Question of the Day, November 10, 2010

[The Escapist Staff]

Question of the Day, November 10, 2010




Many games have some sort of player-vs-player multiplayer component to them these days, but Valve's Portal 2 project manager Erik Johnson thinks that even if many gamers like it, not every game needs the "stress" of multiplayer [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105115-Playing-by-Yourself-Is-Fine-With-Valve]. Do you agree?

Permalink

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

The modes to be more competitive?
Or a larger variety of modes of the competitive type?
If the former, hell no, it is competitive enough already, especially on XBL >.<
If the latter, eh, why not? It is nice to mix things up every so often.

 

[DazZ.]

I almost solely play PvP games, and I think there are loads of games where competitive play just wouldn't work.

Bioshock was one of these. I'd prefer a game to focus on one aspect and do it well than have either side tacked on as a "requirement".

 

[unacomn]

I'm not entirely sure to what competitive multiplayer is referring to in this context. I generally associate the term competitive multiplayer with e-sports, which I would not like to see in many games.
A lot of games can benefit from a multiplayer mode, but not one that's made for e-sports. Those tend to alienate me.

 

[GeorgW]

As long as it doesn't compromize single player, but it depends on the game.

 

[Void Droid]

I want my games to focus on the single player campaign, I want my games to give me the best experience possible and I don't want to have to rely on a friend or another person being present/online so I can get the experience I paid for.

If a game wants to have multiplayer, local or online, then that is fine by me, if done well I'd more than welcome it as another fun way to distract myself but not at the cost of the single player. Not everyone has access to the internet so the main focus should always be on the single player campaign (unless it is a game designed with multiplayer as the sole funtion). Some people still buy games for the stories.

 

[ssgt splatter]

Some games like Call of Duty, Halo, and Gears of War are much better with multiplayer. Others like say The Darkness multiplayer was just tacked on and was very broken e.g. once you got more than 4 people in one room the sever began to lag horribly.

 

[Giest4life]

Multiplayer in all my games'd be pretty cool. But having said that, multiplayer, for me, does not take precedent over a solid single-player campaign.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

There are some game types that really benefit from PvP multiplayer, some that lend themselves more to co-op, and other game types that are best left as single player. It depends on the game and it depends on whether the multiplayer is overdone to the point of negatively affecting the single player experience.

As a general rule though, I quite enjoy competitive multiplayer - human opponents will always present more of a challenge than A.I. However, to give A.I it's due at least it doesn't call you a 'f*cking gaylord ******' in a shrill, twelve year old voice every time you kill it - but that's a flaw with the multiplayer community, not a flaw with the multiplayer game mode.

 

[gnarf]

As long as it doesn't compromize single player, but it depends on the game.

So true, though I think a lot of single player games would benefit from online co-op, though it would be harder to balance with co-op.

 

[Hertzey]

I am not a fan of competitive multiplayer. Co-op can be fun, but also annoying if you get paired up with the wrong person online. As Yahtzee has said a million times, a game should be able to stand on single player alone.

 

[vato_loco]

I'm sort of a multiplayer hater, since lately MP has seriously hurt the Single Player component. Look no further than the Call of Duty franchise, with its 5 hour long Single Player to give room to the multiplayer.

 

[Casual Shinji]

If it has one, I'll try it out if only for novelty's sake.

But it's not essential for me, not even with FPS'.

 

[Warped_Ghost]

When I vote multiplayer I mean co-operative. I really wish republic commando went co-op.

 

[Robyrt]

Competitive multiplayer doesn't even make sense for some games. Sim City? Myst? Dragon Age? Imagine how unwieldy and aggravating these would be if you had to fend off other players.

 

[Marter]

If it doesn't take away from the single player, then I don't care. If it does...get it away from the game!

 

[Pontus Hashis]

Splitscreen ftw.

 

[Dora]

I really don't play multiplayer much. I just don't enjoy competitive gameplay, 'cause I admittedly suck at it. Call me a wuss, it's just that I prefer to play games to relax rather than getting headshot sixteen times by a mouthy preteen. That said, I think that while including multiplayer just for multiplayer's sake can make a product feel sloppy and half-finished, there're definitely games out there that need it. Left 4 Dead isn't nearly as fun on singleplayer.

 

[TheGreenManalishi]

I think the distinction needs to be made between local and online multiplayer. All the upcoming fighting games, for example, need local multiplayer. Do they need online too? Not for me.