Poll: Does a game NEED online to be recieved well?

[Therumancer]

The answer is 'no'. Actually I think online is a recipe for laziness in many cases since to create good single player content takes a staggering amount of work and design. Multiplayer ALSO takes a lot of work but basically allows you to recycle the same content you already created with some minor tweaks.

On paper "online multiplayer" is a great idea, and when it got started I looked forward to it. But in the end is discredited the "human factor" which is simply that without policing people are jerks, especially the younger audience that even now tends to outnumber older games. Right now you can't play a fighting game without some dufus disconnecting, trash talking, or putting you on an avoid list because you beat them and they are trying to farm ranking points for achievements.

MMORPGs are a *bit* better, but even so have their problems. How fast do you fill up your ignore list?

The problem being that with online multiplayer the companies want everyone to be able to get online and play, and also do not want to invest the money in actually polciing the online services. Ultimatly creating a human cesspool for those who want to use the
services as intended.

If you spend a lot of time online, the exchange of "Friend Codes" and "Gamertags" does allow you to manage who you play with to some extent, but for those who don't spend a lot of time socializing online, or have *ahem* strong personalities even if they can be fun to game with, it doesn't work out so well. Not to mention the casual players who you know, want to play online, but don't spend a lot of time in gamer circles to begin with.

Simply put no coded system is going to be able to police human behavior, and until companies find a way to afford an active administration, and be willing to bite the bullet by more actively denying users and such, online multiplayer is something of a joke.

What's more, I personally do a lot of WoW. Right now I think MMORPGs manage to be the only really successful online game because they have a lot of things to do online with other people. Getting together with my guild (Muse on Shadow Council RP server) to raid for example takes a lot of coordination and there are a lot of differant things to do. With your typical online FPS or whatever I guess it also can take a lot of coordination if your lucky enough to play with regular teams, but it's not generally that varied.

When I say varied I mean in WoW you not only have the PVP, but each raid boss requires people to do things a bit differantly, and plays out in a differant fashion. When you first do them it's like solving a puzzle, even if you have information from others who did it before you. In your typical online console game you pretty much frag each other in the same arena in the same exact ways ad-infinium or drive a car around the same tracks. Once the achievements are done, what's the point anymore? Yet MMOs tend to have you coming back.

This is simply an OPINION, but basically I think online multiplayer is overrated for most games. I mean oh wow, we can both login using character models from the game, run around one of maybe a dozen levels, and shoot at each other. It can be cool in limited doses, but I see it as a neat goofy little feature rather than this OMG thing that games must have.

I guess it does extend play a bit (depending on how into that you are I guess) but I don't think it does so for that long, since as I said it basically amounts to people exploiting "avoid" features and disconnect to farm rating points and move on. I'd much rather they spent most of the effort they put into multiplayer on the single player campaigns and left multiplayer to the Massively Multiplayer games that specialize in it as a side feature for consoles it's just "meh" to me and while not an achievement addict it sucks up achievements that I could probably enjoy working on rather than logging in to beint insulted by some goober who talks trash, only to see him disconnect mid-fight, and then put me on an avoid list for "poor sportsmanship" or whatever the heck because I had the "audacity" to actually out play him.

Invitations are fine, but general online multiplayer? Please. It needs a bullet in the head before they waste any more time.


>>>----Therumancer--->

 

[Soulieth]

Most of the games I class as my favourite are played for the single player experience, so I do not think it is needed however there are some amazing games that do well with multiplayer such as Call of duty: World at war which I perfere online.

 

[katsabas]

Duh, of course not. Hence Bioshock.

 

[Hazy]

Duh, of course not. Hence Bioshock.

I'm just here to get the opinions. This topic doesen't reflect my opinion (Except where I stated so) in any way.

 

[squid5580]

No it isn't needed and in fact can be harmful to the game itself. I can't count the number of games that left me feeling ripped of by the single player experience because they had to include some type of crappy multiplayer or suffer the wrath of "proffesional" reviewers. MP has a time and a place but is not needed in every FPS (sports, fighting and racing games hell yes). I think MP should be a DLC experience only. That way it doesn't take up valuable disc real estate

So we should pay for multiplayer like in resident evil 5?

Yes and no. We already do pay for multiplayer in a sense as it is. No I am not talking about the gold membership for the 360 but for things like map packs that you pretty much have to buy if you are into the multi already. I personally don't see a problem with devs attempting to make more money off of a game. Especially in this day and age when games cost millions to make and the economy is in the toilet. Sometimes it is worth it and sometimes not. Let the buyer beware.

