Are game developers neglecting single player for multiplayer?

[fuzzball]

Yes they are, i think some of them look at Single player as more of a "cinematic adventure" in which to tell the story of the universe in which the game is set upon. A recent game inparticular has had an extremely short campaign with many cinematic worthy events, but not a campaign worth replaying when you understand how the events will unfold.

 

[Alphavillain]

Of course. There's a good blog on GameSpot about this http://uk.gamespot.com/users/johnsteed7/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25756396&om_act=convert&om_clk=soapbox&tag=soapbox;subject;2

And also what he says:

Well, multiplayer is a lot less work for a lot more replay value...

 

[Naheal]

Since the launch of the new console generation, there has been an explosion in the number of games with multiplayer components added going as far to release games that are only multiplayer i.e. Warhawk and SOCOM: Confrontaion. But nowadays, many game developers give the single player campaigns so little replay value and so easily obtained trophies or acheivments, the only choice beyond moving to a new game is to play multiplayer. Games with actually enjoyable campaigns such as Half Life 2 and BioShock or becoming rare. It all seems like a cheap hook to play multiplayer so that more people would buy the game but that's just what i think. What do you people think?

We're actually taking a balanced approach at the moment. While the current focus is to allow for an awesome single player experience, we're keeping an eye on dynamics and balance for multiplayer so that, should a player choose either, they're not going to be penalized.

 

[CHangedUsername]

Golden eye 64 had a a 4 hour campaign and awesome multiplayer.

9 years later we get an hour more.

So yeah.

 

[Loves2spooge]

*sigh*, I remember a time when multiplayer maps simply came free when you got the new patch for your game, but these days publishers would rather you keep your eyes on the game whilst they sift through your pockets.

I remember the time before that where you had to buy a whole add-on just to get them, though, so it's hardly a "good old days" thing.

Yes, but you weren't paying for a couple of maps for multiplayer, you were buying an expansion for the main game, that's a huge difference. Also the add-on packs tended to be for games that weren't paltry in longevity.

Here's an article I wrote a while back on the whole ethos of DLC: http://ibeg.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/dlc-for-you-not-me/

Fair enough, MW2 may be an "epic" 5 hours, but as someone who prefers a singleplayer experience, that much time for more money than your average game isn't enough. Whilst it's not on the same scale, I could watch a couple of epic movies for £15. Never thought I'd see the day when I'd be saying the cinema's the bargain choice, even when you buy food you gotta take a loan out to afford.

Halo 3: ODST was a joke too, less than 6 hours of play and a very disappointing 6 hours at that. Who are these developers kidding? Why don't they just toss the SP campaigns aside and focus on multiplayer.

Dragon Age Origins - £25 with 100+ hours of singleplayer gameplay.
Modern Warfare 2 - £45 with around 5 hours of singleplayer gameplay.

johnsteed7's completely right in his blog, RPG's are the last ray of light for people who want to play singleplayer and get a worthwhile experience out of it.

 

[Ocelot GT]

Why dont we ask the CoD and Halo series?

You can finish the SP in a day...two if you hold a day job.

 

[thejadefalcon]

That new FPS without the dedicated whatever is supposed to have like a 5 hour campaign.

Fuck that bullshit.
Fuck that bullshit so hard.

Dragon Age, on the other hand, is supposed to take something like 80 hours to play through, plus replay value.
'Course, it's got no multiplayer (not that that matters.)

I guess the answer is: Yes, some of them do, which is why I ignore their games.

MW2 isn't that short. It was perfect for me. Dragon Age on the other hand... well... *drools* However, MW2 took me 10 hours to play through on Regular because I took the time to plan a few strategies rather than the seemingly average FPS mindset of going in guns blazing screaming "Oo-rah, America!"

 

[Mirroga]

I just ask for game companies who can make a long, fun, and memorable single-player experience. Not ALL gamers like multiplayer NOR do they have online support for their latest consoles. What about us? I am a gamer who bought a current-gen console simply to play great, single-player, current-gen games. My list so far is below 2 digits. What about us?

Oh, and a word of advise to those single-player games who add multiplayer? You want replayability? We will replay your freaking single-player modes forever if its fucking epic and well-developed. We don't need the multiplayer. Instead of trying to obtain the multiplayer crowd which have about 3 digit-games full of multiplayer, why not stay true to the fans who loved the single-player mode?

 

[Scumpernickle]

Well if you want replay value then buy an RPG, other than that, aren't FPS' meant to be played with other people?

 

[thejadefalcon]

MW2 isn't that short. It was perfect for me. Dragon Age on the other hand... well... *drools* However, MW2 took me 10 hours to play through on Regular because I took the time to plan a few strategies rather than the seemingly average FPS mindset of going in guns blazing screaming "Oo-rah, America!"

