When single-player game franchises go multiplayer

[CaitSeith]

Well, there are some MMO ideas that I wouldn't mind to give a try (like Pokemon). Still most multiplayer inclusions and MMO ports are really perfect examples of doing it in a lousy way. But usually that is because COD and WoW were really successful, and the other companies just wanted their piece of the cake.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

As some have mentioned, it's fine when they go SP/MP, provide solid experiences in both, but doesn't forget its SP roots. I actually LOVE it when games are SP/co-op because I can't stand MP competitive crap.

What grinds my gears is when an SP franchise tacks on an MP element and cuts the SP experience in order to do so. I'll get triple pissed if said franchise then makes 25-50% of the achievements MP-only. Yeah, I'm a crazy achievement hunter. I hope the DA:I style catches on with more developers: make the game's SP achievements public, but leave MP/co-op achievements internal.

That last sentence obviously doesn't apply to games that bill themselves as co-op or MP. If you buy those games, you SHOULD know what you're getting into.

 

[G00N3R7883]

I hate it. The majority of my gaming is in single player so I want those franchises to continue being what I've enjoyed. And I'm also annoyed when devs still make the singleplayer but they tack on a multiplayer/coop mode that nobody wants just so they can tick a box - for example Mass Effect 3, Tomb Raider 2013, etc. I feel like its a waste of resources (money, man hours) that would be better spent making the singleplayer campaign better.

The multiplayer games that I've played most - TF2, Killing Floor, L4D, Payday - have always been designed for multiplayer from day 1.

 

[EHKOS]

I absolutely HATE this practice. I'm like Yahtzee. I did play SWTOR for a while because I love Star Wars, but you can't get any great gear unless you do flash points which are mandatory group levels. Not to mention, interaction with other players. One time I had been playing for hours and got quite close to finishing off a boss, and kept dying with a sliver left on his health bar. I just asked the chat if they'd pitch in right quick because I was tired but wanted to beat him before going to bed. People were then mean to me.

I just like single player, and when you have a franchise that is exclusively single player, it should stay that way. Because it was designed around the concept. Not to mention hackers. I dread. DREAD. A Pokemon MMORPG, there are so many unlegit shinies and legends as it is, not to mention I don't feel like running an honourable OU and below team with my favorites while people run around and body you because they can. And probably the fact that you'll NEED someone for a double battle gym to progress through the story or something.

I realized this basically turned into me bitching about online Pokemon battles and the fact that people should battle with honor without ubers or legends.

CAPTCHA: route one

Huh....huh with that CAPTCHA...

 

[laggyteabag]

I don't care what they do, as long as it is good, but nothing is worse than having a spin off title that ends up sucking when you could have had a mainline game that would have been good.

Same goes for when you have a multiplayer component in a singleplayer game: if it is good, great, but if it sucks, it just feels like the game would have been better without it.

 

[Cryselle]

As some have mentioned, it's fine when they go SP/MP, provide solid experiences in both, but doesn't forget its SP roots. I actually LOVE it when games are SP/co-op because I can't stand MP competitive crap.

This pretty much sums up my opinion as well. Add as much as you want to a game, throw in MP, throw in microtransactional vanity crap, I don't care... so long as the SP core experience I play for isn't diminished by it.

I think the reason people get pissed off about it so much is that there are so few titles where it really feels like it /wasn't/ at the expense of the core experience. So many titles it seems like they sacrifice gameplay to fit in the poorly done multiplayer, then they want to justify the time spent on the multiplayer, so they try to force you into it. That's terrible for me, if I want to play a multiplayer game I want a solid multiplayer experience. And if I want a single player game I want a solid SP experience. If you half-ass both, your game sucks.

 

[Ken Sapp]

I'm probably going to get the fable one (which is funny since i don't like the fable franchise). however when single player games go multiplayer, i usually stop buying. all the big games are multiplayer, there are only a few AAA single playergames left. if fallout was announced tomorrow, but it was multiplayer... i'd ask everyone to not talk or call me for a week. i'd need the time to recover emotionally.

