Poll: Does FPS Multi-player even matter?

[The Jovian]

I just do not understand how our modern professional video game critics and journalists who are meant to tell developers and publishers when they screwed-up can continuously rate FPSes with generic incomprehensible storylines, too much scripted events/not enough freedom of choice, too much linearity, boring weapons, boring unoriginal and uninspired gameplay and crappy characters, higher than 7/10 because the multi-player was good and graphics were breathtaking?

I want to know how many of you get an FPS just for the multi-player or just for the single-player and which one do you prefer because, I think its getting ridiculous how much it's over-emphasised by the critics as being so good it excuses flaws with every other core aspect of the game.

Serously IGN rated Black Ops II higher than ''Painkiller'', ''Half-Life 2: Episode One'', ''TEAM FORTRESS 2'' (a game whose multi-player is one of the best I've presonally played), and the ORIGINAL MOTHERFUCKING ''QUAKE'' (and ''Quake'' is considered by them to be one of the best multi-player games EVER) wrap your head around that for a second.

 

[DoPo]

The poll runs contrary to the threat title. Heck, the threat title doesn't even reflect the thread is about FPS games.

Anyway, as for me - I don't really play much shooters or multiplayer games. What I think is more important? Depends on the game, frankly - some work best as competitive multiplayer experiences, others as not that. I don't think we can, or even should, measure everything universally.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

You can't say which one's more important or whether it matters, because it depends entirely on the game. In some games, multiplayer is a shitty little sideproject that was tacked on 10 minutes before release. For other games, it's the opposite.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Multiplayer depends on the game and for some people.

There are people that will buy games solely for the multiplayer since they can play with their friends, so for them it's important. Some games are perfect for MP, like your shooters, and some of them are not, like your adventure games. It also depends on how long the team developed it and what they are doing with it since it can make or break the feature.

For me? No. I don't play multiplayer since for one I suck at them and the other reason is it's not my thing. I rarely do co-op as it is, and so I don't bother with MP most of the time. I play games for the story and all that jazz, but multiplayer is not something I will go after.

 

[The Jovian]

The poll runs contrary to the threat title. Heck, the threat title doesn't even reflect the thread is about FPS games.

Fixed it.

 

[Windcaler]

It needs a "depends on the game" option. If Battlefield 4 came out tommorrow I would only care about the multiplayer. The reason being that the singleplayer side had never been what attracted me to Battlefield games. However if Battlefield: Bad Company 3 came out tommorrow I most certainly would care because the bad company games singleplayer revolves around a specific squad. The story is made to be light hearted and funny without being serious business. I expect a good singleplayer from a bad company game but I couldnt care less about it in a regular battlefield game

Its about the expectations of a franchise. Each franchise sets a tone for what it does well and what to expect from it. So for some games singleplayer is the most important thing while in other games multiplayer is the most important thing. It really just depends on the individual game

 

[Tom_green_day]

On games that are mainly multiplayer as a selling point, like CoD and Battlefield, the singleplayer is almost redundant as that is not what people play it for. People buy it so they can play the multiplayer, which is the are that most effort is put into.
Personally, I think the newer Black Ops was superior to Team Fortress or Half Life as a shooter. You can't make too many shooters without learning how to do it well.

 

[Bad Jim]

Of course the multiplayer FPS matters. People are buying them aren't they? And that includes a lot of people who couldn't possibly be expecting a good single player experience. People like to shoot other people.

It doesn't matter if it's shallow and/or has little or no singleplayer experience. If the target audience is likely to enjoy themselves, the critics should rate it high. Simples.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

The vast majority of FPS games I buy, I buy for the multiplayer. I played Battlefield 3's single player for, like, two minutes before jumping back into the multiplayer. [small]Although the multi wasn't the best in the series.[/small]

 

[hazabaza1]

Depends.
I'm not getting a Bioshock title to play multiplayer. Ever. But if I'm going to get something like CoD chances are it'll be more for the multiplayer.

