(discussion) Does multiplayer hurt gaming?

[Morgan Howe]

like anything it come down to people i think, its the gamers that make multi-player suck
you wouldn't let an emo kid that beats sacks full of kittens take care of your new born baby, and some of the people out there in some of these games are WAY worse.
example: ps3 was virtually un-hackable before geohot's homebrew, now theres not a day i go playing Battlefield Bad Company2 on ps3 without a guy who is literally invinsable, but thats hardly the games fault (that being said i think its time for game makers to make some anti-cheat for ps3.

 

[Choppaduel]

Multiplayer as concept is fine (see tf2); it's games where the target audience is 10-17 (despite the M rating) year old violent shitheads, ie modern military shooters, that give multiplayer a bad name. There also the logistical problem, but thats minor in comparison the big one.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Does multiplayer hurt games?

*Looks at L4D2*

No.

Every point the OP has raised against Multiplayer are faults with the gamers who play them rather than the game mode itself. And the OP is vastly overstating the problem. Yes you do get boosters. Yes you do get rage-quitting. Yes you do get screaming kids. Yes you do get glitching. But only for, say, one game in ten. I love competitive multiplayer, but I can see why people without that competitive edge could be turned off the very 'dog-eat-dog' world of online play.

Bottom line OP, if you don't like multiplayer no-one is forcing you to play it. There are plenty of people out there, however, who relish the challenge of PvP play. And please allow me to re-iterate, your problems with multiplayer seem to stem from bad player experiences rather than bad gaming experiences, so you might want to cut multiplayer a little slack.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

If it's done right and encourages team play then no. If it's done the Call of Duty way then yes.

 

[sibrenfetter]

If it's done right and encourages team play then no. If it's done the Call of Duty way then yes.

And yet millions of people buy Call Of Duty games and play online daily. Many of whom never even played the singleplayer part. Whether you personally like COD or not is up to you but the multiplayer especially reaches out to more players (even with all the problems) than nearly any other multiplayer game out there.

Different multiplayer games for different people. And really, COD gets millions of people to play games also often cooperatively, so concluding cod hurts gaming sounds very odd to me.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

If it's done right and encourages team play then no. If it's done the Call of Duty way then yes.

And yet millions of people buy Call Of Duty games and play online daily. Many of whom never even played the singleplayer part. Whether you personally like COD or not is up to you but the multiplayer especially reaches out to more players (even with all the problems) than nearly any other multiplayer game out there.

Different multiplayer games for different people. And really, COD gets millions of people to play games also often cooperatively, so concluding cod hurts gaming sounds very odd to me.

The reason Call of Duty is so popular is because of Activision's huge marketing budget, not because of how intuitive it is.

 

[mcattack92]

Just because multiplayer games have screaming little kids and hackers doesnt mean it is bad or ruins the single player part of the game. Most multiplayer games just need moderators or admins to be able to ban/kick people who break the rules.

The downside to kicking people in some games like Garry's Mod (especially in Australia) can cause huge problems for the servers as a banned player may decide to dos the server as revenge.

 

[Mike Laserbeam]

I can't answer the OP's question. Multiplayer doesn't hurt a game.

Local multiplayer has NEVER hurt a game. EVER. It's always an improvement.

Online multiplayer? Yeah, it might suck sometimes, or be unnecessary. But as a whole, it's just an add on for some games that should really be singleplayer only, the main game hardly suffers. Plus, there a lot of very good games mainly based around online multiplayer (Left 4 Dead being a good example). If we HADN'T had those games, that would hurt gaming a lot more.

 

[General_Potatoes]

Sometimes it ruins games. (black ops, reach). Sometimes it doesn't ( Co-op games).

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I've never really had a problem but thats because I only play with friends. I am less interested in competitive multiplayer games that don't let me make my own server with friends for free. Its why I don't really play any of the newer FPS games.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Em you don't really expand on what you consider noob glitches and exploits as plenty of those(ie CoD jumps. Although these aren't in new CoD games to my knowledge to a large degree.) are meant to be part of the multiplayer experience and adds an extra dynamic to clan matches and games as you have to know your maps really well. There are plenty of good games that have multiplayer. Guild Wars is fairly good. There are always a few "noob"/imba builds but it usually doesn't cripple PvP. I think there has been a bit of a power creep in the game which could be taken out though.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Well, I wish there were more Single player games, or at least games that focus more on Single player.

