Would you rather see less multi player?

Here are 3 good examples of what I mean: The Darkness, Chronicles of Riddick Assault on Dark Athena, and Wolfenstein. All three of these have very good single player modes, but boring and unimaginative online modes. Let's face it, most people are going to stick with the best in online gaming. Not many people are going to be playing "Pitch Black Mode" when Halo 3, Gears of War 2, and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 exist. Most people might try to grind a little bit of online play out on these games, but it's not going to last over a few hours.

Why not just scrap the online mode and beef up the single player? Like I said, all of these games have really good single player modes, but with the extra time and money saved on sub par online modes, these could be really GREAT games. I understand that it might sell a few more copies if you put "blah blahup to16people in multiplayer action" on the back of the box. But some games like Bioshock have infinitely outsold these titles and it had no multi player at all.

They could also dump the lame multiplayer achievements that only "boosters" use the multiplayer for now anyways. With these types of multi player games you are going to get people ruining fun by going for pistol kill achievements, and other ridiculous ones.

I say dump them and focus more on what the product is really trying to be instead of going in 2 directions just to appease a very select few.

Meh, to be honest with you I don't even know anymore. Some games that really shouldn't have multiplayer are just adding it for the sales. And you could argue all you want about a strong single player but I'm inclined to think that these companies figure they'll attract more gamers if they have a multiplayer in comparison to a really solid single player. And you also have to come to terms that all shooters are pretty much standard to have an online mode. I mean a standard shooter, not something like Bioshock, or Mass Effect.

Yeah, I just really don't see the point in having Bioschock multiplayer. Plus, if you are going to do it then do it right. Shoddy multiplayer is worse than none at all. billyd5301

I mean, if you ask me, a game with just a single player campaign isn't worth a buy for me. You might want to consider that shallow, but a game has to seriously bring something new and interesting to the table or else I'm renting it. Something like Assassin's Creed. It was an amazing game, but short. I didn't buy it. And I regret buying Mass Effect because one, I accidental deleted my game file, and two, didn't feel like playing the same story over again. I loved the game, but saying all the evil dialog didn't make the game feel any different as to when I was being a saint.

And I did buy Bioshock, and it was an amazing 10 hour campaign on the hardest difficulty, but I can't say that I'll ever pop it in again because it seriously won't be any different. I've done all I could in it. Maybe I am shallow.

[QUOTE="billyd5301"]Yeah, I just really don't see the point in having Bioschock multiplayer. Plus, if you are going to do it then do it right. Shoddy multiplayer is worse than none at all. DamianAlexander

I mean, if you ask me, a game with just a single player campaign isn't worth a buy for me. You might want to consider that shallow, but a game has to seriously bring something new and interesting to the table or else I'm renting it. Something like Assassin's Creed. It was an amazing game, but short. I didn't buy it. And I regret buying Mass Effect because one, I accidental deleted my game file, and two, didn't feel like playing the same story over again. I loved the game, but saying all the evil dialog didn't make the game feel any different as to when I was being a saint.

And I did buy Bioshock, and it was an amazing 10 hour campaign on the hardest difficulty, but I can't say that I'll ever pop it in again because it seriously won't be any different. I've done all I could in it. Maybe I am shallow.

Meh, to be honest with you I don't even know anymore. Some games that really shouldn't have multiplayer are just adding it for the sales. And you could argue all you want about a strong single player but I'm inclined to think that these companies figure they'll attract more gamers if they have a multiplayer in comparison to a really solid single player. And you also have to come to terms that all shooters are pretty much standard to have an online mode. I mean a standard shooter, not something like Bioshock, or Mass Effect.

DamianAlexander

[QUOTE="DamianAlexander"]

[QUOTE="billyd5301"]Yeah, I just really don't see the point in having Bioschock multiplayer. Plus, if you are going to do it then do it right. Shoddy multiplayer is worse than none at all. Remora133

I mean, if you ask me, a game with just a single player campaign isn't worth a buy for me. You might want to consider that shallow, but a game has to seriously bring something new and interesting to the table or else I'm renting it. Something like Assassin's Creed. It was an amazing game, but short. I didn't buy it. And I regret buying Mass Effect because one, I accidental deleted my game file, and two, didn't feel like playing the same story over again. I loved the game, but saying all the evil dialog didn't make the game feel any different as to when I was being a saint.

And I did buy Bioshock, and it was an amazing 10 hour campaign on the hardest difficulty, but I can't say that I'll ever pop it in again because it seriously won't be any different. I've done all I could in it. Maybe I am shallow.

