Poll: Online vs. Offline Gaming

[vato_loco]

No, this is not another 'which one do you prefer' thread.

The discussion is: do you feel that too many games have cut/shortened the Single Player campaign in order to focus on multiplayer? And if so, how do you feel about it? No, MAG doesn't count since it was BORN a Multiplayer.

Personally, I NEVER played online, so it saddens me a lot to see many games today having single player campaings about 10-15 hours long and then advertising their multiplayer. Case in point: Modern Warfare 2. I'd LOVE to get that game, but the Single Player campaing lasts what, 8 hours? Paying US$70 (that's what they cost here in Argentina, more or less) for a game that is only going to last that long is not a fine investment, so I'm really annoyed at Activision for this.

I'm sure you can think of other examples.

Also, if this has been posted before, feel free to murder this thread and direct me to the other one, since I couldn't find it with the Search bar.

 

[tlozoot]

Some games are story-driven, some are about the gameplay, some are about the freedom. Now-a-days with online multiplayer being so wide-spread, some games are now about the multiplayer. It doesn't annoy me that some games concentrate on offering a comprehensive multiplayer platform, with just a side of campaign, as if this is the case, I'll know about it before hand and buy accordingly.

I bought Halo Reach and MW2 for the multiplayer more than for the single player. I bought games like Bioshock 2 and Brutal Legend for the single player.

I disagree with Yahtzee when he says that all games must stand up on their single player alone. They do not. If a game has an average single player but a well-supported, engaging multiplayer, where I can find hundreds of hours of fun, I'm still going to enjoy it and rate it highly.

 

[mParadox]

It annoys me so very much. Really, dishing out a good story is harder but in multiplayer all you need is money to keep the servers up a running.

Oh i really don't like being threatened by annoyed kids. I quote Yahtzee when i say that i will not sit through a multi-player unless i can slap the other player on the face through my monitor.

 

[Dogstile]

Just so you know. Modern warfare 2's campaign lasted me 5 hours

 

[hurfdurp]

Yeah, I tend to skip out on games that showcase their multiplayer because I know the storymode will be the shortest blip in time. Why is there a VS mode in RE5 ;_;?

 

[Acidwell]

The main reason i play games is for the story, look at double fine. They release on of the best games of all timesyconauts and then the next game they make add multiplayer and while its still good it is nowhere near as good as it should have been

 

[irequirefood]

I barely ever play online multiplayer, so it saddens me when a game skips out on the single-player. Only examples where the multiplayer makes the game that didn't need single-player story that I liked were the UT series, Guitar Hero/Rock Band, and any fighting game. Though I love the Mortal Kombat and Tekken story-lines

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

The easy answer: sometimes yes, sometimes no.

You have games like Modern Warfare 2, where the focus is the multiplayer, and the campaign is tacked on, and then you have games like Red Dead Redemption, where the focus is the single player, and the multiplayer is tacked on.

It just depends on what the developers focus on and how well they can balance things.

 

[TheHecatomb]

Yes it does, and it annoys me. I'm not interested in competitive online multiplaying, so in cases like Call of Duty I'm charged 60 euros for less than 4 hours of singleplayer campaign. Which is absolutely unreasonable.

 

[vato_loco]

Just so you know. Modern warfare 2's campaign lasted me 5 hours

Can't say I'm surprised.

Some games are story-driven, some are about the gameplay, some are about the freedom. Now-a-days with online multiplayer being so wide-spread, some games are now about the multiplayer. It doesn't annoy me that some games concentrate on offering a comprehensive multiplayer platform, with just a side of campaign, as if this is the case, I'll know about it before hand and buy accordingly.

I bought Halo Reach and MW2 for the multiplayer more than for the single player. I bought games like Bioshock 2 and Brutal Legend for the single player.

I disagree with Yahtzee when he says that all games must stand up on their single player alone. They do not. If a game has an average single player but a well-supported, engaging multiplayer, where I can find hundreds of hours of fun, I'm still going to enjoy it and rate it highly.

I agree completely, except for the fact that I DO agree with Yahtzee. I think that a game SHOULD be able to stand on its single player alone, if only because it means that the story layer is better driven and elaborated.