I love a good story in a game, I loved playing through the God of War Trilogy, same goes for Assassins Creed, is did enjoy the Multi player in Brotherhood though!

I do like Multi Player in General, just not Shooters. So no, I don't think Multi player is hurting gaming, I know people that only play games online, I just wish we had more single player games.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Umm.. not really. Bad multiplayer, or multiplayer where it doesn't belong (or is forced on the developer), hurts games. What else hurts games? Bad single player.

I fail to see why people rail at games like CoD or Halo for having so much focus on their multiplayer aspects. I'm sorry, but if you buy CoD expecting a 20 hour storyline, it's not the game's fault that it doesn't deliver. Heck, even if the single player was a typical COD single player experience but it lasted 20 hours, would you really want to play it? The very reason the single player modes in games like CoD do work is often because they are so time limited.

Just as with people wanting their single player experiences to have the majority of the developer time focused on the single player side, I want the majority of developer time in a multi player focused game actually spent on making the multi player good. As a huge fighting game fan, for instance, I appreciate whatever single player doohickies a developer decides to add (and some certainly do make the game a richer experience) but I'd rather they spend their time making a solid deep balanced fighting engine with a variety of interesting characters. No amount of shoehorned in ultimately meaningless bland "story" focused game modes, no matter the length, help if the engine underneath it all is garbage (*waves to Mortal Kombat post MK3*).

I'd say the OP is just painting with far too wide a brush while at the same time shifting blame from where it does belong (individual developers and occasionally publishers) onto an easy to demonize scapegoat.

 

[Alexnader]

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.

None of those would be issues with only singleplayer i.e. One person sitting in front of a screen by themselves however they'd still exist. You just wouldn't see them as much. Except bad publicity, Postal was singleplayer, GTA was largely singleplayer. Also it's hard to say with yearly clones.

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.

No, just no. FPSes are often in my mind the most boiled down, hard level competitive expression of gaming. No stats, no numbers, just you and your ability to click on a small moving target extremely quickly standing between you and being owned. Explicit glitching is a rare sight in most modern online FPSes as with most other genres. Cheap tactics exist in most online games of any genre, it's not really a problem of any genre as a whole but rather a problem within each game.

RTSes strike me as the other highly competition-like genre, however I have next to no experience with them.

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.

Rage will exist so long as games present any kind of challenge. Online play merely exposes other people to said rage. Pirating is even rifer with singleplayer only games since you can get the whole game for free as opposed to just the singleplayer portion (also you sell your soul).
Hackers again would still exist, just not in public sight and not in as high a number as they do now. Hackers also exist in cooperative games like Monster Hunter Tri and they're despised by the community in general for spoiling the challenge.

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).

What has multiplayer contributed to the industry as a whole? Aside from ridiculous revenues (Halo, CoD) and greater mainstream appeal you mean? Aside from encouraging gamers to come together to form communities, guilds and clans and whatnot? Maybe if we didn't have these benefits, gamers wouldn't even consider having their favourite medium accepted at all? I mean why would you? Games would just be this thing you did on your own at home, no need to bring anyone else in at all.

The earliest form of gaming to me (wargaming) was something you did with other people and to me multiplayer still brings the main essence of why I game. Challenge, fun, friends. Singleplayer is this closed off, hermetic experience. Bring in other people and you get chaos, with all the shocking lows and dizzying heights that come with it.

 

[Dyme]

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.

Raging, screaming kids are what I call "passion". They like gaming, it actually means something to them.
I don't know what you mean by noob exploits to be honest. In my opinion [singleplayer]RPGs hurt the puiblicity of gaming more than WoW or Starcraft or Counterstrike. In Singleplayer games you don't strive to be good, you win, no matter what. If you die, you load and try again. Mindless.

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

WoW balances nearly purely for PvE, that is why PvP-people are really sad.

