Developers sacrificing single player stuff for multiplayer

[Racecarlock]

Is anyone else getting fucking sick of it? Multiplayer is only meant to be a fun addition to the single player mode. Yet all I hear these days is how great multiplayer options in games are. I think i'm in the same position as yahtzee on this. If the single player sucks, then i'm not going to play multiplayer. Alot of games don't seem to get this. Why can't I give myself infinite ammo and grenade regeneration in the halo 3 single player campaign? Why is GTA IV so boring after the story in single player? Part of this may be that I can't get xbox live right now (need mom to get ethernet cable), so I basically have to stick to single player. But my point still stands. Why should single player modes suck just because a developer focused all of their resources on multiplayer? Look at portal, that was a great single player game. In fact, it was so good that it didn't even need multiplayer. So why are the games of today so heavily reliant on multiplayer? Is it because of a lack of writers, or is it for money? But more importantly, are you guys also sick of this crap?

 

[RowdyRodimus]

They do it because that's what sells. They see how many copies of say, Modern Warfare 2 with it's horrible single player that everyone knows about, sell just for the multiplayer and they assume (not entirely incorrectly mind you) that's what the majority of the gaming public wants.

Look at the book industry. When Harry Potter was the rage, you couldn't walk two feet into a book store without bumping into some "kidgets magical powers and goes on adventure" book that was published to take advantage of the hype from Harry Potter. It's the same now with Twilight. Video games are an industry (like it or not) so they follow trends. Right now Multiplayer is the hot thing, it was fighters back in the early 90's and RPG's in the late 90's. Single player will make a comeback but not if everyone keeps rushing out to get the newest online fragfest while games with good single player modes are left gathering dust.

I will add that games should only be reviewed on their single player (save things like MMO's)and graded accordingly since Multiplayer is subjective to the people you play with or against and as you said, be considered an extra. You don't go to a resteraunt and order a meal, find it bad but when they surprise you with a truffle with the check, decide to go back because the truffle was good.

 

[Weaver]

I think if the budget is not big enough the developer should focus on one or the other.
For instance, I love Unreal Tournament which doesn't have a single player story (well 2004 and 3 kind of do almost sort of). The game exists entirely as an online arena shooter.

If the studio has enough coin to do both, I say go for it. For example, I don't think MW2 had a short single player campaign because they "cut" content for multiplayer, I think they just didn't give a shit because 10 million fans were going to buy the game up anyways.

 

[skystryke]

I will add that games should only be reviewed on their single player (save things like MMO's)and graded accordingly since Multiplayer is subjective to the people you play with or against and as you said, be considered an extra. You don't go to a resteraunt and order a meal, find it bad but when they surprise you with a truffle with the check, decide to go back because the truffle was good.

I mostly agree with you here but I think they should do a bit about multiplayer like how varied game types are or if it is buggy but not talk about the actual matches and people.

OT: I think that if multiplayer is well done fits with the game and doesn't detract from the single player then it can improve a games longevity quite a lot. However if it doesn't fit all of the above then don't do it.

 

[Racecarlock]

Yeah, but multiplayer shouldn't be used as an excuse for cutting out single player features. Also, it shouldn't excuse bad single player experiences because single player should be good enough on its' own. That's how Halo: CE got popular. Good single player. I don't think that games should coast on multiplayer and that is why it pisses me off when they strip down the single player, then use the multiplayer as an excuse for it. And why are varied game types multiplayer only? I can deal with playing multiplayer game types with AI competitors or team mates. Multiplayer should be a fun add on, not an excuse for a terrible one player experience.

 

[Legion IV]

Yeah, but multiplayer shouldn't be used as an excuse for cutting out single player features. Also, it shouldn't excuse bad single player experiences because single player should be good enough on its' own. That's how Halo: CE got popular. Good single player. I don't think that games should coast on multiplayer and that is why it pisses me off when they strip down the single player, then use the multiplayer as an excuse for it. And why are varied game types multiplayer only? I can deal with playing multiplayer game types with AI competitors or team mates. Multiplayer should be a fun add on, not an excuse for a terrible one player experience.

K and what if the games big focus is the multiplayer? Whats the problem then? I play Fighting games and Starcraft mostley wich rpgs tossed in. Multiplayer for some genres are the most important. Am tired of this generic rant against multiplayer coming from everyone who mimics what yathzee thinks.

The only genre this its inexcusible in is RPGS. Player vs Player has been extremmly important in gaming its ussualy the most intence as well. When i went to the arcade to play CVS2 I had to work for that dollar!. But i digress lol.

But i still completly disagre. Unless its an RPG or a very story driven game multiplayer is no add on its important. Mabey its just me i mainly play Fighters and they thrive of another person at the cabinet or on the couch next to you.

Just enough of this i see this rant to much.

 

[migo]

It's like PC games, around 1999 when everyone started getting unlimited internet access online multiplayer became viable. Now it's happening again with consoles because online play was a major push for them.

 

[masseyguy911]

Sadly, multiplayer sells. I honestly would much rather have a solid single player session than a good multiplayer one. Thats why I only buy games now that have a good single player, because it shows that the game developers actually took some time and effort. Though, games like MAG designed to be multiplayer ONLY, thats a different, and I admit I might buy that game. For the most part though, if the game does not have a good offline single player, than I won't bother with it.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I started to type up a very protracted theory as to why this undeniable multiplayer focus is, in fact, harmful to the long-term health of the gaming industry. Instead, I'll offer my personal experience with the most successful multiplayer game in history.

I played WoW hardcore for roughly two years. I spent $15 a month plus the cost of an expansion, for a total of around $400. I purchased only two other games in that span, bringing my grand total to ~$520. Having quit WoW and returned to single player games, I now purchase 10-12 games a year. Over the last two years, including DLC, I've probably spent upwards of $1500 on games.

