(discussion) Does multiplayer hurt gaming?

[DragonKnightToran]

There isn't much else to offer on the subject. It seems by far most people who have posted here have provided similar opinions on the matter. Multiplayer does hurt Singleplayer to some extent, whether it be the focus of the company and its resources (Like the already mentioned COD series) or by just creating a simply awful multiplayer just for the sake of having the option (Dead Space 2, more on this in a moment). Now, as also said, Multiplayer is a great thing ON ITS OWN, to emphasize not to yell. Multiplayer can be done right if worked on to the extent of making it both fun for the player and still stimulating of the brain by making you choose strategic and tactical choices. COD...doesn't have this. Typically you pick the biggest gun with the best explosives and just shoot everything that moves. You can argue there is strategy hidden in there, but personal experience with myself and other players states otherwise. FPS games can have excellent multiplayer if they designed them the right way, one such game that came close was the Enemy Territory: Quake Wars game. Yes, the game had its full of flaws and problems with the class system, but at least it created a sense of needed thinking to win the battle. Back to Dead Space 2. It did certain things right, while doing much more wrong. Yes, I will admit my experience was fun, but fun simply doesn't go far enough. My biggest issues with it is how simple it is to break the multiplayer. If the people playing the humans have half a brain, then they stick together and avoid dieing...a lot. But in an attempt to break this, the game decides to spawn wave upon wave of Necro until eventually the humans do die. It can be said this balances the system, but too many times do I notice that outright either the Necros win or the Humans win in a landslide. By the time the humans get wiped out once or twice there is just no hope for redemption.

Now on the idea of the two entities being great on their own. My opinion would be to make a game that is solely the Singleplayer portion and then make a separate game (Or better yet, cheap DLC)for the multiplayer portion of the game. This way, the two pieces can actually get the needed attention they both need. I know what is said here that Multi hurts Single, but I also feel the opposite could be said. Single hurts Multi. Lets face it, COD is all about Multiplayer. By this point, the company would be doing itself a favor by cutting the story and go all-out multiplayer. Think of the walls they could bash down and the new monuments they could construct if their entire team focused on the multiplayer aspect. Personally, I think this is a bad idea because I enjoy story and plot in singleplayer more than dealing with people in multiplayer. But I am just saying, the idea may not be half bad if considered. If you split the two and work on them both with different goals, the end product might be able to satisfy both ends of the gaming market. Yeah, its more work for the company, but should they exist for their own profit or to make customers happy? Hopefully both.

To close, these are my own scattered opinions on a handful of topics. Chances are, just like everyone else here, I will get flammed for what I say, but I think we all knew that when we decided to post. Anyways, this is an interesting topic, and I do hope my own insight could help the topic out. Chances are someone already posted what I meant to say before I finished...

 

[Plurralbles]

if multiplayer didn't exist gaming wouldn't exist as it does today. AAA titles would probalby not exist or be an extremely brand-spankin' new thing.

THis Weeekend's MLG couldn't have happened.

so I look at your opinion and I consider it ridiculous.

 

[Pearwood]

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)

Multiplayer either makes a good game great by adding challenge beyond the limitations of AI opponants and replayability, neither adds anything nor subtracts anything or takes over the game completely, none of which are harmful particularly. Generally when multiplayer is the prime focus people buying that game will be aware of that and won't be buying it solely for the single player campaign. On the other hand a game with a strong single player campaign might lack any replay value, FPS games especially have next to no replay value most of the time, and that's a problem because it means your game will be overshadowed by others that have theoretically endless replay value.

Some games and even entire genres revolve entirely around multiplayer, the FPS giants, the whole RTS and fighting game genres, games such as LittleBigPlanet that rely heavily on user-generated content all wouldn't exist without multiplayer. Saying it hurts games as a whole just because you don't like the community is a little narrow minded to say the least.

 

[viranimus]

Ok, I thought Multiplayer based games were typically not pirated, as trying to pirate then hack multiplayer is more effort than it was worth. (

Anyway. The only multiplayer I have ever seen that ever truly enhanced a gaming experience was 2/4 player mode on one screen sitting in the same room.

Online multiplayer in my estimation rarely enhances gameplay. About the only time ive seen it even come close to enhancing gameplay was in Demon's Souls where communication was so restricted.

Shooters, well they have their place for certain. But I dont think even with the sales numbers shooters like CoD churn out, that their multiplayer truly helps gaming as a whole. Shooters if anything are seemingly slowing gaming down by the current levels of stagnation in their respective genre. That will change over time, but for right now its a pretty hefty snare.

 

[Vault101]

if multiplayer didn't exist gaming wouldn't exist as it does today. AAA titles would probalby not exist or be an extremely brand-spankin' new thing.

THis Weeekend's MLG couldn't have happened.

so I look at your opinion and I consider it ridiculous.

what do you mean by that?

I play a few games I would consider AAA and none of them are particually multiplayer focused, I mean sure COD as become a huge thing but there are games aside from COD

 

[LordGarbageMan]

CoD is popular because of multiplayer, and I'd say so is halo. I think if a system is polished enough or simple enough it is good multiplayer, as in games like Cod4 or halo3 I didnt really find many glitches, and when I heard about them or saw them, they were usually patched relatively quickly. Someone above said devs shouldn't focus so much on multiplayer that it hurts the singleplayer, but I say the opposite, couldn't give two shits about an fps single player campaign. Also maybe the stuff you are talking about is more prevalent in PC gaming, I mostly stick to the 360 outside of TF2.

 

[Cridhe]

Multiplayer doesn't necessarily hurt...but the fact is, most devs put way too much time into multiplayer these days. The singleplayer often suffers from this. That's what I hate.

