So I was looking at that poll by LightspeedJack about buying only multiplayer games. Heres the link:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.201552-Poll-Would-you-buy-a-game-ONLY-for-multiplayer
Now this got me thinking about games in general. The question I often find myself thinking about is if games should contain both multiplayer and singleplayer elements. I'd like to hear about others views on this but first I will post my personal opinion.
I truly think that some games multiplayer or singleplayer componants actually drag down production stnadards for the overall game and really rin parts of the eperiance overall. Just look at how many games there are that have one side of the game done amazingly well, but the other side is flawed. Just think about how many games have fans who argue that "it is really all about the single/multiplayer."
To me there are games like Call of Duty or Battlefield: Bad Company, who put singleplayer campaigns in because they feel it is necessary when really that is not the main focus of the game. Both of the games listed above have fairly good o great multiplayer experiences but have singelplayers that are just not as good and feel more dull than the other side of the game. Just think of what if all teh people who worked on the singleplayer for those games instead were giving all their talents to elevating the experience of the multiplayer.
Another thing I have been noticing recently is new releases in older series coming with multiplayer tacked on. Bioshock 2, Uncharted 2, etc. Now even though these experiences may not be horrible, it is just odd to think that many game companies seem to be falling for the lure that they need to do both.
Now certainly some games can pull this off. One of my favorite games for both singleplayer and multiplayer is Resistance 2, and that game managed to pull off both without making either feel overly pushed or better. I think the thing Resistance 2 did best was the ranking system and awards system that spanned the singleplayer, multiplayer, and co-op game modes. Not only that but they made it so that all of the parts were given equal attention.
And there is the rub really: equal attention. I find it that many game developers do not seem to give the modes the same coverage. One reason is lack of workforce, but really the reason I find it that many companies have issues with one side of gaming is like of experience. (i.e. DICE creates the Battlefield series. Until Battlefield: Bad Company, they had never had a Battlefield game with a singleplayer, but all of them were only multiplayer. This leads to Battlefiel: Bad Company 1 & 2 having great multiplayers but lackluster singleplayers.)
I say that unless the company is well prepared to equally prepare and harmonize the experiences, I say that they should just stick to one or the other.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.201552-Poll-Would-you-buy-a-game-ONLY-for-multiplayer
Now this got me thinking about games in general. The question I often find myself thinking about is if games should contain both multiplayer and singleplayer elements. I'd like to hear about others views on this but first I will post my personal opinion.
I truly think that some games multiplayer or singleplayer componants actually drag down production stnadards for the overall game and really rin parts of the eperiance overall. Just look at how many games there are that have one side of the game done amazingly well, but the other side is flawed. Just think about how many games have fans who argue that "it is really all about the single/multiplayer."
To me there are games like Call of Duty or Battlefield: Bad Company, who put singleplayer campaigns in because they feel it is necessary when really that is not the main focus of the game. Both of the games listed above have fairly good o great multiplayer experiences but have singelplayers that are just not as good and feel more dull than the other side of the game. Just think of what if all teh people who worked on the singleplayer for those games instead were giving all their talents to elevating the experience of the multiplayer.
Another thing I have been noticing recently is new releases in older series coming with multiplayer tacked on. Bioshock 2, Uncharted 2, etc. Now even though these experiences may not be horrible, it is just odd to think that many game companies seem to be falling for the lure that they need to do both.
Now certainly some games can pull this off. One of my favorite games for both singleplayer and multiplayer is Resistance 2, and that game managed to pull off both without making either feel overly pushed or better. I think the thing Resistance 2 did best was the ranking system and awards system that spanned the singleplayer, multiplayer, and co-op game modes. Not only that but they made it so that all of the parts were given equal attention.
And there is the rub really: equal attention. I find it that many game developers do not seem to give the modes the same coverage. One reason is lack of workforce, but really the reason I find it that many companies have issues with one side of gaming is like of experience. (i.e. DICE creates the Battlefield series. Until Battlefield: Bad Company, they had never had a Battlefield game with a singleplayer, but all of them were only multiplayer. This leads to Battlefiel: Bad Company 1 & 2 having great multiplayers but lackluster singleplayers.)
I say that unless the company is well prepared to equally prepare and harmonize the experiences, I say that they should just stick to one or the other.
