"If a game can't stand on single player alone, it's a bad game." Really?

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

*edit*
Failed post.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

If a title calls itself multiplayer exclusive then it shouldn't have single player to begin with because we WILL treat it like it was meant to be a big part of the game

What about if the menu said "Tutorial" instead of "New Game"?

Isn't it obvious enough that I was referring to a campaign mode?
Do I really have to explain?

 

[jowo96]

If that were true the majority of Valve games must really suck.

 

[Savagezion]

If a title calls itself multiplayer exclusive then it shouldn't have single player to begin with because we WILL treat it like it was meant to be a big part of the game

What about if the menu said "Tutorial" instead of "New Game"?

Isn't it obvious enough that I was referring to a campaign mode?
Do I really have to explain?

I actually think that "Tutorial vs. New Game" line is an excellent point.

EDIT: You do realize that he is stating that most players use the campaign as a "tutorial" to prepare for online multiplayer, right?

 

[teknoarcanist]

I think the general point to that sentiment is that you can't use a good multiplayer mode to justify a poor single-player. If a game is exclusively multiplayer, that's one thing. If a game is exclusively single-player, that's another. But if you take a game that is primarily a multiplayer experience, and tack on a poorly-designed single player experience just to have it there, I think it's completely within reason for a games critic who is reviewing the single-player experience to call it as he sees it.

I think a lot of the critique which Yahtzee and other reviewers level at the multiplayer mode of games is because they're just that: games. While a good single-player game strives to convey a narrative or emotional experience, a good multiplayer game (or MOST 'good' multiplayer games, as 'good' is presently defined by popular industry/community consensus) strive to create an addictive, immersive exhibitionism with a high level of engaging enjoyment, and as much replay value as possible.

Now that's not to say it's impossible for the latter to accomplish the former ('Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood' proves this in spades, with a multiplayer mode that better accomplishes the central AC thesis than any other game in the series) but by and large, single-player games attempt to artfully convey an experience, while multiplayer games strive to create fun.

To my mind, playing Call of Duty online with friends is closer to playing a quick game of basketball than it is to playing through a Final Fantasy game. And there's nothing wrong with that -- certainly there's a powerful art to designing a good multiplayer game, as anyone who's ever tried will tell you -- but it's just not what interests me, as a gamer, and I think many gamers feel the same way.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I think the general point to that sentiment is that you can't use a good multiplayer mode to justify a poor single-player. If a game is exclusively multiplayer, that's one thing. If a game is exclusively single-player, that's another. But if you take a game that is primarily a multiplayer experience, and tack on a poorly-designed single player experience just to have it there, I think it's completely within reason for a games critic who is reviewing the single-player experience to call it as he sees it.

I think a lot of the critique which Yahtzee and other reviewers level at the multiplayer mode of games is because they're just that: games. While a good single-player game strives to convey a narrative or emotional experience, a good multiplayer game (or MOST 'good' multiplayer games, as 'good' is presently defined by popular industry/community consensus) strive to create an addictive, immersive exhibitionism with a high level of engaging enjoyment, and as much replay value as possible.

Now that's not to say it's impossible for the latter to accomplish the former ('Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood' proves this in spades, with a multiplayer mode that better accomplishes the central AC thesis than any other game in the series) but by and large, single-player games attempt to artfully convey an experience, while multiplayer games strive to create fun.

To my mind, playing Call of Duty online with friends is closer to playing a quick game of basketball than it is to playing through a Final Fantasy game. And there's nothing wrong with that -- certainly there's a powerful art to designing a good multiplayer game, as anyone who's ever tried will tell you -- but it's just not what interests me, as a gamer, and I think many gamers feel the same way.

I'm seeing this sentiment a lot in this thread, and most of the people expressing it don't even acknowledge that a videogame that is the digital equivalent of a pickup game of a sport or board game is not necessarily a bad thing. But to all of you: You do realize that even 5 years ago, and certainly 10 years ago, videogames really were seen as games, and the story as a nice bonus, but not necessary as long as the game was good, right? When did gamers, as a group, switch from people who liked to play games to people who would be better off picking up a good book?

 

[Savagezion]

I'm seeing this sentiment a lot in this thread, and most of the people expressing it don't even acknowledge that a videogame that is the digital equivalent of a pickup game of a sport or board game is not necessarily a bad thing. But to all of you: You do realize that even 5 years ago, and certainly 10 years ago, videogames really were seen as games, and the story as a nice bonus, but not necessary as long as the game was good, right? When did gamers, as a group, switch from people who liked to play games to people who would be better off picking up a good book?

