(discussion) Does multiplayer hurt gaming?

[DaHero]

Now, I want to put this up front: I realize that a LOT of people are about to send me some nasty letters for saying this. I also realize that it's nearly impossible (because this IS the internet) for this to go on for long without a flame war, but it needs to be discussed. Also, bear in mind that my opinion does not mean I expect others to think remotely my way. That's the whole point of it being a discussion.

Now, in MY opinion, Multiplayer/PvP hurts gaming, badly. The main reason that we have hacks, raging, noob exploits, glitching, e-peens, douchebags, screaming kids, yearly clones, bad publicity, etc. is because of multiplayer. In FPS games, multiplayer serves as little more than a glorfied "my ego is bigger than yours" frag-fest where skill isn't the deciding factor, glitches and cheap tactics are. RPGs have that AND the classes are constantly nerfed or boosted to balance PvP while ignoring PvE, which one would think is the core of a good RPG. I feel that honestly (raising my flame shield here) if games like Halo, Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, and other big titles like them, were focused more on co-operative gaming, or simply did not have multiplayer, there wouldn't be such a big issue with rage and hackers, meaning a drop in all the problems that plague the industry today, even pirating. I have yet to personally find a multiplayer/PvP oriented game that I enjoyed due to the aforementioned problems, and really have yet to find what these multiplayer based games have done to contribute positively to the industry as a whole. Maybe if we didn't have these problems, gaming wouldn't have such a hard time being accepted? Maybe the industry would be forced to be more innovative, instead of the new setting, same engine system we get (looking at you CoD).

Now, that's MY opinion, so the discussion is open for intelligent minds. (note: I don't expect anyone to think like me, and I don't believe my opinion is the "right one" I'm just giving my opinion to start the discussion)

EDIT: Good God...you people are missing a critical point of my opinion *facepalm*

I'm saying less multiplayer, more co-operative focus. I'm saying developers need to do less to make games mass multiplayer for a quick $60+DLC and focus more on adding co-operative experiences (I'm still waiting for the FPS that randomly generates a map, that might actually take some skill instead of just map memorization)

I mean this in all honesty: Wouldn't you still be playing Mass Effect 2 if there were randomly generated maps to explore and the other two characters could be drop-in drop-out friends? Even the first one has the argument.

Sadly, the closest I've come to seeing this is Two Worlds, and not many people still play it.

As for the WoW argument: Yes I have played WoW, quite a lot. I levelled from 0-60 on my Tank Paladin in a week because all anyone runs anymore is the dungeons, not actual exploration/questing. Now I've gotten into end game and I feel cheated because of it.

 

[Blindrooster]

You state that you recognize everyone has their own opinion. That pretty much IS the discussion.

Depends on the gamer, really. thats the great thing about video games is we have something for everyone.

 

[Nickompoop]

I think TF2 did multiplayer well by only allowing certain kinds of tags (playing CS: Source is like watching porn, there's so many boobs) and by strictly enforcing the "No Cheats" rule. I also find there are very few douchebags and racist 12 year olds on TF2. I don't really know why...

 

[DaHero]

You state that you recognize everyone has their own opinion. That pretty much IS the discussion.

Depends on the gamer, really. thats the great thing about video games is we have something for everyone.

Well I'm trying to find more of a counter point to my logic.

 

[Jordi]

Your argument is very weird. If you separate multiplayer from singleplayer gaming, you will see that the problems you mention are all with multiplayer (except piracy, but how the hell you came to that conclusion is completely beyond me). Singleplayer does not have the problems you mention, whether or not multiplayer exists. Removing it does nothing to help singleplayer games for these issues.

When I came into this topic, I expected that you were going to argue that multiplayer is ruining singleplayer, because basically resources are being driven away from the latter in order to develop the former. You see this in games like Call of Duty, that are almost exclusively made for MP, and feature only very short SP campaigns. That is an effect that we are seeing, and if you don't like MP, then I can imagine that you don't like this.

