Poll: single player

-Orpheus-

New member
May 5, 2009
42
0
0
Triple AD said:
I did "yes,but not for games like COD" 'cuz not all games need it but funnily enough I liked CoD 4's singleplayer
Agreed. I enjoyed both CoD4 and CoD5 single players. The level breifings are done in an interesting style and the support characters don't just repeat the same tired old phrases. The levels with the snipers in both games are particularly well done.
 

massau

New member
Apr 25, 2009
409
0
0
GoldenRaz said:
Yes, single player need more focus in games that feature them; if you want to make a great multiplayer, don't do the single player (i.e. TF2).

Also, in what way does COD differ itself from other games when it comes to single player vs. multiplayer?
it isa more a multiplayer game it is only n example i will also set BF2 for example k?
 

massau

New member
Apr 25, 2009
409
0
0
Gormourn said:
I prefer multiplayer in most cases.

If single player has a good story behind it, so be it. But another WW2 game? Meh.
WW2 is already overdone it isn't amusing any more
 

Eatbrainz

New member
Mar 2, 2009
1,016
0
0
massau said:
Eatbrainz said:
crap single player, to me, means that the devs forgot the roots of gaming, where it all began.
what do you mean with that
well games pretty much started out with single player in mind and most of them kicked serious arse.
 

massau

New member
Apr 25, 2009
409
0
0
Eatbrainz said:
massau said:
Eatbrainz said:
crap single player, to me, means that the devs forgot the roots of gaming, where it all began.
what do you mean with that
well games pretty much started out with single player in mind and most of them kicked serious arse.
k now i get it i thought you sad that multiplayer was the beginning
 

GoldenRaz

New member
Mar 21, 2009
905
0
0
massau said:
GoldenRaz said:
Yes, single player need more focus in games that feature them; if you want to make a great multiplayer, don't do the single player (i.e. TF2).

Also, in what way does COD differ itself from other games when it comes to single player vs. multiplayer?
it isa more a multiplayer game it is only n example i will also set BF2 for example k?
Have to disagree there (even if I do not own or have really played any of them): I don't think COD 4 and WaW are made solely for their multiplayers. I think it's more of a 50/50 relationship between the single- and multiplayer, since the COD 4 story was (as far as I know) rather intricate for the average FPS.
But then again, that's just my uneducated opinion.

P.S. Hate to be "that guy" but please improve your grammar a teensy bit if you respond.
My slow brain had to read your post 4 times before it could dechipher it... -.- *grammar-nazi mode powering down*
 

Good morning blues

New member
Sep 24, 2008
2,664
0
0
I don't like multiplayer and as a result I don't like the trend toward ignoring it in favor of singleplayer. I think more developers should devote more time to creating engrossing single-player games.
 

EMFCRACKSHOT

Not quite Cthulhu
May 25, 2009
2,973
0
0
irishstormtrooper said:
Singleplayer absolutely needs attention. A 5 hour campaign and a few multiplayer modes is not enough for a game.
Damn straight, this guy has it bang on methinks
 

massau

New member
Apr 25, 2009
409
0
0
GoldenRaz said:
massau said:
GoldenRaz said:
Yes, single player need more focus in games that feature them; if you want to make a great multiplayer, don't do the single player (i.e. TF2).

Also, in what way does COD differ itself from other games when it comes to single player vs. multiplayer?
it isa more a multiplayer game it is only n example i will also set BF2 for example k?
Have to disagree there (even if I do not own or have really played any of them): I don't think COD 4 and WaW are made solely for their multiplayers. I think it's more of a 50/50 relationship between the single- and multiplayer, since the COD 4 story was (as far as I know) rather intricate for the average FPS.
But then again, that's just my uneducated opinion.

P.S. Hate to be "that guy" but please improve your grammar a teensy bit if you respond.
My slow brain had to read your post 4 times before it could dechipher it... -.- *grammar-nazi mode powering down*
but BF is more a multiplayer
 

Gaming_Purist

New member
May 10, 2009
126
0
0
Heatseeker said:
I agree that singleplayer in some games really needs attention, especially in some very disappointing singleplayer only games, however I don't think just length is the answer. Plenty of potentially good games have been ruined by just adding on pointless things to increase the length. The focus needs to be on creating a great experience for the player no matter the length e.g. Portal and Braid: short but great experiences
Agreed.