I think the reason this thread has went to 9 pages is because we have both types of people in here. And some, like me, see them as both.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

This is inspired by some of the responses to the "Do you still play a shooter's campaign?" topic. Specifically, a lot of people are spouting Yahtzee's famous line about how a game needs to be able to stand on its single player alone, with multiplayer as a tacked on bonus. Personally, I couldn't disagree more with that statement; tacked on multiplayer, to me, is just as bad as tacked on singleplayer. I'd rather see an excellent game with no campaign at all, ala TF2 or Quake III, than a mediocre game that tried to do both singleplayer and multiplayer.

From what I understand, Yahtzee simply doesn't like multiplayer games -- for that matter, I get the impression that he doesn't especially care for people in general. There's nothing wrong with disliking multiplayer, but there's enough of us out there who do that would like to keep getting our multiplayer focused games that it would be unfair for us if multiplayer suddenly became an afterthought, just as much as it would be unfair to you guys if the campaign were an afterthought in absolutely every game. The fact is, there is plenty of room in the market for examples of both type to get released, and indeed they do -- or is anybody out there who has access to a multiplayer focused game seriously playing the multiplayer for the likes of F.E.A.R. or Bioshock 2, to say nothing of games like Half Life 2, which has an excellent campaign but only decent multiplayer, or the first Bioshock, which doesn't have multiplayer at all?

Basically, if the game is multiplayer focused and you don't like multiplayer, don't buy the game, because it's not aimed at you. I mean, I love 4X games and dislike RTS games, but you don't see me arguing that all strategy games should be turn based, I just ignore the subset of the genre that I don't care for. Can't the rest of you do the same, replacing "4X" with "single player focused shooters" and "RTS" with "multiplayer focused shooters"?

For discussion value, who all agrees with me, disagrees with me, or has something related but not directly answering that question to say?

Basically, a designer cannot assume that everyone will want to play the multiplayer. If they make a fucking spectacular multiplayer, but a shit single player, anyone ever wanting to play offline will hate the game. Hell even with black ops, there are times when I don't want to play online, so I'll hit the campaign. Now I actually enjoy the campaign, but alot of people hate it. You'll always have people who don't want to play multiplayer, and you cannot alienate those people.

 

[Petromir]

You'll always have people who don't want to play multiplayer, and you cannot alienate those people.

Why? Pleanty of games stand on MP alone, even some that have had poor SP tacked on have easially survived it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This is inspired by some of the responses to the "Do you still play a shooter's campaign?" topic. Specifically, a lot of people are spouting Yahtzee's famous line about how a game needs to be able to stand on its single player alone, with multiplayer as a tacked on bonus. Personally, I couldn't disagree more with that statement; tacked on multiplayer, to me, is just as bad as tacked on singleplayer. I'd rather see an excellent game with no campaign at all, ala TF2 or Quake III, than a mediocre game that tried to do both singleplayer and multiplayer.

From what I understand, Yahtzee simply doesn't like multiplayer games -- for that matter, I get the impression that he doesn't especially care for people in general. There's nothing wrong with disliking multiplayer, but there's enough of us out there who do that would like to keep getting our multiplayer focused games that it would be unfair for us if multiplayer suddenly became an afterthought, just as much as it would be unfair to you guys if the campaign were an afterthought in absolutely every game. The fact is, there is plenty of room in the market for examples of both type to get released, and indeed they do -- or is anybody out there who has access to a multiplayer focused game seriously playing the multiplayer for the likes of F.E.A.R. or Bioshock 2, to say nothing of games like Half Life 2, which has an excellent campaign but only decent multiplayer, or the first Bioshock, which doesn't have multiplayer at all?

Basically, if the game is multiplayer focused and you don't like multiplayer, don't buy the game, because it's not aimed at you. I mean, I love 4X games and dislike RTS games, but you don't see me arguing that all strategy games should be turn based, I just ignore the subset of the genre that I don't care for. Can't the rest of you do the same, replacing "4X" with "single player focused shooters" and "RTS" with "multiplayer focused shooters"?

For discussion value, who all agrees with me, disagrees with me, or has something related but not directly answering that question to say?

Basically, a designer cannot assume that everyone will want to play the multiplayer. If they make a fucking spectacular multiplayer, but a shit single player, anyone ever wanting to play offline will hate the game. Hell even with black ops, there are times when I don't want to play online, so I'll hit the campaign. Now I actually enjoy the campaign, but alot of people hate it. You'll always have people who don't want to play multiplayer, and you cannot alienate those people.

