Poll: Games multiplayer make it more appealing?

[Ashadowpie]

i personally never play multiplayer, until my im with my friends and they're sitting right next to me. is it sad that i feel old saying that? while yah playing online with a bunch of strangers can be "fun" its mostly not. i dont like being around strangers, especially if i cant see them. so multiplayer in and game? not for me. also most of these people are incredibly rude just for fun too. its terrible.

i find it actually frustrating when big games come out with a 10 hour gameplay story single player, and then a heap of grind multiplayer instead. its stupid.

ah remember the good ol days when going through a game, even a shooter took waayy more than 10 hours to beat? those were the days.

 

[loc978]

It really depends on the genre. In an RTS or an arena FPS/TPS, it's absolutely necessary. In most other genres (including campaign-based FPS/TPS games), I have no use for it.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

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.

We're talking about personal views here, it's not even that I don't like multiplayer. It's that I think a game shouldn't rely/stand on it.

Referring to this argument:

Crackdown 2

Crackdown 2 seems to subscribe to the school of thought that having a multiplayer focus lets you skimp on content (see also Lost Planet 2 and that horrible Unreal Tournament/Quake 3 arena period in shooters that Half-Life thankfully rescued us from).
...
I've got nothing against multiplayer as a concept, but you shouldn't try to make it carry your game, because there are logistical problems.

If I said "a game can't rely/stand on multiplayer." I'd have to specify what I mean (stand commercially, critically, etc)

You might be referring to this argument.

Halo: Reach
"But isn't there multiplayer as well?" Shut up! Mouth shut now! We've been over this. A full-price game has to stand up on single-player, because there are always factors in the way of multiplayer the game can't help, like its servers becoming tumbleweed-haunted ghost towns three months down the line or the aforementioned meta-cunts doing what they do best at full volume in my ear.

Which I don't know about. He's saying that games should justify their price based on single-player, but that falls into another issue.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

We're talking about personal views here, it's not even that I don't like multiplayer. It's that I think a game shouldn't rely/stand on it.

Referring to this argument:

Crackdown 2

Crackdown 2 seems to subscribe to the school of thought that having a multiplayer focus lets you skimp on content (see also Lost Planet 2 and that horrible Unreal Tournament/Quake 3 arena period in shooters that Half-Life thankfully rescued us from).
...
I've got nothing against multiplayer as a concept, but you shouldn't try to make it carry your game, because there are logistical problems.

If I said "a game can't rely/stand on multiplayer." I'd have to specify what I mean (stand commercially, critically, etc)

You might be referring to this argument.

Halo: Reach
"But isn't there multiplayer as well?" Shut up! Mouth shut now! We've been over this. A full-price game has to stand up on single-player, because there are always factors in the way of multiplayer the game can't help, like its servers becoming tumbleweed-haunted ghost towns three months down the line or the aforementioned meta-cunts doing what they do best at full volume in my ear.

Which I don't know about. He's saying that games should justify their price based on single-player, but that falls into another issue.

But you're making the exact same argument. The only difference is that the quote about Halo is more abrasive. Great multiplayer games are great games, period. Just like great singleplayer games are great games, period. If you were saying "for me to personally enjoy a game, it needs good singleplayer," that would be one thing. But you're actually saying "stop liking things I don't like, and stop making them while you're at it." The market is big enough to support both styles. Personally, I'd like a few less Half Life clones, and a few more Unreal Tournament clones. We've been getting too much of one, and not enough of the other for the last decade.

 

[FFP2]

To be honest games that don't have multiplayer appeal to me way more than ones that have it.

I know that this isn't the case in all instances but I feel like the time/money that went into the MP could have made the SP even better.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

But you're making the exact same argument. The only difference is that the quote about Halo is more abrasive.

Not sure what you're saying.

Great multiplayer games are great games, period. Just like great singleplayer games are great games, period.

Agreed.

If you were saying "for me to personally enjoy a game, it needs good singleplayer,"

Isn't that what I'm saying?

that would be one thing. But you're actually saying "stop liking things I don't like, and stop making them while you're at it."

I don't see how I'm saying that. I've not once criticized the people who like multiplayer, I've not once told developers to stop making multiplayer games.

All I've been saying is: "Dear developers. Don't put precedence over multiplayer or singleplayer when making your game (if you're going to do both). Give equal focus to both of them, or cut out one of them."

If that's not what came across, then that's definitely what I meant to say.

The market is big enough to support both styles.

I agree. I think the problem is that many publishers and developers don't realize that.

Personally, I'd like a few less Half Life clones, and a few more Unreal Tournament clones. We've been getting too much of one, and not enough of the other for the last decade.

And that's a fine, I just want more single-player games and I certainly don't want them to all be Half-Life clones.

 

[Captain Billy]

Multiplayer shouldn't be required, but it certainly can make a game better. The BioShock series (excluding BioShock 2, because I can, so there) didn't have multiplayer, and turned out pretty much flawless anyways. That said, Assassin's Creed greatly benefitted from multiplayer that actually let you be an assassin.

 

[dOrOrOwait]

I think online multiplayer for all games is a bad idea. There is nothing like sitting inviting someone over for some 2 player action. Borderlands does an okay job.

 

[Requia]

I like multiplayer, but there tend to be games with good multi and shit single, and games with good single and shit multi, I haven't seen much in the way of exceptions. Maybe the Halo games? I hated their multiplayer but a shitload of people liked it.

Edit: Not including co-op, local co-op is awesome.