 

[spartandude]

why do people who make these kind of polls not realise it depends on the game.
example call of duty, short linear repetitive single player. yes multiplayer if important
Far Cry. not so much. single player is large, expansive and can (to an extent) be played in multiple ways

 

[tippy2k2]

I'll have to echo just about everyone else's statements and say that it depends on the game. However, I do differ greatly than most other gamers in the opinion of multiplayer. Here is my handy little breakdown:

A. If the game is built for singleplayer, I generally will never touch the multiplayer. See Spec-Ops or Uncharted for examples.

B. If the game is built for multiplayer, I generally will play both. See Call of Duty or Battlefield (yes, I'm someone who plays those game's singleplayer mode. Come get a picture of a specimen rarer than Bigfoot!)

As to your first paragraph, I will say what I always say in these types of threads: YOU find linearity boring. YOU find the stories boring/stupid. YOU don't like scripted events. And so on. Just because you don't like these things doesn't make them bad games. I find games like Painkiller, Quake, and Team Fortress 2 to be boring as hell but I would guess most people would call me an idiot if I ranted about hating them and called them bad games.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It really depends on the game. I bought Borderlands 2, Halo 4, and MW3 solely for the multiplayer (and MW3 is the only one that disappointed me), and I bought Bioshock Infinite solely for the single player. The thing is though, out of all of those Bioshock is the only one that had an emphasis purely on the story. In Borderlands 2 the story is decent and fun, but it's there entirely as an excuse to make you visit all the different areas and hunt for loot, and if you're playing it by yourself it's a rather boring game, because the emphasis in the game is on the coop experience. Halo 4 has a passable campaign that's fun yet pretty forgettable, but the emphasis is really on the multiplayer. MW3's campaign is utter crap, and the emphasis is entirely on the multiplayer and the spec ops missions.

All in all you can see what the game developer deem important in a game by what kind of DLC they release for it. Considering Halo and MW3 only have multiplayer DLC then obviously the games were structured are multiplayer and the single player isn't as important an experience, therefore their review scores should reflect the fact that multiplayer is the important factor in those games and that the games should basically be reviewed based on that, whereas something like Bioshock or Spec Ops the line should be reviewed based solely on the strength of their narrative, since that's the important part of them.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

On the one hand, Spec Ops: The Line.

On the other hand, Team Fortress 2.

You decide if one is more important than the other.

 

[Agayek]

It depends entirely on the specific game in question. Some games are meant to be primarily, if not solely, a multi-player competitive experience (see: CoD, Battlefield, etc). Others are meant to be primarily a single-player experience that uses the medium to tell a story or whatever (see: Bioshock, Spec Ops, etc).

Which aspect is more important or should be paid more attention to depends on how the game is billed, what it's perceived as, and how it all plays. For example, no one buys CoD for the story. Everyone knows it's shit. So reviews should be focused on the multi-player. That's the whole reason the game exists.

Just like how reviews of, say, Bioshock should be focused on the single-player.

 

[DazZ.]

FPS games span across many genres. Obviously I'm not going to buy a horror game for the multiplayer, just as I'm not going to buy an arena shooter for the single player.

Completely game dependant, however I mostly buy FPS games for multiplayer.

 

[Something Amyss]

I literally only buy FPS games to play with friends, so I will never give a damn about single-player functionality.

 

[piinyouri]

I've never bought any game, FPS or otherwise exclusively for multiplayer.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Depends on the game, but I'll say this: I prefer playing single player, because then I can take my time and explore; doesn't matter if there's nothing to find, I like to have a look around, which is near impossible when you get people either shooting at you or shouting at you to get on with it. One example would be Borderlands 2: I have over 300 hours of play time, with about 20 (if that) from MP because there's a lot of stuff to do and see beyond the story, but most people I've played with just want to go through the story and call it a day.

 

[J Tyran]

Some shooters do strike a balance, they are never perfect and one is favored over the other but they try. Halo for example or the first CoD: Modern warfare. Others do not even try and just stick as a good solid multiplayer shooter like natural selection, I think the problems come in when devs try to make a game into something it isn't. I should also add that the Spartan Ops in Halo 4 are pretty good, they combine a story based campaign (of sorts) with multiplayer coop.

If its a multiplayer FPS dont try to stick on a campaign and vice versa.