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

[Adultism]

I would go into deep discussion, but I'm a fanboy of Yahtzee. So I'll just say this, I think a game needs equally good multiplayer and singleplayer, unless the game is only multiplayer / singleplayer.

 

[Valksy]

Over-reliance on multiplayer has seriously reduced the number of games that I buy and I am either buying second hand or when greatly reduced.

I will not pay full price for an 8 hour campaign. I won't play multi-player because pretty much all of the players I encountered on Xbox Live were loud-mouthed scum. Gamers, as a group, I mostly hate you all and do not wish to play with you.

Some games are made for multi-player. Go ahead and market and price appropriately - I tune in to game reviews even more avidly these days, not because I am interested in opinion, I want to be forewarned on who wants to get away with the least and rely on "player made" content.

I've played games, of one sort or another, for about 30 years or so now. And the reliance on multi-player might be the thing that finally drives me away.

 

[luckshotpro]

I think that multiplayer is cool, but for me, if the single player sucks, that's lazy on their part. Your point about Yahtzee is valid, but if you remember in his Assassin's Creed Brotherhood review he said, and I quote, "I still firmly believe that while a multiplayer focused game selling for under 30 bucks or as DLC is fine, any game with the balls to charge the same price as nine back alley blow-jobs, had better not show it's face at my door without a decent single player campaign in one hand and a bottle of wine in the other."
I agree with him, the single player doesn't need to be great, but asking me to pay 60 dollars for essentially a multiplayer game seems lazy, when plenty of other games put equal emphasis on both, like, say, Red Dead Redemption, single player was a big focus, but multiplayer is also a major draw.

 

[acosn]

My most played games are the multiplayer games that ultimately grant a great deal of creativity beyond the immediate means of the core game.


So yeah, I'm mainly talking about Starcraft, Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3, where even a chimp could make a custom map and have it function in a way distinctly different from how the core game plays.

Yhatzee may be a misanthrope but he does hit on a good point- multiplayer gets stagnant fast. When you keep playing Team Fortress 2 long enough you look at 2fort and just say, "enough!" and quit.

 

[ExileNZ]

I personally find tacked-on single-player more offensive than tacked-on multiplayer, but then I do tend to prefer solo to multi anyway.

I'm glad Shogo, with its huge solo campaign, gave you the chance to run around some arenas and blow shit up once you'd finished, just as I appreciated FEAR's multiplayer, though I didn't feel Shogo's was particularly 'tacked on' (nor FEAR's, really, but FEAR's main focus was always on the story). I even regretted that games like FAKK2 and Alice didn't have multi. Oni's removal of multiplayer for release was, for me, a crime, even with such a huge focus on the story.

Quake 3 didn't hold my interest as long as, say, Unreal Tournament, or pretty much anything multiplayer-focused that I've played. Except maybe Counterstrike, because I played Quake 3 longer than 2 weeks (honestly, not that big a fan). Quake 2 held me for ages, maybe even past the release of Quake 3. I've dabbled in the odd MMO, though I refuse to touch WoW since I have other things I need to do.

As for tacked-on single-player... I can really only think of Gore that was particularly offensive in that regard, and if you've never heard of it then all the better.

I guess as a bottom line, I prefer for both to be done well, but if I have to choose between good solo and good multi, I'll go for good solo.

Holy cow, another person that played Shogo. That was the first FPS I ever took online, and to this day I haven't found a game that comes close to matching the frantic action found in that game. The fact that the campaign was excellent as well easily catapults it onto my short list of favorite games of all time.

Then you may be pleased to know that last time I dropped by my parents' place I dug up the CD to show it to my friends (and of course to have a little LAN action). Tycho (yeah, that one) said he was horrified that he ever thought Shogo was good, but I found it just as fun, if not more, when I played it again, especially in multi.
As a side-note, co-op multi is hard, since you only get one life between you and the enemies get more health with every additional player. But oh-so-fun.