I think that this is straight on. If you take the total sales of Mass Effect + Dead Space + Bioshock + Assassin's Creed vs. the total sales of Riddck: DA, + Wolfenstein + The Darkness + Turok, I would bet that the first 4 would double the second 4. And what's more interesting is that all of the first 4 games were never heard of, new franchises. Of the last 4, 3 of them were VERY well established for years. Had they spent the time and money on the single player instead of adding boring multiplayer, maybe we would have 4 more great titles. It's hard to say, but it's just the point that single player games can far exceed games with bad multiplayer

I'm not against multiplayer by any means, and I don't want to come accross that way. It just makes more sense to me that a company would sit down and say "Does THIS game really need multiplayer or can we do much better with those resources?"

This is an interesting question, and one I'm having a hard time coming down on one side or the other. What this guy says is true:

Well MP is a huge selling point these days and people act as if a game (especially a shooter) is incomplete with an online MP.Sepewrath

I remember back in the day when it was revealed that Unreal II wouldn't have any multiplayer. It was just going to be a single-player story (like Bioshock or Mass Effect). There was this huge outcry that the game wouldn't have multiplayer, even though the new Unreal Tournament was coming out about the same time. Later, Epic or whoever added a multiplayer component to Unreal II, that naturally no one played. It's like all shooters are expected to have multiplayer, not matter how crappy and tacked-on it is. And better yet, then developers can make asinine achievements for their crappy multiplayer, like "Kill 5,000 dudes in ranked matches" that no one will ever legitimately get.

I'll love to see Multiplayer in some games, but as long as the Developer create a great Campaign with Replay Value then Its all good to me. Im getting kinda bored with multiplayer games lately, but I think when Moder Warfare 2 and the Reach Beta comes out, that will change. I mean, I beated Halo 3's Campaign on Legendary and Im still replaying it sometimes these days. As long as the Developer create both a Good Single Player experience and a Great Multiplayer Experience, then Its all good.

i rather play multiplayer anyday of the week then single player, its fun and gets competitive

when MW2 comes out im hoppin straight on the multiplayer

Well from a consumer s standpoint yes I would prefer more SP games like Batman Arhkam Asylum.

From a devlopers standpoint though, it helps them sell the game a little better because let' s face it people love multiplayer and even though the multiplayer wasn' t very good they still got you to pop out those 60$. Also it' s not like Halo3, GEoW2 and CoDMW2 are the only game out with great multiplayer you also got L4D, L4D2, BorderlandsandRed Faction Guerilla that lots of people still plan and do play today.

I for one would rather just see a better multiplayer, I mean you WILL beat thee single player of the game. If you make MP playable then good, keep me around for awhile. Games that do nothing but SP should b 100+ hour rpgs and nothing else

I'm not sure... The Half-Life series is in my top 3 series ever because the single player experience is just so awesome. However, some games are very good at balancing. Like Time Splitters, also in my top 3. Well... the first one didn't really have a story or anything, the single player wasn't too special, but the multiplayer was awesome if you play with a friend and go like 2 vs. 10 bots. TS2 and TSFP both had awesome single player, TF2 reminding me a lot of Goldeneye. And the multiplayer in those was awesome some of the best ever, with the huge selection of characters and guns. So I think they should stop focusing so much on multiplayer and focus on single player too, but not exclude multiplayer all togther.

I think it would be better to make a pure SP "polished" game or pure MP "polished" game.

I agree with you. I love having a solid single player campaigne that I can play for a while before I get through it. Don't get me wrong I enjoy a good online firefight sometimes, but you cant beat a great story that really sucks you into a game.

I'm not interested in Multiplayer i'd rather play a good Single player game.

[QUOTE="Remora133"][QUOTE="DamianAlexander"]

I mean, if you ask me, a game with just a single player campaign isn't worth a buy for me. You might want to consider that shallow, but a game has to seriously bring something new and interesting to the table or else I'm renting it. Something like Assassin's Creed. It was an amazing game, but short. I didn't buy it. And I regret buying Mass Effect because one, I accidental deleted my game file, and two, didn't feel like playing the same story over again. I loved the game, but saying all the evil dialog didn't make the game feel any different as to when I was being a saint.

And I did buy Bioshock, and it was an amazing 10 hour campaign on the hardest difficulty, but I can't say that I'll ever pop it in again because it seriously won't be any different. I've done all I could in it. Maybe I am shallow.

billyd5301

I think that this is straight on. If you take the total sales of Mass Effect + Dead Space + Bioshock + Assassin's Creed vs. the total sales of Riddck: DA, + Wolfenstein + The Darkness + Turok, I would bet that the first 4 would double the second 4. And what's more interesting is that all of the first 4 games were never heard of, new franchises. Of the last 4, 3 of them were VERY well established for years. Had they spent the time and money on the single player instead of adding boring multiplayer, maybe we would have 4 more great titles. It's hard to say, but it's just the point that single player games can far exceed games with bad multiplayer

I'm not against multiplayer by any means, and I don't want to come accross that way. It just makes more sense to me that a company would sit down and say "Does THIS game really need multiplayer or can we do much better with those resources?"