 

[Easton Dark]

Multiplayer as a whole; no. Infact Multiplayer has enhanced gaming enjoyment for me on so many levels (and if I may add, is large reason why the Xbox does so well). Valve games online never dissapoint.

My problem is devs with multiplayer in their games focus a lot of their attention on the multiplayer, leaving the single-player... not worse, but lesser than it could be. If only development times were longer.

 

[DaHero]

Your argument is very weird. If you separate multiplayer from singleplayer gaming, you will see that the problems you mention are all with multiplayer (except piracy, but how the hell you came to that conclusion is completely beyond me). Singleplayer does not have the problems you mention, whether or not multiplayer exists. Removing it does nothing to help singleplayer games for these issues.

When I came into this topic, I expected that you were going to argue that multiplayer is ruining singleplayer, because basically resources are being driven away from the latter in order to develop the former. You see this in games like Call of Duty, that are almost exclusively made for MP, and feature only very short SP campaigns. That is an effect that we are seeing, and if you don't like MP, then I can imagine that you don't like this.

Simple really, a good chunk of piracy could logically be tied to people pirating the game just to hack the multiplayer (this overcomes IP/CD bans)

and yes I think the resources are being pulled and all, but that's not a big complaint of mine. The resources could just as easily have gone to innovative ideas, or a full co-op campaign.

 

[jayteedubya]

I agree, but only in the sense of online multi-player,because people in online games are guaranteed to be inconsiderate tards

 

[Kahunaburger]

The best solution to that is to play with your friends. And IMHO the challenge of facing another human being always outweighs the disadvantages of multiplayer, especially when you're playing with friends or the game has a good community.

 

[Shio]

Your opinion is that multiplayer hurts gaming because you dislike it?

I see.

 

[MorsePacific]

It doesn't hurt gaming in general, but it certainly puts a dent in single-player gaming. I naturally avoid online gaming because I'm not particularly good at games, nor do I really feel the need to play with others. Since multi-player has become such a huge phenomenon, companies dedicate far more time to making a great multi-player experience, which is obviously less time devoted to people like me.

Take Brink for example. The single-player is nothing but the multi-player with a few cutscenes linking missions and bots instead of people. I can't blame laziness, but it set out to be a multi-player experience to begin with.

 

[Blindrooster]

You state that you recognize everyone has their own opinion. That pretty much IS the discussion.

Depends on the gamer, really. thats the great thing about video games is we have something for everyone.

Well, alot of the points are relative to certain games/people. You mentioned "Rage" alot. That is a problem with social interaction, period, yet everyone has SOME form of social interaction. while other humans can be annoying at times, there's still fun to be had. I know i enjoy beating another player more so than a cpu, it gives more sense of compitition.

But there are so many good non multiplayer games too. good RPG's and the like.

I guess what i'm saying is, whilst suffering from some of the reasons you mentioned muliplayer games do cater to a certain mood.

 

[Jordi]

Your argument is very weird. If you separate multiplayer from singleplayer gaming, you will see that the problems you mention are all with multiplayer (except piracy, but how the hell you came to that conclusion is completely beyond me). Singleplayer does not have the problems you mention, whether or not multiplayer exists. Removing it does nothing to help singleplayer games for these issues.

When I came into this topic, I expected that you were going to argue that multiplayer is ruining singleplayer, because basically resources are being driven away from the latter in order to develop the former. You see this in games like Call of Duty, that are almost exclusively made for MP, and feature only very short SP campaigns. That is an effect that we are seeing, and if you don't like MP, then I can imagine that you don't like this.