 

[halbarad]

I have to say I certainly think that a game that touts having a strong single player should be able to stand up on it. I can't emphasize more how Modern Warfare 2 has one of the most atrocious single players there is.
I can only go by my own experiences and I went into MW2 having not played a FPS on the 360 in over a year. I jumped right onto Veteran and completed the game with no real trouble in seven hours. Now factor into this the amount of time you spend just hiding behind a wall waiting for the protracted game of whack-a-enemy to end.
The actual story part of the game lasts maybe two hours at it's best.


Now look at a game that markets itself as a SP experience with some MP, for this example I'll pick World in conflict. The single player is well detailed, it's got a good story that lasts long enough and the gameplay fits in well with the story that is told; rising through the ranks, etc, etc. The genre is different but that doesn't matter, it's the balance that is at issue. Now look at it's MP - it's got a strong MP to fall back on if that's what you want in the game without ever damaging it's single player.
I could pick a FPS that fits in with this description too, Bioshock 2.

The point is, they have a MP that stands up by itself without sacrificing the single player.


Now let's look at a MP game with some SP. Bad Company (and to a lesser extent, 2).
As with all battlefields the MP is the top you'll find. It's expansive, it promotes teamwork but without crippling you for going solo and the depth you'll find means one game will never be the same as another, even if it's the same map. This is a problem I had with MW2 eventually, people got used to the single spots and it just became too samey when they just kept running to them. With BC/2 you can actually alter the environment, meaning you're never going to have a same game as people have to adapt.
It's single player isn't bad either. It's driven in it's objectives, never being too stagnated with the protracted whack-a-enemy. Bad company had the stronger single player of the bad company games but two has the stronger MP. But, both SP's stand up by themselves and offer an enjoyable experience without any sacrifices.

 

[orc1231515]

I don't think Yahtzee dislikes all multiplayer games, but he certainly isn't fond of them. this may be because he realy doesn't like to play multiplayer, but it might have something to do with the fact that doing a zero-punctuation style review on a multiplayer game will get realy generic realy fast. since most multiplayer games don't realy have a story(with the exeption of mmorpgs) there isn't a lot to talk about. multiplayer games lack story because it is not needed, a single player game needs a good story or people won't play it. I thinkt that the point he makes is not that a game should be either be single or multi player and if it has a tacked on bonus it should be good. the problem is that a tacked on single player game will have no decent story, so it won't be any good. tacked on multi player doesn't need a new story or a lot of special attention so it is more likely to be enjoyable.

 

[Netrigan]

If a game has a single-player multi-player option, then I believe that game should be able to stand by that single-player multi-player functionality, otherwise what's the point of having it in the first place?

Why bother having single-player multi-player when you always have to play it with other people alone to get any enjoyment out of it?

Sometimes people want to play a "multiplayer" "singleplayer" game on their own with other people. Either their friends are busy with something else over for a party, or their internet connection is misbehaving working, or for whatever other reason, they just want to play it by themselves with other people right now.

If they can't do that on a game that claims to have single-player multi-player functionality, then that game isn't as good as it could, and should, be.

You see the flaw in this argument? I'm not trying to be harsh here, but quite a few people have been using the same argument, and your post was really easy to do that to. If you don't like multiplayer, than don't buy a multiplayer focused game. If you don't like singleplayer, then don't buy a singleplayer game. The people who do like the type you don't would like to be able to play it.

But what about a game which featured a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to pimp the single player campaign. If ads are asking me to remember Reach, then the Reach part of the game should live up to the hype.

This gets Black Ops off the hook since their marketing campaign was almost exclusively devoted to mulTi-player.

 

[VanillaBean]

I think Yahtzee has a problem with the online aspect of multiplayer. I find this to be true for me when it comes to multiplayer because I often enjoy split-screen over online any day.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

The fact remains that, on the games in question, the single player is a bonus given for added value, the way multiplayer used to be on pretty much every game that had it. What's so bad about allowing games like that to exist? We aren't saying you have to play them.

