Poll: A Game Must Stand On Singleplayer Alone

[Legion]

The way I look at it:

If you design a new game that has both single player and multiplayer, then ideally they should both be worth the time and effort, or else you may as well only have one of them.

If you make a series that is single player, and then the multiplayer is added on in a sequel (Assassins Creed Brotherhood+, Dead Space 2, Bishock 2, Mass Effect 3) then the single player should still be the priority. It is a perfectly valid complaint if people are pissed off that multiplayer is added if the single player has any glaring flaws.

Games that are purely multiplayer from the start I cannot see the issue with.

 

[The Funslinger]

Similarly, titles must be able to stand on their nouns alone.

 

[Sidmen]

Does every game have to stand on single player alone? No.

But for F's sake, let me know if you're planning on half-assing it. Most of these "mostly multiplayer" games try to sell me on them by barely mentioning multiplayer and advertising their single-player elements.

You say "people who play Modern Warfare 3 mostly play the multiplayer, so their pathetic single-player can be excused." But, how am I supposed to know that? I played Modern Warfare 1 for its single-player, it was short (about 12 hours, cuz I suck at shooters)but it was great. Subsequent installments have been terrible for me, Black Ops was perhaps the worst shooter I've ever played - dying a billion times trying to get through a bombed out trench because they magically spawned enemies on all sides without telling anyone - then when I finally made it to the other side they shot me dead in a cut scene and even though I spent hours dying and respawning, it was still criminally short.

Thing is, if I hadn't suffered through a number of awful installments - paying 60 bucks for each one - I might get suckered in by their amazing visual effects and think they might have a fun and interesting campaign.

 

[Hisshiss]

What kind of bullshit is that?

I'm a primarily single player chap myself, and I'm not too keen on the idea of crowbarring multiplayer into everything. (Although I am yet to see a game significantly lessened by the inclusion of MP). That said, a multiplayer game is allowed to be a multiplayer game.

I don't see anyone slagging on Team Fortress, League of Legends, Tribes or Natural Selection for not "standing on single player alone". They don't have to. They're multiplayer games. Anyone who buys them and complains about the lack of single player is a twit.

QFT, Im glad to see someone that understands how selfish the mentality that every game on earth has to have a well put together version of your mode of choice cus anything else is a crime against these unfortunate people without an internet connection posting on an internet forum.


And as long as we are preaching this argument, I want co-op in everything, all the time for 100% of the game, none of this stapled on horde mode clone copy crap, and the fact that every game on earth doesn't do this is a crime against the gaming community as a whole and rabble rabble internet.

<3

 

[Xangba]

I said yes because I assume this is about games that actually have a single player. Team Fortress for example, is a multiplayer game, plain and simple. Call of Duty and Halo claims to be both and shoves in a five hour incredibly mediocre campaign. If you are going to have some kind of campaign, you damn well better put effort into it. Especially when you advertise the hell out of it.

 

[Gottesstrafe]

I think you're taking that statement either too literally or out of context. Rather than "A game must stand up without having a multi-player aspect or mode", I think it should be "A game's single player mode should be able to stand up on its own in spite of its multi-player content". It's a matter of efficiently allocating resources. If the dev team feels that including a single player mode as a core component in a multi-player focused game is important enough to devote time and money to, then it should be competently strung together and be able to provide a good experience to the player. Otherwise it's just a massive waste of resources that could be used to polish the mutli-player. Likewise, if a single player focused game must have a mutli-player aspect, then it should be consistent with the game's overall tone (i.e. if you're developing a claustrophobic horror game emphasizing fear and oppression like Silent Hill, don't include 4 player co-op), not penalize people who choose to forgo it (i.e. terrible NPC partner A.I. or features only available during co-op), and clearly be second in priority to the single player when it comes to rationing company resources to.

I'm a little more forgiving when it's clear that tacked on single/multi-player doesn't interfere with the main focus of the game and isn't advertised as a core feature. Sometimes they're just little fun tidbits to extend the life of the game after you've beaten the single player campaign, or provide some quick entertainment when you're taking a break from the mutli-player or waiting for your friends to come on.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Every game must stand on single player alone,before trying anything else in my own opinion.

