Poll: A Game Must Stand On Singleplayer Alone

[Vykrel]

i would have to say no... i mean, just think about games like say, Battlefield. the main selling point of a series like that is the multiplayer. the campaign is a nice addition, but it doesnt need to hold up. the multiplayer must shine, though. BF has always been about the multiplayer.

games like Halo should be half and half. both single and multiplayer need to be about equally great, because both are equally important to the fan base.

and a game like Mass Effect 3 just needs the single player to be excellent. the multiplayer was new and it didnt matter much if it was good. the real draw was the single player. thankfully, the multiplayer turned out to be great.


anyway, it all depends on the game.

 

[jab136]

I honestly could give a vorcha's ass about most multiplayers (the only ones that I play regularly are ME3 and any COD zombies) but whenever a MP is tacked on, then the SP tends to suffer case in point ME3.

 

[RN7]

This question is somewhat ambiguous, and a yes/no type of system doesn't really do it justice. If the game is designed to be multi-player-based, like League of Legends or Team Fortress 2, there is literally no need for any sort of single-player element to be included. However, if a game chooses to include a single-player element, that game should have a reasonable single-player experience, or else it's pretty much just a waste of resources. For example, recent Call of Duty games have what I would call a paltry single-player experience, and would likely be better off simply focusing on the zombie and multi-player game modes.

 

[wild0061]

A debate that comes up on Zero/Extra Punctuation regularly is that a game must stand up without having a multi-player aspect or mode. I have had a similar debate with friends and my brother with this regarding Hitman: Absolution, and it's Contracts mode. So, what is your view on this topic? (I am only referring to games with BOTH Single and Multi-player e.g Call of Duty, Far Cry 3, Max Payne 3 ect.)

Unless i didn't notice a part of the contracts mode allowing more than one person to play a contract at any one time, it is SP, only made by other people rather than the devs, so 'technically' hitman is all SP isn't it?

Don't care for MP personally, the 'tacked on' MP trend is a bit tedious (its funny if the devs even agree its tacked on like Spec Ops), though its fair enough for the MP with tacked on SP campaign, they make the majority of the dough from selling $15 map packs (i would assume at least) and they need MP to be able to peddle that to their customers.
But if the focus is on MP, then the whole game will sell dirt cheap late in the map pack cycle anyway (when they'll try flog it off on the cheap to get more customers buying map packs), and you can pick it up really cheap for a quick/cheap SP experience if you want.

It is a bit worrying if long running SP games get the MP fever, and feel the need to tack on a MP component even if its not appropriate, and divert resources away from a good SP campaign just for a map pack cash grab (or items etc.), though nobody's forcing us to buy anything, just watch for trends, buy cheap, or don't buy at all, easy.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

No. In the vast history of games and play you tend to find other people are often involved. The electronic game simply makes it possible for one or more participants to be non-human - that does not mean that this is the only valid model.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

The answer is not simply yes or no, it is simple though, IF a game includes single player then it should stand on its own; But if a game does not include it then it should not.

The second post sums this up.

There are:
-Singleplayer only games
-Multiplayer only games
-Games with both
-Games with singleplayer that have an optional multiplayer side component that works its way into the singleplayer.

My opinion is this: if you have a singleplayer campaign at all, You are leaving it open to criticism based on the singleplayer alone. The online features should not be required. Multiplayer only games

This was the primary controversy of the Diablo III thing, it required you to be part of the online experience even when you didn't want to.

 

[l3o2828]

The answer is not simply yes or no, it is simple though, IF a game includes single player then it should stand on its own; But if a game does not include it then it should not.

Well....
I have nothing else to say.
This is it.
I don't care if the game is multiplayer focused, if you have a single player in any way, then that single player has to stand tall and provide as much enjoyment as possible.

 

[Russian_Assassin]

Life is mostly single player, so it feels more interesting to me. Besides, I tend to become feral when I lose in an online match, so for the sake of not buying a new keyboard every day, I stick with single player experiences.

 

[NinjaSniperAssassin]

I don't think every game needs to stand on single-player alone, but there definitely individual games that do. The biggest problem I have, however, is when MP is shoehorned into games that don't need it. Bioshock 2 is a prime example. Who looked at the perfectly-paced, story-driven, methodical, haunting, brilliant masterpiece that was the first Bioshock and thought "Ya know what that needs? Twitchy idiots swearing at each other over headsets! Yeah!" Oh that's right, the one who looked at the CoD sales figures. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood is another example. I never played it so I can't comment on the quality of the MP or if SP suffered, but I did love AC2 and there's no way in hell that game needed a MP component. At least they tried to be original about it.

