Do All Mordern Games Need Multi-Player to be good?
- Thread starter Offworlder_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think I put up a good defence:Pararaptor said:
Treblaine said:
So what do you think?
You have to realise his criticism is NOT "the game is rap BECAUSE it lacks multiplayer"
But "I don't like the game" AND "it doesn't even have multiplayer"
Two separate criticisms. The latter is less a criticism, more a justification, as you have to realise there is the popular opinion a game can be worth it as long as it has a decent multiplayer.
Then there is the price perspective, he may not realise the gameplay length and side quest and think the game is not worth $60 without multiplayer.
Treblaine said:
Treblaine said:
I only have one reply....that's Trinity....with a banana. I agree with anything you say.
No, multiplayer takes away effort from single play and therefore makes the game worse. See MW2.
Multi-player has been a staple in in gaming since it began. Now I'm not just talking about vs. slayer or anything, but multiplayer co-op. Lets face it. Playing a game by yourself is fun, but if you get to play with a friend that make it even better. Old-school beat-em ups practically needed co-op to beat the game: TMNT Arcade anyone?
Now does it work with a shooter? Sure. Look at Halo. What's better than 1-one-man army destroying an alien invasion? 2-one-man armies. Co-op wasn't necessary but it let your friend jump in an experience the awesomeness of the game.
What about stealth-action? Splinter Cell had a multiplayer co-op mode and that was like playing a completely different game. And the vs. mode? spies vs mercs? awesome.
granted there are some games that don't need multiplayer co-op like Mario and Zelda series. Wait, they did, and it is hilarious.
So do all games need multiplayer to be good? no. But Multiplayer does make games better.
If a game focuses entirely on multiplayer though, they missed the point.
Now does it work with a shooter? Sure. Look at Halo. What's better than 1-one-man army destroying an alien invasion? 2-one-man armies. Co-op wasn't necessary but it let your friend jump in an experience the awesomeness of the game.
What about stealth-action? Splinter Cell had a multiplayer co-op mode and that was like playing a completely different game. And the vs. mode? spies vs mercs? awesome.
granted there are some games that don't need multiplayer co-op like Mario and Zelda series. Wait, they did, and it is hilarious.
So do all games need multiplayer to be good? no. But Multiplayer does make games better.
If a game focuses entirely on multiplayer though, they missed the point.
Multi-player is great for people who have a competitive streak and don't mind the repetitiveness of it all (spawn, run, shoot in face, get shot, respawn, repeat. Or - start race, race, end race). Or for people who want to perfect their skills against something more unpredictable than AI.
Although I suspect that the main appeal lies in the fact that it's more satisfying to hurl abuse at a sentient being than a computer.
As for co-op, well that can make an average game much more fun, but would detract from the immersive experience that a great game would give you. The Capital Wasteland would seem much less harrowing with me and some friends dicking about in it. Maybe I need new friends.
Although I suspect that the main appeal lies in the fact that it's more satisfying to hurl abuse at a sentient being than a computer.
As for co-op, well that can make an average game much more fun, but would detract from the immersive experience that a great game would give you. The Capital Wasteland would seem much less harrowing with me and some friends dicking about in it. Maybe I need new friends.
by your avatar, I can only assume you like FALLOUT 3. To me, FALLOUT 3 was one of the best RPG's i've ever played, period. And to think, if that had online ? ? would be stupid, some games clearly don't need it, some games can't make a sale without saying "it has online" It's a business, do what you've gotta do.VanBasten said:
I dont know, I've always wanted a dynasty warriors online title, that I can play and go army vs army with some one.
No, but some modern games could certainly benefit from Multiplayer. For one, I absolutely loved Dead Space, but I always felt that a Deathmatch system making use of, among other things, the Zero-G mechanic, would have been fantastic.
Mass Effect, though? Maybe an MMO of some kind, but not a standard multiplayer, nuh-uh.
And even though a ton of people already said it, your friend's just an ass.
Mass Effect, though? Maybe an MMO of some kind, but not a standard multiplayer, nuh-uh.
And even though a ton of people already said it, your friend's just an ass.
Games don't need multiplayer, but I've always thought that any game can have some kind of multiplayer as long as developers are willing to get creative.
the argument, 'it doesn't even have multiplayer' was weak as far back as the NES era. I stand firm with Yahtzee who says a truly good game should be able to stand up to the test of single player campaign. Here's an example:
Bioshock. This was a single player game with the atmosphere of a horror game, excellent [though easily broken] combat and, a compelling story. It was a single player game though but, that's all part of the story: One man, alone in a city under the sea where every inhabitant except maybe three people are trying to kill him. It would have messed up the plot and overall feel of the game if you had to constantly argue with the person you're playing with over who gets the last bag of chips.
