Poll: Do you prefer single Player or multi-player?

[ntw3001]

Multiplayer. Games aren't often able to stand up on story alone, and playing against human opponents is more enjoyable than the false challenge of interacting with AI. Of course, that's only applicable for games that use an element of competition. Puzzle games, which are basically just a system of rules with no competitive aspect, are fine in single player. But try playing Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine against a friend; it's fantastic.

 

[HellspawnCandy]

Multiplayer for me usually means lag, kids who find the talk button on the mics, and of course everyone in the world who is better than me. Singleplayer I am a god!

 

[Xyphon]

As single player isn't enough to get me to shell out $65 nowadays(with the exception of Just Cause 2), any game I buy absolutely MUST have some form of online multiplayer or co-op. With singleplayer, you know what's coming after 1 or 2 playthroughs. With online multiplayer, you never know what's going to happen. Are you going to win, lose, have a tie, steamroll the enemy team, be steamrolled yourself, have a battle of epic proportions or even have a tank land on you because 4 people launched it from across the map with 18 anti-tank mines.

To me, there's more replay value in multiplayer than there is in singleplayer.

your obviously not into story then, and I supose by that logic you don't have to buy as many games

though the really good single player games do have replay value

I get into story, it's just not enough to warrant a $65 purchase for me. I rarely have enough money to buy a game, so I don't go out and drop that kind of cash just for a singleplayer campaign I'll beat in a few hours . Once I beat the game once, it's hard for me to keep playing or start over again because I already know what's going to happen (Deadspace, for example), so I end up extremely bored.

Multiplayer is a buy.

Singleplayer is a rental.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Single player all the way. Multiplayer can rot for all I care, especially when they put in multiplayer trophies/achievements. Odds are that you're going to get overwhelmingly single player on this site, as the "majority" of people who would vote for multiplayer would be terrified to show their face on this site.

There is most definitely an anti-multiplayer bias on this site. Part of the problem with this specific poll is that there's no "it depends" option. I'm one of the minority on this site that absolutely loves multiplayer, but I judge which portion I prefer on a game by game basis, not overall. This kept me from voting, and I think the majority of multiplayer gamers on this site are like that -- which further exaggerates the bias in this kind of poll. I had a topic about this a few months back, and it pretty much came to the conclusion that the people on this site who liked multiplayer judged games individually and on the merits of which portion was intended by the developers to be the meat of the game, while the anti-multiplayer people were still stuck in the mindset that singleplayer was king.

Edit: Personally, I blame Yahtzee.

Yep, pretty much what I was thinking. Glad I wasn't just imagining it.

 

[Vault101]

As single player isn't enough to get me to shell out $65 nowadays(with the exception of Just Cause 2), any game I buy absolutely MUST have some form of online multiplayer or co-op. With singleplayer, you know what's coming after 1 or 2 playthroughs. With online multiplayer, you never know what's going to happen. Are you going to win, lose, have a tie, steamroll the enemy team, be steamrolled yourself, have a battle of epic proportions or even have a tank land on you because 4 people launched it from across the map with 18 anti-tank mines.

To me, there's more replay value in multiplayer than there is in singleplayer.

your obviously not into story then, and I supose by that logic you don't have to buy as many games

though the really good single player games do have replay value

I get into story, it's just not enough to warrant a $65 purchase for me. I rarely have enough money to buy a game, so I don't go out and drop that kind of cash just for a singleplayer campaign I'll beat in a few hours . Once I beat the game once, it's hard for me to keep playing or start over again because I already know what's going to happen (Deadspace, for example), so I end up extremely bored.

Multiplayer is a buy.

Singleplayer is a rental.

Fair enough, it can somtimes depend on the game, most good single player games are at least 15 to 20 hours or more, and If I like it enough I can replay it like watching a favorite movie again

other games, particualr rpgs are more time sinks , you can get countless hours out of Fallout 3 for example and they tend to have more replay value because its possible to do things differently

I think thats why Mass effect series is so replayable for me, it feels liek Im watching one of my favorite movies again

anyway I think some people also would be less annoyed if they simply didn't bother with single player if they werent going to put some effort into it or make it a decent length for example TF2

I hate it when a game feels too short

 

[acklumos]

Definitely single player. Not to say multiplayer isn't fun, but I lose interest pretty quickly.

 

[Regiment]

I much prefer single-player. I generally won't touch multiplayer with a ten-foot pole. I do have a soft spot for local multiplayer, but there's usually a huge skill gap between the game's owner and everyone else.

Single-player rocks. I want a story.