Apart from that: Skill ONLY matters in multiplayer. And "cheap tactics" sound like you don't know how to counter the cheapest tactics.

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,

No one would play Halo, Call of Duty or World of Warcraft if there was no multiplayer, because Singeplayer is mindless, stupid and not challenging. And rage is not an issue, it is great.

Do you also say "if no one played Football, there would be much less rage, so it would be good!"?

even pirating.

Okay, you clearly don't know much.
Multiplayer games are the only ones that don't get pirated (because of serials).
Singleplayer games get cracked and stolen. No online-connection means no serial check.

contribute positively to the industry as a whole

Yesterday was MLG Columbus. Over 2000 people(there were 2000 chairs, but many people didn't get a chair) cheering for their favourite players and having a good time. Probably much more than 50000 people watching 4 different streams of the event. How exactly doesn't e-sport contribute to the gaming industry?

 

[thewaever]

Wow players have a bad reputation online as a group of raging jerks. Hell, even their go-to source of in-depth PVE analysis is called "Elitist Jerks."

When it comes to a game like WoW & without getting into it, I believe the structure of the game itself is a kind of enabler for assholism in alot of people.

And, yes, I do believe that the way WoW encourages people to be assholes to each other hurts WoW, if not gaming in general, considering that practically every MMO out there is copying from a WoW template.


Where people can come together without raging, hacking, exploiting, or cheating, then obviously multiplayer is good. But I have to agree with the OP: I have never in ten years of online gaming come across an online, multiplayer game whose multiplayer experience depended more on skill & fun than on winning-via-hacks-and-exploits.

 

[GLo Jones]

There is nothing more engaging than facing a real opponent, nothing beats human cunning and unpredictability. Of course, multiplayer brings a lot of negative aspects to the industry, but the positive things far outweigh them.

That's like saying cars hurt society because they're used in crime, and cause road rage.

 

[The Abhorrent]

Competitive multiplayer, particularly of the online variety (at least people behave themselves in local multiplayer), requires a specific mindset for anyone to enjoy: you must win at all costs. This environment is something I personally cannot stand, especially with the widespread immaturity which dominates these types of communities.

Cooperative multiplayer is something which really makes me wonder why it has only become prevalent only within the past decade, and I would say this is probably the way to go with multiplayer in general. Competition is not something everyone enjoys (though quite a few do, even if I don't), but working together towards a common goal is a ton of fun; co-op modes can make an otherwise mediocre experience amazing.

---

To address the general question of if multiplayer hurts gaming? The evidence generally points towards no; but as many have pointed out already, the extreme focus on online competitive multiplayer is worrying (especially for those who aren't into it, myself included). Players who predominantly enjoy single player games can also enjoy co-op modes with minimal problems, but it seems that almost too many games are trying to be built around an amazing competitive multiplayer experience. These games also get single player campaigns, some of which can safely be declared to be entirely unnecessary if not pointless.

When I get a game which is usually known for its multiplayer, I get it because I intend to enjoy it's single player campaign. I've played through and enjoyed all of the single-player campaigns of the Halo franchise (except ODST, I always seem to lose interest in that one before too long). I have tried the competitive online play, but it just isn't for me; as such I tend to stick to either Firefight, Campaign, or Forge (ironically, the last one has probably been the most fun for me).

For another perculiar example, World of Warcraft. An online-only game that I played for five years, and predominantly for the solo (or soloable) content. I couldn't of cared less for PvP (in just about all of its forms), and every time I dipped into the PvE content I had to be around players I couldn't stand to be around. To be honest, I probably should've quit the game LONG before I did... but I stuck it out and ended up obtaining the "Loremaster" title (complete the vast majority of the quests available in the game) for one of my characters (I also should've quit after getting it instead of still continuing to play for several months).

Anyhow, the amount of attention online competitive multiplayer gets is somewhat worrying. It seems to be where the money is, but there's still a large portion of players who prefer single-player games. Co-op modes bridge the gap nicely between both crowds, but we still don't want to see single-player gameplay get neglected because of where most of the money flows from.

 

[YawningAngel]

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.

You might just as well say that any other element of any game that you don't use hurts whatever exact brand of game it is you prefer.