If it is a bonus value, it HAS to be good, people play these games JUST for that you know.
Single player always has to be good, because there are people who only review that part.
Multiplayer must also always be good but because OTHER people review only that.

My point is that if they add single player then it has to be good because that is what the game's setting is based all around on, if it isn't good then that is what it is saying for the game, not good.

If it was a multiplayer exclusive that doesn't want to focus on the setting of the game and can't be too bothered with that then it should have had an offline bot mode instead of a story driven campaign. If single player story wasn't meant to be what makes the game good then there shouldn't have been one in the first place.

Come on, man, what part of "added value" don't you understand? If you buy a hot dog, and it comes with a free bag of chips, are you going to complain that the bag of chips is too small?

If a game has a single-player multi-player option, then I believe that game should be able to stand by that single-player multi-player functionality, otherwise what's the point of having it in the first place?

Why bother having single-player multi-player when you always have to play it with other people alone to get any enjoyment out of it?

Sometimes people want to play a "multiplayer" "singleplayer" game on their own with other people. Either their friends are busy with something else over for a party, or their internet connection is misbehaving working, or for whatever other reason, they just want to play it by themselves with other people right now.

If they can't do that on a game that claims to have single-player multi-player functionality, then that game isn't as good as it could, and should, be.

You see the flaw in this argument? I'm not trying to be harsh here, but quite a few people have been using the same argument, and your post was really easy to do that to. If you don't like multiplayer, than don't buy a multiplayer focused game. If you don't like singleplayer, then don't buy a singleplayer game. The people who do like the type you don't would like to be able to play it.

But what about a game which featured a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to pimp the single player campaign. If ads are asking me to remember Reach, then the Reach part of the game should live up to the hype.

This gets Black Ops off the hook since their marketing campaign was almost exclusively devoted to mulTi-player.

Reach is a bad example, since the only part of the marketing campaign that was focused on singleplayer was the TV commercials. Almost all of the press releases were about the multi. Also, what was so bad about the singleplayer? Some people expect way too much in terms of length out of an FPS; anything over 10 hours really risks becoming repetitive.

 

[Carbo]

I wouldn't say that a game having a terribly poor single-player campaign but a great multiplayer option implies a bad game, but it's certainly not good one, if we mostly speak in viewpoint of game design.

As Yahtzee says himself, a game that is great, or say in Halo's case, tossed around as its the perfect masterpiece from the gods, should not have anything that excuses another portion of itself. A game isn't perfect if it doesn't do both portions flawlessly.

It doesn't matter who will eventually buy it for what reason, but a good game designer should make both these experiences worthwhile.

[Also, what was so bad about the singleplayer? Some people expect way too much in terms of length out of an FPS; anything over 10 hours really risks becoming repetitive.

Reach and the recent Halo games in general build around experiences that should be utilized into multiplayer. Back when I cared somewhat about Halo, I used to be generally indifferent about the singleplayer, but did enjoy the multiplayer for a while. Its not that the campaign wasn't long enough or anything like that, its just that for alot of people its just dull and feels like a complete non-starter. Its less of a problem with the campaign and more of a problem with the game itself. It's incredibly insecure, adequate and run-of-the-mill.

 

[Netrigan]

But what about a game which featured a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to pimp the single player campaign. If ads are asking me to remember Reach, then the Reach part of the game should live up to the hype.

This gets Black Ops off the hook since their marketing campaign was almost exclusively devoted to mulTi-player.

Reach is a bad example, since the only part of the marketing campaign that was focused on singleplayer was the TV commercials. Almost all of the press releases were about the multi. Also, what was so bad about the singleplayer? Some people expect way too much in terms of length out of an FPS; anything over 10 hours really risks becoming repetitive.

Goes to the original context of the quote in the header.

Yatzee wasn't talking about pure MP games like Team Fortress or Pong.

He wasn't talking about tournament games like Street Fighter or Unreal Tournament.

