Do All Mordern Games Need Multi-Player to be good?
- Thread starter Offworlder_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Surely if MP is a games main attraction then its a MP game 1st?Doug said:
anyway back to thread proper,;
A game should have both its SP and its MP judged seperately (including any differences between grpahics and such, as they can vary wildly in some games). Then the two parts should be combined to get the games full score, with the two parts weighted based on what the games trying to be, how important each is and so forth.
On the subject of games reviews that dock points for a lack of MP, this can be justified if a game really is lacking because of it. But its not an across the board thing.
The types of gamers who want multi player in everything are usually not the most well rounded. I think some games couldn't really do without now. Racing games and the like. But There never used to be multi player back in what some might call the gaming golden years and we survived.
Not all games need multiplayer, and indeed in many cases the inclusion comes at a detrement to the game as a whole. Bioshock 2's multiplayer was dull at best, and to some utterly dreadful - the development time and resources would have been better spent refining the portion the average player was actually interested in.
Of course, there is an argument to be made on the multiplayer side of things. With rare exception, the average single player only game is consumed in less than 24 hours, and by simply adding a robust multiplayer component one can while away many, many days making for an excellent cost/benefit proposition. Dawn of War II for example offered (including it's expansion) a mere 15 hours or so worth of entertainment. By contrast, according to Steam I have spent 378 hours playing the game online.
Now, the question being asked is not really what the thread title implies. The real questionb being asked is, does the argument "A game needs multiplayer to be good" hold any real merit. Given the subjective nature inherent (until good can be objectively quantified in this case any question pertaining to good will be inherently subjective) to the question, the answer is yes indeed the argument has merit. It is all a question of preference. If a person places all of their percieved value in a game on the inclusion of the social and multiplayer aspects of a game, then obviously the lack of a robust multiplayer component is a damning flaw. If they also place no value on the narrative content and atmosphere that many single player games rely on then you'll quickly find there is no value to be had in a game without multiplayer.
Thus, I could easily say the friend is correct in his way. One can readily construct a set of criteria wherein multiplayer is awarded all merit and even defend such a construction. I may not agree with such a premise but I can recognize it's validity.
Of course, there is an argument to be made on the multiplayer side of things. With rare exception, the average single player only game is consumed in less than 24 hours, and by simply adding a robust multiplayer component one can while away many, many days making for an excellent cost/benefit proposition. Dawn of War II for example offered (including it's expansion) a mere 15 hours or so worth of entertainment. By contrast, according to Steam I have spent 378 hours playing the game online.
Now, the question being asked is not really what the thread title implies. The real questionb being asked is, does the argument "A game needs multiplayer to be good" hold any real merit. Given the subjective nature inherent (until good can be objectively quantified in this case any question pertaining to good will be inherently subjective) to the question, the answer is yes indeed the argument has merit. It is all a question of preference. If a person places all of their percieved value in a game on the inclusion of the social and multiplayer aspects of a game, then obviously the lack of a robust multiplayer component is a damning flaw. If they also place no value on the narrative content and atmosphere that many single player games rely on then you'll quickly find there is no value to be had in a game without multiplayer.
Thus, I could easily say the friend is correct in his way. One can readily construct a set of criteria wherein multiplayer is awarded all merit and even defend such a construction. I may not agree with such a premise but I can recognize it's validity.
i believe that games should concentrate on single player then co-op then multiplayer, because if you make a game on multiplayer during the single player you are just playing the multiplayer on your own (prime example section 8)
Oh god no, if you ask me to many games have multiplayer these days. Games that is not designed for multiplayer should not have any multiplayer, the developers should make a awesome single player experience instead of making a good single player experience and a bad multiplayer function if you ask me. Just think about how even more awesome Bioshock 2 could have been if the developers skipped the multiplayer part and used that time to enhance the singleplayer experience?
Err....Ummm....This is embarrassing...Legendsmith said:
THE EXCEPTION PROVES THE RULE!
Heh, heh.
pwned.
Are you seriously suggesting that Schindler's List couldn't have done with some Benny Hill and a Blues Brothers style car chase?Hollock said:
You sir, are a moron.
That was like saying that Casablanca couldn't have used ninjas and a least one reference to dragons.Hollock said:
Short answer: No
Long Answer: Nein [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MLry6Cn_D4]
The industry need to be more daring and have the courage to spend time on a finally crafted single player experience that you don't finish in an afternoon. BioShock was single player only, more than 15 hours if you didn't rush it, and sold very well.
Long Answer: Nein [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MLry6Cn_D4]
The industry need to be more daring and have the courage to spend time on a finally crafted single player experience that you don't finish in an afternoon. BioShock was single player only, more than 15 hours if you didn't rush it, and sold very well.
Having Multiplayer does not preclude haviong a great and lengthy single player experience. Pleanty of games do what you say. There are also a number of games that feeling to short that have no MP. Genrally its done by seperate teams.....Lordmarkus said:
If the statement were to be "Most modern games need multi-player to be looked at" I would be inclined to agree.
With many franchises falling under the pressure to supply multiplayer or at the very least co-operative elements it seems that single player only games are a dying minority.
Even an item such as Assassin's Creed now has a multiplayer incarnation fast approaching which I previously thought wouldn't be possible, as well as many others I don't have the inclination to list.
With many franchises falling under the pressure to supply multiplayer or at the very least co-operative elements it seems that single player only games are a dying minority.
Even an item such as Assassin's Creed now has a multiplayer incarnation fast approaching which I previously thought wouldn't be possible, as well as many others I don't have the inclination to list.