my life isnt focused around that game....thats why Online play is better...i can just turn it on and start playing, have a great time, and turn it off....

Well then, any story wouldn't work with you will it?

Isn't it the same with books? Read couple of chapters and few weeks later you forget about it completely.

I have busy life too but when I play game, I get absorbed into good stories and it's not something I forget easily as long as the story is good.

Also I find it much more satisfying with games that has great stories. There is sense of accomplishment other than just relaxing and having fun, because often with great story I end up learning something.

Multiplayer is the only reason I have a 360.Jamani

Seconded, and the rare exceptions like ME & GTA

[QUOTE="_MURS_"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="_MURS_"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="PotatoSan"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Why I think Singleplayer > Multiplayer

Single player game have stories.

TriangleHard

How is it difficult to get into games with story? lol

Also I've found many fine quality storylines in games that I can't find in books. Also like watching movies, stories told in games are much different experience compared to books.

I find it really difficult for me to get into games without stories.

I agree with PotatoSan....i never can really follow a games story...

Just because i play...then i stop for a while...and when i come back i forget whats going on.....I cant even play zelda anymore because i forgot whats going on and where im supposed to be going....

ADD is serious issue in today's world.

actaully if i just sat down and played a game day after day after day Id know what the hell is going on....but thats not the case....I play a game for a few hours, dont play that game for a couple weeks, and when i come back i dont know whats going on...

It has nothing to do with ADD...its just my life isnt focused around that game....thats why Online play is better...i can just turn it on and start playing, have a great time, and turn it off....

Well then, any story wouldn't work with you will it?

Isn't it the same with books? Read couple of chapters and few weeks later you forget about it completely.

I have busy life too but when I play game, I get absorbed into good stories and it's not something I forget easily as long as the story is good.

Also I find it much more satisfying with games that has great stories. There is sense of accomplishment other than just relaxing and having fun, because often with great story I end up learning something.

Well i dont read books unless im forced so i wouldnt know....and the only single player game Ive really really enjoyed and got absorbed in was Indigo Prophecy.....and thats pretty much it....only games i play are Socom 2, Halo 2, and Rainbow Six Vegas...all online

Im found as i got better at games that Computer controlled enemies can only give you so much trouble. You can have new experiences from multiplayer games forever if its well desgined.

But im not exclusive to either, depends on your mood. But i would encorage poeple to play a good game onlineif they haven't, its kept me gaming 90% for the last7 years.

Well i dont read books unless im forced so i would know....and the only single player game Ive really really enjoyed and got absorbed in was Indigo Prophecy.....and thats pretty much it....only games i play are Socom 2, Halo 2, and Rainbow Six Vegas...all online

_MURS_

I see.

I guess it is difference of interest.

I happen to be heavy reader and whenever I'm in subway or doing nothing, I always read and I love reading.

I just love experiencing different stories.

Also I feel like games with stories has higher value in terms of being artistic, so I treasure them more than just quick fun type of games.

Well I guess that's how value of single player games and multi-player games differ. To people like me who has different interest would make single player games are more interesting and to people like you multi-player would be more interesting.

I guess single player = multiplayer and call it a truce? lol

[QUOTE="_MURS_"]

Well i dont read books unless im forced so i would know....and the only single player game Ive really really enjoyed and got absorbed in was Indigo Prophecy.....and thats pretty much it....only games i play are Socom 2, Halo 2, and Rainbow Six Vegas...all online

TriangleHard

I see.

I guess it is difference of interest.

I happen to be heavy reader and whenever I'm in subway or doing nothing, I always read and I love reading.

I just love experiencing different stories.

Also I feel like games with stories has higher value in terms of being artistic, so I treasure them more than just quick fun type of games.

Well I guess that's how value of single player games and multi-player games differ. To people like me who has different interest would make single player games are more interesting and to people like you multi-player would be more interesting.

