Poll: Multiplayer vs Single-Player

[jezz8me]

single player just because i prefer the sort of games to play single player.

If there was a good way to make an action adventure game online then maybe it would work multilayer but since Fury failed at their efforts (I was looking forward to seeing if it turned out well btw) i don't think there will be one.

RPG's IMO are best played single player as well. KOTOR and FF are probably the best RPGs or at least that i have played because of somewhat of a story propelling the game instead of grinding for the sake of killing more and grinding more aka WOW.

And you cannot have a multiplayer point and click adventure/ puzzle Monkey Island, Grim Fandango style game can you?




I do, however, like the idea of spawn being a single player game with an online comunity where you share single player work.

 

[Combat Marmot]

I play a mix of single and multi player games but the quality of a MP game seems very dependant on the time of day that you log onto a server. I'd rather have something that I can play when I feel like it rather than having to think "oh wait, I won't bother because there will be no-one/idiots/cheaters/etc online. MP is often based played with people you know and is rather ironic in the fact that it can be quite boring if you don't know anyone else on the server playing it.

I think it is easier for a multiplayer game to be good than for a single player game. Look at how the Battlefield (I'm not saying it was the 1st like that just in case anyone wants to pick a fight) format has essentially been reapplied over and over again. If you did that with a single player game - imagine Half life in the 16th century, then the 17th, then the 18th etc.

Single player also requires a story and I suppose that is where a lot of effort has to go. I can't think of a good single player game that had a bad story (but I can think of quite a few that had weak ones but were fun to play anyway).

 

[Melaisis]

At least the OI (overall intelligence) is (usually) better in multiplayer games. I want opponents that adapt to my strategies, that work a way around my defences and are generally satisfying to kill. In singleplayer games, outside of RTSes, this experience with the AI is generally lacklustre if present at all.

Anyway, I find this topic quite shallow; I'm not going to play TF2 or BF2 for the single player, am I? Likewise multiplayer on even such FPSes as HL2 (who really plays deathmatch!?) or Prey is generally not what you buy the game for. It all depends what the game itself is aimed at.

 

[Seldon2639]

At least the OI (overall intelligence) is (usually) better in multiplayer games. I want opponents that adapt to my strategies, that work a way around my defences and are generally satisfying to kill. In singleplayer games, outside of RTSes, this experience with the AI is generally lacklustre if present at all.

Anyway, I find this topic quite shallow; I'm not going to play TF2 or BF2 for the single player, am I? Likewise multiplayer on even such FPSes as HL2 (who really plays deathmatch!?) or Prey is generally not what you buy the game for. It all depends what the game itself is aimed at.

That was kind of the point of the topic. Not "is x game good because of y or z", but which is a more important quality. The fact that I can find games of each general focus doesn't invalidate that I will inevitably make a choice. If I buy TF2 rather than HL2, or the reverse, I'm making a choice of which quality in a game is more important.

 

[Melaisis]

At least the OI (overall intelligence) is (usually) better in multiplayer games. I want opponents that adapt to my strategies, that work a way around my defences and are generally satisfying to kill. In singleplayer games, outside of RTSes, this experience with the AI is generally lacklustre if present at all.

Anyway, I find this topic quite shallow; I'm not going to play TF2 or BF2 for the single player, am I? Likewise multiplayer on even such FPSes as HL2 (who really plays deathmatch!?) or Prey is generally not what you buy the game for. It all depends what the game itself is aimed at.

That was kind of the point of the topic. Not "is x game good because of y or z", but which is a more important quality. The fact that I can find games of each general focus doesn't invalidate that I will inevitably make a choice. If I buy TF2 rather than HL2, or the reverse, I'm making a choice of which quality in a game is more important.

Truth.

Which is why, I believe, Valve already made that choice for you when it includes them both in Orange Box. Alright, so that probably wasn't your intention when you used that example; but its interesting to note how Valve incorporate both offline and online modes of play into one package, but not one game. Compelling marketing, no?

