I, personally, believe that the example of Hitman: Absolution's Contracts mode is a horrible one. What the Contracts mode does is wind the asynchronous multiplayer into the single-player mode. However, on topic, I believe that a game should stand on it's single-player alone if AND ONLY IF the single-player is the game's only mode.
Poll: A Game Must Stand On Singleplayer Alone
- Thread starter TheEmoGhost
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You do clarify it in your post, but I think you should probably make the overall question a little bit clearer.
IF a game was conceptualized, developed, advertised to be and really is just a multiplayer experience, there isn't anything wrong with that. Games like Team Fortress and Counter-Strike,, Tribes, League of Legends,, and, hell, really the entire MMO genre exist in terms of the content they provide for communities as a whole, not single gamers. (Yes, you can play MMOs alone to some degree, but the experience, I've found, is never as enjoyable).
Yahtzee's problem is with games like Call of Duty and Battlefield, where the single-player campaigns have become almost woefully short, and the real effort is clearly put into the multiplayer modes. This is the problem. A game that contains a single-player experience but is clearly selling itself on the multiplayer side of things is, in a way, a terrible lie. If a game contains a single-player story, then it alone should justify the price tags. If you were to buy a (recent) Call of Duty, Battlefield, or Medal of Honor game (really anything that can be fit under the classification of 'spunkgargleweewee,'), and only be interested in, or have access to the single-player, you'd be extremely disappointed.
THAT'S Yahtzee's issue. He's professed his enjoyment of Team Fortress quite a bit, so it's obvious he's not adverse to multiplayer as a concept. Just in its recent manifestations. That's a problem he has with the Borderlands games, as well: yeah, you can play the game alone, but everything about its design is pushing toward multiplayer. And then, when you do play in multiplayer, its just the same game with three more people running about, and a slight increase in difficulty. Single-player and multiplayer should be two distinct, equal entities in any game where both are contained.
So, I suppose, in answer to your question, yes, a game must stand on single-player alone, assuming that it includes one, and is suggesting that it alone would justify the cost of admission (which all multiplayer games still do, even though we all know better by now).
IF a game was conceptualized, developed, advertised to be and really is just a multiplayer experience, there isn't anything wrong with that. Games like Team Fortress and Counter-Strike,, Tribes, League of Legends,, and, hell, really the entire MMO genre exist in terms of the content they provide for communities as a whole, not single gamers. (Yes, you can play MMOs alone to some degree, but the experience, I've found, is never as enjoyable).
Yahtzee's problem is with games like Call of Duty and Battlefield, where the single-player campaigns have become almost woefully short, and the real effort is clearly put into the multiplayer modes. This is the problem. A game that contains a single-player experience but is clearly selling itself on the multiplayer side of things is, in a way, a terrible lie. If a game contains a single-player story, then it alone should justify the price tags. If you were to buy a (recent) Call of Duty, Battlefield, or Medal of Honor game (really anything that can be fit under the classification of 'spunkgargleweewee,'), and only be interested in, or have access to the single-player, you'd be extremely disappointed.
THAT'S Yahtzee's issue. He's professed his enjoyment of Team Fortress quite a bit, so it's obvious he's not adverse to multiplayer as a concept. Just in its recent manifestations. That's a problem he has with the Borderlands games, as well: yeah, you can play the game alone, but everything about its design is pushing toward multiplayer. And then, when you do play in multiplayer, its just the same game with three more people running about, and a slight increase in difficulty. Single-player and multiplayer should be two distinct, equal entities in any game where both are contained.
So, I suppose, in answer to your question, yes, a game must stand on single-player alone, assuming that it includes one, and is suggesting that it alone would justify the cost of admission (which all multiplayer games still do, even though we all know better by now).
Battlefield 2, with only battles vs bots as single player need not stand up on singleplayer. But Battlfield 3 marketed its single player campaign, it should have been better.
Though to refer back to ZP, I found it a bit hypocritical that Yatzhee bashed Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament. He should applaud that sort of games, if only because they clearly mark that they are designed for multiplayer fans and don't lure players like Yatzhee with token-singleplayer.
Though to refer back to ZP, I found it a bit hypocritical that Yatzhee bashed Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament. He should applaud that sort of games, if only because they clearly mark that they are designed for multiplayer fans and don't lure players like Yatzhee with token-singleplayer.
AC Brotherhood and Revelations both had pretty crappy single playerZhukov said:
OT: no, however if a game has a single player mode then that mode should be good! personally i'd prefer it if they dropped the single player campaign from CoD and made it a purely multiplayer game (maybe keep spec ops single player optional)
Some games have tacked on single-player (Call of Duty, Starcraft) and are almost strictly multiplayer games. Those do not need to stand on their singleplayer. That's like saying ME3 needs to stand on it's co-op multiplayer alone... that's an asinine statement.
I cannot play League of Legends, because I cannot bear to represent poorly.
LoL gives two training missions, about twenty minutes each to learn the game, and then you are given a choice of hero with zero training it them, and expected to expose other people to that lack of expertise.
No, sorry, I just can't do that. I won't be blamed for team failure due to involuntarily enforced poor training.
It stinks of inadequacy issues.
Please, we need a LoL bot-supported vs AI mode.
LoL gives two training missions, about twenty minutes each to learn the game, and then you are given a choice of hero with zero training it them, and expected to expose other people to that lack of expertise.
No, sorry, I just can't do that. I won't be blamed for team failure due to involuntarily enforced poor training.
It stinks of inadequacy issues.
Please, we need a LoL bot-supported vs AI mode.