10 hours doesn't justify $60 to me.
It doesn't even justify $10.

Well, in my opinion, games don't take ten hours EVER unless they're god-awful and I never touch them again (see Tom Clancy's GRAW). I have replayed Modern Warfare 1 about sixteen times now. Say that's ten hours (give or take five hours or a week, depending on difficulty level and spare time) of game. That's one hundred and sixty hours. Totally worthy £40. Mass Effect: £40. It now takes me eighteen hours to do absolutely everything in the game (difficulty level or getting out of the Mako for more EXP points oddly has nothing to do with any time variation). Played that... what... fifteen times now? Worth it.

Games get a bad stick because of their cost versus time taken to play, but I think that it's a worthy trade off for all of the games that I currently own.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

MW2 isn't that short. It was perfect for me. Dragon Age on the other hand... well... *drools* However, MW2 took me 10 hours to play through on Regular because I took the time to plan a few strategies rather than the seemingly average FPS mindset of going in guns blazing screaming "Oo-rah, America!"

It doesn't sound like your strategizing was terribly effective if it doubled the amount of time it took to play the game.

 

[thejadefalcon]

MW2 isn't that short. It was perfect for me. Dragon Age on the other hand... well... *drools* However, MW2 took me 10 hours to play through on Regular because I took the time to plan a few strategies rather than the seemingly average FPS mindset of going in guns blazing screaming "Oo-rah, America!"

It doesn't sound like your strategizing was terribly effective if it doubled the amount of time it took to play the game.

It was effective, mostly (far more so than charging in would have been). Hit a few annoying sections where someone flanked me, kicking me back to a checkpoint five minutes ago, but I was also exploring (not for the intel, I ignored those even when I did find them, but simply because I wanted to poke around).

Also, let me paraphrase something from PC Gamer UK (I'd take it exactly, but I have no idea what issue it was in): "Oh, wow, I can't finish a game as fast as Blowhard #7 (that was actually roughly what they said, by the way, so it's not an attack), I must be a lesser person somehow. Some people played Tomb Raider: Legend in six hours. I spent twenty minutes exploring the first area taking screenshots." Just saying. A game's length is of absolutely no consequence to me and anyone who blathers on and on and on and on and on and doesn't know when to shut up about it (general statement, not directed at anyone) should play Portal and grow up. Every minute of that short, short game was pure gold.

 

[asdadogs]

I believe that this "neglect" is subjective to genre.

Most of the modern FPS games, are neglecting the single-player aspect of their games, in order to cater for all the anti-socials out there who just want to kill others. I have nothing against a good multiplayer, far from it. But if it's good at the expense of the single player, something has definatly gone wrong somewhere.

RPG's with multiplayer, in particular Borderlands, are good examples of how a multiplayer and a single player can coincide, but RPG's and FPS's arn't exactly in the same kettle of fish that we call "Genres", now are they?

 

[Gyrefalcon]

It's not that they're neglecting it, it's just that some developers have a different audience.

I think WanderFreak has it right. Console games are not all suffering but I think MMO games might be. But they weren't really designed for single player but it is supported since not everyone WANTS to do multi-player or may be on during a slow period.

I have often lamented that I missed good multi-player option games like the OLD version of Master of Monsters (not the Playstation version), Sonic 2, Culdcept, Tetris and the like. I want to be able to play with my friends on the same console and see their reactions, not from 3 blocks away.

And to that end I've seen Rock Band, Culdcept Saga, and Beautiful Katamari come to the rescue. These games are good in single player and multi-player. So I think that there is more variety being offered rather than less. It's just we didn't have as many outstanding games the past few years. But now? We are seeing a bumper-crop. Sit back and enjoy!

 

[badgersprite]

Generally only in FPS circles, although multiplayer does creep into places you don't expect it, like sandbox games. I was disappointed by how short MW2 was, even though the story was well-paced and the levels were varied. I assume special ops and multiplayer are supposed to compensate for that brevity, but I'm not a fan of multiplayer. It doesn't interest me. Maybe I'm in a minority there. I don't know.

 

[Comma-Kazie]

Yes, I think it's becoming more and more the norm that developers sacrifice the single-player campaign for multiplayer content--Modern Warfare 2 is a prime example. Activision could have done so much more with the campaign than what they produced.

Are you even playing the same thing?
I just played the final mission, and that was without a doubt so fucking epic. I enjoyed that more than MGS4

*SPOILER WARNING - READ AT YOUR OWN PERIL*

Maybe I misspoke--what Activision put into the game was nothing short of solid gold, but I think they could have done even more. The reasoning behind Shepherd's betrayal, for example wasn't very clear to me, and the game spent almost no time on Makarov after the airport level.