Simple really, a good chunk of piracy could logically be tied to people pirating the game just to hack the multiplayer (this overcomes IP/CD bans)

So basically your argument is that because removing multiplayer will make less people want to play a game, it will get pirated less? We don't really gain anything by that, because it also means that it will get bought less, which is what actually matters. Furthermore, I would argue that right now, the opposite actually happens, because multiplayer is much easier to protect against piracy than singleplayer. If someone wants to play both MP and SP, then he basically has to buy the game, whereas he could have just pirated it (if he is so inclined) if it only had singleplayer.

and yes I think the resources are being pulled and all, but that's not a big complaint of mine. The resources could just as easily have gone to innovative ideas, or a full co-op campaign.

Yes, that is the point. Instead of going to developing multiplayer, resources can be used to implement innovative ideas and co-op campaigns, etc. If you don't like (competitive) multiplayer, but you do like those other things, then I don't see why you wouldn't think this is bad.

 

[Kyogissun]

Multiplayer is good for one reason and one reason only:

Sharing the glorious experience of completing a goal or conquering an enemy OR enemies together, even if your counties, states, countries or CONTINENTS away.

However, the concept of an ENGAGING multiplayer seems to completely evade developers. These days, it seems like there's some retarded concept that EVERY game needs to have multiplayer, and that once it works and is functional, it's good enough to go. GOD FORBID it have a multitude of maps, depth in the gameplay and have a long lasting 'fun' factor. It just needs to be functional!

Case and point, Dead Space 2. AWESOME multiplayer, shitty execution, lack of longevity and NO variety in game modes. A few extra game modes, some more diverse maps, more diverse 'classes' on the side of the humans and the game probably could've held my attention for more than a week or two. It was enjoyable while it last though...

Battlefield, Left 4 Dead and 'maybe' the F.E.A.R. (1 was awesome, 2 was a shitty CoD clone, as if it wasn't already bad enough it was a CoD clone, but 3's looking pretty cool) series have held my attention for quite a few months after purchase, at least in terms of engaging multiplayer modes... Not counting select titles that are NOT shooter and provide cool co-op mode extras.

Hopefully the multiplayer, if it exists, for Dead Space 3 will set up for a home run and knock it out of the park.

 

[TheComedown]

RPGs have that AND the classes are constantly nerfed or boosted to balance PvP while ignoring PvE, which one would think is the core of a good RPG.

Umm? RPGs have no PvP, your thinking of MMORPGs, an entirely different kettle of fish. If you want an RPG to be focused on the single player aspect, pick up a single player game. If you want to play the MMOs fine, but don't be winging about the balance especially in a game like WoW with a shit ton of variables such as there is (having not played it) I imagine they are doing a pretty good job of balancing it if people are still playing all these years later.

As for shooters and such I agree mostly with Easton Dark up there. No multiplayer had done a shitload of good things for gaming as a whole. Where the problem lies is with games like Homefront, the game was advertised for its campaign which was said to do all these great things, but when the game came out, the campaign felt rushed and was really really short, there was no pacing and the Multiplayer is where the game actually shined. The problem is devs who do not have their priorities right and spread themselves to thin, if you are going to make a MP game, make a MP game, nothing wrong with adding a SP aspect, but for the most part if MP is your focus, really the SP should only be there to introduce the game and its mechanics. If you are going to Make a SP game, make a SP game all it can be, and only if appropriate add a MP aspect.

 

[Jim Grim]

I don't really see how most of the things you bring up hurt single player games.
1.Co-op is multiplayer.
2.Putting up with anonymous assholes isn't just in multiplayer games, you encounter these people everywhere. Also how does that hurt gaming?
3.Less people pirating a game because it doesn't have multiplayer = more sales? How does that work?

 

[s0m3th1ng]

I wouldn't play games nearly as much if I couldn't play with friends...so your topic title is flawed.

 

[thiosk]

I certainly do not want anything to do with: raging, noob exploits, glitching, e-peens, douchebags, screaming kids...

Its not multiplayer thats so bad, its really just the sector that gravitates towards it exclusively. Try talking to someone about multiplayer civilization games: the entire point of the game vanishes when you start talking build orders and pwning n00bzorz.