Backbone of a game: Multiplayer or Single Player

[Azure-Supernova]

I can already hear the cries of 'this topic has been done before!', but let me just say what I have to say and then I want to hear some opinions.
So I'm curious. After watching the latest ZP (Halo Reach) I had a flashback when Yhatzee brought up the topic of the multi-player and its place in reviews. So here's the question I guess:

Should a game be able to stand up on its Single Player alone?

My personal opinion is well... it depends. I find it unfair that Single Player (only) games are compared to games with Multiplayer capabilities. So when it comes to reviewing them, I have the preference that Single Player and Multiplayer sections should be reviewed separately. Am I alone in thinking this is a pretty fair way of doing things?

Games like Team Fortress 2 sells itself on the multiplayer well enough, so why do Infinity Ward and Activision just forgo the pretence and sell the next Call of Duty as a multiplayer experience. The campaigns are half arsed and how much time do you really spend on them compared to the multiplayer (has anyone seriously ever bought a Call of Duty game for the campaign since 3?).

Meanwhile every game is getting a multiplayer bolt on (how did Versus mode on Resident Evil 5 hold up?). Does every game really need multiplayer? Does inFamous, God of War, Assassins Creed, The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Batman: Arkham City need multiplayer? I can bet that two or three of those titles will get multiplayer modes tacked on (multi-player, not co-op).

To sum up, I think that yes. If a game is being sold with a campaign, then it should be able to stand up on its own. How many sales would Call of Duty 4 have if it didn't have multiplayer?

 

[XJ-0461]

To sum up, I think that yes. If a game is being sold with a campaign, then it should be able to stand up on its own.

I agree with this. If it has single player, then that should be the selling point of the game, with multiplayer as a nice extra, but one that deserves a similar level of attention during the design stage.

 

[kouriichi]

I guess its really an "All or nothing" type of thing. Look at Modern warfare 2. Its got a single player, but its basically a 5 hour tutorial on how not to die.

But then there are games like halo reach where both the multiplayer and single player suck.

I guess what i mean is, you have to try to make them both equal, but they really will never be. Did you play L4D single or multi? You would 90% of the time play multi, because its just more fun with more people.

 

[Reveras]

Depends on the game entirely. Unreal Tournament series for example, no campaign story wise at all but amazing multiplayer. And on the other hand the Half Life series, amazing story.

 

[Thaius]

Well I would say it depends on the purpose of the developer. For instance, I will not say that Left 4 Dead should stand on its own with single-player, because it was not meant to be played by one person. Thus, the backbone of the game is the multiplayer.

However, assuming a developer puts in a single-player mode and gives it a lot of attention, the single-player is the backbone of the game.

In short: The campaign is the backbone of the game; the multiplayer is the longevity.

 

[tomtom94]

A game should always be able to stand up on single-player alone, or failing that, I will count local multiplayer / bots.

An online-only game has some slight inherent issues for me, although most of those revolve around subscription fees.

 

[Kagim]

Well... I recently bought MW2 and i actually really like the campaign so far. Largely due to the fact its not a real war which is what keeps me from playing any of the older games. As well most of my friends who played it really recommended its campaign mode to be played first.

As for the question it depends on what the main selling point actually is. Think about it like this. What if the single player in COD is what Multiplayer used to be?

Perhaps the multiplayer is the main feature, and the single player is the nice little extra.

Yes, not every game needs multiplayer, that much is obvious.... Though thoughts are now spinning at the idea of an Infamous 2 multiplayer... Huge fucking battle between lightning gods in a massive open city.... *Blinks and clears throat* anyways!

A game needs to stand up on its true main feature alone. CoD and Halo are clearly multiplayer games at heart. The campaign essentially seems to be the role of a fun little extra. Something to play to get the hang of the controls for newer players or do to just have fun when your really not in the mood to put up with people online.

So no, a game shopuldn't be forced to stand on its single player experience when it is obvious its not its feature point. That however doesn't mean multiplayer main event games should be sold without a single player campaign. Believe it or not a lot of people still do enjoy said games.

 

[qazcake]

a game should be able to stand on single player alone. not every game needs multi player. there are certant cases like battle feild 2, tf2 and left for dead 1 and two because there multi player games that wont grow old and have been fine tuned to that. most if not all consol games should have better singleplayer and multiplayer as an adition.