I like multiplayer but single player is way better today developers focus to much on multiplayer than the solo player and that sucks
Life without multi player.
- Thread starter ever-vigilant
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Do you really believe this? WoW did not make it's rise because of other games, but rather because of the relative success of Everquest. Everquest itself had but one claim to fame: it was the first 3d persistant version of the old MUD style of game. MUD's, MOOs and other games have literally ben around for nearly as long as games. Indeed, more than 30 years ago Core Wars provided a text based network driven multiplayer experience. There are, in fact, many examples of such things that predate the modern internet by a fair margin.the stonker said:
Moreover, to assert that WoW is some sort of penultimate evil is a bit overwrought in my book. If you look at the pedigree that lead to the Everquest and WoW you'll find that the core gameplay experience has remained the same and the only advancements any such games have brought is in presentation.
Besides, games are and have historically been social experiences. The only way to prevent the rise of multiplayer is to prevent the internet from benig invented. At the very least this would require a dramatic rewriting of history starting in the 20's or so (and you may want to take out Bell, Tesla, Watt...pretty much every major inventor of the last 500 years or so). In much the same fashion, the only way to prevent WoW (or something very much like it) is to travel back in time and kill Gygax and the rest of the Pen and Paper legends. And Tolkien.
Different strokes for different folks.
Do what you enjoy, ignore everyone else.
If you're interested in my opinion, I reckon games should try for one or the other.
Either go down the pure multiplayer route, such as team fortress 2, or pure single player, such as Bioshock or Fallout 3. Co-op is viable, but when you start adding in player facing off against identical player, you inevitably run into issues that change the game from the single player experience.
Best just to focus on one area, and perfect it.
Do what you enjoy, ignore everyone else.
If you're interested in my opinion, I reckon games should try for one or the other.
Either go down the pure multiplayer route, such as team fortress 2, or pure single player, such as Bioshock or Fallout 3. Co-op is viable, but when you start adding in player facing off against identical player, you inevitably run into issues that change the game from the single player experience.
Best just to focus on one area, and perfect it.
I really enjoy playing challenging games multiplayer (typically coop, and the rare game where you need to specialize, like PlanetSide or any of the large Battlefield games), because it usually requires strategies, tactics, role distribution and teamwork. If you succeed, you will really feel like you accomplished something together. If you fail, you can attempt to think up a new plan and go with that. Either way, it's fun in my eyes.
Unfortunately, most games nowadays take the singleplayer content and tack on a networked mode. This usually results in something meant to be done alone being unchallenging and pretty easy when working together. If not, it's pretty much always competitive gameplay without any required specialization (as in needed to be effective, not personal taste. Think anti-tank soldier or medic, or a PlanetSide hacker.) I enjoy any role pretty well as long as I'm useful, so personally such games are best for me.
Best times I had in multiplayer was Faces of War 4-player co-op. Most of the missions were commando-sized, so you'd typically have a squad of 4 guys (sometimes more guys and maybe a vehicle). We always had someone find a sniper rifle off a dead enemy, one guy running around with an anti-tank weapon, or, if we had more than 4, people crewing anti-tank guns and mortars whenever it was necessary. That game was fantastic. Not in the least because it was an incredibly adaptive tactics game. You could easily control your units with keyboard shortcuts, or go into Direct Control mode with one guy or vehicle and determine where to fire, what ammo to load, what your soldier should loot (the game kept track of every unit's inventory), where to throw grenades, you name it. Hell, it even had mine-laying and controllable coastal guns.
Enough about that though. Point is, dedicated multiplayer can make a game so much more enjoyable. Cooperative play just becomes so much deeper and more interesting with actual human intelligence by your side.
Unfortunately, most games nowadays take the singleplayer content and tack on a networked mode. This usually results in something meant to be done alone being unchallenging and pretty easy when working together. If not, it's pretty much always competitive gameplay without any required specialization (as in needed to be effective, not personal taste. Think anti-tank soldier or medic, or a PlanetSide hacker.) I enjoy any role pretty well as long as I'm useful, so personally such games are best for me.
Best times I had in multiplayer was Faces of War 4-player co-op. Most of the missions were commando-sized, so you'd typically have a squad of 4 guys (sometimes more guys and maybe a vehicle). We always had someone find a sniper rifle off a dead enemy, one guy running around with an anti-tank weapon, or, if we had more than 4, people crewing anti-tank guns and mortars whenever it was necessary. That game was fantastic. Not in the least because it was an incredibly adaptive tactics game. You could easily control your units with keyboard shortcuts, or go into Direct Control mode with one guy or vehicle and determine where to fire, what ammo to load, what your soldier should loot (the game kept track of every unit's inventory), where to throw grenades, you name it. Hell, it even had mine-laying and controllable coastal guns.
Enough about that though. Point is, dedicated multiplayer can make a game so much more enjoyable. Cooperative play just becomes so much deeper and more interesting with actual human intelligence by your side.
Lol, we should so start a club XDRicoADF said:We should start a club! lolDarkHourPrince said:
Yes multiplayer can be fun and split screen is good when you have mates around, but a game has to stand on its own with SP unless its made for MP at the outset (eg: Left 4 Dead) in which case it needs to have split-screen on consoles so u dont need the net to enjoy it
I don't mind a little multi-player, I always loved a nice dose of Mario Kart DS while on long band trips with whoever else brought their DS, but that's as far as it goes. Good ol' split-screen are good at parties or long trips. That's about it.
In my day multiplayer meant sitting on the sofa with your friends playing co op or 4 player deathmatch. These days I'm lucky to find a game that can be played by two people on the same console, but EVERY game has an online multiplayer.
Maybe I'm just crazy but I don't enjoy being yelled at by 12 year olds.
Maybe I'm just crazy but I don't enjoy being yelled at by 12 year olds.
Without multiplayer, video games could have potentially had better developed storyline in single player. High scores would still be big, and who knows, maybe the arcades would still be around.
Actually in my experience life without multiplayer was great but I got envious of my friends playing online games without me, so I bought a wireless router, wireless adapter, and a year of gold for Xbox 360, I enjoy playing with friends, and also playing some online but I feel sometimes I shouldn't be playing online cause I play alot of Soul Calibur 4 online, and people who play fighting games are very cheap gamers. Anyway I enjoy both online, and offline play.
I was seeing this from a simple by stander point I wasn't taking any thought into it.Eclectic Dreck said:
I think it's a bigger question what if video games never existed? What would then have happened.
Personally I was quite a hippocrit since I started playing WoW again and I learned to contain my self so it is not the games fault but the gamer who plays the games.
