Seeing as Starhawk is the sequel to Warhawk (a multiplayer game) one can expect the emphasis to be on the multiplayer aspect. Honestly, I didn't even know Starhawk would have a singleplayer judging by the previous game.
Is bad single player excusable?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OK... some posters seem really angry that sudenly there are some games they don't like, in this case multiplayer games.
Folowing the original question,
There are multiplayer games, there are single player games and in-betweens.
MMO are purely multiplayer games, for example. While Mass effect 2 is a single player one. Mass effect 3 is the In-between.
I completely understand when players that come from single player games with some online components see the game change to almost full MMO (Like the hot topic Diablo II & III).
That sucks for who liked that game as a single player experience as much as it sucks for me when X-com becomes a shooter.
That said. Multiplayer focused games shouldn't be judged (much) by its single player.
And in particular to starhawk, the game seems to at least have some cutscenes and story a lot more than battlefront.
But I think it doesn't deserve the 9 score because the multiplayer doesn't look that good. You have hawks, and tanks, and the flying motorcycle and .... I don't know the quicklooks I saw look awfull mediocre. =/
Folowing the original question,
There are multiplayer games, there are single player games and in-betweens.
MMO are purely multiplayer games, for example. While Mass effect 2 is a single player one. Mass effect 3 is the In-between.
I completely understand when players that come from single player games with some online components see the game change to almost full MMO (Like the hot topic Diablo II & III).
That sucks for who liked that game as a single player experience as much as it sucks for me when X-com becomes a shooter.
That said. Multiplayer focused games shouldn't be judged (much) by its single player.
And in particular to starhawk, the game seems to at least have some cutscenes and story a lot more than battlefront.
But I think it doesn't deserve the 9 score because the multiplayer doesn't look that good. You have hawks, and tanks, and the flying motorcycle and .... I don't know the quicklooks I saw look awfull mediocre. =/
That's an excellent analogy, and I agree. No, there should be no excuse for poorly done single player.TheOneBearded said:
I suppose it is in circumstances where my real interest in the game is elsewhere. Battlefield 3 might have terrible single player for example. Having never actually placed that disc in the tray, I'd never know.
Multiplayer is like subtitles in your favorite movie: handy for when your friend wants it, but if you don't like it, the feature isn't going to improve.
Some people think multi player is the only way to go. It isn't. Diablo and original Warcraft were excellent, challenging games for there times, as were the sequels. It's great fun to get a buddy and kill zombies together, but if your friend has work or a (gasp!) girlfriend, what can you do?
Some people think multi player is the only way to go. It isn't. Diablo and original Warcraft were excellent, challenging games for there times, as were the sequels. It's great fun to get a buddy and kill zombies together, but if your friend has work or a (gasp!) girlfriend, what can you do?
That and to talk about how art games don't need to be fun, just engaging. Playing purely for fun does make you an odd duck around here.Iwata said:
[sub][sub][sub]It also adds another level to the explanation of the anti-multiplayer bias around here, beyond "Yahtzee doesn't like it, let's quote him!"[/sub][/sub][/sub]
Good point, but Battlefront is a bad example -- or at least Battlefront 2 is, I haven't played the first one so it may be different. Anyway, Battlefront 2 had a campaign with a fairly involved story about the 501st legion, from their first battle at Geonosis to their victory at Hoth. It didn't have any real characters beyond the hero units, but the idea was that you were playing through the journal of an unknown member of the legion, who narrated each cutscene. It also had "galactic conquest mode" which adds some macro level strategy to the game, and was mostly played single player. Both games had both modes, but I'm not sure how involved the campaign was in the first game. I'd imagine it was at least decent though, since they were primarily console titles in an age where very few consoles were hooked up to the internet.bluesession said:
Hop on a random server and make some friends? This is the PC gamer in me talking, but online multiplayer exists so you don't have to rely on having friends who like and own the same games you do.nondescript said:
I think it has to be clear what kind of lackluster we're talking about, because to me there's a difference between a short single player that's still functional and a single player that's just a generally broken experience.
