Poll: Does online multiplayer make a game less appealing to you?

[MHR]

I don't like knowing that the developers sunk time into something I'm never going to use. Those resources could have been put forth to make the single player experience better. Don't deny it.

I like dedicated multiplayer games like TF2 and planetside 2 though. They put forth all the resources to making a mostly balanced game that isn't dragged down by mechanics made only for single player.

For example, GTA4 multiplayer combat is crap. One headshot kills you making cars deathtraps where everyone will just spray at your windshield and you just fall over dead at the wheel. Using the cover system is for suckers because the best way to win is to sprint at them and shoot. Bioshock 2 multiplayer had to have the shock plasmid meaning people just spray around lightning to set up easy cheesy headshots. Halo has a ridiculously pronounced weapon hierarchy meant for cheesing the campaign cannon fodder so it's a mess and largely focused on being the one with the better weapon, at least in 1 and 2, maybe they made it super balanced in the late games, I don't know, but I know a lot of people complain about the single-player campaigns being crap.

Games doing both single and multiplayer result in a compromise. The whole idea behind a compromise is you don't get everything you want, there are sacrifices. Those sacrifices aren't necessary and I don't like them.

 

[Agayek]

It's definitely never a deal breaker for me, but if I get the sense that the developers tacked on multiplayer for the sake of having multiplayer, it does make me more wary of the game as a whole.

 

[BlackJimmy]

In depends on if it's something that is a worthwhile addition or just something that's been tacked on for the sake of having multiplayer.
For example, the idea of Dragon Age: Inquisition having multiplayer seems silly to me. but Grand Theft Auto Online? Yes please.

 

[Genocidicles]

Unless the game was made with multiplayer in mind then it makes me wary when picking up the game.

It just means the developers threw away god knows how much money on some shitty multiplayer that'll be dead in a few months, when that money could've been spent bettering the singleplayer instead.

 

[Saelune]

Depends on the game. It turned me off from ME3, though ME2 kinda did most of the work. Tacked on multiplayer is a bad idea. When its good and makes sense though, awesome. If TESVI has competitive multiplayer, it will put me off...though co-op would be cool, Dead Rising style.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

Online competitive multiplayer, yes.

Online cooperative multiplayer, no. Party based cooperative multiplayer? No. Drop In/Drop Out Two-Player online cooperative multiplayer? No, and I wish all of Bethesda's RPG's up to now had co-op like Saints Row does. It'd be amazingly perfect being able to explore Skyrim with a buddy, traveling the land, setting up camp, going on adventures...

And since it's Co-Op, and not competitive multiplayer or an MMO, I wouldn't have to worry about the 'other player'. Because he'd be my friend, obviously, and I know my friend would enjoy the game the same way I do, and that he wouldn't "ruin the experience" or anything stupid like that. And if I wanted to play by myself, then fine. I could play by myself, and the co-op partner wouldn't have to be dealt with at all! But come on games developers, what about Batman, Arkham Origins or whatever--give us CO-OP! Assassin's Creed--CO-OP, DAMN IT!!! FarCry 3--the hell is this, this isn't co-op, this is a shallow Left 4 Dead segway, give us free-roaming Co-Op!!!!!!

Anywho, back to whatever I was doing before I realized my account was somehow remembered on this laptop, thus forcing me to come out of solitude and leave random messages in various forum topics.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

(Accidental double post. Somehow. Pressed the button twice after the Capatcha thing I guess)

 

[josemlopes]

I hated the ending of ME3 as much as the next guy, but that had nothing to do with the multiplayer (which I thought was pretty damn good, by the way). The team that worked on multiplayer was completely separate from the single player side of things.

The ending of ME3 sucked for a myriad of reasons, but that wasn't one of them..

The deadline was rushed, if they took the time they spent on that to give a satisfactory ending...

But I do enjoy the multiplayer, just I felt as if too much time was spent working on it when it should have been used on the monumental task of ending their award winning series on a good note.

And besides, even if that were the case, why would writers (the people responsible for the ending), be working on a piece of the game with zero story?

I can't say I can give you your citation lol its just a belief I have. They may not have needed writers for the multiplayer but they sure as heck needed artists, level designers etc. Resources that could have been used to give a better revamped ending.

Like I said I did enjoy the multiplayer, just I would have enjoyed a proper ending more.

The artists could only give better visuals, a thing that wasnt the problem of ME3 ending. The multiplayer really has nothing to do with the ending.

I even turn off the online in Borderlands 2 because I hate it SO much. I hate even MORE what using it did to my fiancé's play style, even when he's just playing with me. I flat out refused to play it with him after he spent time with the online population, because he kept treating me like I wasn't even there and just running around starting and doing quests without the usual fun conversation and inclusive working together we enjoyed before, when it was just us playing together pre-online people experience.

Online multiplayer isnt a disease that you catch, I played Borderlands 2 online and we were all listening to the quest givers and sharing our loot, the thing is that Borderlands gets really tedious really fast (I blame on the fact that the game has so much dialogue that is just fluff) so it is expected to see some loss of interest in the story by some players. I wouldnt really blame the online for that.

OT: No, its optional content and sometimes its great. I would prefer if the devs would not implement it just for the sake of it since more money can go to what they really want as the main experience but if they can afford a multiplayer mode and make it have its own identity and legs then its fine by me (example: Max Payne 3)

 

[white_wolf]

For me it can change how I feel about a game. If the game was known to be a SP and then later in series ends up getting MP added onto it then yes I dislike it alot. If it's a game that stared with MP but has a very strong SP I'll be wondering why they have a MP that seems to be tacted on for the LOLz of it. I generally don't like MP but in a game like left for dead that makes sense, Eve Dust will make sense, and command and conquer but I definitely never buy a game because it has MP.

 

[Monster_user]

Well, I voted yes.

Due to real life, I neither desire, nor have the time to master games anymore, thus my skills are no longer on par. If a game has online multiplayer, it generally does not have local multiplayer, either split screen, or LAN.

This does not mean I want online multiplayer to go away, but yeah it isn't a perk by any means.

 

[asinann]

Most of the time the online multiplayer ends up being the focus of the whole dev team leaving the single player to rot.

 

[MysticSlayer]

If the game is centered around multiplayer, such as with Call of Duty or Battlefield, then it depends on how good the multiplayer in question is. I have nothing against multiplayer, though, admittedly, most of it is unappealing anymore, at least when it is online.

However, if the game has a singleplayer focus, then it really depends on what the multiplayer does to the singleplayer, though, as a general rule of thumb, I generally assume the singleplayer will suffer, and I can't think of a single example where that hasn't been the case. Trying to shoehorn multiplayer into the singleplayer campaign can get annoying, such as with Mass Effect 3 where one of the possible sub-endings was locked if you never did any online stuff, or how in games with co-op where the friendly AI is generally terrible. All of those situations generally leave me with a "I have no plan on picking this up," mentality, at least not until others confirm that the singleplayer didn't suffer for the sake of a pointless or forced multiplayer.

As for games that try to do both equally, I just assume the budget will run out before they can make a compelling game. At least that's what happened to Medal of Honor.

So, overall, I tend to have a negative view of multiplayer. That's not to say that I wouldn't play a multiplayer game, as there are some I really enjoy (CoD4 is still one of my favorite games ever). Just, in a general sense, I have a negative view of the feature.