Question of the Day, November 10, 2010

[Anacortian]

I think Portal will be better with two players.

Survival Multi-Player Minecraft NEEDS to come out!

Some games, however, are single player for a reason. Plants vs Zombie two-player was inferior to single, to name one.

 

[Marowit]

I'd like to have multiplayer in most of my games - it just adds a fun social dynamic that make the games longer lasting...for me at least.

I could careless if it's competitive, and would actually probably prefer it not to be.

 

[Legion]

"You absolutely need it in some games, but not in others."

Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 would not be anywhere near as good without their versus modes, other games such as Halo and Gears of War they add some re-playability as well as allowing for some extra fun playing with your friends.

I don't like it when game developers tack it on for the sake of it, or even worse, when they add it on but don't make it worth the extra hassle due to lack of support or thought.

Condemned 2, Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 2 are all examples of games that don't need it but developers stick it in there anyway. All three were single player to begin with, but due to the way the market goes, they all got MP for the sequel.

Sadly with the first two they both were excellent ideas let down by poor support and connection issues, they were certainly more original than the typical game-modes in games such as Halo and Call of Duty.

Dead Space 2 looks to be the same, a nice idea but seeing as it's made by EA then you can guarantee the console version will have a lot of issues online, just like all the rest of their projects.

I could careless if it's competitive, and would actually probably prefer it not to be.

You mean that you couldn't care less, unless you are trying to say that it does bother you if it was competitive.

 

[DSK-]

Most games nowadays in my opinion don't lend themselves to be overly competitive. The mainstays are usually the likes of RTS's (Starcraft, Warcraft 3), Quake and UT - or at the very least they are what I would consider to be the competitive games.

The complexity of past games is disappearing pretty quickly (personally I love the complexity and a fairly large skill curve because of the amount of depth that can be employed in a game), although to be fair and be unbiased I would say that complexity is not a requisite of being capable of competitive play.

The idea competitive game would have to be well balanced, have full anti-cheat/exploit support and mod support from the community (more maps, competitive mods and mutators, community made anti-cheat), a good selection and variation of maps and game modes and gameplay incentives for promoting teamwork or simply making said gameplay more team-orientated (in team-based game modes).

I speak from an FPS perspective so my apologies for perhaps not covering RTS's or any other game genres.

It doesn't bother me if multiplayer is employed or not. Most of the time I play singleplayer.

 

[SomebodyNowhere]

I personally prefer cooperative multiplayer, but on occasion a bit of competitive multiplayer is what I'm feeling like playing.

 

[Best of the 3]

Now games that are specificly targeted for multiplayer only (TF2 for example) need a multiplayer. I can't think of them standing up on a single player, even if they had one.

Some games should have multiplayers for example WC3, SC, CoD. They can do them well and a large portion of the game can revolve and stand up on it's own. ALbeit it can sometimes hurt the single player. I think these games should make sure they have a very good single player before they move onto a PvP.

Then there are the games which I see are based around single player and then a multiplayer is tagged on just because it can. (Bioshock 2 comes stright to mind). Sure, a multiplayer for these games can become very interesting and with good ideas but if the game is based on having a good story and single player experience then adding a multiplayer can just make both single and multiplaer weaker and a multiplayer should be avoided altogether.

 

[Prof.Wood]

If it affects the single player in anyway or is just in to boost sales, for me it makes the game worse.

 

[Eleima]

I went with "Sure, as long as it's done well, I don't mind.", but to specify, I truly feel that multiplayer isn't, or at least shouldn't be, a prerequisite. A good game can stand on it's own "solo" feet.

 

[forsinain42]

For me multiplayer is just a waste of time. I don't enjoy it and would much rather have more single player content.

 

[mythgraven]

No. Call me a jaded realist here, but competitive gaming has, in my experience, always led to the mass assumption that being skilled at playing in a competitive online game is a worthy substitute for real life self esteem.

Watching others extolling the "virtues" and "honor" of being in the top ranked PVP guild, or in being the one with the highest kill count always sorta sickens me a little. Not because I was beaten, and "I mad?" or because I'm jealous of some pixels that another person has, but doesn't actually own.

