Poll: Should games be for everyone?

[Korten12]

I was reading an article on g4tv about Capcoms logic with co-op
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/704709/Game-Together-Or-Die-Alone----Issues-And-Expectations-With-Capcom-Co-Op.html

and it got me thinking, is this capcoms fault or is it somewhat the players fault in the sense of everyone expects they should be able to play the game how they want. Lost Planet 2 you can play alone but it is heavily empiszed to play co-op even if its with someone you dont know. And so the fact that they said that they should be able to play alone made me think, that they bought a game to play how it wasnt meant to be played.

so it brings up the question, should all games be playable or people should be able to play them how they want to? In my opinion I think that games shouldnt always have to be assecible to everyone and if someone wants to make a game that is heavily centered around co-op they shouldnt have people at their door saying they should be able to play alone.


also I dont know if I did the poll correct...

 

[Marter]

Just because Co-Op is the focus, I still think that you should be able to play alone. Other people aren't always available to play with, and not everyone has access to online.

 

[Audioave10]

I love to be able to game my own way. I don't need guidance.

 

[Korten12]

Just because Co-Op is the focus, I still think that you should be able to play alone. Other people aren't always available to play with, and not everyone has access to online.

that is true, but ill use MAG as an example, it is for people who want to play multiplayer only and work together, and if someone buys the game expecting to be able to play alone with bots or something bought a game that wasnt meant to be like that.

 

[Marter]

Just because Co-Op is the focus, I still think that you should be able to play alone. Other people aren't always available to play with, and not everyone has access to online.

that is true, but ill use MAG as an example, it is for people who want to play multiplayer only and work together, and if someone buys the game expecting to be able to play alone with bots or something bought a game that wasnt meant to be like that.

Except that games like MAG and Warhawk have been marketed as "Online Only", and even have an advisory on the back/front of the box that you need the internet to play it. As far as I know, no such warning is on Lost Planet 2.

 

[Korten12]

Just because Co-Op is the focus, I still think that you should be able to play alone. Other people aren't always available to play with, and not everyone has access to online.

that is true, but ill use MAG as an example, it is for people who want to play multiplayer only and work together, and if someone buys the game expecting to be able to play alone with bots or something bought a game that wasnt meant to be like that.

Except that games like MAG and Warhawk have been marketed as "Online Only", and even have an advisory on the back/front of the box that you need the internet to play it. As far as I know, no such warning is on Lost Planet 2.

yes thats true but im looking at the LP2 box and most people probably read the box before buying it says this in its first lines. "Civil war rages across the six continents on E.D.N. III, How will you respond to it? Team up with up to 4 players via co-op play and battle colosal akrid..." see its first thing it mentions on the back is co-op.

 

[Marter]

Just because Co-Op is the focus, I still think that you should be able to play alone. Other people aren't always available to play with, and not everyone has access to online.

that is true, but ill use MAG as an example, it is for people who want to play multiplayer only and work together, and if someone buys the game expecting to be able to play alone with bots or something bought a game that wasnt meant to be like that.

Except that games like MAG and Warhawk have been marketed as "Online Only", and even have an advisory on the back/front of the box that you need the internet to play it. As far as I know, no such warning is on Lost Planet 2.

yes thats true but im looking at the LP2 box and most people probably read the box before buying it says this in its first lines. "Civil war rages across the six continents on E.D.N. III, How will you respond to it? Team up with up to 4 players via co-op play and battle colosal akrid..." see its first thing it mentions on the back is co-op.

It mentions Co-Op as a feature, but so do many games. I believe it should at least have a functional single player, unless it specifically states that it should be played with friends.

 

[Korten12]

Just because Co-Op is the focus, I still think that you should be able to play alone. Other people aren't always available to play with, and not everyone has access to online.

that is true, but ill use MAG as an example, it is for people who want to play multiplayer only and work together, and if someone buys the game expecting to be able to play alone with bots or something bought a game that wasnt meant to be like that.

Except that games like MAG and Warhawk have been marketed as "Online Only", and even have an advisory on the back/front of the box that you need the internet to play it. As far as I know, no such warning is on Lost Planet 2.

yes thats true but im looking at the LP2 box and most people probably read the box before buying it says this in its first lines. "Civil war rages across the six continents on E.D.N. III, How will you respond to it? Team up with up to 4 players via co-op play and battle colosal akrid..." see its first thing it mentions on the back is co-op.

