(discussion) Does multiplayer hurt gaming?

[Vykrel]

noooooooooo. sure, i can make certain games bad (or at least, not as good in the long run). i think Mass Effect 2 would have suffered if it were to have some tacked-on multiplayer mode that took effort away from the incredible single player.

but in general, multiplayer helps games. it increases replayability and offers a good reason for friends to get the same game, since they can play together.

some good examples would be on the top 20 or so XBLA titles. many of them are Multiplayer-focused titles.

 

[TheModWolf]

Your points are true of online multiplayer against strangers to some degree and in some games, but playing against a mate on the one tv or against eachother online is great fun and removing it would hurt gaming significantly i feel.

Also, re glitches and hacks, games like madden have very well publicised tactics and 'glitches' that can make it difficult to win, but (mostly)everyone who plays without them is aware of them and can recognise/strategise around it, which makes for more fun in my opinion.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

You should read your post again, it really doesn't make all that much sense. Most of the things that you said are "hurting gaming" are only hurting multiplayer(glitches, obnoxious people, hacks), and the others are barely related (if at all) to multiplayer in the first place. (poor design, yearly clones, bad publicity, etc.)

What you're trying to say is that BAD multiplayer is hurting gaming, which is a bit more understandable, but still flawed. It would make more sense to say that bad games in general are hurting gaming (since bad design is hardly limited to multiplayer), except that everyone already knows that.

This thread doesn't make any sense. It's like if I took a horrible single player game and tried to say "This proves single player gaming is worthless!" Obviously this doesn't hold up. Similarly, there's nothing inherently bad about multiplayer just because recent MP games have some (admittedly not inconsiderable) design problems.

PS: Both Halo and COD have extensive co-op modes. Don't know about WoW, never played it.

 

[Dr. Win]

Multiplayer is not ruining gaming. Hell, If there was no multiplayer, I probably would have never gotten into video games, and neither would have a large percentage of video gaming's audience.

Sad to say, but multiplayer is going to probably going to be the main force behind video games being an everyday normal thing, not singleplayer.

 

[aaronobst]

Online? Yes Local? No

IMHO

 

[Sir Boss]

I'd have to agree with Mr. OP, a sizable portion of the multi-player playerbase perpetuate the negative connotations associated with the name gamer, hurting the image of the industry on the whole, it seems a lot of people on this thread need to watch Extra Credits.

 

[teebeeohh]

when you are talking about FPS, have you ever played tf2?

i agree with you in regards to mmorpgs, except daoc nothing i played ever did pvp right but maybe i just never played as organized.

and no, more co-op is not the solution, i just don't like co-op i have to work together with people every day, i my free time i just want to give random people face-lifts with a shotgun.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

But what does it mean to "hurt gaming"? To give it "bad publicity"?
Now, I agree with the fact that multiplayer in gaming is mostly terrible at the moment.
That said, it doesn't ruin gaming. There needs to be games of all kinds, we need diversity. So what, some games are bad? Some movies are bad. Some books are bad.
They were judged as a medium before, and that's the stage gaming is going through now.
Does it matter? No. The generation that judges it as "LITTLE BABBY GAMES" is going to die anyway, and then it won't matter. (By the way, I'm looking at you, FOX)
So no, it doesn't hurt gaming, because hurting an entire medium isn't possible. At least not in my opinion.

 

[Byere]

While I agree with you on the whole part about companies just chucking out the same games with a graphical update (something I've bitched about for years, particularly on soccer and other sports games), I don't fully agree that multiplayer has hurt the industry.
While it's true that I'm not a fan of multiplayer or the like, I have to say that there are certain games that either need or benefit from having more than one player options. If you want to be picky, there'd be no fighting game genre without multiplayer. Now, I know you're talking online and not "2+ player arcade" multiplayer. What they contribute to the industry is bringing gamers together. While most players will play 1-player mode for a while, the ability to use the internet to play a game with someone on the other side of the world helps people (who may live solitary lives while gaming) make friends. Those who feel the need to have angry outbursts because someone beat them at a game is just pathetic. Simple-minded and unskilled players who let their anger and ego control them are the reason for hackings, douche-baggery, etc.

As for the lack of multiplayer options in games lowering piracy, I think you need to sort out your thoughts before typing them. Piracy has nothing to do with the options a game has, just that some people won't pay the prices that companies set (which in my opinion, though I don't actually pirate games, it's quite forthright. The prices are getting over-the-top IMO).

 

[sibrenfetter]

Now, in MY opinion, Multiplayer/PvP hurts gaming, badly.

While you adress serious problems in the gaming world to which I agree, you make a general flaw in your question. In many games, multiplayer is the gaming element. How could a good Multiplayer-only game make itself bad by being multiplayer? I think what you mean to say considering the points you raise is that so many games include multiplayer, even when inappropriate.

Little personal example: One of my favorite games ever is Battlefield 2. This game is brilliant in my opinion and never had any singleplayer aspect. Your question does not hold up for this kind of game. Moreover, the inclusion of a singleplayer component would have had a similar effect as what you are referring to. Adding singleplayer to Battlefield 2 would probably have let to less polish, less maps, and so on.

In the end to answer your question: No multiplayer does not make gaming bad per se. There are many good multiplayer only games and many good combinations of single and multiplayer. Whatever the game is however, it is best focused on getting the best possible experience whichever way works best, without tagging on some multiplayer OR singleplayer elements.

