Life without multi player.

[notsosavagemessiah]

certain types of games were simply meant for multiplayer, like fighters for example. Yes, multiplayer is an important component of gaming if only for social value alone. But developers should not frame their games strictly around that experience. All aspects of a game should be fleshed out, period.

 

[Legion IV]

Life without Multiplayer

Would be a far better world.

Dont you like playing with your friends? i love single player games but dont you love having your mates over relaxing on the couch getting some drinks and food and just relax? hows that a bad thing?

 

[Wraithspine]

Wow I thought i was alone with only yahtzee for company in a sea of morons who actually like 12 year old kids with parental issues screaming at how I am a (Insert stupid incomprehensible offense here). I have nothing against multiplayer so long as i am in the same room. I like to play with my friends (2) and as we are poor we cant bring our tellies and consoles round each other. BRING BACK SPLIT SCREEN!!!!

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

P.S.
Don't even get me started on DLC.

DLC > Multiplayer

I mean, seriously. DLC is single player content. I'd rather buy Horse Armor than a Map Pack, because it'll be there forever. With MP, once the community goes, the game is nearly useless. Unless you just want to dick around with a few friends, and can actually arrange a full match.

But you don't have to buy the map pack to play the multiplayer :S you COULD buy modern warefare 2s stimulus pack orrrrrr you could just stick with the games original maps and when you want to play with friends you can.

OT: The only multiplayer games I like are either fun party-esque games or beat-em-ups with friends anyway, as long as Brawl and MvC and Mario Kart are still multiplayer I'm ok with it, but I think it's online multiplayer that's bad, not multiplayer in general, when it's splitscreen or all in the same room like Brawl etc then it's an incredible experience, online it's boring as hell

 

[The Stonker]

If there was no Multiplayer then there would be no wow.
Wouldn't that be an awesome world? Loads of people would be in the sun having fun or playing other games.
But I frown upon Online multiplayer but LAN well I like being next to my buddies.

I played Wow since the beginning (stopped 2009) and it really is a horrible game which does horrific things to you.

 

[black orchid1]

i think life would be so much more simple, and there would be less rageing at games

 

[tehweave]

Life without Multiplayer

Would be a far better world.

I raise my glass to both of you. Rejoice to the gamers who enjoy the good old one-on-one experience.

Seconded

You've got my vote, good sir.

 

[Drakmeire]

People would learn to take turns and not be so controlling, all 12 year old gamers are now very polite, and soon world peace is declared.

 

[Blueruler182]

It's interesting that I of all people have to stand up for the non-social rejects and say: It's a game. Playing with other people is part of the experience. And, the fact of the matter is, some of the worse games imaginable have tried to stand up on single player. Look at every modern sonic game. There are people who like to play a quick deathmatch with some friends, and, in all honesty, the word "game" usually comes with the connotation of "other people" or "friends". There are exceptions, and I love single player games that actually manage to be good (they're few and far between these days), multiplayer is what people come back for, and I often find myself enjoying that experience more than the single player.

To an extent, I agree single player should be longer. But think that through. That's more time with the crappy story and bad vehicle sections. If it's genuinely good (Arkham Asylum) then it's not a problem, but there's a lot of games that just have horrible stories, even when they try and focus solely on it.

 

[GLo Jones]

I live for online multiplayer. I play my games mainly for the camaraderie, and fun times had amongst my friends and I.

I only tend to enjoy the single player experience if it's a 'single player only' game. In a world without online multiplayer, I would likely cease to be a gamer.

 

[ever-vigilant]

Hmm, looks like alot has been lost with time, I'm not against multiplayer, I just dont like it when most of the developers put all their effort into a games multiplayer mode a put on a single player mode that is held together with blue tac. It's that this is a common trend that happens more frequently.with time untill oneday the gaming world will leave me behind with my dusty old platform games and my 0.5mb internet speed.
Also I can't get online gaming because you can't do it with dialup apparently.

 

[sharok]