Having said that, having a game that was originally intended for single-player with a multiplayer component that makes the offline component shorter just feels like the developers didn't feel like spending too much money on writing or level design and just figured that multiplayer was the way to go. Not that it doesn't make sense, commercially, since Modern Warfare was a huge multiplayer hit.

But I get the feeling that it'll just cause the offline part to be overlooked in many more games to come.

Also, I'd really hate it if some anonymous idiot insulted me over a headphone. I play games to go to other worlds, not to be reminded that this world is full of jerks.

 

[TerranReaper]

I could really care less, if a game boasts its multiplayer components more, then so be it. Whether the multiplayer is balanced and good, is another question.

 

[Serenegoose]

I prefer singleplayer gaming, and yes, that means I find multiplayer gaming constantly gets in the way. Call of duty and Halo are great examples of this. Call of Duty 1 was a great singleplayer FPS, and so I got into the series. Except, as it went on, multiplayer encroached into the series and now the singleplayer is a tiny little tacked on experience. I sigh, and move onto another singleplayer series. Halo, same deal. The campaigns contract and contract and the multiplayer bloats up and pushes me out. I find it highly irritating.

 

[Peteron]

Depends on the game, honestly. For example, games like Halo 3 and MW2 are made for their LIVE functions, seeing as they focused much more on that then their campaigns. That is why Reach is such a good game, they took time to focus on both LIVE and offline elements, making a great game. Hell, some great games don't even have LIVE, like Assasins Creed, Fallout, Oblivion, etc. There are also games made primarily for LIVE, such as Left for Dead and Team Fortress 2. Different games focus on different things, but many seem to lead more towards Live these days. Not like I have a problem with that though, it is just that I like to see a good campaign as well. (Yes I am talking about you Modern Warfare 2!)

 

[Azure-Supernova]

My thoughts on online multiplayer are this:

If the game is created and sold as an online game (i.e. MAG or Team Fortress 2) then I have no problem with little or no solo campaign or offline mode. If it is sold and created as having featured multiplayer, then I expect to get at least 8-10 hours of solo campaign. This is pretty much where my grudge with Call of Duty.

 

[Koroviev]

Yes, I do think fleshed-out multi-player comes at the expense of the single-player campaign, and so avoid games that actively promote the multi-player aspect. I have tried multi-player before, but really gleaned no enjoyment from it. It just felt like a cheap version of single-player mode with self-aware AI. It also bothers me that games with decent single-player campaigns are marked down for lack of multi-player modes in reviews. When did the gaming industry decide that being sociable was necessary for the experience?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I know what my opinion is on this, but I'm not really sure where I fall on the poll options. Not only am I one of those individuals who likes multiplayer, but I'm also the type that never finishes games that are longer than 10 hours anyway. Even when I was a kid, I didn't finish anything longer unless it was truly exceptional. Today, I barely have the time for the 10 hour games that everyone complains about being too short. I guess my opinion is something along the lines of "Hadn't really noticed, but more multiplayer options and shorter single player campaigns are both good things in my book."

 

[Korten12]

really don't care, I have many many single-player games, its nice to have a good multi-player with some of them even if they don't have an amazing single-player.

 

[Timbydude]

It annoys me to no end. Single-player games are memorable, but multiplayer games feel more like decent time sinks than worthwhile experiences.

That said, I absolutely love the multiplayer in Halo: Reach and Modern Warfare 2. Even though those are the ones that people complaining about, I feel that they have also had the two most solid FPS single-player campaigns (next to the original CoD4: MW) this side of Half-Life 2.

But even Valve has been taking this approach recently. I'm sure I'll garner tons of fanboy hate here, but Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead 1/2 just aren't that memorable. They're fun, but I finish playing them and almost feel like I wasted my time a little. I know they haven't shifted their development focus from single-player, per se, but games like Portal just don't stack up at all to the other recent excellent single-player games (MGS4, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Super Mario Galaxy, etc.).

As multiplayer becomes easier to make and more profitable at the same time, I think that we're sadly going to see this trend continue.