It mentions Co-Op as a feature, but so do many games. I believe it should at least have a functional single player, unless it specifically states that it should be played with friends.

yeah many games mentioned co-op as a feature like "Hey you can play this single player but you can if you want to play co-op", lost planet 2 says as its first feature, co-op.

also ill bring up another game. Demon's Souls, should the next demon's souls(if it happens) have an easy, normal, and hard difficulty just so then more people can play it?

 

[Johnnyallstar]

No. A game should not be made for everyone, it should be made for a very specific target. When a dev team knows exactly the target clientele, they are able to mold the experience better towards that specific demographic.

Some games, Co-op works well, but in others the single player experience is better suited for single player. Look how Resident Evil 5 differed from 4, in just terms of Co-op vs Single player. The difference is drastic, as it goes from always having a buddy to watch your back to being stranded. Alone.

It depends really on the game, but I think a more clear cut target of single vs co-op vs multi is always preferable to just tossing them all in and hoping for the best.

 

[Lullabye]

Just because Co-Op is the focus, I still think that you should be able to play alone. Other people aren't always available to play with, and not everyone has access to online.

that is true, but ill use MAG as an example, it is for people who want to play multiplayer only and work together, and if someone buys the game expecting to be able to play alone with bots or something bought a game that wasnt meant to be like that.

Except that games like MAG and Warhawk have been marketed as "Online Only", and even have an advisory on the back/front of the box that you need the internet to play it. As far as I know, no such warning is on Lost Planet 2.

yes thats true but im looking at the LP2 box and most people probably read the box before buying it says this in its first lines. "Civil war rages across the six continents on E.D.N. III, How will you respond to it? Team up with up to 4 players via co-op play and battle colosal akrid..." see its first thing it mentions on the back is co-op.

It mentions Co-Op as a feature, but so do many games. I believe it should at least have a functional single player, unless it specifically states that it should be played with friends.

Does that mean we shouldn't have a functional single player unless it explicitly states it's meant to be played alone, by yourself?

 

[Marter]

Does that mean we shouldn't have a functional single player unless it explicitly states it's meant to be played alone, by yourself?

No, as games over the last 20 years have been predominately single player. Changing the normal formula is what these types of games are doing.

We expect there to be a single player in all games, because that is what we have been groomed to expect.

 

[Swifteye]

When a product is made it has to have a target audience. Even general public is it's own audience. This goes well for gaming. You'd have to make a very generic lukewarm uninspired but desirable product to appeal to a large group. Not really a good idea for games(well most games ds and wii games might say otherwise) the more generic it is the more we dislike it and detest it limiting it's chance to really be successful. However specfic target audiences is risky. Like say an indie game. I that indie game doesn't put out something interesting and worthwhile that appeals the audience it's shooting for it's as good as dead which is bad from an investment standpoint.

Should games be for everyone?
Only if you want them to be. Once again deploying a investment metaphor.
If you invest in like Mcdonalds (AKA a generic everyman pick up game) you are sure to make a quick buck and in some way be successful enough to keep moving forward with other projects.
If you invest in say Billy bobs hamburgers (AKA a new unique or at least different game with specfic strengths and weaknesses) you COULD be successful and have it pay back to you tenfold and be very successful. Or it could blow up on ya and cause you to lose more than you make.

Guess which one the buisness people like forcing developers to choose?
That's right. The second one.

 

[Lullabye]

We expect there to be a single player in all games, because that is what we have been groomed to expect.

Well, I don't know who this "we" your referring to is, since I don't expect, or want, or care if all games have a single player.
Is it really something as simple as tradition, fear of the new and different, that's making you defend your stance? Please explain, I'd hate to misinterpret.

 

[Marter]

We expect there to be a single player in all games, because that is what we have been groomed to expect.

Well, I don't know who this "we" your referring to is, since I don't expect, or want, or care if all games have a single player.
Is it really something as simple as tradition, fear of the new and different, that's making you defend your stance? Please explain, I'd hate to misinterpret.

The "we" I'm referring to is society as a whole. Having a single player mode is something that is expected by the majority. It is tradition, but my viewpoint is not out of fear. It's just something that has pretty much always been done, that is why we don't need a single player advertised.

 

[Yureina]

I don't think games should be "forced" to be accessible to everyone, but games that want to do well ought to have a degree of replayability within the game itself. Otherwise they get really boring really fast.

 

[Plurralbles]

um... if single player is available, that's one way the game is meant to be played and should be supported just as much as co-op.