 

[BlackSaint09]

As usual i dont mean to offend anyone. I also would like to state that i have rarely if ever expirienced the problems you have stated... (maybe because i dont play the mainstream multiplayer because i simply cant)
But in my opininion (for the games that i can play) multiplayer cant hurt gaming because it adds a competitive aspect to the game which single player cant provide.
As for the problems you mentioned earlier... I havent ever expirienced them but the proper solution would be a MUTE button in the scoreboard/whatever doohiki next to each players name...

 

[Aeonknight]

Anything that encourages people to game, even if said people don't have the same taste as you, does not hurt gaming by definition.

 

[Fledge]

My god, I've never thought about it like that; but I really think OP has a point. If games focused more on non-competitive cooperative play; we may get much further.

Multiplayer can hurt your gaming experience even if you don't play it - "hacks, raging, noob exploits, glitching, e-peens, douchebags, screaming kids, yearly clones, bad publicity, etc".

 

[gibboss28]

Now, I want to put this up front: I realize that a LOT of people are about to send me some nasty letters for saying this. I also realize that it's nearly impossible (because this IS the internet) for this to go on for long without a flame war, but it needs to be discussed. Also, bear in mind that my opinion does not mean I expect others to think remotely my way. That's the whole point of it being a discussion.

Now, in MY opinion, Multiplayer/PvP hurts gaming, badly. The main reason that we have hacks, raging, noob exploits, glitching, e-peens, douchebags, screaming kids, yearly clones, bad publicity, etc. is because of multiplayer. In FPS games, multiplayer serves as little more than a glorfied "my ego is bigger than yours" frag-fest where skill isn't the deciding factor, glitches and cheap tactics are. RPGs have that AND the classes are constantly nerfed or boosted to balance PvP while ignoring PvE, which one would think is the core of a good RPG. I feel that honestly (raising my flame shield here) if games like Halo, Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, and other big titles like them, were focused more on co-operative gaming, or simply did not have multiplayer, there wouldn't be such a big issue with rage and hackers, meaning a drop in all the problems that plague the industry today, even pirating. I have yet to personally find a multiplayer/PvP oriented game that I enjoyed due to the aforementioned problems, and really have yet to find what these multiplayer based games have done to contribute positively to the industry as a whole. Maybe if we didn't have these problems, gaming wouldn't have such a hard time being accepted? Maybe the industry would be forced to be more innovative, instead of the new setting, same engine system we get (looking at you CoD).

Now, that's MY opinion, so the discussion is open for intelligent minds. (note: I don't expect anyone to think like me, and I don't believe my opinion is the "right one" I'm just giving my opinion to start the discussion)

Ok firstly, do you really have to bang on about the fact its your opinion? Most of us get this, the ones who don't..well fuck them they're hardly gonna contribute anything worthwhile I would bet.

Anyway only real counter point I can make here other than I disagree and it all comes down to your experience and clearly you've had a shitty one is this...
Have you actually played WoW? I ask because the comment about co-operative gaming makes me think not so much.
Also the bit about getting rid of multiplayer games would get rid of hacking, piracy and even make it easier for us to be accepted (Don't think we need to be accepted to be honest but that's a discussion for another time)no, just no.

 

[Isgandar]

Aside from playing a range of great single player experiences across many different genres, playing Crysis 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 online is the main source of enjoyment I get out of my console.

 

[Morgan Howe]

like anything it come down to people i think, its the gamers that make multi-player suck
you wouldn't let an emo kid that beats sacks full of kittens take care of your new born baby, and some of the people out there in some of these games are WAY worse.
example: ps3 was virtually un-hackable before geohot's homebrew, now theres not a day i go playing Battlefield Bad Company2 on ps3 without a guy who is literally invinsable, but thats hardly the games fault (that being said i think its time for game makers to make some anti-cheat for ps3.

 

[Choppaduel]

Multiplayer as concept is fine (see tf2); it's games where the target audience is 10-17 (despite the M rating) year old violent shitheads, ie modern military shooters, that give multiplayer a bad name. There also the logistical problem, but thats minor in comparison the big one.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Does multiplayer hurt games?

*Looks at L4D2*

No.

Every point the OP has raised against Multiplayer are faults with the gamers who play them rather than the game mode itself. And the OP is vastly overstating the problem. Yes you do get boosters. Yes you do get rage-quitting. Yes you do get screaming kids. Yes you do get glitching. But only for, say, one game in ten. I love competitive multiplayer, but I can see why people without that competitive edge could be turned off the very 'dog-eat-dog' world of online play.

Bottom line OP, if you don't like multiplayer no-one is forcing you to play it. There are plenty of people out there, however, who relish the challenge of PvP play. And please allow me to re-iterate, your problems with multiplayer seem to stem from bad player experiences rather than bad gaming experiences, so you might want to cut multiplayer a little slack.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

If it's done right and encourages team play then no. If it's done the Call of Duty way then yes.

 

[sibrenfetter]

If it's done right and encourages team play then no. If it's done the Call of Duty way then yes.

And yet millions of people buy Call Of Duty games and play online daily. Many of whom never even played the singleplayer part. Whether you personally like COD or not is up to you but the multiplayer especially reaches out to more players (even with all the problems) than nearly any other multiplayer game out there.

Different multiplayer games for different people. And really, COD gets millions of people to play games also often cooperatively, so concluding cod hurts gaming sounds very odd to me.