And I sort of do approve of the topic. I wouldn't write a thesis on it; but it is definitely interesting to see what the community thinks, and how easily they take sides.

 

[TheHaunt]

I don't give a hearty shit about multiplayer.

agreed, to a point. I do admit to looking at some games and their multiplayer options just so I can team up with some select friends to play together (LAN). Other than that, I totally agree with HalfShadow.

 

[stompy]

'Cos of my inability to obtain Xbox Live membership, I can't play online. So obviously, single-player. That, and after a while, multiplayer gets boring for me (just something I find about anything in my life).

 

[scoHish]

Multiplayer is fun to play, but doesnt take nearly as much effort to put together as a deep, fun to play, single player mode. For the most part I think the better the story, the better the game. Multiplayers just about runnin around getting some quick entertainment (which i do quite often) but sometimes getting into an involved singleplayer is better.

 

[Joeshie]

This thread is stupid. What constitutes good gameplay is based off of the kind of game your making, not the other way around.

 

[Seldon2639]

This thread is stupid. What constitutes good gameplay is based off of the kind of game your making, not the other way around.

Good point, but the purpose of this thread isn't to determine what makes for good gameplay in and of itself, but rather to ascertain which is a more important component of the game itself. If I buy Halo 3, I know I'll be getting a mediocre single-player game, with a pretty fantastic multi-player game. If I buy Mass Effect, I know I'm getting a great single-player game, and no multi-player component. Which would you rather buy in general?

 

[MattyDienhoff]

Singleplayer is, overall, more important to me.

 

[Alphavillain]

I think singleplayer just because I grew up playing games without any friends (cue violins). Also, multiplayer is often a way for a developer to abandon responsibility for making a compelling Story Mode.

 

[Joeshie]

This thread is stupid. What constitutes good gameplay is based off of the kind of game your making, not the other way around.

Good point, but the purpose of this thread isn't to determine what makes for good gameplay in and of itself, but rather to ascertain which is a more important component of the game itself. If I buy Halo 3, I know I'll be getting a mediocre single-player game, with a pretty fantastic multi-player game. If I buy Mass Effect, I know I'm getting a great single-player game, and no multi-player component. Which would you rather buy in general?

The most important component of the game is going to be the one that is done the best. In the case of Halo, the multi-player is clearly better and thus is the more important component. In the case of Half-Life, the single-player is clearly better than the multi-player and thus is the more important component.

I am personally a heavy multi-player gamer, but I still love a good single-player experience. It all really comes down to personal opinion. Neither mode is inherently better than the other.

It's really hard to get both a good multi-player experience and single-player experience in one package. The only one that comes to mind that has done this recently is the Orange Box and possibly Call of Duty 4 if they ironed out some of the annoying issues with the multi-player.

 

[Seldon2639]

This thread is stupid. What constitutes good gameplay is based off of the kind of game your making, not the other way around.

Good point, but the purpose of this thread isn't to determine what makes for good gameplay in and of itself, but rather to ascertain which is a more important component of the game itself. If I buy Halo 3, I know I'll be getting a mediocre single-player game, with a pretty fantastic multi-player game. If I buy Mass Effect, I know I'm getting a great single-player game, and no multi-player component. Which would you rather buy in general?

The most important component of the game is going to be the one that is done the best. In the case of Halo, the multi-player is clearly better and thus is the more important component. In the case of Half-Life, the single-player is clearly better than the multi-player and thus is the more important component.

I am personally a heavy multi-player gamer, but I still love a good single-player experience. It all really comes down to personal opinion. Neither mode is inherently better than the other.

It's really hard to get both a good multi-player experience and single-player experience in one package. The only one that comes to mind that has done this recently is the Orange Box and possibly Call of Duty 4 if they ironed out some of the annoying issues with the multi-player.

I agree it's personal preference, which I mentioned in my first post. I was curious about the breakdown of people on The Escapist forums in terms of which they preferred. The basic question is: would you prefer TF2 or HL2?