Other games considered great without multiplayer?
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Just Cause 2
Fallout 1-3
Dragon Age: Origins
Mass Effect
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
The Final Fantasy series [1-10, 10-2 and, 13...nobody likes 12 apparently]
Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth
Modern Games don't need multiplayer to be good. Some good games, like Bioshock 2, have shown that multiplayer can't save a game. Modern Warfare 2 and, Halo 3 are examples of games which have been saved by good multiplayer though...
Bioshock. This was a single player game with the atmosphere of a horror game, excellent [though easily broken] combat and, a compelling story. It was a single player game though but, that's all part of the story: One man, alone in a city under the sea where every inhabitant except maybe three people are trying to kill him. It would have messed up the plot and overall feel of the game if you had to constantly argue with the person you're playing with over who gets the last bag of chips.
Other games considered great without multiplayer?
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Just Cause 2
Fallout 1-3
Dragon Age: Origins
Mass Effect
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
The Final Fantasy series [1-10, 10-2 and, 13...nobody likes 12 apparently]
Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth
Modern Games don't need multiplayer to be good. Some good games, like Bioshock 2, have shown that multiplayer can't save a game. Modern Warfare 2 and, Halo 3 are examples of games which have been saved by good multiplayer though...
All shooters, RTS's and fighting games need multiplayer to be good. Other genres, it doesn't matter at all.
Absolutely not! No, no, no, no, NO.
If all someone cares about is multiplayer, then they can get multiplayer games. But they have no right to say a single-player game sucks. Personally, I think it's incredibly shallow to only care about one given aspect of a video game. Your friend now has speaking privileges revoked. Forever.
If all someone cares about is multiplayer, then they can get multiplayer games. But they have no right to say a single-player game sucks. Personally, I think it's incredibly shallow to only care about one given aspect of a video game. Your friend now has speaking privileges revoked. Forever.
Pararaptor said:
A Chap (or Madame) with no hat to call their own?! Why, you are unfortunate enough already, I will take pity on you and consider the wager void.
But yeah, I'm big on the opinion that game not only "can be" art but "ARE art" only the are art not for how they can be similar to other art forms but in and of themselves.
So I think we have to embrace all forms of gameplay and the art within that gameplay, which is why I was drawn to this as Mass Effect 1 & 2 are considered very "high concept" video games, beautifully and realistically crafted, less about 'the frags' and more about the story and characters.
But there seems to be the pervasive idea that that is completely at odds with any kind of competitive multiplayer as that gameplay can't be about much else but the gameplay, the action and the fun. I think that they are destined to be together, far too often the greatness of games is defined by non-gaming media (films, TV shows) which shouldn't be discouraged as ideas should be allowed to freely flow between mediums, but not at the cost of it's own medium.
So, we shouldn't let the need to create a rich network of character relationships stand in the way of the fact that a Computer Game is still a Game and we should not resist the idea of "gameplay" of certain forms because they might upset the delicate balance of characters.
Really, we should consider Mass Effect's lack of multiplayer a missed opportunity, even though Bioware was really pressed for time making the great game they did, but that's an economical issue. There's no fundamental reason you can't implement "dumb" gameplay like competitive-multiplayer into a "high concept" Space Opera and I'm certain it can be used to enhance the story.
(I mentioned earlier how multiplayer could be a Virtual Reality Suite on the Normandy, where you could develop group cohesion and refine tactics THROUGH competitive play)
Consider Left 4 Dead the way it creates characters, in any one playthrough of a level you don't get much revelations from the characters, kind of like in real life unlike in a movie, revelations of character traits are not implausibly squeezed into a short time period. But repeated play-through by chance more interactions reveal more about the character. That's where the contra-logical narrative of multiplayer (repeatedly playing through the same scenario) can be used for a new way of story telling and characterisation.
Multiplayer does not have to be devoid of character or plot, just developers need the chance to figure out how to fit those into the looping and repeating structure of a game.
If a game attempts multiplayer, it should go all the way. If it is singleplayer, then that is fine, it can still be amazing.
How much does your friend invest into gaming? Would you consider him a casual gamer?
Games are incredibly intricate, you can't say a game is good or bad based on a single aspect, regardless of how important you believe that factor to be. It sounds like he's the type of person who believes that if he doesn't like something, it sucks, end of discussion.
Games are incredibly intricate, you can't say a game is good or bad based on a single aspect, regardless of how important you believe that factor to be. It sounds like he's the type of person who believes that if he doesn't like something, it sucks, end of discussion.