Then it's their fault for not reading the reviews to find out that the single player was a bonus tacked on to a multiplayer-centric game, not the developers' fault for making it that way. It would be like me buying Bioshock 2 exclusively for the multiplayer, and then being upset when it had good single but mediocre at best multiplayer.

Oh, by the way, the following isn't aimed at you so much as a clarification of my standpoint: I like both singleplayer games, and multiplayer games. The game that is currently consuming most of my playtime is Galactic Civilizations II, a singleplayer only 4X game, and if I can pull myself away from that for a while, I'm going to be playing through the campaign of the original Half Life, which I finally picked up during the Christmas Steam sale. And then, if I have time for a short pick up game, I'll play one of my many multiplayer games -- probably either Team Fortress Classic, which came in the Half Life 1 bundle, Team Fortress 2, or one of the Left4Dead games. See? Both game types have their place, even among the same category of gamer.

 

[AMMO Kid]

Singleplayer is what makes games fun for me, and I'm into games like Ass. Creed, Oblivion, Fallout 3/NV, and Batman: AA. But I've been into the multiplayer side of gaming with Bad Company 2 and CoD4 so I personally agree with Yatzhee about the whole "A game should be able to stand up by itself" thing, but there are exceptions (Like TF2 and L4D)

 

[Doclector]

I'd say that would greatly depend on the quality of the multiplayer, how long you can keep playing it before you tire of it, and whether the multiplayer even survives that long. Basically, few games are genuinely a 50-50 package. Often, developers choose a focus: Single player or multiplayer. Focus on multiplayer often provides short, but not necessarily bad single player, but of course, can produce amazing multiplayer experiences that will last an almost infinite time. Focus on single player can make amazing experiences with unforgettable plot twists and set pieces, but unless you often replay games (I do, but alot of people I know don't) the experience is finite, leaving you with no multiplayer at all, or one that's terrible, or, in my opinion, the worst case: A good multiplayer, inexplicably left with no players, which I think could be simply due to the fact that when you've experienced a game in an in depth and unique campaign, the multiplayer simply naturally gets ignored as not as good as the campaign.

The way I look at it, a game with a bad or simply short campaign can indeed be made worthwhile by an excellent multiplayer and visa versa, but I'd say if you really don't have that much focus on single player, then I say it might be worth not doing it at all, same with multiplayer.

 

[Agent Cross]

It seems to come from the older school of thought where MP is secondary to a solo campaign. Which in that case Yahtzee would be right IMO. In reality you can through that argument right out the window as soon a Mario Kart was released.
More to the point though. If those "Greedy Bastards" throw in a SP campaign on MP title, then they better do a decent job of it. Otherwise it just comes across as a gimmick to rake in a bit more cash from those who might have been suckered in by said gimmick. So when a DEV does releases a game that encompasses both SP and MP aspects, and actually does a damn good job of it. Well... I think they warrant a higher praise than the two individually.
Basically, a solo campaign brings you into the game, and a good MP keeps you playing long after you're tire of SP.

 

[Karma168]

If a title calls itself multiplayer exclusive then it shouldn't have single player to begin with because we WILL treat it like it was meant to be a big part of the game

What about if the menu said "Tutorial" instead of "New Game"?

Isn't it obvious enough that I was referring to a campaign mode?
Do I really have to explain?

I actually think that "Tutorial vs. New Game" line is an excellent point.

EDIT: You do realize that he is stating that most players use the campaign as a "tutorial" to prepare for online multiplayer, right?

if that's the case then for multiplayer exclusive games why not use a black-ops style combat training as a tutorial instead of putting in a token campaign as training because the style of a campaign is nothing like online vs matches

 

[teknoarcanist]

I'm seeing this sentiment a lot in this thread, and most of the people expressing it don't even acknowledge that a videogame that is the digital equivalent of a pickup game of a sport or board game is not necessarily a bad thing. But to all of you: You do realize that even 5 years ago, and certainly 10 years ago, videogames really were seen as games, and the story as a nice bonus, but not necessary as long as the game was good, right? When did gamers, as a group, switch from people who liked to play games to people who would be better off picking up a good book?

Probably about the time Metal Gear Solid 2/3, SoTC, etc were coming out, and all this 'games as art' talk got started up proper. I think the gaming community started to realize the medium could do a lot more, but then some of us went a bit too far into the snob end of the pool.

Mario, Sonic, Star Fox, Worms . . . I wonder, if many of the games we were raised on, and observed friends playing in almost-religious silence -- games, mind, that we now consider INSTRUMENTAL CLASSICS -- if they came out today, would we wave them off as frivolous wastes of time, the way we do online multiplayer?