That's interesting because Fallout (3 and New Vegas) is one of the franchises where I occasionally would like to play some co-op. I think one of the real problems is the way some many companies try to force a world experience which was designed from the ground up to be a single player narrative into a competitive or MMO framework without considering whether the match is in any way a good fit. And on the other hand they often are starting from scratch and end up retreading all the mistakes the established players in the arena have already discarded or fixed.

A perfect example for me is ESO. While there are times I would like to be able to play co-op in the Elder Scrolls games, the narrative which defines the Elder Scrolls experience is a purely single-player Chosen One experience. Even with that I was willing to give ESO a chance and played at several points during the betas but to me it was a derivative MMO experience with showcased the inexperience of the developers with that format. In the end ESO did nothing to draw me in and many of its features actually drove me off.

 

[aozgolo]

So far I believe Warcraft is the exception and not the rule, and is probably the first game to really jump this shark (There was Ultima before but it honestly didn't change it's gameplay very much in that transition). I often wonder if it's this very success that wrongfully encourages other developers to do it. There's also the fact that in most cases a MMO can remain commercially successful even if it's not critically successful (which to game publisher marketing is really all that matters).

I wouldn't really add The Elder Scrolls to that list. It was more of a spinoff created by a separate studio to be a blatant cash-in. Stuff like TOR, Dragon's Dogma Online, and that Nosgoth bullshit actually replaced the main series they spawned from.

That is a good point, I'll admit while I have little desire to play TES:O I don't have this bad taste in my mouth when I think about it the same way I do for other titles, it's been clearly said by Bethesda that production of TES:O won't tie up or prevent the studio from making SP games in the future.

Anybody remember Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning?

It was a very fun action RPG with some of the best combat I've ever seen in a game.

The franchise ended because of huge lawsuit about unpaid loans that were used to develop a MMO.

Yeah.

I am quite saddened by this but making a MMO was their intention all along before they even released Kingdoms of Amalur. I am sad to see them go, they had a lot of potential but given that a MMO was their intent from the start, perhaps it's better we are left not knowing what the future of that franchise might look like.

My opinion is that if a series has been strictly single player, then tacking on a multiplayer mode is both annoying and a waste of time.

Look at DA:I for example,that multiplayer got chucked in for the sake of it and I have'nt heard anyone talk about playing it.

Tacked on and forced multiplayer never works in games that don't need it.

While this is certainly an issue for many, and I clearly see how people might feel that the addition of unnecessary MP hurt the SP campaign, I think it's a somewhat separate issue. Even if I hate the Multiplayer Components of Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Tomb Raider, Dragon Age, etc. I can still choose to ignore them in favor of the far more robust SP campaign. Games that go full Multiplayer only however deprive us of that choice and alienate those players who only wish for a single player campaign.

I find it particularly egregious that franchises built around great single player experiences go this route not as a side project (The Elder Scrolls Online) or one-off attempt (Final Fantasy XI/XIV & Dragon Quest X) but when they overtake the original series entirely forever alienating it's original fanbase in favor of (hopefully) more profits. It's a cash-grab no matter how you slice it. I may even enjoy games like The Old Republic or Fable Legends or Dragon's Dogma MMO if they did not use the wealth of lore of existing franchises as a crutch to build upon and did their own thing.

 

[Ken Sapp]

As some have mentioned, it's fine when they go SP/MP, provide solid experiences in both, but doesn't forget its SP roots. I actually LOVE it when games are SP/co-op because I can't stand MP competitive crap.

This pretty much sums up my opinion as well. Add as much as you want to a game, throw in MP, throw in microtransactional vanity crap, I don't care... so long as the SP core experience I play for isn't diminished by it.

I think the reason people get pissed off about it so much is that there are so few titles where it really feels like it /wasn't/ at the expense of the core experience. So many titles it seems like they sacrifice gameplay to fit in the poorly done multiplayer, then they want to justify the time spent on the multiplayer, so they try to force you into it. That's terrible for me, if I want to play a multiplayer game I want a solid multiplayer experience. And if I want a single player game I want a solid SP experience. If you half-ass both, your game sucks.

