Do all games need a multi player component?

Recommended Videos

MetallicaRulez0

New member
Aug 27, 2008
2,503
0
0
Absolutely not. Some games are actually worse because the developers spent time tacking on a useless sub-par multiplayer instead of spending more time polishing the campaign. In fact, I think that's exactly what's going to happen to Bioshock 2. You can quote me on that.
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
I thought Bioshock 2 was delayed to give it a better chance of survival. I mean would you want to sell your game with MW2 and Left 4 dead 2? I didn't think so.

No not all games need a multiplayer. Most of the time the multiplayer actually ruins the game (Army of Two and Riddick are my two examples) and some games can still be great without it (Half-Life and Batman Arkham Asylum are my examples)
 

LampyLX

New member
Aug 6, 2009
46
0
0
Kpt._Rob said:
LampyLX said:
Kpt._Rob said:
I don't think the Bioshock multiplayer is going to be tacked on, I heard about it months ago, it's not a recent development or anything, and if they're going to have multiplayer, then I'd rather they do take the extra time to make sure it works well. That said, I do hate when a multiplayer element is tacked on last second, and is really shitty. I'm looking at you Quake 4.
Whether or not it was announced months ago, the multiplayer aspect was an add on. Not only an afterthought for the game but an entirely separate set of game developers were used to create the multiplayer environment.
The point I was making though is that this isn't just some shitty last minute tacked on feature though. They're obviously putting effort into making it good. That's what I care about. I just hate when people put in multiplayer just to put it in, but don't focus on making it good.
Agreed
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Honestly, Two Worlds probably has one of the worst examples of multiplayer options being tacked on. Several skills (such as swordbreaking) became horribly broken (no pun intended) because they allowed higher level characters to cripple new players. No join controls (that I remember) to protect newbies from being griefed. The multiplayer maps were just copy pastes from the single player campaign without the story, and too small for any meaningful exploration. There were no horses, so the one skill that's completely worthless in the single player game is still useless (Unhorse (there's no mounted enemies in SP either)).

If it had been multiplayer in the full environment, then it would be forgivable, but, as is...

EDIT: Disarm was probably worse for griefing, as players would disarm someone and then steal their weapon and log off.
 

Jekken6

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,285
0
0
I think more games need to have split-screen multiplayer, instead of just online. Imagine killzone 2 with split-screen.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
No. It's only a small minority of games where I will even try any multiplayer modes unless they are online only. I probably will not try this mode in Bioshock 2 if I buy it.
 

Daedalus1942

New member
Jun 26, 2009
4,169
0
0
LampyLX said:
I don't know how others feel regarding the recent development with Bioshock 2 being delayed because they added a multiplayer component to the game. I for one feel that not every game needs a multiplayer aspect or even an online aspect to make it a good game.

Going back to the Bioshock example, what would be the point of an online death match or capture the flag?

Thoughts?
I'm really hoping the fallout series remains single player, but I don't see that happening...
Also, multiplayer in bioshock could work well, if you have upgrades and levels, and possibly the research camera as part of it.
People all choosing different plasmids could be awesome, and... it could not. I'm cautiously optimistic. Regardless, the single player campaign looks solid.
 

Torque669

New member
Apr 21, 2009
1,204
0
0
tellmeimaninja said:
Not really. I think some games are meant for single Player. But I must say I LOVE what Modern Warfare 2 is doing, with a Multiplayer mode, and Single-player campaign, and a set of seperate missions for co-op.
Resistance 2 did that and it was horrible if you wanted to play with just your friend as it would be 2 of you against like enemies built for 8 people. If Modern Warfare 2 can sort that out it'll work good.

Multiplayer components arent needed but they do a bit of Longetivity to the games life. So therefore you get bored of it not as fast.
 

AdambotLive

New member
Jul 19, 2009
789
0
0
ChromeAlchemist said:
If it makes sense, it would be nice to have. If it's a single player experience with replayability, then I'll just go play other games for MultiPlayer.