Single player.....

[Vault101]

I dont think it will ever go away BUT do you think there is a trend moving towards almost all games having some kind of multiplayer element...and in the worst case this can harm how long/good the single player is?

I was thinking this since Dead Space 2 has multiplayer and portal 2 now has co-op, also I found it interesting that the portal boxart focuses on the co-op aspect, I know its just box art and it hopefully dosnt indicate what the focus of the game is...but still

 

[ZeroMachine]

Let me put it this way... two of the best games I played last year were Red Dead Redemption (that has extensive multiplayer) and Alan Wake (that has NO multiplayer).

It really depends on who's developing the game. I feel like Reach's focus on multiplayer took away from the single player campaign in a disgusting way. Meanwhile, I freakin' LOVE both Modern Warfare's single player campaigns.

It's tough to judge the industry on a whole.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Well more games these days seem to be focusing on a multiplayer experience, but i dont think its really affected games that are focusing on just being a single player experience

 

[hittite]

There does seem to be a trend, but overall, I like multiplayer. The only real complaint I have is the lack of split-screen multiplayer since I generally make a point of not playing with anyone I can't easily punch in the arm when they do something dickish.

 

[AnonymousTipster]

Multiplayer crazes seem to come and go. Let's not forget that back in the N64 days it seemed like there were heaps of games that had four player splitscreen multiplayer modes when it wasn't necessary at all. Case in point: DK64.

But anyway I suppose you could argue we're in another one now.

Personally, I'd rather see no multiplayer at all than a half thought-out, unbalanced mess of a multiplayer mode.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Let me put it this way... two of the best games I played last year were Red Dead Redemption (that has extensive multiplayer) and Alan Wake (that has NO multiplayer).

And yet, if it didn't have any multiplayer, it wouldn't matter at all. I probably played it for all of about twenty minutes, and then went back to single player.

I think there's a problem with too many devs trying to shoehorn multiplayer into games that don't fit the style at all. Of course you could interesting experiences you wouldn't expect (splinter cell, Assassin's creed brotherhood), but equally you can get plenty of games where it goes against the spirit completely (GTA 4, Bioshock 2.)

It would just be nice if more developers acknowledged that not every game needs a multiplayer.

 

[infohippie]

It annoys me, since I don't usually play the multiplayer component of a game. I want dev teams to use their time to concentrate on making an excellent single-player campaign and not waste time working on multiplayer. Maybe work on a multiplayer add-on after they've released the main game.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

It really depends on who's developing the game. I feel like Reach's focus on multiplayer took away from the single player campaign in a disgusting way. Meanwhile, I freakin' LOVE both Modern Warfare's single player campaigns.

I love them too but man how I wish they were longer. If I didn't play multiplayer I would feel very ripped off by them.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Meh, maybe. Any developer knows that he only has so much time and so many resources so It really is in the best interest of games to decide what's most important and work form there. SO long as there pussy footing around or doing something just because its popular (A problem with many companies that produce products games or not) then there isn't a an issue. I think most developers are smart enough to not screw up so I'm not worried about the trends. I'm not a fan of multiplayer because I don't have many people who play the same games and random internet games tend to turn out bad but I'm not going to complain.

 

[Vault101]

Let me put it this way... two of the best games I played last year were Red Dead Redemption (that has extensive multiplayer) and Alan Wake (that has NO multiplayer).

And yet, if it didn't have any multiplayer, it wouldn't matter at all. I probably played it for all of about twenty minutes, and then went back to single player.

I think there's a problem with too many devs trying to shoehorn multiplayer into games that don't fit the style at all. Of course you could interesting experiences you wouldn't expect (splinter cell, Assassin's creed brotherhood), but equally you can get plenty of games where it goes against the spirit completely (GTA 4, Bioshock 2.)

It would just be nice if more developers acknowledged that not every game needs a multiplayer.

I didnt know red dead has multiplayer, that said I can assume the single player is still really good?

I love Dead space 2 and I even tried the multiplayer and it was fun as hell but I still felt it would get old after a while

 

[linwolf]

Some companies do sacrifice single player for multiplayer. But there are a lot of good companies that still values single player, both as in game that are only single player and games where the multiplayer are to when you are tired of the single player. Look at Starcraft 2 the game was clearly made for the multiplayer but still has an AI that will perfectly satisfy most players and a good descent length entertain campaign. As far as most of the game I play the multiplayer are something extra not the main part of the game, and it's lack of these kind that I don't buy a lot of games.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Let me put it this way... two of the best games I played last year were Red Dead Redemption (that has extensive multiplayer) and Alan Wake (that has NO multiplayer).

And yet, if it didn't have any multiplayer, it wouldn't matter at all. I probably played it for all of about twenty minutes, and then went back to single player.

I think there's a problem with too many devs trying to shoehorn multiplayer into games that don't fit the style at all. Of course you could interesting experiences you wouldn't expect (splinter cell, Assassin's creed brotherhood), but equally you can get plenty of games where it goes against the spirit completely (GTA 4, Bioshock 2.)