I might be in the minority of people who actually enjoy the CoD single player campaign. I look at it like an action film: it's filled with shallow stock characters and predictable twists but there are enough explosions and cheesy drama to keep me at least entertained. That being said I understand that it's primarily a multiplayer-heavy game so I don't expect the same level of quality as a game like Half Life which is focused entirely on the campaign.
In terms of just bad gameplay though, I don't think that's excusable in any aspect of a game.
I might be in the minority of people who actually enjoy the CoD single player campaign. I look at it like an action film: it's filled with shallow stock characters and predictable twists but there are enough explosions and cheesy drama to keep me at least entertained. That being said I understand that it's primarily a multiplayer-heavy game so I don't expect the same level of quality as a game like Half Life which is focused entirely on the campaign.
In terms of just bad gameplay though, I don't think that's excusable in any aspect of a game.
Bad single player is excusable if the developer makes out that the game revolves around it's multiplayer.
But otherwise, a game should stand up on it's own perfectly well with it's single player. Multiplayer should never be a crutch to help it's appeal.
But otherwise, a game should stand up on it's own perfectly well with it's single player. Multiplayer should never be a crutch to help it's appeal.
It really depends on the focus of the game. Games like Team Fortress 2, Fat Princess, Street Fighter, Battlefield, SOCOM or Starhawk are multiplayer based games. Single player mode is mostly added as a bonus for such game and no one buying it (that actually research it) should feel ripoff. Starhawk is the sequel to a game that didn't even had single player. If that is the kind of game that interest you, if single player mode is nothing but an big tutorial of the features, weapons and vehicles used in multiplayer, then yes, its excusable.
On the other side, we have games like MGS 4, GTA 4, Bioshock 2, Darkness 2 or Red Dead Redemption. Do you think it would be excusable for them to have a tackled on multiplayer? Would it be ok for them to be punished by it? Would you agree with a reviewer that gave Metal Gear Solid 4 a poor score because the multiplayer was lackluster?
On the other side, we have games like MGS 4, GTA 4, Bioshock 2, Darkness 2 or Red Dead Redemption. Do you think it would be excusable for them to have a tackled on multiplayer? Would it be ok for them to be punished by it? Would you agree with a reviewer that gave Metal Gear Solid 4 a poor score because the multiplayer was lackluster?
Why? If the hour/price ratio is what you use to decide what a game is worth, a multi player only game could potentially be worth a lot more than a single player only game.Karutomaru said:
I am a single player heavy gamer, but I accept there are games that are multiplayer heavy and find it ridicule that people try to use double standards with them. I played through Bioshock 2 and Saints Row 3 and barely touched the multiplayer, I also played Battlefield 3 without touching the campaign for several weeks (its not the reason why I bought it). If a lackbuster multiplayer didn't hurt my impressions with MGS4, its only fair that a lackbuster campaign won't hurt my impressions on Starhawk.
Games really ought to be "multiplayer games" or "single-player games". Having one and then having a lack-luster never feels that great.
However, what some of you guys are saying on here is that a game like TF2 should be considered shit because it doesn't really have a story/single_player
However, what some of you guys are saying on here is that a game like TF2 should be considered shit because it doesn't really have a story/single_player
only for this game we call life, but even then if you can't have fun single-player you probably won't have much fun with other people either
Yeah single player should be taken into account for a game whose main focus is multiplayer, if you throw a tacked on single or multiplayer, it should be brought up in the review, and if bad, should detract from the game's score. If their focus is multiplayer, they should not add a bad single player mode just to have it, and vice versa.
yes, its part of the game, main focus or not, thus should be factored into the final verdict and such.
hell give the damn thing to scores if you have to, not that they matter anymore anyway
hell give the damn thing to scores if you have to, not that they matter anymore anyway