There are some exceptions to this where the games are only made for multiplayer(Counter Strike,Team Fortress 2 etc).

 

[bafrali]

If you're going to put a single player campaign into your game then yes it should be able to stand on it's own merits. If your game is multi-player focused then rather than give us a shitty, tacked on SP experience take that time and use it to fine tune your multi-player.

Multi-player focus is no excuse, a shit campaign is a shit campaign. Make it good or don't bother with one at all.

You did this argument justice sir.

Yes, If there is single player in a game, it should stand up on its own as it tends to give a consistent experience contrary to the multiplayer that can be ruined by bad connection and bad community.

 

[Smooth Operator]

No a game should stand on what it's selling, if you promised SP then you better damn deliver or we will tear you a new one.

That being said I couldn't really think of a game that would be worth the full price with MP alone.

 

[webkilla]

TF2 doesn't really have singleplayer - it has a training mode with bots, but that's about it

Compare to something like Terraria where you can easily play single player up to a certain point - but hardmode is damn near impossible unless you're in multiplayer

Games in the Elder Scrolls series or the Deus Ex games are good examples of singleplayer games that stand well on their own - and having no real multiplayer

MMS games like Call of battlefield black shooter down... well - their singleplayer campaigns are IMO just training tools to get players good enough to move over to multiplayer afterwards - so they're basically self-glorifying training maps, with a silly story tacked on 'just because'.

But it all comes down to what you want to make/sell. If you want to sell a good singleplayer experience, then make that. If you want to sell a good multiplayer experience, make that. If you want both... well... try.

 

[Gatx]

If you're going to put a single player campaign into your game then yes it should be able to stand on it's own merits. If your game is multi-player focused then rather than give us a shitty, tacked on SP experience take that time and use it to fine tune your multi-player.

Multi-player focus is no excuse, a shit campaign is a shit campaign. Make it good or don't bother with one at all.

Well that's not entirely fair is it. There are some games with good single player campaigns with rather lackluster multiplayer, but it'd be crazy to review the game SOLELY on the multiplayer. Likewise it's only fair that a multiplayer focused game, like say Battlefield (which Yahtzee based his review more or less on campaign only), shouldn't be dragged down by a crappy single player mode.

 

[frizzlebyte]

What kind of bullshit is that?

I'm a primarily single player chap myself, and I'm not too keen on the idea of crowbarring multiplayer into everything. (Although I am yet to see a game significantly lessened by the inclusion of MP). That said, a multiplayer game is allowed to be a multiplayer game.

I don't see anyone slagging on Team Fortress, League of Legends, Tribes or Natural Selection for not "standing on single player alone". They don't have to. They're multiplayer games. Anyone who buys them and complains about the lack of single player is a twit.

The OP was, in fact, talking about games with both, not just one or the other.

As for what I think: absolutely. If singleplayer can't stand alone, then don't bloody include it, or put more funds toward it. Multiplayer games, for the most part, are played for a little while by the majority of players, then quickly forgotten about and relegated to being kept up by a small, hardcore group of players.

Singleplayer games will, if they are done right, be played for years after their release.

 

[mysecondlife]

If its a full $60 price, then yes. No excuses.

I haven't played any multiplayer game worth that much.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

No of course it shouldn't. A game should be judged based solely on the enjoyment you get out of it. I mean what if the next Fallout's campaign was 5 minutes long but had some multiplayer feature that you enjoyed more than all your favorite games combined. You would look like and idiot saying "I'm not playing this because, despite being the best game ever, the single player wasn't good."

 

[BreakfastMan]

If a game is going to include a single-player mode in addition to a multiplayer mode, they should at least include a good one. Otherwise, why bother? It is just as pointless it include a crappy, token single-player mode into your multiplayer game as it is pointless to include a crappy, token multiplayer mode into your single-player game. :\

 

[Xdeser2]

Personally: A Good Single Player beats a good Multiplayer in my book, however, no, a game can be excused with Good multiplayer, If They just dont ship it with a campaign in the first place.

 

[gamexpert1990]

Yes, but co-op may excuse it.

