Does online multiplayer determine what games you buy??

I think this is a good topic because internet is becoming as standard as cable tv in homes and thus meaning more and more people are getting online with thier consoles, but lemme ask you all a question. Would you buy a really badass FPS with no online multiplayer over a kinda crappy one with online just bacause of the "value" you can squeeze out of it? I guess the answer to that question would lie in how much each game was and whatnot but thats not my point what im trying to say is badass multiplayer can and has pushed alot games and i think its sorta sad that games dont have to rely on elaborate storys and loveable characters anymore....God help us all

Never, I prefer single player games and consider only the quality of the single player content.

For multiplayer games I prefer to play with people in the same room. Like Bomberman etc.

I don't think I can choose. I do prefer playing online FPS games over single player games most of the times, but if I find the mp unenjoyable I won't get it while if I am blown away by a FPS game that only has single player I will get it.

For some games, like COD and Rainbow Six and a handful more. Other than that i buy soley for the Singleplayer, the multiplayers a bonus really, like with Bioshock 2.

No, I never buy based on multiplayer. Ive been playing games for years, way before there was online multiplayer & I can say now I think some games suffer in their story because the developer has concentrated more on making it online. The only game I play online is Soul Calibur IV. I can't believe some games get rated down because they have no multiplayer, its pathetic. Like when I was convincing a friend to buy Bioshock, "Oh it's no online". What do you want it to have ?! A deathmatch between big daddy & little sister ?! Bioshock is a perfect enough game without putting it online. I prefer a lengthy story.queen_vee

Well a lot of people I know agree, a lot don't. I like a long story, but that can only give you so much replay value. Take a look at CoD4, since it has (IMO) the best online game play, I'm still playing it online. I could not say the same thing if it was just a longer story line. I agree Developers need to make the single player good, but I think they should focus on the MP more, so you get the maximum replay value from your $60. Thats just my opinion tho.

It depends because I prefer a good combination of both in a game, but I do make exceptions sometimes. If there's a title with an impressive multiplayer and I can see myself playing it for months and months (L4D) than I will pick it up.

I still dont understand how some people value 'story' so much in video games, especially ones like FPS games and whatnot. Half-Life and maybe Halo are the only FPS games that even slightly decent stories, and they still dont match up to whats being published out there in best-selling books(or the movies they inevitably inspire). I like a somewhat cohesive story, just so there's no real, "Oh this is stuuuupid" moments when playing, but gameplay is 1000x more important. Even most RPG's have super-cliched plots that tend to get predictable, even the 'twists'.

But no, online multiplayer is not a necessity for any game I buy. I'm a huge fan of the Half-Life series because I think those games are works of art. I dont care about going online with them or anything, as its about the single-player experience. To be honest, I'm not a fan of Halo's multiplayer(though I will play once in a while), either, but I do love its single-player campaign.

A game like Forza would be a toss-up for me. Even though before Forza, I had plenty of fun racing around by myself, once I got online, it really just took over as THE most fun part of the game, hands-down.

Its a necessitywith some shooters like Call of Duty, though. Once I got online, I was like, "Oh crap. THIS is where its at!" Racing/fighting against artificial AI, even if its not necessarily bad, just doesn't compare to playing against other people. Its more challenging, its more rewarding, and its just plain more FUN.

If a game has a good single player and not good multiplayer I probably won't buy it. I am much more into multiplayer than single player but I do play single player games that usually have no multiplayer (The Last Remnant, Lost Odyssey, etc).

not really, needs to be balanced, good offline and online

I don't generally buy single-player games on the release day, but if it's a game I've been anticipating and it's multiplayer I'll buy it first day. I don't like paying 60$ for just a story, there are books for free out there.

Yes, very much so. I won't buy a full priced game unless I think it will have a high qualty multi-player experience that will keep me interested for upwards of a month. I don't think that games like Bioshock or Assassin's Creed are worth paying 60 bucks for because they just don't hold your attention for long enough (even though Bioshock is absolutely amazing and AC is fun).

Not exactly multiplayer, but rather replay value & multiplayer gives a game an endless amount.

I won't buy games that have a crappy multiplayer with a lot of achievements attached to them.

I would have to say definitely yes. I'm not big fan of replaying the single player after I have beaten it already, so basically I want to get my money's worth, but its not the sole determinant. Its just nice to have there in case you get bored with other stuff.

multiplayer for me...because im competitive and love to play verse others to build my skills

It certainly used to for replay value reasons. The vast gulf between single- and multiplayer experiences in Prey and The Darkness made me reevaluate the usefulness of multiplayer in every instance. And Mass Effect was the first game in a LONG time that I wanted to play again immediately after I finished it. I now take a more holistic approach to purchasing games.

No, I never buy based on multiplayer. Ive been playing games for years, way before there was online multiplayer & I can say now I think some games suffer in their story because the developer has concentrated more on making it online. The only game I play online is Soul Calibur IV. I can't believe some games get rated down because they have no multiplayer, its pathetic. Like when I was convincing a friend to buy Bioshock, "Oh it's no online". What do you want it to have ?! A deathmatch between big daddy & little sister ?! Bioshock is a perfect enough game without putting it online. I prefer a lengthy story.queen_vee

It factors in, but it's not a make-or-break thing. Many games I have either have no multiplayer (Fallout, Mass Effect) or nobody plays online anymore (The Darkness, NFS Most Wanted) I like the kind of game that can balance the two out.

It depends on which game it is. If it is a game that has a mediocre story/gameplay with mediocre online. Than I will easily buy a good single player game over it. But if there is a single player game which is mediocre compared to a game which focuses on a good multiplayer I will play that.

I am a big movie buff, and unfortunately games don't tell very good stories as of yet (w/ the exception of a few). I play my games for gameplay and to escape from reality. Whether that be online or by myself, I don't care. So long as it's fun. Like I always say, there's a very big difference between cost and worth.

Never, I prefer single player games and consider only the quality of the single player content.

For multiplayer games I prefer to play with people in the same room. Like Bomberman etc.

LarsBlaabjerg

oh, is that how you got so many achivements in Gears?

only for FPS, the campaign doesnt usually last as long as an RPG or adventure game and u end up needing the MP for replayabilitychaoscougar1

It just matters how good the SP is. I loved The Darkness.

It depends on the game I guess. I will buy certain games if they have quality multiplayer because I will be able to play with my friends. However, I am much more likely to buy games that have splitscreen even if they aren't as good just because I can play with people my house and really get excited over a game even if it isn't that great. Single player is fine but it needs to do a good job to pull me into the action.

Yes... if it DOES have muliplayer, it's a negative thing for me. MP achievements are usually boring.

i agree with the people who are pro-campaign. i wish there was a better story line focus on games. i think the cod games have a good balance because they've been doing it for so long, but too many other games are trying to copy their success and just can't, something ends up suffering. even if i buy a game with multiplayer, i usually wait to play it until i've beaten the campaign. i buy the games for the story and to be immersed in that world, kinda like the whole 'interactive movie' type of view to gaming. but hey, that's just me.

I think its sorta sad that games dont have to rely on elaborate storys and loveable characters anymore.Mushroomhead2

For shooters and sports game it is a must have for me.