Poll: A Game Must Stand On Singleplayer Alone

[BeanDelphiki]

Yes, it bloody well does.

Someone above mentioned the possibility of a multiplayer-only game being, "the best game ever made." Ha! Like a group read-a-long could be the best possible way to experience fine literature.

 

[Sight Unseen]

In my opinion, if a game chooses to have both singleplayer and multiplayer elements, then it should be able to stand on either one... Otherwise why include the weaker element? If it's a predominantly single player game with a tacked on multiplayer then resources which could have been used to improve the single player are being wasted in order to jump on the "everything must have multiplayer" bandwagon. If the game is predominantly multiplayer but has a short unfulfilling campaign then it is wasting resources which could be used to improve gameplay, balance, and replayability of the multiplayer.

Co-op is a bit different. If you can scale your game so that you can play your entire campaign to accomodate both single player and multiple players playing co-operatively, then both are equally good. However I dont like games which only include a few missions available with co-op as a "token" multiplayer mode, as these are a cheap way to boast multiplayer

It's not surprise to me that for the most part, the single player games I play ONLY have single player elements (Skyrim, Dishonored), and the multiplayer games I play have ONLY multiplayer ( Dota, TF2, etc) Of course there are some exceptions to this (the more recent Assassin's Creed games which have had fantastic single player AND multiplayer; but really, they have so many studios working on AC games at Ubisoft that there's not really a resource wasting here)

But yeah, most times I feel like going half and half, or worse, tacking on either a SP or MP element just detracts from the quality of the one which should be the focus.

 

[Snotnarok]

Honestly I've thought that selling the discs seperately would probably benifit the makers more than the game players considering a lot of people probably want to get their hands on CoD games but are pushed off by that ridiculous 65USD price tag. Cut the game in half multiplayer/single player and you can sell one part for cheaper.

Personally I have no interest in playing Multiplayer in games like Uncharted or Ratchet and Clank so shaving that entire part off the game would be dandy if it came with a price cut.

 

[Scow2]

Absolutely not. A lot of multiplayer games are better off for having a "tacked-on" single-player experience for when you want to play alone, harness your skills, or see what the developers can do with the game's resources when it's not constrained to ensuring that all the elements are balanced. They don't need to "Stand Alone", they just need to be there. I'd rather have a shitty campaign than no single-player experience alone. After all, the worst case scenario is that you get to ignore the single-player element.


A game's only bad if neither the single-player NOR multiplayer are capable of standing on their own.

 

[Fappy]

I disagree. Some games are more geared towards multiplayer and only include a single player mode because people like them and they are good for learning the mechanics of the game. Look at Chromehounds as an example.

 

[kickyourass]

Yes, if a game is being sold with a single player option avaliable, that single player had better be able to stand on its own.

 

[renegade7]

No, there are plenty of perfectly good multiplayer only games.

I tend to think the single player campaigns of modern shooters are just tutorials for the multiplayer mode.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

It all depends on how it is marketed, if a developer is saying that the game has a single player but the core is the multiplayer and that fact is not hidden, then it doesn't have to stand on its single player.

There is no one definitive answer, because not all games with a single player have to be the same.

Yes, if a game is being sold with a single player option avaliable, that single player had better be able to stand on its own.

Why is it multiplayer can be seen as an okay tacked on thing, but not single player depending on the game.

I disagree. Some games are more geared towards multiplayer and only include a single player mode because people like them and they are good for learning the mechanics of the game. Look at Chromehounds as an example.

You hit the nail on the head there.

 

[hoboman29]

I believe that a game can have both multiplayer and single player modes as long as it can stand on its single player. A lot of modern games could drop the pretense of being single player in favor of just multiplayer. When devs don't do that is when we have this debate.

 

[Signa]

This argument seems to focus a lot on the current trend of Garglespunkweewee, and I agree with it. Games like Call of Duty started as single player games. The current modern re-hash of them also was noted for it's single player campaign. However, after that, people started excusing the poor campaign because they spent most of their time in multiplayer. This is unexcusable, because every commercial, and every previous iteration was primarily a single player experience. Multiplayer should be the thing you do after you beat the game, not the reason you purchase it. If they want to make a multiplayer-centric Call of Duty series, it should be marketed like the Unreal Tournament series: a series that contains single player, but is mostly meant to be played online.

Now for Battlefield 3, I don't know what to think. As far as I know, the Battlefield series was never single player, or at least in the sense that COD was at the time. The fact that BF3 has a singleplayer campaign shows they were too busy trying to copy COD, rather than make the best damn multiplayer shooter they could. This makes little sense, because if people only play COD for the multiplayer, then wasting resources on something no one is looking for is just idiocy. That's EA for you I guess.

