Poll: Games multiplayer make it more appealing?

[DrunkOnEstus]

I'm all for games that are strictly multiplayer (MMO, F2P shooters) etc, but I really don't care about the multiplayers attached to single player games. Usually, by the time I tackle said game in my backlog and try the multiplayer, it's either incredibly similar to everyone else's multiplayer, or there's nobody to play with because everyone moved onto something else. If I want to play a multiplayer game, it's a game that focused its efforts into the multiplayer experience and has longevity and growth through the people and patches/content updates. There's too much TF2, Warframe, CS:GO, Dota 2, etc that I haven't played to really be worried about ignoring the multiplayer attached to Tomb Raider. I wonder how much more badass that game could have been if the Deus Ex:HR team added to the stealth or other elements of the single player instead of through together the usual deathmatch/TDM/CTF in that setting.

Speaking of this, I hate multiplayer achievements/trophies. They're there to get you into the multiplayer, and the grindy ones are in the hopes that you keep that disk in your drive for 6 months. After I got all the Bioshock achievements, I actually wanted to try the Bioshock 2 multiplayer as it adds to the lore and portrays Atlus's "Civil War", as well as for the achievements. There were like 7 people who only played deathmatch and nothing else, so I said "fuck it".

 

[Matthew Jabour]

This is a trick question. If it's done well, and the game is actually designed to have multiplayer, then yes. If it's just hastily tacked on, just to put another bullet point on the back of the box, then no.

 

[Gatx]

I was THIS close to buy Force Unleashed II on the Wii SOLELY because of it's Star Wars Super Smash Bros. style multiplayer.

I'm a singleplayer person, unless the game is built to be multiplayer dedicated (TF2, LoL, etc) it's multiplayer (if present or not) does not impact my decision.

Like Yahtzee said, a game shouldn't rely on multiplayer.

I take issue with that statement. Singleplayer is not the "default" state of a game, as you said there are games built specifically FOR multiplayer, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's completely okay for a game to "rely" on multiplayer if that's the focus, just as other games "rely" on singleplayer.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I was THIS close to buy Force Unleashed II on the Wii SOLELY because of it's Star Wars Super Smash Bros. style multiplayer.

I'm a singleplayer person, unless the game is built to be multiplayer dedicated (TF2, LoL, etc) it's multiplayer (if present or not) does not impact my decision.

Like Yahtzee said, a game shouldn't rely on multiplayer.

I take issue with that statement. Singleplayer is not the "default" state of a game, as you said there are games built specifically FOR multiplayer, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's completely okay for a game to "rely" on multiplayer if that's the focus, just as other games "rely" on singleplayer.

Well yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what he means. Yahtzee has played multiplayer focused games (with no singleplayer) and hasn't deducted points from them for not having a singleplayer campaign.

If one is really pedantic, they could argue that Counter-Strike Condition Zero was released with singleplayer missions.

 

[Gatx]

Well yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what he means. Yahtzee has played multiplayer focused games (with no singleplayer) and hasn't deducted points from them for not having a singleplayer campaign.

If one is really pedantic, they could argue that Counter-Strike Condition Zero was released with singleplayer missions.

He did play Battlefield 3 and based his review almost entirely on the single player campaign though, from what I remember, which pissed me off to no end (I think he reviewed Mortal Kombat based partly on the story mode as well, which was more or less okay for a fighting game, but it's definitely a misguided approach). In his end of the year "awards" he compared it and Modern Warfare 3 on campaign alone as well. Doesn't matter though, no amount of me being angry will change his opinion and that shouldn't matter to me in the slightest. Also getting off topic so I'll stop there.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I bought Battlefield 3 for the competitive multiplayer, and CoDBlops2 for the co-operative. Although one of those was a disappointment, I think I would not have bought those games if it was not for those modes.
There are some games that I don't buy for the multiplayer, but think it's cool. Mass Effect 3, XCOM: EU, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Borderlands 2. These had fun multiplayers, and I think the games would have been worse off without them.
I think people who say multiplayer isn't part of the proper game are crazy.
I also don't like it when people say that unless a game is made multiplayer only, the single player should be more important, like for CoD. CoD is a mainly multiplayer game, and the fact it has a campaign is an added bonus.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I like LOCAL multiplayer (aka co-op). It's not a deciding factor but it's a nice feature to have.

 

[Archangel768]

It depends on the game. If a game is crap in regards to it's story, single player experience etc then having multiplayer won't in and of itself make me buy the game. The only time I buy games due to multiplayer is when I know my friends and I will play it together and even then I'm reluctant to pay full price for such a game.

 

[alphamalet]

I get that different people like different things, but I care about multiplayer and never will. I buy games for single player, and single player only.

Captcha: Play Again

Only if the single player portion is good, Captcha.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

He did play Battlefield 3 and based his review almost entirely on the single player campaign though, from what I remember, which pissed me off to no end (I think he reviewed Mortal Kombat based partly on the story mode as well, which was more or less okay for a fighting game, but it's definitely a misguided approach). In his end of the year "awards" he compared it and Modern Warfare 3 on campaign alone as well. Doesn't matter though, no amount of me being angry will change his opinion and that shouldn't matter to me in the slightest. Also getting off topic so I'll stop there.

