No. Why would it need multiplayer? Multiplayer is just something plus to come along with the single player in order to "fatten" the "expirience". Sure some games do their multiplayer good, but there are other games who do it pretty bad. But never, EVER judge a game for it's multiplayer.
Poll: Does a game NEED online to be recieved well?
- Thread starter Hazy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
morrowind, oblivion and fallout don't have online but do have a hole scrapyard full of awards: good game concept + story + awesome company= fantastic gameplay now add online to this and story and gameplay often are neglected by the parent company that only like their youngest child
Maybe.. no, just kidding. Have you ever been on a poll before? Of course I don't think a game NEEDS online to be a success, but this is a big world, and many opinions differ. I have, however, encountered people that won't play a game that doesen't have online. I'm just here to get the opinions.SomeBritishDude said:
There are some who actually claim that the future of gaming relies on online multiplayer and that single player gaming is becoming a thing of the past. So this poll is actually opening up a debate that has been around since last generation.xxhazyshadowsxx said:
Not at all. Sure, if you can make a game that has a great Single Player experience as well as a good Multi Player experience, more power to you. However, if that Single Player experience suffers because of the time spent producing the Multi Player experience, there's something wrong. Basically, I can break my favourites down to three categories.
Single Player emphasis: Playing good games from this category is almost like watching a good movie, or reading a good novel. The story and scenes stick with you for a while. They can have multi-player, but it is not necessary to get a great experience from the game. (Examples: CoD 4, Oblivion)
Multi Player emphasis: Good games here know they are multi-player games and really emphasize it. There could be a story, but it's really not necessary. Besides, what could be better than randomly dropping you into a server with 19 other people just to try to shoot each other down? (Example: Battlefield 1942)
Merged Single and Multi Player: These games play well in both Single and Multi Player, and typically play the same in both. Being able to seamlessly go between Single and Multi Player is a bonus. (Examples: Street Fighter, Rock Band 2)
A bit lengthy, but I think it gets the job done.
Single Player emphasis: Playing good games from this category is almost like watching a good movie, or reading a good novel. The story and scenes stick with you for a while. They can have multi-player, but it is not necessary to get a great experience from the game. (Examples: CoD 4, Oblivion)
Multi Player emphasis: Good games here know they are multi-player games and really emphasize it. There could be a story, but it's really not necessary. Besides, what could be better than randomly dropping you into a server with 19 other people just to try to shoot each other down? (Example: Battlefield 1942)
Merged Single and Multi Player: These games play well in both Single and Multi Player, and typically play the same in both. Being able to seamlessly go between Single and Multi Player is a bonus. (Examples: Street Fighter, Rock Band 2)
A bit lengthy, but I think it gets the job done.
Well, it isn't NEEDED but what sucks about today's market is that everyone just 'expects' that you've got an internet connection on your PC/console. I for one, don't have an internet connection for my PS3 cos I haven't got internet wires hooked up in the living room. And that sucks cos those assholes who put single player DLC and demos up on PSN never thought it might be a good idea to put on a website so it can be downloaded from a computer!!!
*ahem* Well, more on topic: no it isn't needed, nice bonus if crafted well, dosen't make the game worse if not.
*ahem* Well, more on topic: no it isn't needed, nice bonus if crafted well, dosen't make the game worse if not.
Fallout 3, Ninja Gaiden 2 and Bioshock (just to name some recent one's) did fine without. I play most of my games offline, especially the console one's, can't be arsed with Xbox Live Gold.
If you are going to include online that's great, but if it's just poorly made online then no. I would rather have no online play than have poorly made online play.
It depends. Online can work for some games, but for others, even if we wanted it anyways, it would be a horrible decision.
I remember just before Gran Turismo 4 came out that my friends were all psyched about the fact that it was going to have online multi-player. Then at the last second the developers said that they weren't going to do it. At first my friend was pissed about it, for several days in fact. Then one day he seemed normal so I asked him if he was over the whole thing. He said that he was because he realized that with the lag, playing that game online would be terrible.
I remember just before Gran Turismo 4 came out that my friends were all psyched about the fact that it was going to have online multi-player. Then at the last second the developers said that they weren't going to do it. At first my friend was pissed about it, for several days in fact. Then one day he seemed normal so I asked him if he was over the whole thing. He said that he was because he realized that with the lag, playing that game online would be terrible.
No it is never needed if there is a single player part and more importantly I find that if you have a good single player campaign then the multiplayer is almost always shit. (few exceptions being games like UT). However these day you have a lot of online coop games which so far have all been huge piles of excrement because the other player never seems to be on the same wavelength as you and runs of to get killed.
Nope, definately not a requirment for success but I live by the motto: Its always better in Co-op. No game has ever been made worse from the addition of Co-op, and the more Co-op in games the better. Not forced co-op obviously, completely optional. Take Fallout 3 for example, I'd have loved nothing more than to tear up the Capital Wastes and downtown DC with my friends, in epic battles ranging from tactical stealth missions to just slaughtering Super mutants for the hell of it 
Also some interesting matches could be set up this way too. Same goes for Oblivion. Co-Op FTW!
The above is following the open Co-op style of Saints Row 2.
Also some interesting matches could be set up this way too. Same goes for Oblivion. Co-Op FTW!The above is following the open Co-op style of Saints Row 2.
It does. And for anyone who points to single player experiences and says "Oh lookit Fallout 3 (for example)", don't forget that HAD online components for 360/PC (namely DLC) and those versions scored many points higher than the PS3 version.
Chronicles of Riddick: DA is adding it because Vin Diesel demanded it in there (and who are you to argue) and the Riddick hunt mode looks like it will be my new online addiction for a bit. I refuse to drop $60+ dollars on single player experiences that have no DLC or online functions anymore (sorry Dead Space!).
Chronicles of Riddick: DA is adding it because Vin Diesel demanded it in there (and who are you to argue) and the Riddick hunt mode looks like it will be my new online addiction for a bit. I refuse to drop $60+ dollars on single player experiences that have no DLC or online functions anymore (sorry Dead Space!).