So to answer the implied question in the poll, yes, games need to stand on their singleplayer. This of course doesn't apply to games like Team Fortress 2, but even if it had to, at least the singleplayer mode is identical to the multiplayer mode. No mechanics are changed, and the player still has to handle the same game, even if it's stupid by comparison. The same can't be said for COD and BF3.

 

[spartan231490]

Of course it doesn't. Many games exist because of multiplayer.

 

[Okysho]

Reading these has made me realize how much multiplayer gaming has changed over the last 10 years. It never used to quite be like this...

My friends and I would kill hours and hours playing single player games with "tacked on" multiplayer back in the N64/PS1 and even the Gamecube/PS2 era. Conker's bad fur day had a fantastic single player with a quick, but surprisingly diverse multiplayer that you could lose loads of time on with your friends. I know a lot of people don't like it, but many an hour was also lost playing the multiplayer mode of Sonic Adventure 2 battle (and smash brothers, but I consider that strictly multiplayer)

So what happened to multiplayer that made it feel like the plague to be avoided when you know there's both a single and multiplayer aspect (I.E. CoD, Halo, etc) was it because of online gaming taking off?

and for anyone who argues that I listed no FPS examples, Goldeneye for the N64 and timesplitters 2 for the GCN/PS2 hell even Halo 1.

I think there's an article on the escapist about this somewhere........

 

[thesilentman]

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.)

Nah. It doesn't have to stand up on just single-player, but the money that people charge for a multiplayer experience and expect me to not play the single-player is just astounding. I personally think that Yahtzee is pointing out the tendency of the industry to make multiplayer centric games, as I recall he enjoyed TF2 and a little of Assassins' Creed Brotherhood's multiplayer.

 

[sammysoso]

If you have a real single player mode (not just multi with bots), then the game should be able to stand on that.

 

[Awexsome]

Of course you can stand on multiplayer alone. People play games for a whole different number of reasons and multiplayer is a major reason to in today's day and age. Games that do include a single player still deserved to be judged on the content of said single player but it can easily just brush that off if the multiplayer is the main attraction. Just like a single player focused game can brush aside a not very good multiplayer mode.

 

[Zeckt]

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.

I don't know, they could just forget the time spent developing multiplayer for games that just don't need it like Dead Space 2 and simply use that time and money to make the single player just that much better.

 

[MCrewdson001]

the reason that multiplayer is popular is mainly to play with your friends, this means that even if your playing a bad game it can still become bearable or even enjoyable with friends to play and talk with. however in single player you are almost completely focused on the game therefore you will clearly notice if the game is a truly enjoyable experince or not

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

None of the options mirror my view or factual truth. There are games that can be 'enjoyed' for the single player rides they offer (Call of Duty?), or they can offer a multiplayer portion that can be started by the initiated and dedicated alike without ever touching single player mode (Call of Duty?).

Some games might focus on one or the other (Call of Duty?), and some people might like it that way while others will insta-hate any decision for pretty much any reason these days (Call of Duty?).

If a game designed around a single player experience fails as a single player game, chances are slim a superb multi-player portion will save the titles and the franchise. One proper crap title can sink a franchise, an IP, a studio... everything.

The money might scream for FPS robot pony shooters, but the actual market is pretty hungry for anything that isn't boring banana-flavoured formula 101.

Can't tick any of the poll options as ye Truth.

captcha: hat head? What is a hat head? I only know and like fat head.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

For the purposes of my vote, I assumed that we weren't counting games designed entirely for multiplayer, like Team Fortress 2 or the MMORPG genre as a whole.

So, ignoring them... yes, I do think games should be able to stand on the single player experience alone. I'm extremely biased here though, and I admit that, so take it with a grain of salt.

The vast majority of the games that I would say were the best ones I've ever played didn't even have the option of multiplayer (or, like in the case of the original Deus Ex, had multiplayer added in post-release). I can go back to play them at any time and be entertained. I can play them when I don't have internet connectivity, and be entertained.

Multiplayer doesn't last forever. The playerbase will inevitably decline over time as people get bored with the game or new games that they're interested in come out. Eventually, there's no one to play with anymore. Eventually, the company will shut down the game's servers. Sometimes this even happens relatively soon after launch (EA is notorious for shutting down multiplayer servers for games within the first couple years, if I'm not mistaken). So if the game was relying on multiplayer to carry it... that game is now pretty much dead and unplayable. Meanwhile, a game that was built upon a strong single player will live on, and continue to be enjoyed long after the multiplayer expiration date.

 

[Scars Unseen]

If a game has single player, it should be enjoyable. The same could be said for multiplayer though, so I guess my stance is that developers should just stop putting in half-assed modes of play a game doesn't need to trump up sales.