I guess single player = multiplayer and call it a truce? lol

While i sit and do nothing I just listen to music......so your reading is = my listening of music.....

I still like single player games, its just it seems like ive played most games a bajillion times though....every game seems the exact same to me, like pretty much every xbox game is just run around shooting everything that moves (Halo included).....

Id take a really really fun platform game (Mario or Ratchet and Clank) over a good online game though....

Multiplayer lacks narrative. Typically there's an additional level of polish that goes into a linear singleplayer experience. Very rarely will you see a multiplayer game with a fantastic soundtrack.

Social experiences can occur during a singleplayer experience with things like Private Chat and Ventrilo. Singleplayer experiences can be quite challenging; ever play Ninja Gaiden on the highest difficulty?

You aren't killing enemies designed to be killed by you (example - enemies are hiding behind desks with heads exposed, spraying with guns that do very little damage).

Not all games feature opponents like this.

For me, order of importance goes like this: Single player > Offline multiplayer > Online multiplayer.

But, it always saddens me to see a game sacarfice one for the other.

goblaa

And multiplayer is usually more fun than single player for me. You shouldn't have preset ideas like this that keep you from buying games you might like if you tried them (like multiplayer only games).

...rare exceptions like ME & GTA

Meu2k7

You aren't killing enemies designed to be killed by you (example - enemies are hiding behind desks with heads exposed, spraying with guns that do very little damage).

Not all games feature opponents like this.

project343

Multiplayer is the only reason I have a 360.Jamani

Hopefully Bioshock, eternal sonata, Mass effect, too human and Lost oddyssey changes your mind. SP>MP. Most classic games (FF's, Resident evils, zelda, gtas, ect) are sp. MP online is good in its own right but sp holds it down. Each one complements the other.

Apparently the way I see, many of you ACTUALLY enjoy stories in games :lol:. Stories in games are so overrated. Occasionally they can be mildly compelling, but nothing that'll grip you in for the entire game. Gameplay does that!I don't play games to witness stories, because there are other forms of medium that tell stories WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than games ever could.

If you couldn't tell already, I findmultiplayer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single player. A good multiplayer mode lasts for months, and contains addictiveness, satisfaction and tension that's rarely captured by single player games. However, SP games also ruleand deliver a more concentrated and better paced experience than multiplayer games, so I definitely prefer the best of both worlds.

Why I think Singleplayer > Multiplayer

Single player game have stories.

TriangleHard

exactly, mp is just shooting for the most kills you get nothing but a score out of it and maybe your pride

[QUOTE="PotatoSan"][QUOTE="lfc_legend2006"]

I have an idea, maybe the developers have thought of this because if they have, it's ingenius. Why not have both good Multiplayer and Single player? Face it, a game is better if it has a good story with characters you can interact with.

lfc_legend2006

Single player games can have replay value, especially if you like collecting stuff and completing the game on harder difficulties. I like multiplayer games but some are just so hard to get into because people become so good at them. If you buy a game 2 months after it has been released, you get put off when you get killed all the time and you're not contributing especially in team games like rainbow six vegas or Halo.

Like one of the posters said, The Darkness could have been a great game if the developers didn't tack on the multiplayer and spent more time on the single player. If you're going to invest loads of time into a game, then you could probably have both good single player and multiplayer i.e Halo but I wouldn't buy multiplayer only games because I would suck at them unless I bought them from day 1.

also when mp games get old or a new version comes out there aren't often many people playing them anymore whilea sp game is always playable

i agree but singleplayer has campaign

________________________________________

Good MP games don't need a narrative or a SP campaign.

A good SP campaign doesn't need a good MP. THE END!

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Why I think Singleplayer > Multiplayer

Single player game have stories.

imprezawrx500

exactly, mp is just shooting for the most kills you get nothing but a score out of it and maybe your pride

Satisfaction in beating a human opponent not satisfying enough?

I never play single-player games anymore.