My reason is that many of my favorite games are single player, some of which include a co-op option. Also, I think that there are some (though maybe not many) strictly single player games that could work just as well as a co-op effort. Here's an example of one of my personal favorite games: Dark Cloud 2 (PS2) - One player could control Max/Ridepod, while the other player could play as Monica/Monsters. If anyone has ever played this game before, I think they could see the potential...

 

[Danzavare]

Not at all. I think this is one of those times where Yahtzee is saying something to rag on current shooters (COD, Battlefield) without necessarily thinking how it also affects old shooters.

To illustrate my point: Timesplitters 2.

As far as console shooters go, that game is one of the all-time classics. A certain age-group of FPS fans will always go misty-eyed whenever the game is mentioned. It's one of the most beloved shooters of any generation, even if it didn't rack up the sales of Halo or COD.

Does it have a good single-player? Fuck no. The single-player campaign is literally just a bunch of random levels thrown together with no real story, and only an occasional cutscene to tie everything together. The campaign isn't bad, but it's hardly great either.

So why did people love Timesplitters 2? The multiplayer. At the time it came out, it had one of the most complete multiplayer components of any console shooter. Not only did it have full options for split-screen and lanning, it allowed for massive amounts of bots too, meaning you could hook up with your friends and fight against hordes of enemy chimpanzees and robot cowboys. Even more importantly, it had its own level-creator, years before Forge, and complete customisation of match rules, meaning you could create a level and set the game rules to whatever you wanted.

Timesplitters 2 as a single-player game is alright, but ultimately pretty underwhelming. As a multiplayer game, however? It's one of the most fun shooters ever released for a console, and an example of developers going above and beyond the call of duty (ha!) to give players a rewarding, deep, fun experience. And I get the impression that even Yahtzee, hipster for old shooters that he is, would have to agree.

I wouldn't call it underwhelming as a single player game. I spent plenty of time having fun with the numerous challenges and tournaments single-player. The ability to use a wide range of bots with different stats and an awesome collection of weapons meant I could enjoy all the match types without needing to have friends by my side to do it. I definitely enjoyed the multiplayer too, but going back to it now I think the single-player aspects of it stand up just fine on their own. I thought Timesplitters 2 did an excellent job of making conventionally multiplayer-styled gameplay accessible to a single player. I wish more modern FPS games adopted a similar approach.

In short: I feel it worked great as both a single-player and multiplayer game.

On topic: I tend to dislike when multiplayer or single-player is tacked on in a shallow or half-hearted way. If single-player is essentially just a tutorial or lead-in to multiplayer, then don't advertise it as a single-player experience. Likewise, if your multiplayer is just a few short minigames or only partially functional version of the single-player game then don't have it or at least don't try to present it as anything more.

Edit: I should add that my personal favourite is offline co-op. So something like Borderlands 2 or maybe (ironically) Phantasy Star Online Episode 1 & 2, but definitely not like Fable 2 or 3.

 

[Okulossos]

whatever you include has to be done right or not done at all. If you include Sp then do it right.
The game has to feel like it was made for SP with everything it needs, such as SP-type gameplay, decent AI, a (halfway) decent story.
For a decent MP you just might need a different type of gameplay (look at quake 4 for example), different physics etc.

But in the end I think, that a game that focuses only on MP with no option whatsoever to play offline is not doing it right. You at least have to give new players the ability to try out the weapons, look at the maps, check out the movement and gameplay etc... So you should at least include some bots if you do an MP mod that stands alone or is different from the delivered SP.

I think that games can do very well without MP, but without SP the game has to be near perfect, or offer something special to stand it's ground.

 

[ikoian]

While I do prefer games single player standing on it's own in a game, I'm not entirely against sticking multi player into something so long as it is presented in a way that suits the game. For example, while an Elder Scrolls MMO doesn't sound appealing to me, what with all the restrictions the upcoming one will have versus the single player games, what does sound interesting is a BattleNet style drop in drop out multiplayer mode where players can host their game and what not. Or say have special seprate co-op dungeons in a Zelda game that would be both optional but have special benefits for completing them.
What does sadden me though, is when studios feel pressured into wasting resources into adding multi player in a game where it might not belong, or if those resources could be spent building a better single player mode in a game that is trying to sell itself on both.