The latest example of this is God of War: Ascension. Seriously, who in the flying mother of fuck thought the GoW series needed MP? At least Bioshock's story was setting-based instead of character-based so it didn't feel TOO weird being put into the shoes of a run-of-the-mill splicer (yeah, I know the main character was important, but he was still a blank slate: Rapture was the star of the game). GoW, on the other hand? Playing as Kratos IS GoW! The point of the series isn't just to explore ancient Greece, or kill Minotaurs, or even curb-stomp the Greek Gods, it's doing all that as demi-god one-man wrecking crew Kratos. You empathize with him (to a point), you guide him through the game, but in the end the satisfaction comes from seeing Kratos work out his daddy issues in the most awe-inspiringly brutal fashion imaginable. Taking you out of his shoes (or sandals, whatever) and making you a faceless nobody destroys what makes the series so enjoyable and turns it into another generic hacky-slashy-stabby gorefest. I'm not saying the game won't be good, but if the SP suffers a dip in quality because the crew allocated valuable resources to the most pointless MP mode since Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal I'm gonna be so pissed. Like, charge up the side of Mount Olympus on the back of a rampaging Titan to introduce the King of the Gods to the business end of my blade pissed.

 

[rob_simple]

I think the issue is more on how games should be marketed. If a game only has a tokenisitc single player campaign like the CoD games, it shouldn't be advertised as involving a rich and complex narrative like it often is; the focus of advertising should instead be about the multiplayer elements.

I have no problems with games being multiplayer-focused; I do have a problem with being tricked into buying a game with a four hour campaign, but a thriving multiplayer community I have no interest in.

I also find it grating when games have a completely broken single player element like Dead Island, which rendered the levelling system completely pointless by having all enemies in the game level up at the same rate as you if you play alone.

 

[Nerexor]

For me it does, but that's because I generally dislike playing multiplayer, especially in shooters. Which explains why I haven't bought a lot of shooters lately, as they all seem to be designed with only multiplayer in mind.

At the end of the day though it depends on what we're talking about in terms of the games faults. A game with poor gameplay mechanics probably won't be saved by multiplayer because multiplayer will probably just be more of the same. A game with solid mechanics but a poor campaign will at least seem better in multiplayer because the crappy campaign aspect isn't there anymore.

In my mind what really needs to stop are games trying to be both. If you're going to have a single player campaign, make it fun please. If you're making a game pretty much solely for multiplayer, then how about you just make it a multiplayer game! Those seem to be doing pretty well from all the warking I hear about League of Legends and Team Fortress 2 (which is still apparently popular despite being ages old). But if you're making a primarily story based single player game don't pull a Mass Effect 3 and add useless multiplayer to it. And if you're making another overly brown realistic shooter game, don't feel compelled to add a campaign to it! Instead try being creative and coming up with new and interesting multiplayer modes or something.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

It depends on what the game is designed for. I can't really argue that Team Fortress or DotA are bad games because of their single player. Super Smash Brothers has a mediocre single player. Any fighting game, in fact. Most racing games...

I think what Yahtzee usually gets down on is when a game attaches single player as a novelty, like the Modern Warfare type shooters. Or, perhaps more rarely, when a game doesn't know what it wants to be, and has half-assed multiplayer and singleplayer.

So I agree to the extent that games with an actual fleshed out Single Player mode should be worth buying for that single player alone. Borderlands 2 imo does not do well in this respect.

Racing games, fighting games, some shooters, RTS, sports games(?) usually have single player as an extended tutorial for multiplayer. Goldeneye is a good example of a game doing this right. Goldeneye had a long, in depth single player game. If you put the game modes side by side, Single Player would clearly be the more developed mode. But multiplayer was a blast anyway.

 

[lokicdn]

I think if you are going to make a game that includes both multiplayer and single you have to create a good single player experience. It's simple economics, a game with a solid single player experience can thrive with crummy multiplayer. A game with less then outstanding multiplayer will tank if the single player stinks.

 

[lacktheknack]

It depends.

Should Team Fortress 2 stand on the merits of its single-player?

Should Mass Effect stand on the merits of its single-player?

 

[dvd_72]

It depends on the type of game. If it wants to focus on multiplayer (competitive or co-op)then that is what it needs to be judged on. Games like these would benefit by not wasting time and money on a tacked on single player component. If the game wants to focus on single player then it needs to focus its money and time on its single player and be judged on said single player. It all depends on the focus of the game itself.

 

[Mikejames]

Neither variance should be tacked on for the sake of it. If a game is going to implement single-player it should make the effort for it to be able to stand on its own.

It depends.
Should Team Fortress 2 stand on the merits of its single-player?

No.

Should Mass Effect stand on the merits of its single-player?

Yes.

Assuming that was rhetorical, it pretty much covers the distinction.

 

[Subscriptism]

It must be a able to stand on single player alone for me to respect it

I will however make exceptions of L4D and L4D2. They're just too damn good.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

Unless the game is entirely multiplayer focused, yes. Spare a thought for the people that don't have a good connection, or XBOX Live. You could give them the most spectacular multiplayer game in the world, but they couldn't enjoy it.

 

[Broken Blade]

For me to buy it, the single player MUST stand on its own. I have never and probably will never buy a game for the multiplayer.

 

[Arrogancy]

It depends. Certain games are designed solely as multiplayer games, and in that case they do not need a single-player experience to round itself off. However, when a game sells itself as having a single-player aspect it MUST stand on single-player because the multiplayer is not inherently part of the experience. I don't care how great the multiplayer campaign for Call of Duty is, if it's a game that operates under the pretense of being single-player it must have a worthwhile single-player portion of the game.