It would just be nice if more developers acknowledged that not every game needs a multiplayer.

I didnt know red dead has multiplayer, that said I can assume the single player is still really good?

Yeah, single player is indeed really good. It's pretty much succeeds at what GTA IV was trying (and failed) to do. But what makes red dead so great is the atmosphere and the characters, and the small touches that build this really believable world, which is completely negated in the multiplayer. It doesn't have any real focus either, and there isn't enough action at all for it to be worthwhile. It's just really shoehorned in.

 

[MrGalactus]

Just look at 2011. There's Brink that looks great the is blurring the lines of single and multi, and there's L.A. Noire that is single only and that looks great.
Multiplayer is evolving, not taking over. Single player is still very much alive.

 

[viranimus]

Honestly, I would hope not. Some games there is simply no logical reason to put in multiplayer.

However what bothers me more is this notion that a game can be made sans a single player effort. Its not that there are 100% pure multiplayer games, but the trend that games such as Halo, CoD, etc etc that seems to be increasing almost at an exponential rate, that exist and are popular with little or no concern for the single player element and assume that the only reason why people would play their game is for the multiplayer element.

 

[theSovietConnection]

I wouldn't say single-player is dying out, but a lot of dev's seem to try and force multiplayer where it doesn't belong.

 

[Vault101]

Just look at 2011. There's Brink that looks great the is blurring the lines of single and multi, and there's L.A. Noire that is single only and that looks great.
Multiplayer is evolving, not taking over. Single player is still very much alive.

that is actually a good point, the multiplayer aspect of AC brotherhood dose sound very interesting

I think people would be less annoyed if for some games (halo/cod) they eather make the single player good enough to stand up on its own or just ditch it completley and go down the Team fortress route, mabye even make some kind of rating/symbol to indicate this on the box

 

[MrGalactus]

Just look at 2011. There's Brink that looks great, that is blurring the lines of single and multi, and there's L.A. Noire that is single only and that looks great.
Multiplayer is evolving, not taking over. Single player is still very much alive.

that is actually a good point, the multiplayer aspect of AC brotherhood dose sound very interesting

I think people would be less annoyed if for some games (halo/cod) they eather make the single player good enough to stand up on its own or just ditch it completley and go down the Team fortress route, mabye even make some kind of rating/symbol to indicate this on the box

That would be pretty cool, but I can't see myself ever paying a full 50 or 60 bucks for a multiplayer only game, unless it had story a la Brink style.

Also, I fixed my confusing typo in the first quote.

 

[Vault101]

Just look at 2011. There's Brink that looks great, that is blurring the lines of single and multi, and there's L.A. Noire that is single only and that looks great.
Multiplayer is evolving, not taking over. Single player is still very much alive.

that is actually a good point, the multiplayer aspect of AC brotherhood dose sound very interesting

I think people would be less annoyed if for some games (halo/cod) they eather make the single player good enough to stand up on its own or just ditch it completley and go down the Team fortress route, mabye even make some kind of rating/symbol to indicate this on the box

That would be pretty cool, but I can't see myself ever paying a full 50 or 60 bucks for a multiplayer only game, unless it had story a la Brink style.

Also, I fixed my confusing typo in the first quote.

while I agree I bet there would be alot of people willing to pay, as in the COD crowd how many of them do you think ignored the single player altogether?

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Depends on the game and the developers.

But for the game itself put it this way, games with both multiplayer and singleplayer almost always have a weak singleplayer (every Halo game past CE, most CoD games) or in rarer cases the other way around, (Bioshock 2) games which only have multiplayer as a co-op element (Left 4 Dead, Borderlands although that game sucks without buddies) are usually fairly ok when played alone, with bots or with other players, so they're pretty rounded however you play em and games which have co-op as a tacked on thing (Gears of War) often make the game no better or worse, its just...there.

 

[MrGalactus]

Just look at 2011. There's Brink that looks great, that is blurring the lines of single and multi, and there's L.A. Noire that is single only and that looks great.
Multiplayer is evolving, not taking over. Single player is still very much alive.

that is actually a good point, the multiplayer aspect of AC brotherhood dose sound very interesting

I think people would be less annoyed if for some games (halo/cod) they eather make the single player good enough to stand up on its own or just ditch it completley and go down the Team fortress route, mabye even make some kind of rating/symbol to indicate this on the box

That would be pretty cool, but I can't see myself ever paying a full 50 or 60 bucks for a multiplayer only game, unless it had story a la Brink style.

Also, I fixed my confusing typo in the first quote.

while I agree I bet there would be alot of people willing to pay, as in the COD crowd how many of them do you think ignored the single player altogether?

I wouldn't imagine too many of the super hardcore players skipped it all together. That sounds like insanity. I can imagine a part time casual CoDer skipped it, but not someone who plays it alot. I don't know anyone who would, anyway. I could be wrong.