I picked other, I think multiplayer is a welcome option in any game. I guess it depends on if it works or not, I don't think developers should go out of their way to throw in some sort of multiplayer, especially competitive. I think co-operative is more pleasant anyway as long as it works.
Question of the Day, November 10, 2010
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
I find that most multiplayer modes thrown into mainly Single-Player games suck. Unless you're making a game specifically with multiplayer in mind, it probably won't work that well.
i chose "Other", because if there's going to be multiplayer, i demand at least 2 player local multiplayer without system links.
i have 2 brothers and a lot of friends that come over. publishers shouldnt hate on me because i have a social life
i have 2 brothers and a lot of friends that come over. publishers shouldnt hate on me because i have a social life
Some games need it, others don't.
Some games are just unsuited for multiplayer.
Like story-heavy roleplaying games, as they tend to be much more slow paced.
While other games are defined by their multiplayer part.
What would StarCraft 2 be without its multiplayer?
Some games are just unsuited for multiplayer.
Like story-heavy roleplaying games, as they tend to be much more slow paced.
While other games are defined by their multiplayer part.
What would StarCraft 2 be without its multiplayer?
The question is, do you want your games to have single player? Many, many games seem to be multiplayer oriented, with singleplayer only tacked on. This even occurs with small games released by arguably indie developers, like Blacklight Tango Down, Punisher: No Mercy, and Lead and Gold. And the problem with these is that by the very nature of the fact these games are small, finding a group to consistently play with is a problem. Most of the best unlockables in Punisher: No Mercy are multiplayer only, for crying out loud, yet I haven't been able to play a single mulitplayer match thus far.
I don't like any of these options. I don't like COMPETITIVE multiplayer AT ALL. I do think that it's nice to have some kind of co-op multiplayer in SOME games, but it's not NECESSARY. And "sure, as long as it's done well" is silly.
So, my choice is: I prefer co-op multiplayer, when it's appropriate to the game, but I can live without it.
Edit: Oh, and "appropriate to the game" means that the game isn't based around something that makes multiplayer absolutely suck, like exploration or story. Shooter, multiplayer is appropriate. Racing game, multiplayer is appropriate. Sandbox game? Hell no. RPG? Maybe, probably not. Mission-based tactical combat? Hokay. RTS? Hokay. Turn-based strategy? Er, maybe, I don't play them.
So, my choice is: I prefer co-op multiplayer, when it's appropriate to the game, but I can live without it.
Edit: Oh, and "appropriate to the game" means that the game isn't based around something that makes multiplayer absolutely suck, like exploration or story. Shooter, multiplayer is appropriate. Racing game, multiplayer is appropriate. Sandbox game? Hell no. RPG? Maybe, probably not. Mission-based tactical combat? Hokay. RTS? Hokay. Turn-based strategy? Er, maybe, I don't play them.
i hate it when it's tacked on to a game like gta 4 ... most people will play multiplayer till a new game comes then switch ... games like call of duty should be full multiplayer with only a training mode to get ranked up and use to the game
alot of games with multiplayer that are not played much like ea nascar 09 drop multiplayer , they should have expiry date then a price drop if removed from online
alot of games with multiplayer that are not played much like ea nascar 09 drop multiplayer , they should have expiry date then a price drop if removed from online
What multiplayer needs to be is less focused on compared to the single player. Nowadays, games have become multiplayer games with single player additions to pass the time. I'm getting tired of short single player games that have online multiplayer, especially because not everyone has online, and with certain games (360 exclusives) you have to pay to play online, so its bad enough that I would have to pay to buy the game, but worse that I'd have to pay so much more to get the experience they want to give me, otherwise I spend 60 bucks on a 6 hr game, that 10 bucks an hour!
If a game builds a strong single player, than I'd be fine with it having multiplayer, CoD, Halo, both are good online experiences, but to give us shorter and shorter single player experiences makes me glad I can rent games for free at work
If a game builds a strong single player, than I'd be fine with it having multiplayer, CoD, Halo, both are good online experiences, but to give us shorter and shorter single player experiences makes me glad I can rent games for free at work
Where's the "as long as the single player is good" option?
Seriously, there are so many damn games out that focus on multiplayer and have campaign take a back seat, that me pointing it out makes me feel like im repeating the words of hundred of thousands of annoyed people who just learned that the story mode is done in 10 hours
Seriously, there are so many damn games out that focus on multiplayer and have campaign take a back seat, that me pointing it out makes me feel like im repeating the words of hundred of thousands of annoyed people who just learned that the story mode is done in 10 hours
I don't do multiplayer, as a rule. I'll occasionally make an exception for Rock Band or the Skate games but even then I have no interest in joining random games, I only play with friends and family.
So yeah, I could do without multiplayer in any of my games. I hate the fact that including it often hurts the single-player mode, which is why I'm a bit worried about the new Assassin's Creed.
