Do All Mordern Games Need Multi-Player to be good?
- Thread starter Offworlder_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, As an Aussie, I like Single player games because i don't have to keep an eye on latency to actually enjoy myself.
Also, generally, single player games have a better context because they don't need to dilute the story for it to make sense why there is a constant war going on online. Check Dead Space as the former and Call of duty for the latter.
They don't need to balance the game for balance issues, they can make you a god on legs and you don't have to worry about some person coming up and killing you from some stupid manner. A good example of this point is prototype and infamous
Also, generally, single player games have a better context because they don't need to dilute the story for it to make sense why there is a constant war going on online. Check Dead Space as the former and Call of duty for the latter.
They don't need to balance the game for balance issues, they can make you a god on legs and you don't have to worry about some person coming up and killing you from some stupid manner. A good example of this point is prototype and infamous
So basically what your friend is saying is that all RPGs are crap? 'Coz last time I checked most RPGs (all that I can think of) are single-player. Although his attitude is a possible indicator as to why certain game developers shamelessly neglect single-player campaigns in favour of multi-player online content.
I've stopped playing most multiplayer games because tools ruin the mood of the game. The only multiplayer game i've play still is TF2, which actually has some nice people on it.
Give me a single player game any day.
Give me a single player game any day.
Equally flawed view point to has to have multiplayer to be good. There are pleanty of great multiplayer only games out there, just like there are pleanty of great single player only games out there.vodkainferno said:
Tacking on a single player mode thats pretending to be anything more than a glorified tutorial and practice mode onto a MP game is just as much of a bad idea as taking on a muliplayer mode because everything should have multiplayer.
Having SP tutorial and some form of Bot practice is a good idea for a MP game, prentending said mode is anything more isnt.
A game does not require multiplayer to be a good game, encapsulating itself as either a story driver, action simulation, or inventive puzzle box that only the player is privy to.
However...
As gaming enters mainstream, more players are enamored with light content shareable with others (Halo, Modern Warfare, etc.) While the PC has the benefit of Internet support of patches and add-ons for even single-player games, the main gaming buck (WoW excluded) stems from console shooter fans, and so more and more game development studios are pouring money into multiplayer features even if their game does not need any.
So, multiplayer doesn't necessarily make a game good, but it often boosts sales and sometimes gives the game a longevity it wouldn't have otherwise - though in the case of the latter, often at the cost of decent single-player.
And I'm with Yahtzee on this one - in a game that isn't solely multiplayer, multi does not excuse weak single-player content.
However...
As gaming enters mainstream, more players are enamored with light content shareable with others (Halo, Modern Warfare, etc.) While the PC has the benefit of Internet support of patches and add-ons for even single-player games, the main gaming buck (WoW excluded) stems from console shooter fans, and so more and more game development studios are pouring money into multiplayer features even if their game does not need any.
So, multiplayer doesn't necessarily make a game good, but it often boosts sales and sometimes gives the game a longevity it wouldn't have otherwise - though in the case of the latter, often at the cost of decent single-player.
And I'm with Yahtzee on this one - in a game that isn't solely multiplayer, multi does not excuse weak single-player content.
No, games does not need multiplayer, sure, it's good fun sometimes, but multiplayer is just something the developers add to make more money. Others add multiplayer to make up for the super short campaign mode.
[SUB]I'm talking to you, CoD4 and MW2.[/SUB]
[SUB]I'm talking to you, CoD4 and MW2.[/SUB]
I think multiplayer is only a plus but it may be a very big plus if it is done well (Halo (2)) and then there are games that put alot of effort and mainly think about multiplayer (DBZ Tenkaichi searies) and then it must be good. But videogames shall have a single player campaign that can take care of itself and not rely on multiplayer (unless that is the way the game has been done)
But what is bugging me more than multiplayer is that I think what players enjoy most (I do) is co-op. I think that if there is a slight chance of making a successful co-op campaign it should be done. What I enjoy more than playing against my friends is playing with them. Am I the only one that thinks like this? I am sorry for going out of context but co-op is a sort of multiplayer.
Final summary: Multiplayer is not necessary but it is a plus when done well.
But what is bugging me more than multiplayer is that I think what players enjoy most (I do) is co-op. I think that if there is a slight chance of making a successful co-op campaign it should be done. What I enjoy more than playing against my friends is playing with them. Am I the only one that thinks like this? I am sorry for going out of context but co-op is a sort of multiplayer.
Final summary: Multiplayer is not necessary but it is a plus when done well.
Well, it actually depends on the game. If it's MADE for coop play (L4D, TF2), there's not much sense in it having single player.
But saying that a multiplayerless (ugh) game is necessarily bad? Well...
Portal. QED.
But saying that a multiplayerless (ugh) game is necessarily bad? Well...
Portal. QED.
No online multiplayer for RTS? How about racing? Any sports, in fact?Bhaalspawn said:
OT - Single or multi player don't make a game good or bad. Some games are great single players, and some games do just fine without any kind of single player at all, nothing but online.
That said, hit your friend for me, because Mass Effect 2 is awesome.
Let me I continue the list:tellmeimaninja said:
Half Life 2
Portal
Assassins Creed 2
God of War 1-3
Alan Wake
Legend of Zelda
Dragon Age (?)
Super Mario Galaxy
Prince of Persia
ETC. ETC. ETC.
So your friend is a complete idiot who doesn't even appreciate games, I think he's probably a MW2 fanboy, because one friend calls every game come out before MW2 "pixelated", and yes, even CoD4, Crysis, Half Life 2, Portal, MGS4, FEAR, etc. And if they have no multiplayer they suck. And then he just talks about MW2.
Hell I hate this kind of people.
I believe that everyone has already made the response abundantly clear, however I still feel the need to put in my two cents (ten pence?)
Games that are popular are more often than not, games with an involving, clear-to-understand-plot, and gameplay that goes a bit beyond 'here is the Nazi/Russian/Afghanistan/Chinese/insert-cultural-group-here, and your gun. Introduce them.' That isn't to say games with multiplayer aren't good, but not to say that multiplayer instantly elevates a game to greatness. In fact, a game with multiplayer that doesn't require it feels forced and unfinished. Case and point, Resident Evil 5.
Now, resident evil 4 killed the RE franchise for me, it's no longer survival horror when you bust in a room and kill every monster/mutant by tossing a grenade then swinging about the ceiling with your machine gun like the bastard child of Rambo and Bruce Cambell, but I'm getting away from my point.
I'd actually say that many modern games go against the idea of multiplayer = win. Dragon Age Origins, The Dark Knight, Mass Effect 2, Assassin's Creed, Fallout 3. Games do not require the crutch of multiplayer to artificially enhance them.
Games that are popular are more often than not, games with an involving, clear-to-understand-plot, and gameplay that goes a bit beyond 'here is the Nazi/Russian/Afghanistan/Chinese/insert-cultural-group-here, and your gun. Introduce them.' That isn't to say games with multiplayer aren't good, but not to say that multiplayer instantly elevates a game to greatness. In fact, a game with multiplayer that doesn't require it feels forced and unfinished. Case and point, Resident Evil 5.
Now, resident evil 4 killed the RE franchise for me, it's no longer survival horror when you bust in a room and kill every monster/mutant by tossing a grenade then swinging about the ceiling with your machine gun like the bastard child of Rambo and Bruce Cambell, but I'm getting away from my point.
I'd actually say that many modern games go against the idea of multiplayer = win. Dragon Age Origins, The Dark Knight, Mass Effect 2, Assassin's Creed, Fallout 3. Games do not require the crutch of multiplayer to artificially enhance them.
