Is bad single player excusable?

[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.

 

[Dethenger]

My initial reaction was no, but upon reflection, yes. If:
A) It is a multiplayer-only game, a la TF2, in which case awful single-player can't be a deal-breaker, it's not even a factor. Games like this can still certainly be fun. If you're into single-player, this simply isn't your market.
B) It is clearly a multiplayer-centered game, a la Halo, and the the campaign is optional; in such a case it's similar to a tutorial, getting the player familiar with the game before throwing them into the competitive arena. This is fine; but must still include split-screen, because not everyone has an internet connection.

It is inexcusable, though, if the game is single-player only, or if the game was single-player only, but the single-player dropped in quality after the introduction of multiplayer. This would be inexcusable.

 

[Strain42]

I think that it all depends on two things.

1. What the game is, and possibly more importantly
2. What the developer is telling us about it.

If a game is advertised from the get-go as a multi-player experience, then it can be forgiven for forgoing the single player. Anyone who goes into it expecting single player hasn't been paying attention, and they should have done a bit more research before buying it. If it was on display from the start "We are building this game primarily for multi-player purposes!" then I say they do whatever.

But if the game is built for mostly multi-player, and yet the single campaign is a laod of garbage after we were told that it wouldn't be, that's not cool.

I do find it a bit odd that if you buy a game based on single player with a good single player that happens to have a good multi-player system our response is "Ah, well that's nice"

But if we buy a game based on multi-player with good multi-player and a good story we go "That's the way it's supposed to be."

Speaking as someone who never (ever ever ever) plays online, I think it's important for games to stand on their own two feet for someone who is playing alone. But, I think if a game is advertised to be a multi-player experience, there's not much point in complaining if the single campaign doesn't make par.