It's nice to see that there are a few people who are like me : fine with multiplayer, but shunning the despicable behavior that permeates most, if not all, online games.
I used to play Quake - the original, not II or III - on a LAN with buddies. Yes, I am that old. Heck, we were happy we had a LAN ! It was great fun.
When the Internet finally arrived to my PC, I tried online Quake a few times, and systematically came away with a foul taste in my mouth and utter, utter incomprehension at how some people can so easily ruin the game experience for everyone else.
From that time, and I'm talking around 1997, I decided that online gaming was just not for me.
And I stand by that decision.
Every now and then, I dare myself to try again. For Battlefield 1942, for example. What. A. Disaster. Every match I tried online, EVERY SINGLE ONE, I had more to fear from the fricking, bunny-hopping lunatics ON MY OWN SIDE, then from the enemy. Jesus H. Christ in a bucket, there's a WHOLE OTHER SIDE to shoot at, and you morons have to target ME ?!
Note that I do not confuse multiplayer with online play. I play BF2 over the internet with buddies twice a week, co-op of course, and it's great, we all have loads of laughs (sometimes my wife has to come down to remind me that my daughter is trying to sleep). Recently, I tried with Guild Wars, dragged into that by a few friends. The time spent with my friends is always a good time.
Then I tried Guild Wars with players I didn't know a few times. I systematically got called a noob, or worse, and only managed to end a quest with a player once. He must have been the only nice guy on the web since Y2K.
I'll cut this short by repeating myself : multiplayer I'm fine with, as long the players are all people I know.
Online can go screw itself, the "gamers" out there are not there to play the game with you, they're only interested in either killing you and raping your corpse, or finding the most despicable way to gratuitously insult you and keep you from enjoying anything.
Ugh.

 

[The Only]

i need multilayer my brother and i had one console and hated to wait in line to play a single player player game

 

[JEBWrench]

I certainly enjoy local multiplayer. Especially now that my wife is getting into PC Gaming.

Online? Meh.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

I don't go online at all to play (other than the few times I have that basically are so few they don't count) and probably never will again but I have a library of thousands of games to play so I'm never at a loss as far as not having something to do.

 

[Enigmers]

I think split-screen multiplayer is (usually) best, and games like Starcraft have some great multiplayer, but a lot of what I play is single player, like Sam & Max, Torchlight, Titan Quest, and so on. What I like about single player games is you don't have to wait for anyone else to join you, you can go play whenever you have time or whenever you eel like it.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

The world would be in less chaos and parents would be raising their kids correctly.

 

[RicoADF]

Life without Multiplayer

Would be a far better world.

I raise my glass to both of you. Rejoice to the gamers who enjoy the good old one-on-one experience.

We should start a club! lol
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

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Multi player. Back when I started gaming it was an optional extra that games had. They had to stand up as a world beating single player experiance.My most cherished gomes, old and new, have all been made with the single player in mind. Banjo-Kazooie, Mario 64, Metal Gear Solid, Skies od Arcadia and mostly Beyond Good and Evil.

These games of the N64/PSOne era also saw the rise of multiplayer. Mario Kart, Star Fox, Goldeneye, Gran Turismo and the like made inroads on the console front while games like Duke Nukem 3D and Quake were all the rage on the early internet. Multiplayer was certainly beginning to rear it's head by this point.

But now I can't go anywhere without hearing about how "Game-X is so awsome online" and how "I'm missing out on the REAL experiance". Yes I don't have Xbox live but I don't see how that changes anything. Surly a game should be good regardles of being online?

It depends entirely upon the context of the game. In most cases I play a single player only game until the end, file it away and never touch it again. Games with interesting multiplayer components can keep me around for months or years. Mechwarrior IV's single player was awful, but the multiplayer component was so excellent I played the game for nearly four years. Games like Call of Duty have single player experiences but the bulk of the content to be had sits online with other players.

In some cases, online play makes little sense, and it's inclusion is baffling. Bioshock was a game that was obviously poorly suited to adversarial OR cooperative multiplayer and yet the included the former regardless in the sequel. After playing both the single player game and the online component I couldn't help but think the resources spent making an utterly uniteresting online game could have been better spent making the first 1/3 of the game interesting.

The point I am trying to make is that why should I have to pay for the real experiance when I allready payed for it?

If you do not pay to play a game who's primary draw is the online component, and you choose to play said game on a platform that charges a fee for the privledge, then you have not, in fact, paid for the real experience. Tribes' single player component consisted of a handful of exceedingly dull tutorial missions, were I to ignore the online component I'd consider the game an enormous waste of money. Instead, it ranks among the best games I've ever played.

I'm not against multi player games (split screen, do you remember that? Left 4 Dead, Time Splitters 2, Golden Eye). I just feel disheartened that more games are aimed at the multiplayer experiance than it is at the bitter lone wolf gamers who play to get away from the morons in life (like Yahtzee does).

Does anyone even know what I'm on about or am I just some dick shouting at a deaf world?

P.S.
Don't even get me started on DLC.

I don't see an argument being made here.


You don't make a case for why a game OUGHT to focus on single player, nor do you give me a reason to dislike games who focus on multiplayer at the expense of the single player element. In all honesty, it sounds like you took a talking point from one of the shows here on the escapist and made a thread.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

I think multiplayer should be made after single player is finished.

If it's done that way, I'm usually ok with multiplayer. Seriously, why does everyone think that multiplayer is always populated with idiots? Sure, you'll find a game now and then full of mic spammers/idiots trying to be black and (unhilariously) failing, but most of the time it's good.