Poll: A Game Must Stand On Singleplayer Alone

[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.

 

[IGetNoSlack]

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.

 

[SonOfMethuselah]

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).

 

[bificommander]

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.

 

[Gameslayer_93]

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.

AC Brotherhood and Revelations both had pretty crappy single player
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)

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

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.

 

[AngleWyrm]

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.