So yeah, I could do without multiplayer in any of my games. I hate the fact that including it often hurts the single-player mode, which is why I'm a bit worried about the new Assassin's Creed.
Not every game should have multiplayer. Take Metroid Prime for example. Prime didn't have multiplayer. The sequel did have multiplayer, but it wasn't too good because of the actual gameplay, making it too slow to actually have a whole lot of fun, so Prime 3 (even though it was faster and could potentially work in that scenario) dropped it, because Metroid is a series that was always focused on the single-player (a point of possible debate, since the last game before Prime was Super Metroid so...).
Then there's Muramasa the Demon Blade, which I don't really see how it could have effective multiplayer.
All in all, there are just some games that are (and rightfully so) only geared towards single-player simply due to the gameplay and the over-all feel of the game.
Then there's Muramasa the Demon Blade, which I don't really see how it could have effective multiplayer.
All in all, there are just some games that are (and rightfully so) only geared towards single-player simply due to the gameplay and the over-all feel of the game.
The main problem I have with video games is that they don't try new things with multilayer and single player. If its a FPS, sport game, RTS, or a Xbox Live arcade game, it usually does not have a multilayer. Thats why I am so excited about Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood; although it may not be great I'm hoping it will do well enough to encourage developers to think outside the box about the limits of a compelling multilayer. I will say though that the sudden and large increase in the game types in FPS, especially Halo giving you the power to create maps and unique game types, has been promising.
it isnt so much that single player is better than multi-player or vice versa, its that games seem to focus on one or the other. not both. call of duty is a great example, there is much potential for an enthralling campaign, it gets ur blood pumping and very cinematic, and yet its over before you can say "Captain Price's Moustache!" but the multiplayer is pretty good (IMO!!) other games come to mind as well. so choose your path
I love MP. For the most part, I find it more fun than SP, but it's good to have both.
Although, when multiplayer is done badly, I don't like it. Obviously.
Although, when multiplayer is done badly, I don't like it. Obviously.
Games that can be designed to have competitive multiplayer usually works really well, but it goes way over competitive sometimes. This kind of games doesn't work for new players, everyone should be able to jump in to cycle of Competitive PvP on the skill level that they see fir, this is why Ranked PvP is in my opinion a good system. Because this system ensures that the skilled people get skilled opponents and newcomers get newcomers.
Every game shouldn't go for Multiplayer it just will not work. (exmpl. Fallout 3, Bioshock... etc.) Games that are designed to have story telling/plot or other form of singleplayer enrichment. These games should focus on singleplayer ONLY! Exmp. I was extremely annoyed how one day I sat down for Dead space and after 6 hours I had to stand up again. In the contrast I can sink over 30-40 hrs in to a game like Fallout 3.
Multiplayer is good if it is constantly being fixed and ranking system works. If it is not, then glither/cheaters/hackers along with crazy good "pro" players will take over the game and no new players are welcome.
"Well it good sinze all the L2P NOOBS stay the fuk outta mi way!1!one"
Yes but with correct ranking system these people wont cross your path and you wont be meeting people who are over the top good, forcing you to bad manner, rage and rage-quit the game.
"Competitive games should only be for people who are good at them."
How do you get to be good in something unless you are given a change to practice without endangering you position on the ladder? In BF:BC2 when I started I hadn't had any experience in "realistic" shooters, I had only experience in TF2 And I was really good. I started to play and practice BF:BC2 first 4 months I had K/D of 0,45 but after 6-8 months I got to 1.20, slowly getting better and getting more and more kills.
Games that can offer competitive could have it as optional, forcing people in to it will just turn them off and All games shouldn't be offering this feature.
Every game shouldn't go for Multiplayer it just will not work. (exmpl. Fallout 3, Bioshock... etc.) Games that are designed to have story telling/plot or other form of singleplayer enrichment. These games should focus on singleplayer ONLY! Exmp. I was extremely annoyed how one day I sat down for Dead space and after 6 hours I had to stand up again. In the contrast I can sink over 30-40 hrs in to a game like Fallout 3.
Multiplayer is good if it is constantly being fixed and ranking system works. If it is not, then glither/cheaters/hackers along with crazy good "pro" players will take over the game and no new players are welcome.
"Well it good sinze all the L2P NOOBS stay the fuk outta mi way!1!one"
Yes but with correct ranking system these people wont cross your path and you wont be meeting people who are over the top good, forcing you to bad manner, rage and rage-quit the game.
"Competitive games should only be for people who are good at them."
How do you get to be good in something unless you are given a change to practice without endangering you position on the ladder? In BF:BC2 when I started I hadn't had any experience in "realistic" shooters, I had only experience in TF2 And I was really good. I started to play and practice BF:BC2 first 4 months I had K/D of 0,45 but after 6-8 months I got to 1.20, slowly getting better and getting more and more kills.
Games that can offer competitive could have it as optional, forcing people in to it will just turn them off and All games shouldn't be offering this feature.