Is bad single player excusable?

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

If you mean should a game that has a real SP(ie not MP just bots) get above an 8 with having a shit SP then no it shouldn't. Is it acceptable for a game to have a standard SP experience when MP is the focus(eg CoD, Battlefield) then yes I'll let it slide. Not every game needs both.

 

[Fidelias]

My opinion is that a multiplayer-focused game should cost at the most 3/4s of what a single-player focused game does.

I mean, let's face it, multiplayer takes a LOT less effort to create than a well-made, or even decently made, single player campaign. Multipayer has only two aspects; gameplay and graphics, while single player has gameplay, graphics, story, soundtrack, and character design.

And a game like the new Call of Duty's, where everything is just recycled from the previous games with improved graphics, shouldn't cost more than 30 bucks brand new.

I mean, I like popping in CoD and shooting some noobs as much as the next guy, but realistically it doesn't have half the quality of Mass Effect, Far Cry 2, Freelancer, Aquanox, etc.

 

[Loonyyy]

Of course it should be taken into account when the game is reviewed. But since the singleplayer and multiplayer are distinctly different, combining these into a single number is of course misleading.

Long story short, review scores mean entirely NOTHING. They are an innacurate representation of the games quality, fun, and serve as a poor piece of consumer comparison. Why they are still included in games is almost beyond me (I get that assigning absolute quantitative measures is tempting, but it's also entirely fallacious).

People should simply take the time to read the written reviews, and try to get an impression of a game, rather than take review scores as given. In fact, that's what most people do. The only purpose served by review scores is for publishers to falsely measure the success of a game, which often results in the punishment of developers.

So not only are they useless, they're also a negative impact.

That said, if a game has singleplayer and multiplayer, and the singleplayer is bad (Which, on a LOGICAL scale would be placed below 5.), and a good multiplayer, how does it average 9? Either they don't consider the singleplayer due to some odd weighting algorithm, or they've given the multiplayer a score over ten. Yet more proof that our absolute scale of subjective opinions is subjectively assigned according to whim. Way to fail science and statistics.

 

[JEBWrench]

Sweet zombie Jesus people - I head into the office for one day, and this is what I come back to?

 

[RagTagBand]

No. No. No. If you include it in the game it should be of a consistent quality as all other components


People *****, reviewers *****, when multiplayer is or "Feels" tacked on, so why should the single player experience be excused from this criticism?

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Of course it is excusable. A bad single-player campaign doesn't make the multiplayer somehow worse in the same way a terrible mode in multiplayer wouldn't diminish how good the other modes are. If the multiplayer is good, ill couldn't really care about the state of the singleplayer mode. Though to be honest, I prefer a game to focus on one or the other, otherwise its a mechanical nightmare.

The old argument is a bad and tacked on singleplayer takes resources away from the multiplayer and vice versa. I do agree with this argument, it does occur. But if either mode is bad, I won't play that mode. If both modes are bad, I wont play the game, because its a bad game. Theres plenty of good games to play. Play those.

Remember, making wise and appropriate purchasing decisions saves lives.

 

[JEBWrench]

People *****, reviewers *****, when multiplayer is or "Feels" tacked on, so why should the single player experience be excused from this criticism?

Personally - I'd like to refer to Nexiusz for a moment. Its single-player mode is the very definition of tacked on. It's "play the game with bots". And I prefer that sort of game to have a "practice" mode offline - to help learn maps and so forth, get used to how weapons handle, without being a detriment to my team.

So in some cases, yes, tacked-on single player is preferable to none at all.

 

[hermes]

Obviously the single player is the only important thing.
That's why I hate these two pieces of crap I played called Team Fortress 2 and MAG. MAG's single player can be beaten in literally five minutes, if you go slow. TF2 doesn't even HAVE one.

God what terrible games

That is like saying I consider GTA 4 and HL 2 two pieces of crap, since GTA multiplayer was god awful, and Half Life didn't even have one.

Yes.
That is exactly what it is like
Because that is the idea behind the statement.
You are a silly person

No, you are making a silly statement.
Maybe you should talk with CliffB then, I am sure his idea that everything needs multiplayer will sound like an epiphany to you.

 

[Weaver]

I think it kind of depends on the game. If it bills itself as having an engaging story, etc. then I expect it to have a great single player. If it bills itself as an online tournament FPS then I expect nothing of the sort.

 

[Woodsey]

Just read the review. If they say the single-player's shit but the multi-player's good then that's that. The only reason the score matters is because people put an increasingly arbitrary value on it in the first place.

Personally I'd rather developers ditched the tacked-on multiplayer/singleplayer and charged a little less. BF3, for instance. If you're going to include it, then it should be fucking good.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Obviously the single player is the only important thing.
That's why I hate these two pieces of crap I played called Team Fortress 2 and MAG. MAG's single player can be beaten in literally five minutes, if you go slow. TF2 doesn't even HAVE one.