What did I take away from this expeience? Multiplayer games are highly profitable for exactly ONE company. That does not make them a viable primary model for the industry as a whole.

 

[Neuromaster]

...Multiplayer is only meant to be a fun addition to the single player mode...

This is untrue. I guarantee that Modern Warfare 2 and Starcraft 2 were designed from the ground up around multiplayer. They did not "sacrifice" the SP for multiplayer.

You are not entitled to SP. Read reviews, get a feel for the game. If the SP sounds weak, don't buy it.

 

[Drodgyn]

I view Multiplayer as the equivalent of French Language Tracks on DVDs. It appeals to certain people, but if it's not there, I would never miss it. Having multiplayer does not excuse a skimpy single player; case in point, StarCraft II. Had I known that the single player of that game was little more than training ground for the multiplayer, complete with contrived gimmicks to ensure efficient and time-managed responses, I would have never bought it.

 

[Paksenarrion]

I started to type up a very protracted theory as to why this undeniable multiplayer focus is, in fact, harmful to the long-term health of the gaming industry. Instead, I'll offer my personal experience with the most successful multiplayer game in history.

I played WoW hardcore for roughly two years. I spent $15 a month plus the cost of an expansion, for a total of around $400. I purchased only two other games in that span, bringing my grand total to ~$520. Having quit WoW and returned to single player games, I now purchase 10-12 games a year. Over the last two years, including DLC, I've probably spent upwards of $1500 on games.

What did I take away from this expeience? Multiplayer games are highly profitable for exactly ONE company. That does not make them a viable primary model for the industry as a whole.

It's funny you should mention that! Have you noticed that it is possible to play WoW as a single player campaign if you were to think of the other players as NPCs? You could level up and do quests without having to team up with anyone. I think the reason WoW is so successful is because it is built as a single player campaign, with multiplayer options. I'm not sure about Cataclysm, though, but I'm guessing a majority of the quests are still "single player".

 

[seditary]

It all depends on the intentions for me. If they want to make a great singleplayer and multiplayer and do that, then great. If they just want to do great singleplayer and just do that, then great. If they just want to do great multiplayer and just do that, then great.

Its when they throw in the other in a title that is focused in one area that annoys me.

 

[Chamale]

It's certainly true that developers make sacrifices for multiplayer. That's why there's a debate between those who like singleplayer and those who like multiplayer.

Video game companies also make sacrifices when they prepare to make games available on multiple platforms. A company must sacrifice some of its budget and productivity to port a PC game to Xbox 360, and even more to port it to PS3. That's why there's a debate between PC gamers, Xbox 360 gamers, and PS3 gamers.

Sure, a minority of gamers would be very happy if all developers only developed games tailored to their specific needs. However, any such scenario would be a bad thing for most players. It's simple - game companies must serve the needs of those who like singleplayer and multiplayer, and each group gets the shaft sometimes.

 

[Neuromaster]

...Multiplayer is only meant to be a fun addition to the single player mode...

This is untrue. MW2 and SCII both have well-produced SP campaigns, but I guarantee they were developed from the ground up with multiplayer in mind.

You are not entitled to an award-winning SP experience in every game.

Are there games I feel were stretched too thin, where the SP lacked and the multiplayer didn't make up for it? Sure. But why is it the multiplayer's fault? Maybe the engine guys rewrote their stuff five times, or the publisher demanded some wonky feature, or god knows what.

Point is, there are SP games, there are multiplayer games, and there're games that do both. Buy what you want. Don't buy what you don't want.

 

[Miumaru]

I blame Halo.

 

[TerranReaper]

I can't say I quite agree with you there, it is somewhat true that single-player has taken a backseat to multiplayer, but the fact that it increases the game's longevity ensures that people will keep playing it. If you look at PC gaming, it's been doing for quite a while, Quake and the Unreal series didn't really have a compelling story but a great multiplayer. The problem with single-player as well, is that it can only last you so long before it gets boring. Multiplayer can last a lot more depending on what it has.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

It's funny you should mention that! Have you noticed that it is possible to play WoW as a single player campaign if you were to think of the other players as NPCs? You could level up and do quests without having to team up with anyone. I think the reason WoW is so successful is because it is built as a single player campaign, with multiplayer options. I'm not sure about Cataclysm, though, but I'm guessing a majority of the quests are still "single player".

I totally understand what you mean by "pretending it's single player" because that's absolutely how I played it for the first six months. I eventually capped my character, and the only way to continue my progression was a more social experience.

That's the magic, really. The game very gradually and successfully ferries people along from casual single player to hardcore raider. I think this subtle transition is at the heart of WoW's astounding success. It's supremely accessible and casual on the front-end with enough back-end difficulty to necessitate interpersonal dependency.

I also think interpersonal dependency is the backbone of the game's lasting appeal as well, but I'm pretty biased. As a former hardcore pvper/raider, the social aspect of the game was what kept me coming back night after night.

Incidentally, it did not end well.

 

[viranimus]

Well... Unless you have a way to keep people who buy games solely for the multiplayer aspect, then not a whole lot is going to change in your favor. Its going to change, and become even more omnipresent.

I look at it kinda on a pretty boy/douchebag/metro level. If it didnt work, they wouldnt do it.

Its what sells, so unless people suddenly stop approving of it with their wallets your going to see it increase. So getting upset about it wont do alot of good.

OT: you DO have a way to keep people from buying these game? right? Please for the love of god tell me you do!

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

I have a hard time taking a stance on this issue. On one hand, I loved Halo 3's multiplayer way more than the single player.

On the other hand, I mostly just stick to playing single player RPGs so it doesn't really effect me in the first place.