Poll: Is pvp/multiplayer a copout for creating real game content?

[sethisjimmy]

No. When multiplayer is tacked on, such as in Bioshock 2 or Dead Space 2, I think it's not the developers choice of being lazy, which doesn't really make sense anyway because you're still adding something to the game, and multiplayer is just as hard as singleplayer to perfect, perhaps even more so because of the added variables.
What it is, is the publishers pressuring the developers to stick in multiplayer into otherwise single player titles because they see the success of games like Call of Duty and Battlefield and feel that a game won't succeed unless it has some form of multiplayer, which is entirely unfounded.

 

[Bat Vader]

I just consider that single player games and multiplayer games need to be as far away from each other as possible. If a game needs multiplayer, it should abandon single player in favor of using the budget and time to refine the multiplayer further as well as the support and servers.

Single Player games just need to abandon the notion of trying to improve replayability through multiplayer or online competition because they already have replayability through tons of side missions, collectibles, easter eggs, new game+, UGC missions, etc. They should refine the single player further than try to make their own unrefined multiplayer.

I always like the notion that a master of only one thing is better than having all of them but mastering none whatsoever.

Max Payne 3 was a pretty well done game with a great single player and well done multiplayer.

I agree with you though that most single player games do not need a multiplayer mode attached to them and vice versa. The Call of Duty franchise seems like it needs to drop single player and just start making the games multiplayer only.

 

[Brad Calkins]

It really depends on how much work they put in, games like TF2, and LOL aren't cop outs at all, because they show a lot of effort in balancing out the game's content, but sometimes it is. The worst one was the ITCG Elements, where after only a cursory look at the cards availbale, it becomes clear that the whole design philosophy was "put in whatever sounds cool, and to hell with balance"

 

[Waaghpowa]

Depends on the game, but I think FEAR 3 is an example of a "copout" by using multi player. Two previous FEAR games, excluding the add on content, that focused on single player and story. Third game comes around and it's co op. Not good co op, pretty shit co op. The game was terrible. There was no separation between the two. Even when you played the game solo, it would keep score like if you were playing with someone else. The game suffered so much for it, and I regret buying it.

 

[Phlakes]

Considering multiplayer is "real game content", no. That doesn't mean it's necessarily good content, of course.

 

[default]

Jesus Christ...

Do you have any idea how much effort and time it takes to make a balanced, interesting and smooth-running multiplayer experience? Granted, most multiplayer sections of games are anything BUT balanced, interesting and smooth-running, but at least they tried.

The hours of coding and content creation and balancing and scrolling through networking issues.

It's HARDLY a cop-out, if anything it's MORE work. More work to make a good one anyway...

 

[Signa]

Case-by-case.

I feel like COD4 had "tacked on" multiplayer, but the rest of the series had tacked on single player. Then there's TF2 and other games like it that are designed to be exclusively MP games. If anything, the single player bot modes feel tacked on. UT2004 was like that too.

I do feel in the general sense that more games have that tacked-on feel than don't. Bioshock 2 also comes to mind. Then there are even older games that wouldn't have come to find at first like Deus Ex and No One Lives Forever.

 

[Burst6]

Spoiler

Nope, not a copout. It is just a different focus.

I loves me some TF2 but i have to mention this.

TF2 was released in the orange box. It came with the HL2 series up to ep2 and the original portal, all 3 for $60. TF2 was cheaper than 60 dollars when it came out. 20 dollars if you count all 3 as equals. Then they released free updates for it for a while before the whole mann-co thing came out. That's valve for ya. Making a great team based multiplayer FPS and then selling it for a cheap price.

 

[Mr Binary]

Well, it's a lot harder to make multiplayer than most people would think due to balancing and what not. I personally don't see it as a copout, but then again it shouldn't take away from the single player. If a developer makes a game that's supposed to have both a singleplayer campaign, and multiplayer features then they should work equally hard on both. I think 'Halo: ODST' is a decent example of this because they had mainly been focusing on the Fire-fight mode than the actual story. Some could argue that it was more of a spin-off than anything, but that's no reason to slack off.

 

[Lunar Templar]

depends on who's making and why the mode is there to begin with, but any more i tend to see it as a crutch devs are using to do any real creative thinking

Do you have any idea how much effort and time it takes to make a balanced, interesting and smooth-running multiplayer experience? Granted, most multiplayer sections of games are anything BUT balanced, interesting and smooth-running, but at least they tried.

The hours of coding and content creation and balancing and scrolling through networking issues.

It's HARDLY a cop-out, if anything it's MORE work. More work to make a good one anyway...

as this gent pointed out, its a lot of work to pulls of right, but then, its a lot of work making a good single player game as well, maybe it dosen't need to be balanced, but i believe its a lot harder to make a good story and craft a world that will stick with a person years after finishing, then it is to make a map and balance weapons so some one can frag some one else

 

[Something Amyss]

Consumers get what they deserve. People buy multiplayer, so devs make it. If you want more single-player titles, stop sending the message that multiplayer is necessary for longevity.

With multi-player, there are a large number of variables that will cause your game to crash and burn. Weapon balance, perk/variables balance, unbalanced maps, bad servers, bad hit detection, a unfriendly user interface; all of these things are things that will sink a multi-player game before it even gets off the ground...

Except they almost never do.

 

[Yopaz]

I don't believe that multiplayer is inherently a cop-out.

However, I do believe many developers do use it as such.

Bingo! My opinion wrapped up in one sentence right there.

Some games actually require multiplayer to be fun, now I love Super Smash Bros. It's one of my favourite game series of all time. It provides a lot of fun for me and my friends. However the single player is irrelevant. There are some fun challenges to accomplish and all that, but the multiplayer is the reason I love it. If those games were lacking multiplayer they wouldn't be nearly as fun. Then there are games like Dead Space 2 or BioShock 2 which were games that didn't require multiplayer. These are games we wanted to provide a great single player experience. This feels like a feeble attempt at adding more content simply to make the game feel complete. Same with the Resident Evil 5 versus mode which was horrible and unbalanced. If you buy Call of Duty you should be prepared that the single player experience wont be spectacular. It's a game intended to be played with others, if you love multiplayer then putting down 60 bucks for it wont be a problem. If you don't then just don't buy the game. It's not like anyone should have a reason to be surprised anymore when a new Call of Duty is released.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well as far as content goes you don't haveto do anything because players bring the content, however the tools you provide the players with must be a lot tighter, in SP several broken mechanics don't matter much because people will just avoid them but when things get competitive in MP people will exploit and fuck it up for everyone.

But overall MP compared to SP is much much cheaper because it is only gameplay on a few maps and yet it will keep the players hanging on for longer so you can sell them extras, also gives the company complete control over longevity, which is why most resort to it.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Let me answer your question with another question. If a developer does add pvp and multiplayer simply so they dont have to bother making a decent single player mode,why would you play their game? Why would you even care?

 

[ultrachicken]

It's surprising to me how many people are just venting their frustrations with multiplayer rather than answering the question.

A good multiplayer game requires a perfect competitive balance regarding maps and guns. The terrain needs to have variations to be interesting, but also needs to give all players an even playing field. The guns need to cater to different playstyles without a large power difference. The servers have to work consistently, the matchmaking has to work well, and the teams need to be balanced.

Considering the amount of work that goes into multiplayer, no, I don't think it's a cop-out.