Although to counter your question is it really fair to charge someone full price for a feature they have no interest in for a variety of reasons? Like they have a crap internet connection where they live. Or the place where they live doesn't have internet access to begin with. And then they find the game is truly focused on multi instead fo the SP game that it should have been.

As for RE5 itself it is already a multiplayer game. You are getting dinged the points for new modes within said game. You can't point a finger at RE5 without pointing the same finger at all the other games that offer new maps and modes for the same price or more.

 

[terminator320]

I like games with multiplayer ala Cod4 on the pc and LBP, KZ2, Resistance 2, but if you want a critically aclaimed game that has won lots of awards all I have to say is fallout 3 and bioshock

 

[terminator320]

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.

that is a good point but that is only when it doen't rely on it ala resident evil 5 because then the single player will suffer

 

[katsabas]

Duh, of course not. Hence Bioshock.

I'm just here to get the opinions. This topic doesen't reflect my opinion (Except where I stated so) in any way.

Who said this had you as a target? And when did I say that this topic reflects your opinion? I red the description before I posted so do not be so jumpy. The answer was in general. Sheeesh....

 

[Stewie Plisken]

No. I myself never play the online portion of games. If I want a quick match against people to reaffirm my masculinity (admit it; that's why most of you do it), I'll play the occasional Counter Strike match... assuming I find a server that hasn't been crapped over with a gazillion add-ons that take a century to download.

If I were a people's person, I'd stick to an MMO. A few of them, design-wise, are a good deal effective.

What I don't like is paying for a half-assed single player game that flaunts all its best parts on the multiplayer part.

 

[Hazy]

Duh, of course not. Hence Bioshock.

I'm just here to get the opinions. This topic doesen't reflect my opinion (Except where I stated so) in any way.

Who said this had you as a target? And when did I say that this topic reflects your opinion? I red the description before I posted so do not be so jumpy. The answer was in general. Sheeesh....

Sorry. I'm a little bit anxious right now, and I've had a few questions aimed toward me and not toward the question itself, which gets me a little pissed off. Again, you have my apologies.

 

[Vorocano]

I am definitely not an online gamer. I've made the attempt at online games (Battlefield 2142, City of Villains, Lord of the Rings Online, a multitude of the "browser" online games) and I just can't get into them. I simply have no desire to go online to play; I keep my own schedule, and if I decide in the middle of a skirmish on Dawn of War II that I'd rather do someting else, I simply quit and go away. I don't have to deal with the assholes that pervade so many parts of the online gaming world. And, truth be told, as much as I enjoy my RTSs and RPGs, I suspect that I'm simply not good enough at them to be competitive online.

So, for my money, no. I don't enjoy online play, and so will avoid games that require online play to be enjoyable.

 

[Obliterato]

I don't perosnally think online is needed, as already said, Fallout 3 and before that Oblivion would be two good examples, but because its there and usually a big selling point for many, a lot of developers will focus so much on the multiplayer element that the single player element ends up taking a back seat and being terrible. Here i'd like to cite the example of Halo 2, where in my opinion the singleplayer part of the game came no where near to the standards of Halo:Combat evolved's singleplayer experience. Just one example though, can't be asked to list the various different games that have fallen to this.

 

[Your once and future Fanboy]

depends on the genre, if its a FPS, the online is mandatory, but if its a console RPG then i would rather have them use more time on other game aspects. especially if its a JRPG

 

[SithLibrarian]

I don't beleive that multiplayer is a complete necessity. It's a nice feature, but it's not a selling point for me. In some cases, an MP component can detract from the single player experience (MOH: Rising Sun comes to mind - conversely, you get a stellar SP game, but crappy MP).

 

[johnman]

No it isn't needed and in fact can be harmful to the game itself. I can't count the number of games that left me feeling ripped of by the single player experience because they had to include some type of crappy multiplayer or suffer the wrath of "proffesional" reviewers. MP has a time and a place but is not needed in every FPS (sports, fighting and racing games hell yes). I think MP should be a DLC experience only. That way it doesn't take up valuable disc real estate

So we should pay for multiplayer like in resident evil 5?

Yes and no. We already do pay for multiplayer in a sense as it is. No I am not talking about the gold membership for the 360 but for things like map packs that you pretty much have to buy if you are into the multi already. I personally don't see a problem with devs attempting to make more money off of a game. Especially in this day and age when games cost millions to make and the economy is in the toilet. Sometimes it is worth it and sometimes not. Let the buyer beware.