Why does that irritate you? They include singleplayer campaigns, if he has no interest in the multiplayer then why can't he judge the game based on what he wants to play?

The only reason I'd bother getting either of them would be for the singleplayer campaign.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

He did play Battlefield 3 and based his review almost entirely on the single player campaign though, from what I remember, which pissed me off to no end (I think he reviewed Mortal Kombat based partly on the story mode as well, which was more or less okay for a fighting game, but it's definitely a misguided approach). In his end of the year "awards" he compared it and Modern Warfare 3 on campaign alone as well. Doesn't matter though, no amount of me being angry will change his opinion and that shouldn't matter to me in the slightest. Also getting off topic so I'll stop there.

Why does that irritate you? They include singleplayer campaigns, if he has no interest in the multiplayer then why can't he judge the game based on what he wants to play?

The only reason I'd bother getting either of them would be for the singleplayer campaign.

Mainly because if you're playing either of those games for the singleplayer campaign, you're doing it wrong. Complaining that the campaign sucks in a Battlefield game, of all things, is like complaining that a can opener isn't well suited to opening a blister pack[footnote]you know, those awful plastic packages that you just about need dynamite to get into[/footnote]. Yes, you can in fact use a can opener to do that -- and with the right can opener, it's probably the best way of doing it -- but that doesn't mean a can opener is bad if opens cans well, but not blister packs. Since Yahtzee hates multiplayer, he should avoid multiplayer games, not judge them on the quality of their tutorial sections.

OT: Like I say every time this subject comes up, I judge multiplayer focused games on their multiplayer, and single player focused games on their single player. On rare occasion there will be a game that is great at both, and less rarely there will be one that sucks at both. But only one or the other really needs to be good for me to enjoy the game.

Also, I really, truly wish Yahtzee had never made that idiotic statement about a game needing to stand on single player alone. We get it, you're a misanthrope. Doesn't mean the rest of us are. Although, come to think of it, if you really hate people, siccing legions of fans on them to spout nonsense /does/ make for a wonderfully evil gesture. I can see grumpy cat smiling now.

 

[Atmos Duality]

That is highly dependent on the nature of the game.

There are games like, System Shock 2 or Metroid Prime that work better as Single Player experiences because of atmosphere and pacing. (SS2 has multiplayer actually, and I found that it completely undermines the intensity of the game)

There are games that are great all-rounders like Armored Core 2 or Unreal Tournament 2004, which offer varied but strong single player and multiplayer modes.

There are games that scale better with more players, but are plenty enjoyable on their own. Like most 4X games and Battlefront 2.

And there are games where multiplayer is an absolute necessity: MOBAs (like LoL or DOTA2)

 

[Rebel_Raven]

It really depends on the game, so I can't vote.

I appreciate a well done single player game so it doesn't need multiplayer. Tomb raider? I fiddled a little with the multiplayer character customization screen, what little there was to it, but beyond that I'd never play it online. Maybe if it had bots, or something.

Still, open world games like GTA, or Saints Row? It definitely makes me want to share the experience with others, and play the wandering mercenary, popping into games that'll host me (that aren't cheating) so I can be their backup.
Multiplayer, especially co-op can add a lot to a game! Especially if you have a great pal, or a significant other that wants to play with you.

MMOs are alright, but I'm not too huge on them.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Mainly because if you're playing either of those games for the singleplayer campaign, you're doing it wrong.

Why? They have a singleplayer campaign for a reason right?

Complaining that the campaign sucks in a Battlefield game, of all things, is like complaining that a can opener isn't well suited to opening a blister pack. Yes, you can in fact use a can opener to do that -- and with the right can opener, it's probably the best way of doing it -- but that doesn't mean a can opener is bad if opens cans well, but not blister packs.

But the fact is, they put made a singleplayer campaign, not a "tutorial."

I'd say it's like a multi-tool that comes with a can opener and a bottle opener. The can opener works great, the bottle opener doesn't. I myself only have use for the bottle opener. Since I have no use for the can opener, my judgement becomes based on my experience with bottle opener.

Since Yahtzee hates multiplayer, he should avoid multiplayer games, not judge them on the quality of their tutorial sections.

OT: Like I say every time this subject comes up, I judge multiplayer focused games on their multiplayer, and single player focused games on their single player. On rare occasion there will be a game that is great at both, and less rarely there will be one that sucks at both. But only one or the other really needs to be good for me to enjoy the game.

That's the thing, you might define those as multiplayer games. But others just see them as games with both multiplayer and singleplayer. I don't see a game as a purely "multiplayer game" unless it only has multiplayer.

Also, I really, truly wish Yahtzee had never made that idiotic statement about a game needing to stand on single player alone. We get it, you're a misanthrope. Doesn't mean the rest of us are.

It's a statement I followed long before I heard him say it. You don't need to be a misanthrope to have those sentiments.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Mainly because if you're playing either of those games for the singleplayer campaign, you're doing it wrong.