It bugs me because other people attach such phenomenal importance to drifting a mouse over a mousepad, or twiddling your thumbs over a pair of analog sticks. When you get douchebags talking about "honor" and "glory", like they've actually tasted either of those things... It just reminds you of how sad today's culture really is.


Whiskey Echo!!
Mythgraven

 

[Dobrev]

I barely play any non-multiplayer games. When boot my PC first thing is I check skype and log into some games to get the friends list to se what my mates are playing. It's way more fun to play and chat especialy since teh conversations end up with nothing to do with teh game. Come to think of it even if there is none online I end up with Windows Backgammon or some random Bridge client.

The past few years the only non-multiplayer games I've played are teh Mass Effect and Fallout series. And let me tell you how I wish they had co-op. And it's not like it can't be done properly. I've played though the Neverwinter Nights with my friends and it was a blast. Even if someone missed a session you get to tell him the story and the plot twists. That is the proper roleplaying game and I'm sad that all the latest RPGs don't deliver the goods. Dragon Age I'm looking at you! You could have been so much more. So big cheers to Gearbox for making an epic game to play instead of mourning over you.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

I'd rather have the focus on a good single player, and then maybe if they could make it work, multiplayer. Not the other way around as some games do (Im looking at you MW2!)

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No, I hate multiplayer, or rather I hate online multiplayer. I don't want to play with a bunch of dickheads I don't know and don't particularly want to know. And since the general trend is to sacrifice single player for online multiplayer, it's not winning me over.

 

[Eric Welty]

Many games stand alone fine without any form of Multiplayer. Look at the first BioShock and Dead Space. Those are great, engaging single player games. They didn't need multiplayer to be fun. I think a game needs to have a great, engaging story that lasts at least eight to ten hours before strictly focusing on multiplayer. I feel games like the recent Call of Duty entries have fallen short in their single player campaigns. I feel that maybe they should begin to focus solely on competitive multiplayer, like Warhawk and MAG. It seems to me people play the multiplayer of the CoD series over the campaign anyway, so it seems like a logical step for the series. But, I tend to not play much online, especially games like CoD where everyone gets so good and it's spawn-dead, spawn-dead, spawn-dead. That gets very frustrating and turns me off from playing those games.

Another thing, companies spend a lot of time developing new and different competitive multiplayer portions for their games, but it feels like every one just sticks to team deathmatch or capture the flag. I've never understood that. But, people tend to not like change.

 

[Quicksilver_Phoenix]

Splitscreen ftw.

If only.

Not only are many games neglecting the single player so that the can add the now obligatory multiplayer, they're also not bothering to include a split-screen mode.

Online only multiplayer is a crying shame. I find split-screen games with friends much more enjoyable than matchmaking with idiots or pros. I just can't seem to enjoy online play at all.

I'd much rather a game concentrated on the single player mode and got that done well first. THEN, they can consider adding a multiplayer if they must, which should also include both online and offline options.

 

[Zydrate]

Since I lack the funding to have consistent Live (Or whatever it's called throughout various systems), I can't play multi-player even if I wanted to. So "I don't really play multiplayer".

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I don't want competitive multiplayer but I don't think it damages single player, not directly anyway. It potentially takes the focus off of single player and, could result in a shoddy experience for anti-social misanthrops like me but there are quite a few games that have got Multiplayer right. Really what I object to is multiplayer restricted to online play. What ever happened to split-screen and, bot matches?

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

If the game can proudly exist without it, you might as well add it. Just don't take time/money away from the singleplayer, that is all I ask. I love multiplayer but singleplayer always comes first.

Really what I object to is multiplayer restricted to online play. What ever happened to split-screen and, bot matches?

Also this. Online matches can be quite frustrating and why can't I play multiplayer with friends in the same room? I have a PS3 with two controllers for a reason.

*glares at 007 Quantum of Solace*

 

[bam13302]

full vs multiplayer i dont really care about any more, but coop is my favorite mode ever