My gut says probably.

 

[Savagezion]

If a title calls itself multiplayer exclusive then it shouldn't have single player to begin with because we WILL treat it like it was meant to be a big part of the game

What about if the menu said "Tutorial" instead of "New Game"?

Isn't it obvious enough that I was referring to a campaign mode?
Do I really have to explain?

I actually think that "Tutorial vs. New Game" line is an excellent point.

EDIT: You do realize that he is stating that most players use the campaign as a "tutorial" to prepare for online multiplayer, right?

if that's the case then for multiplayer exclusive games why not use a black-ops style combat training as a tutorial instead of putting in a token campaign as training because the style of a campaign is nothing like online vs matches

Why not let them do what they do? Everyone knew Black Ops was going to specialize in multiplayer online. We all knew it. I don't even know what to tell someone who claims they didn't. Living under a rock comes to mind. CoD4 was the last time CoD has a story worth a thumbs up. (I don't think it was stellar but it was pretty good.) Since then we have seen WaW and MW 2 riding on the back of CoD4's triumph which also focused primarily on multiplayer online BTW and had a good campaign.
The second tip off if that alone wasn't enough to clue someone in was that this game was made by Treyarch. Any looking up on them and you will find bland campaigns. Anyone who bought BlOps for a single player campaign was putting their eggs in one horribly crafted basket or are just completely clueless.

And BTW these campaigns honestly ain't bad. Yesterday there was a thread of "Truly bad games" and I didn't see one Online FPS get listed. The campaigns are just not the inspiration behind the project. Which is why during game development most interviews focus on how the multiplayer will be handled with the exception of Reach. (But even then to a good degree.)

The main problem here is we have people shouting "This game that mainly focuses on MP isn't paying my favorite singleplayer section enough attention." I can't help but say, "well duh" and they made the largest entertainment release to date by doing it so obviously that opinion is a minority. They are actually getting it right one could easily argue with that evidence.

I am not against single player campaigns but there are games out there that are focusing on that. Go check out Vanquish, or Metro 2033, etc. There plenty out there to choose from. There are not many that build up for multiplayer like Halo, CoD, & Battlefield. Why do these games have to follow some bullshit logic of Yahtzee? Why not just say their campaigns suck and play something else? I don't like alot of JRPGs but I ain't going to say they need to model themselves after WRPGs because I know there is a huge audience out there that likes that style for some reason.

 

[fates_puppet13]

most definately
especially for consoles
you get fleets of games that i personally hate for being repetative multiplayer
multiplayer is for me personally a minigame
sure games like feam fortress 2, arma and the battlefield franchise exsist in my good books
but that is because they are either cheap and therefor isnt trying to pass off as a full on game
or they DO have a single player version of the multiplayer with competant A.I

 

[OManoghue]

It's not a bad game, but it's a bit of an incomplete game. Games should have a story first and multiplayer for after. Without a good single player it's kind of just like buying a movie with nothing but DVD commentary and special features.

 

[El Danny]

The way I see it, if it's a game like TF2 or Battlefield 1943, then it's a multiplayer game, no singleplayer, no problem. Then you get games like Modern Warfare/Black Ops, that claim they have immersive and gameplay with great replay value, you can see why people pick up the game then get feel like they've been lied to when the single player turns out to be 4-6 hours of mediocrity. The problem is that most dev teams seem to think if the don't attach a single player campaign it won't sell, (or won't justify a £45 price tag). They need to look at Sins of a Solar Empire, no campaign, but was one of the best received strategy games ever.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

If a title calls itself multiplayer exclusive then it shouldn't have single player to begin with because we WILL treat it like it was meant to be a big part of the game

What about if the menu said "Tutorial" instead of "New Game"?

Isn't it obvious enough that I was referring to a campaign mode?
Do I really have to explain?

I actually think that "Tutorial vs. New Game" line is an excellent point.

EDIT: You do realize that he is stating that most players use the campaign as a "tutorial" to prepare for online multiplayer, right?

He can't know that for certain, that isn't a fact.
I might as well state that most people here don't play it for tutorial, I can't know that, it isn't a fact.

I can for certain say that SOME of them do.
And people playing single player as a tutorial doesn't automatically change the single player INTO a tutorial mode anymore than anybody that plays the single player for the romantic scenes makes the single player a porno.

Sorry, doesn't work that way, it still remains a single player, not a tutorial, however you may treat it, it is not it's purpose.

Unless the actual title WAS in fact, tutorial.