Why? They have a singleplayer campaign for a reason right?

Complaining that the campaign sucks in a Battlefield game, of all things, is like complaining that a can opener isn't well suited to opening a blister pack. Yes, you can in fact use a can opener to do that -- and with the right can opener, it's probably the best way of doing it -- but that doesn't mean a can opener is bad if opens cans well, but not blister packs.

But the fact is, they put made a singleplayer campaign, not a "tutorial."

I'd say it's like a multi-tool that comes with a can opener and a bottle opener. The can opener works great, the bottle opener doesn't. I myself only have use for the bottle opener. Since I have no use for the can opener, my judgement becomes based on my experience with bottle opener.

Since Yahtzee hates multiplayer, he should avoid multiplayer games, not judge them on the quality of their tutorial sections.

OT: Like I say every time this subject comes up, I judge multiplayer focused games on their multiplayer, and single player focused games on their single player. On rare occasion there will be a game that is great at both, and less rarely there will be one that sucks at both. But only one or the other really needs to be good for me to enjoy the game.

That's the thing, you might define those as multiplayer games. But others just see them as games with both multiplayer and singleplayer. I don't see a game as a purely "multiplayer game" unless it only has multiplayer.

Also, I really, truly wish Yahtzee had never made that idiotic statement about a game needing to stand on single player alone. We get it, you're a misanthrope. Doesn't mean the rest of us are.

It's a statement I followed long before I heard him say it. You don't need to be a misanthrope to have those sentiments.

You know why those games have singleplayer? As a combination tutorial/marketing tool. They exist to A.) teach people the basic mechanics before hopping online, and B.) sucker people who don't play multiplayer into paying $60 for a game they don't like. If you fall for it once, fine. But if you make a habit of buying games like that, well, you know the saying.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

You know why those games have singleplayer? As a combination tutorial/marketing tool. They exist to A.) teach people the basic mechanics before hopping online, and B.) sucker people who don't play multiplayer into paying $60 for a game they don't like. If you fall for it once, fine. But if you make a habit of buying games like that, well, you know the saying.

Not sure what you're arguing.

I'm arguing it's reasonable to criticize them based on the singleplayer experience. Criticism doesn't necessarily mean I'm saying the game is bad.

Whether I buy them or not is not the issue.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You know why those games have singleplayer? As a combination tutorial/marketing tool. They exist to A.) teach people the basic mechanics before hopping online, and B.) sucker people who don't play multiplayer into paying $60 for a game they don't like. If you fall for it once, fine. But if you make a habit of buying games like that, well, you know the saying.

Not sure what you're arguing.

I'm arguing it's reasonable to criticize them based on the singleplayer experience. Criticism doesn't necessarily mean I'm saying the game is bad.

Whether I buy them or not is not the issue.

Criticize? Sure, you can say "I find the singleplayer component weak." What you can't say, or at least you shouldn't be able to say with a straight face, is "I find the singleplayer component weak, therefore the entire game is bad, despite the amazing multiplayer." One is a valid criticism, the other is completely missing the point.

 

[Username Redacted]

I can think of three games I've run into of late that had IMO completely unecessary multiplayer tacked on in Mass Effect 3, Tomb Raider and Spec Ops: the Line. Of those the only one whose multiplayer I actually played was ME3 because they made it kind of necessary to the single player mode (and those who made that decision can go die in a fire). I found ME3s multiplayer to be worse and less tolerable than ME3s original ending. Plodding co-op with random rewards and a completely unnecessary tie-in to the single player. Yeah, that can fuck right off. Didn't play Spec Ops' multiplayer because having played and appreciated the single player it pissed me off that resources has been wasted on this vestigial multiplayer that would have been put to better use improving various minor things in the single player. As for Tomb Raider I saw some videos of the multiplayer and it didn't interest me. Thankfully unlike Spec Ops there weren't any real issues that I experienced (unless we're counting excessive QTEs) with the Tomb Raider single player that I could directly point to and go "Improving _________ would have been a better use of resources than this multiplayer".

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Criticize? Sure, you can say "I find the singleplayer component weak." What you can't say, or at least you shouldn't be able to say with a straight face, is "I find the singleplayer component weak, therefore the entire game is bad, despite the amazing multiplayer." One is a valid criticism, the other is completely missing the point.

It's more like:

"I find the singleplayer component of this game to be weak. I have no interest in the multiplayer, amazing as it may be to others. Ergo this game has failed to entertain me in regards to what I desire from it."

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Criticize? Sure, you can say "I find the singleplayer component weak." What you can't say, or at least you shouldn't be able to say with a straight face, is "I find the singleplayer component weak, therefore the entire game is bad, despite the amazing multiplayer." One is a valid criticism, the other is completely missing the point.

It's more like:

"I find the singleplayer component of this game to be weak. I have no interest in the multiplayer, amazing as it may be to others. Ergo this game has failed to entertain me in regards to what I desire from it."

But that doesn't mean it can't stand on multiplayer alone, it means you personally do not like multiplayer. I don't like RTS games, but I don't go around calling Starcraft a bad game and asking for a turn based mode.