God what terrible games

That is like saying I consider GTA 4 and HL 2 two pieces of crap, since GTA multiplayer was god awful, and Half Life didn't even have one.

Yes.
That is exactly what it is like
Because that is the idea behind the statement.
You are a silly person

No, you are making a silly statement.
Maybe you should talk with CliffB then, I am sure his idea that everything needs multiplayer will sound like an epiphany to you.

Hey. That's CliffyB. Respect bro.

 

[ablac]

It should be like a meal. The single player is the main course. The multiplayer and extras are the dessert and such. If the main course tastes like ass, then you won't eat the rest of the food. If the single player sucks, then the rest of its goodies (like multiplayer) shouldn't help bring it up. Think about the people who don't play the multiplayer.

I think the makers decide whats the main course really, think of a game like modern warfare 2. Single player is clearly not the main course, it isnt as heavily advertised and much less is put into its production. Its the extra to make the game feel whole, as a multi player only game seems to make many feel like it isnt a game at all. I would prefer not to have a tacked on simgle player at the expense of the multiplayer because it isnt worth my time when I could be enjoying the real game. Think of the people who dont play single player.

 

[ablac]

Obviously the single player is the only important thing.
That's why I hate these two pieces of crap I played called Team Fortress 2 and MAG. MAG's single player can be beaten in literally five minutes, if you go slow. TF2 doesn't even HAVE one.

God what terrible games

That is like saying I consider GTA 4 and HL 2 two pieces of crap, since GTA multiplayer was god awful, and Half Life didn't even have one.

Yes.
That is exactly what it is like
Because that is the idea behind the statement.
You are a silly person

No, you are making a silly statement.
Maybe you should talk with CliffB then, I am sure his idea that everything needs multiplayer will sound like an epiphany to you.

Read what he said and you'll realise how stupid that statement was.

 

[ablac]

My opinion is that a multiplayer-focused game should cost at the most 3/4s of what a single-player focused game does.

I mean, let's face it, multiplayer takes a LOT less effort to create than a well-made, or even decently made, single player campaign. Multipayer has only two aspects; gameplay and graphics, while single player has gameplay, graphics, story, soundtrack, and character design.

And a game like the new Call of Duty's, where everything is just recycled from the previous games with improved graphics, shouldn't cost more than 30 bucks brand new.

I mean, I like popping in CoD and shooting some noobs as much as the next guy, but realistically it doesn't have half the quality of Mass Effect, Far Cry 2, Freelancer, Aquanox, etc.

I would argue that you can have an engaging story in a multiplayer game and multiplayer doesnt mean versus. It also has characetr design and a soundtrack just look at TF2. Multiplayer, well good multiplayer at least, needs a lot of fine balance and to have player strategy more at the forefront. If in a single player game you have 3 or 4 options for apporach, if your lucky, then a multi player game which will be played repeatedly needs many more and they all need to be viable to a degree. COD is an example of simple multiplayer but it isnt the only example. Effort is not a matter of requirement but one of conviction and dedication. Dont claim any game requires more effort inherently than any other.

 

[ablac]

No because once Multiplayer is no longer supported then it's the only thing left that you can actually do with it right out of the box.

Because all games must be forever playable.

 

[TheGreatAndPowerfulZOG]

Well, if you read the review instead of just looking the score...

 

[StriderShinryu]

I see no real problem with a game either featuring lacking single player or lacking single player altogether. Fighting games, as an easy example, often lack in single player content yet provide literally years worth of multiplayer. Many first person shooters are the same with their 5 hour campaigns but months worth of multiplayer.

I want a game to do what it does extremely well. It's really just a bonus when the side content is good as well and, quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with a game's single player modes being that side content. It really becomes a personal value judgement, which is why I rarely buy first person shooters at release price. I often enjoy their campaigns but don't play their multiplayer modes regardless of how good they are, so I will choose to not spend $60 on a 5 hour campaign.

The idea that a game needs to have strong single player to be a good, or even great, game is a silly one.

 

[Raymond Liang]

Bad single player really can't be excused. If a developer is going to put single player in, then it has to be at least decent, even with multi player.

Multi player has the inherent problem of not working independent to what the gamer does, such as internet connection problems, server crashes, etc. This would be fine if that was all the game featured, as then it would be up to the gamer's discretion in whether to buy it or not. However, when the game also has single player, then the developers have to make sure that the single player is good enough that it can stand by itself when those situations happen.

 

[Biodeamon]

only if the own the most godly multiplayer on the planet. battlefield and ORC i'm staring at you.

 

[Awexsome]

Having a part of the game be, "bad" is never a good thing. But if the game's primary focus is multiplayer like in CoD or Battlefield then it's certainly excusable for those who enjoy the multiplayer.

For those who play for single player of course they won't be happy with it but multiplayer focused and single player games are both perfectly viable ways to make games.