You can hardly blame the developers either; many games are judged and remembered based purely on their multiplayer experiences irrespective of their single-player implementations.
 

coldfrog

Can you feel around inside?
Dec 22, 2008
1,320
0
0
I used to feel this way about single player games. I used to feel that the only way to get my money's worth out of a game was to make sure that game lasted as long as humanly possible. One of the only reason I played JRPG's was to know that that 50 bucks was going to be worth at least 3 months of gaming. However, I've advanced from that time to really appreciate quality over quantity, and I've come to appreciate games that are quite the right length, including Gears of War (the first one), Portal and Braid. What gets me about a game now is how well they've put it together, and when the game lasts just long enough to be satisfying but not drag on, it feels good to me. In fact, I've had trouble finishing up the MGS series because I feel like they filled it with a bit too much filler. I'm still on the third one and haven't played it in a looooong time because of that change in my gaming habits.

If you want a game that'll last forever though, I still say: Look into games with endless replay value like Pac Man, Intelligent Qube, Ikaruga, or (the more recent games of) Grand Theft Auto. All of these games have endless reasons to replay through them, be it the goal of score or the wide world or just pure difficulty. Honestly, I think the biggest factor here is becoming more mature as a gamer and learning just what kind of quality you're getting out of the game. Once you can recognize the attention paid by the creators to certain things, you'll be able to appreciate the smaller things even more, and you'll get more enjoyment out of the time spent, even if the time is somewhat less.
 

GoldenRaz

New member
Mar 21, 2009
905
0
0
massau said:
*quote line snip*
but BF is more a multiplayer
Yes, but it doesn't feature a "real" single player, it's just a multiplayer map with bots. No real mission structure, just single player multiplayer (if you catch my drift).
But then again, I haven't played BF2 either and I got this information from my mate who sucked at describing the single player. I may very well be wrong in this case...

EDIT: Feel the need to clarify: I understand what you mean when you say that games like BF2 (or what I feel is kinda similar single vs. multiplayer-wise, L4D) doesn't need to put emphasis on their local offline single player. I even agree on that point, so...yay!
 

Scarecrow38

New member
Apr 17, 2008
693
0
0
If a game has both multiplayer and singleplayer, the single should take priority. There's really no excuse to have a dodgy singleplayer segment sticky taped to a good multiplayer. Game developers should just cut it to multiplayer only.

Only having one or the other is fine, but the issue comes when both are provided but the MP overrides the SP.
 

massau

New member
Apr 25, 2009
409
0
0
coldfrog said:
I used to feel this way about single player games. I used to feel that the only way to get my money's worth out of a game was to make sure that game lasted as long as humanly possible. One of the only reason I played JRPG's was to know that that 50 bucks was going to be worth at least 3 months of gaming. However, I've advanced from that time to really appreciate quality over quantity, and I've come to appreciate games that are quite the right length, including Gears of War (the first one), Portal and Braid. What gets me about a game now is how well they've put it together, and when the game lasts just long enough to be satisfying but not drag on, it feels good to me. In fact, I've had trouble finishing up the MGS series because I feel like they filled it with a bit too much filler. I'm still on the third one and haven't played it in a looooong time because of that change in my gaming habits.

If you want a game that'll last forever though, I still say: Look into games with endless replay value like Pac Man, Intelligent Qube, Ikaruga, or (the more recent games of) Grand Theft Auto. All of these games have endless reasons to replay through them, be it the goal of score or the wide world or just pure difficulty. Honestly, I think the biggest factor here is becoming more mature as a gamer and learning just what kind of quality you're getting out of the game. Once you can recognize the attention paid by the creators to certain things, you'll be able to appreciate the smaller things even more, and you'll get more enjoyment out of the time spent, even if the time is somewhat less.
maybe some games need more random in it and scripts that adapt to the player so if you play it again it will get harder and you will need to find new tactics. the random is jut for making the games more exiting so if you go in a wood lvl it will chance if you burn it it will be burned forever but there will be new plants (i hope they can do this in the future )
 

massau

New member
Apr 25, 2009
409
0
0
I THINK THAT THIS IS THE END OF THIS THREAT SO WHAT DO WE LEARN OUT OF THIS
MORE PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE A SINGLE PLAYER NOW I GOOING TO TRY THE OTHER SIDE WAT OTHER PEOPLE WANT FOR EXAMPLE questing : doe you want a laarger muliplaer
THE TITLE OF IT WILL BE MULTIPLAYER
 

Xorghul

New member
Jul 2, 2008
728
0
0
Flour said:
In my opinion, a game should focus on single or multi-player.

A single player game shouldn't have a multiplayer mode, except maybe a co-op campaign option.
A multiplayer game shouldn't have a campaign, or anything related to single player.

Developers should focus a lot more on the single player and less on the graphics though. Currently, I get maybe 6 hours gameplay out of a 60 euro game, a game I have to run at low graphical settings because there are maybe 10 people in the world who would notice the graphical decrease.
Exactly!

And if they really want to add multiplayer to a singleplayer game, they can do it in a patch or something.