Although to counter your question is it really fair to charge someone full price for a feature they have no interest in for a variety of reasons?

The problem with Resi 5 though is that they charge full price, then say "IF you want a simple multiplayer game you have to pay since resident evil has never had one before"

For sake of example we will use half life. Lets say most games at the time were £30 (as i think they were) half lfie had a pretty fun deathmatch game in addition to the great single player. Then say you bought another game for £30 that didnt have multiplayer. The multiplayer didnt make the game cost anymore, but was a selling piont. I cant think of any game that has cost more due to multiplayer features, i have never played the multi-player on crysis but dont feel like i have been charged for it as it is much a minor part of game. COD4 is another great example, entensive multiplayer in addition to single player but the same price as bioshock which had none.

 

[Arcyde]

It's not needed.

But It's nice to have.

 

[robinkom]

As a gamer from the days of no internet, I honestly don't care if a game has online play or not... I won't use it anyway. For some games that I play on the 360 these days like Soul Calibur 4 and Smackdown vs. Raw 2009, I stay away from the online modes because I'm a more casual, non-competitive gamer. I find that many people who play online sometimes take it too seriously or have nothing better to do so they play until they master it.

Personally I am upset with the lack of good games focused on Local Multi-player that ARE NOT party games. The last one I really had a blast with some friends playing was Gauntlet: Dark Legacy and I wish there were more games in this vain out there to jump in and play.

The internet sort of ruined the experience with isolating the players from each other be it at someones house or at an Arcade, another dying trend in the States. Young people today tend to be more anti-social and reclusive so they sit in the false-security behind their monitors instead of actually going out in public and meeting people face-to-face to game with.

Sadly, where I live, the last arcade closed up several years ago so the REAL multi-player social experience is utterly dead here.

 

[squid5580]

No it isn't needed and in fact can be harmful to the game itself. I can't count the number of games that left me feeling ripped of by the single player experience because they had to include some type of crappy multiplayer or suffer the wrath of "proffesional" reviewers. MP has a time and a place but is not needed in every FPS (sports, fighting and racing games hell yes). I think MP should be a DLC experience only. That way it doesn't take up valuable disc real estate

So we should pay for multiplayer like in resident evil 5?

Yes and no. We already do pay for multiplayer in a sense as it is. No I am not talking about the gold membership for the 360 but for things like map packs that you pretty much have to buy if you are into the multi already. I personally don't see a problem with devs attempting to make more money off of a game. Especially in this day and age when games cost millions to make and the economy is in the toilet. Sometimes it is worth it and sometimes not. Let the buyer beware.

Although to counter your question is it really fair to charge someone full price for a feature they have no interest in for a variety of reasons?

The problem with Resi 5 though is that they charge full price, then say "IF you want a simple multiplayer game you have to pay since resident evil has never had one before"

For sake of example we will use half life. Lets say most games at the time were £30 (as i think they were) half lfie had a pretty fun deathmatch game in addition to the great single player. Then say you bought another game for £30 that didnt have multiplayer. The multiplayer didnt make the game cost anymore, but was a selling piont. I cant think of any game that has cost more due to multiplayer features, i have never played the multi-player on crysis but dont feel like i have been charged for it as it is much a minor part of game. COD4 is another great example, entensive multiplayer in addition to single player but the same price as bioshock which had none.

I guess we are lookin at RE5 at 2 different ways. I see it as no different than the GOW 2 map packs or the Halo 3 map packs. They are charging you more money for an extension on your gameplay experience. You really can't fault them for making money when people are buying them. The base price of COD 4 and Bioshock are the same. If you love the multiplayer then you are going to fork out the extra 10 bucks for the extra maps in COD 4. So to have the full game experience COD 4 will cost you more than Bioshock. Although SP games are becoming more expensive under the same theory since more and more SP games are coming out with the bonus levels for 5-10 bucks a pop as well. At least the consumers are given the choice.

 

[ae86gamer]

If the game can make the online experience fun and make it so that people don't get tired of it quickly then by all means put in online. But if their gonna throw it together last minute and not put any thought into it then don't even bother.

 

[Valiance]

Fallout 3? It won awards, you know.

/thread

I wasn't even going to read any responses to this thread, but as I was typing "Fallout 3 didn't have it, and it certainly doesn't need it," I noticed that this post was on the bottom of the first page and managed to accidentally notice it.

And yes, I agree.