Same here, I don't mind co-op as long as they aren't sacrificing the core game to do it. I can even tolerate a multiplayer button on the main menu which never gets pushed as long as the core game does is done well. But one thing which really gets my goat is when the developer not only tacks a multiplayer component on to a game but also makes parts of the single player experience dependent on the multiplayer. Locking SP content behind MP gates in unforgivable.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I hold out hope that these new multiplayer games based off of established franchises are one-offs or off-shoots. That being said though, I am aware that we haven't seen a Warcraft 4 or a Knights of the Old Republic 3 and I'm sure we never will but again, holding out hope with those things. Unfortunately, I can't help but think that whenever we see a multiplayer version of a predominantly single player game series, we won't be seeing a new single player installment until the inevitable reboot/remake.

 

[Timeless Lavender]

I am not a fan of multiplayer in single player games in general but I am fine about this trend since their is a audience for them and it will increase the longevity of the game. As long as the single player aspect is the main priority and well made then I am happy about it.

 

[Adultratedhydra]

Too often Multiplayer is used as a "Sequel" for Lazy devs to just shove story at people in text dumps rather than any engaging method. (Looking at you blizzard.) Or they just cram it in because raisins. (Looking at you bioware)

In both cases it dilutes the game/story to the point its just hard to give a completely consensual flying fuck. Oh and cant forget Dead space with the crown for most vestigial multiplayer addition of all time. "Guys, know what our survival horror needs?" "Actual ho-" "MULTIPLAYER"

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Money talks, simple as that. They see the money to be made from MMOs and go for a quick buck rather than put more effort into it.

 

[Mikeybb]

Anybody remember Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning?

It was a very fun action RPG with some of the best combat I've ever seen in a game.

The franchise ended because of huge lawsuit about unpaid loans that were used to develop a MMO.

Yeah.

I really enjoyed that game.

Beautiful world in graphical form and through the world building that had been done.
The combat was good too, as you say, though I did wish it was a little more difficult.

Nevertheless, Amalur is one of those titles that could have been something truly epic, but for the events behind the scenes sweeping its legs away from beneath it.

 

[Nazulu]

It's just milking, which I'm against as it usually drowns out the creativity because they need to focus on what made the franchise popular enough and just dump it into the mix, instead of actually focus on what made the franchise unique to begin with.

I don't mind when the creator chooses to go this route, but that isn't usually the case, and even then it's just such a big spin on any franchise that something will surely get lost.

 

[Cryselle]

I hold out hope that these new multiplayer games based off of established franchises are one-offs or off-shoots. That being said though, I am aware that we haven't seen a Warcraft 4 or a Knights of the Old Republic 3 and I'm sure we never will but again, holding out hope with those things. Unfortunately, I can't help but think that whenever we see a multiplayer version of a predominantly single player game series, we won't be seeing a new single player installment until the inevitable reboot/remake.

Well, the problem with a Warcraft 4 is that WoW continues the story from the Warcraft series. Which means that they really /can't/ continue the story in a Warcraft 4 game while WoW is still running, because that'll just mess EVERYTHING up. Final Fantasy, however, can get away with dropping MMOs in because there is no story connections in between numbered installments that cause such interference. Not setting your games in the same world gives the FF team so much more flexibility to do different things that you just don't have when you're doing a sequential singular story format.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Well, the problem with a Warcraft 4 is that WoW continues the story from the Warcraft series. Which means that they really /can't/ continue the story in a Warcraft 4 game while WoW is still running, because that'll just mess EVERYTHING up.

Declare WoW to be a spinoff storyline. Continue canonical Warcraft 4 from the ending of TFT.

Easy fix. Done. Can now continue story in Warcraft 4.

 

[Mark Purcell]

I find single player games going multiplayer kinda shit tbh.
I *mostly play games to get away from people not to interact with them.

*I will, however, play multiplayer if my real life friends desire to play.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Well, the problem with a Warcraft 4 is that WoW continues the story from the Warcraft series. Which means that they really /can't/ continue the story in a Warcraft 4 game while WoW is still running, because that'll just mess EVERYTHING up.

Declare WoW to be a spinoff storyline. Continue canonical Warcraft 4 from the ending of TFT.

Easy fix. Done. Can now continue story in Warcraft 4.

That probably wont work. Dedicated fans are really into their continuity, and there would probably be a lot of outrage if they were told their favorite game "didn't count".

Maybe they can just move on anyway. Everquest seemed to be able to put out a sequel. Even while the original is still going.