Some people would say multiplayer suffers from too much focus on unnecessary stuff in single player. I get most of my enjoyment out of multiplayer features on games. It's a lot more fun fighting a skilled mob than a pre-programmed AI mob.

 

[Celtois]

As much as I sometimes like to dabble in MMO's and can see the benefit of a online community for a game. Always people to play with yay! I really preferred it when all we had was split screen, and co-op. It made playing games with your friends a way more entertaining experience, as it was the prime focus of most games with multi-player. (Some games don't even have that option now.)

Additionally games should focus more on the singleplayer experience if they are going to provide online multi-player especially if they don't want to have to worry about supporting servers on into infinity.

 

[ultrachicken]

Multiplayer is largely the only reason that games are accepted at all, not the reason why they're not.

 

[Joccaren]

The only thing multiplayer hurts are those who play it. If some people are being douches on multiplayer, yet you are only playing single player, is your experience in the game being hurt? No.
Only those who play multiplayer suffer from the problems it has with the players, and these problems are not the fault of multiplayer, but the fault of those who play it.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Multiplayer doesn't necessarily hurt...but the fact is, most devs put way too much time into multiplayer these days. The singleplayer often suffers from this. That's what I hate.

Some people would say multiplayer suffers from too much focus on unnecessary stuff in single player. I get most of my enjoyment out of multiplayer features on games. It's a lot more fun fighting a skilled mob than a pre-programmed AI mob.

This x1000 for Call of Duty.

The fact is 95% of the people who purchase Call of Duty do so for the multiplayer, and only the multiplayer. To put so much effort into a single player experience (which mostly sucks anyways) instead of spending more time and resources on balancing the multiplayer is a damn shame. It's the reason we get shitty unbalanced games like World at War and MW2.

 

[Seanfall]

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)

Yes yes yes THANK YOU. So many games are made to exist only on Multi-player. So the story (or what passes for one in most FPS games) is weak and watered down. Characterization doesn't exist. I'm looking at you Halo Reach you huge huge huge huge huge FUCKIN HUGE LET DOWN! And if you say that in even casual conversation to those games fans. (mostly some sub species of BRO or FRAT FUCK) You get called some unkind things. And they only thing you can do is go find their car they were bragging about, slash their tires and key 'master chief sucks dicks in hell' on their door. (boy am I glad I paid that 12 year old to do that.)

Now...when added to a game that has a strong Single Player. Bioshock 2, Red Dead Redemption, and...yeah I gotta say Gears of War cause I did honestly have fun playing that game. It makes the game stronger cause now when your done, or just need a break from the single player, you can drop out and drop in to a few matches and unwind.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Multiplayer is largely the only reason that games are accepted at all, not the reason why they're not.

Mmmhmm. What's fun for one person on their own is all well and good but it is much more marketable and theoretically fun if you can have multiple people playing the game at once.

Personally I believe multiplayer is ultimately a good thing provided (if the game has one) the singleplayer isn't left in the cold because of it.

So basically, this:

Multiplayer doesn't necessarily hurt...but the fact is, most devs put way too much time into multiplayer these days. The singleplayer often suffers from this. That's what I hate.

 

[YawningAngel]

How can multiplayer hurt your experience of gaming when you are free to choose not to participate in it? You could just buy single-player games, never touch multiplayer, and never have to live with any of the drawbacks you say it has.

 

[HandsomeZer0]

Multiplayer can make bad games good and good games bad.
For example i played the first kane and lynch entirely in co-op, but since i had a friend to back me up and laugh with the experience was bearable. Fastword to the 2nd which i tried by myself there was no saving it.
Multiplayer can enhance or eliminate a game depending on the focus of it.

 

[Tdc2182]

I think single player hurts Multiplayer gaming.

In all seriousness, nope. Not at all.

You rarely get a person who works in the Single player campaign of a game have anything to do with Multiplayer department.

Plus, with games that are FPS's (not regarding open world RPG's), you really will never have staying power of a single player campaign like something of an Assassin's Creed.

 

[Awexsome]

Of course not are you serious? Multiplayer gaming is the only reason why it's being so accepted nowadays. You could find one or two bad examples of it being implemented sure but in no way would the gaming world be any better if it wasn't around.

There may be a need to shift focus of the gaming face from the swearing laden multiplayer game stereotype sometimes but at least it has a face now and is being taken more seriously because of its popularity.

 

[Ninjat_126]

Some games are built for multiplayer.

Others are not.

Not every game needs multiplayer. Some games don't need multiplayer. Some games are better as singleplayer titles. Some players just like singleplayer games more.

I'll take a good singleplayer experience over a purely multiplayer game 8/10 times.

Multiplayer has 3 main problems.

1. It's reliant on other people playing.

2. Competitive side overtakes fun side. People start hacking to get high scores instead of having fun and playing the game how it was meant to be played.

3. Multiplayer requires things to be balanced and fair so everyone can have fun. The game can be poorly balanced, leading to things like the noobtube and noob combo.

How can multiplayer hurt your experience of gaming when you are free to choose not to participate in it? You could just buy single-player games, never touch multiplayer, and never have to live with any of the drawbacks you say it has.

I think the OP meant that devs were cutting down singleplayer to fit in more multiplayer when they really don't need to. If that's happening, the number of good singleplayer games will decrease.

 

[thelonewolf266]

So multiplayer isn't gaming that I did not know.I love it how all the people that start these threads thinking that they have some revolutionary new idea that will change gaming as we know it so it can reach new heights and also claim they don't want flame wars all have lots of extra credit badges.News flash gaming is doing pretty goddamn well thank you kindly.