I see what you're trying to say about a general mass of consumers and I can only really comment on myself. And what I will say about myself is that I'm a huge gamer, and I can knock out many games on their hardest difficulty in a couple days. And sadly, after that I never feel as if the second play through is as satisfying as the first. That's why I will rarely buy a game with a single player campaign that doesn't awe and shock me.

Dead Space is one of those few games that you can say you want to play a second time to getting all your weapons upgraded and to get the best armor. But when it comes down to it, I can't play through a story I already know. It's like watching a movie and then watching it again as soon as you finish it because you didn't get enough. I'm just not that kind of gamer.

Fallout 3 is a good example of an amazing SP game. same with Oblivion.

It seems like some developers just throw in multiplayer to simply help sell the game. There are a lot of games that really shouldn't ever have MP as a part of it. But then there is the flip side, some games really have no business having a single player, and should be all multiplayer. (Battlefield BC)

It seems like some developers just throw in multiplayer to simply help sell the game. There are a lot of games that really shouldn't ever have MP as a part of it. But then there is the flip side, some games really have no business having a single player, and should be all multiplayer. (Battlefield BC)

glesniak

Some things could use MP and others do not need it atall. Wolfenstein needed it fixed is all.

I would like to see games ither go for singleplayer or just multiplayer,

Lets have the entire team work on the muliplayer without having to worry about sinlge, and make it an awsome game online

and the same thing for sinlge player, so it can ba great singleplayer expirience.

i rather play multiplayer anyday of the week then single player, its fun and gets competitive

when MW2 comes out im hoppin straight on the multiplayer

There are a lot of games that had unpopular online modes with pretty good single player. I agree that in most cases if that MP was scrapped & all those resources & time were invested in the single player and/or Co-Op features then those games could have turned out great instead of medicore.

[QUOTE="cee1gee"]

i rather play multiplayer anyday of the week then single player, its fun and gets competitive

when MW2 comes out im hoppin straight on the multiplayer

Sepewrath

This is just the nature of the beast, or so to speak. If I had to choose what I like better I think I would choose single player games. My favorite games of all time are almost all single player games. But I do enjoy multiplayer games that do it WELL. I love the CoDs, the Halos, and the Rainbow Sixes. But, in the online world, what is new is always the best, because like you said, no one is playing what came out last year. Half of me is a game player, and half of me is a collector. Obvioulsy these online games won't stick out with the greatness of an Ocarina of Time because you won't be able to or want to play the multiplayer half of them.

I just don't want to critisize what someone likes. A lot of people that call themselves "gamers" today are only interested in online play. Which by all means is fine! I just wish some of the companies would realize that no one is going to be playing something like Prey online with all of the other hit multiplayer games we have now, and just make a great single player game that does have a shot at being remembered in 20 years, and a lot more fun right now.

I don't mind multiplayer, just don't have multiplayer achievements. There's games i love a lot that has MP achievement at least CoD4 only have SP achievements...

Yes, I would prefer to see more lengthy and quality single player games, and less games with vanilla MP modes bolted on. The simple fact is that there are already a good variety of multiplayer-oriented games out there, with considerable fan-bases, and while those players might play the MP of a new game for a week or a month, it's usually just a diversion before they get back to that popular MP game they were playing before.

I've encountered a number of games over the years where the MP was completely superfluous, with the same old vanilla game modes and zero originality. Needless to say I didn't purchase those games for the MP experience, but for the SP experience. And I think devs should sit down and think long and hard about whether they are truly bringing something new to the MP space - because otherwise they shouldn't bother.

A single player game does not have to be 'stale' or have no replay value, if only the devs would consider different options or ways for the player to complete the campaign, and offer more elbow room and opportunities to try out different tactics. Branching storylines with different endings can help. Opening up multiple pathways to objectives, or giving a choice in how an objective is completed, is another way to give a game replay value.

Forced linearity or 'on-the-rails' gameplay can certainly become stale unless you have a unqiue feature set to back it up, as when your character can adapt and change in different ways (like Bioshock). Open world or 'sandbox' games can offer more variety, but then the story or individual missions tend to suffer a bit. There has to be a compromise somewhere, but I think it's possible. It's a shame there aren't more games like the original Deus Ex, where you really do have a lot of choices in how you approach the game.

Couldn't agree more

Deus Ex was an awesome game, at least for PC. That's all I played it on. Great example of a GREAT single player game that requires no multiplayer to be awesome. Personally I would play a new Deus Ex game over a new Bioshock game any day.billyd5301

I agree. I think they did make a multiplayer mode for Deus Ex. I never played it.