He was talking about Halo, a franchise built upon the popularity of it's single player campaign, games which feature big name actors and is lovingly scored. This isn't a single player campaign that was cobbled together at the last moment. A lot of time, money, and care went into it.

And he didn't like it. But games like Halo and Call Of Duty have legions of fans that demand he review the multi-player content. People don't seem to complain when he gives favorable reviews to CoD4 and Gears 2 without mentioning multiplayer. They don't seem to have a problem with him giving negative reviews to Uncharted 2 or Bioshock 2 without mentioning multi-player. He does mention MP every so often, but only when someone creates a novel on-line experience like Left4Dead or Brotherhood. Otherwise he's content to pretend it doesn't exist.

And if he didn't like the SP, what do you think the odds are a standard collection of multi-player modes will turn his head. FPS have a pretty standardized set of modes. Halo may be a good package of them since they have the money to develop multiple game modes, but there's really nothing there for someone who has a jaded opinion of Unreal Tournament which is probably still the gold standard for it's wealth of game play modes.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

You're right in that they cannot assume that everyone will want to play multiplayer. This does not however mean that they should not design a game around the multiplayer element. Of the greater than 100 hours I spent playing Battlefield Bad Company 2, I spent precisely zero hours playing the single player portion. I did not buy the game to play by myself, I bought it to play with and against other people.

People who buy a game designed around a multiplayer experience, especially when it is of a franchise that is known to focus heavily on multiplayer, it seems strange that people complain about the brevity of the single player content. As I pointed out previously, people are free to want what they want but to complain that a game isn't something it never set out to be is silly.

This works both ways, incidentally. How many people thought Multiplayer was actually a good idea for Bioshock for example?

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

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.

You're right in that they cannot assume that everyone will want to play multiplayer. This does not however mean that they should not design a game around the multiplayer element. Of the greater than 100 hours I spent playing Battlefield Bad Company 2, I spent precisely zero hours playing the single player portion. I did not buy the game to play by myself, I bought it to play with and against other people.

People who buy a game designed around a multiplayer experience, especially when it is of a franchise that is known to focus heavily on multiplayer, it seems strange that people complain about the brevity of the single player content. As I pointed out previously, people are free to want what they want but to complain that a game isn't something it never set out to be is silly.

This works both ways, incidentally. How many people thought Multiplayer was actually a good idea for Bioshock for example?

Well, now we're getting into games DESIGNED for multiplayer to an extent. Think of WoW. You can play it to a certain extent on your own, but the greatest rewards come from team work. It does, to an extent stand alone as a single player game... Arguably at best, as I've spent ALOT of time playing ti alone and had a blast, but the greatest experiance is in groups.

Now consider Mag. 100% online, 100% team work. There isn't even a free for all, it's all about groups. I think they were BRILLIANT to leave out singleplayer from their game altogether.

Basically what I'm getting at is: I think Battlefield should get rid of their singleplay 100%, be like MAG, only online. That way no one can dispute that it is meant to play multiplayer.

BUT

If you're going to put a single player aspect into the game, then you should try to make the game AS good for those who ONLY want to play single player. If you want your game to have a half-assed singleplayer just for the sake of saying you have single player AND online (when obviously your game is meant to be played multiplayer online), I would say don't bother making the single player portion and focus on what you want the game to shine in.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Well, now we're getting into games DESIGNED for multiplayer to an extent. Think of WoW. You can play it to a certain extent on your own, but the greatest rewards come from team work. It does, to an extent stand alone as a single player game... Arguably at best, as I've spent ALOT of time playing ti alone and had a blast, but the greatest experiance is in groups.

Now consider Mag. 100% online, 100% team work. There isn't even a free for all, it's all about groups. I think they were BRILLIANT to leave out singleplayer from their game altogether.

Basically what I'm getting at is: I think Battlefield should get rid of their singleplay 100%, be like MAG, only online. That way no one can dispute that it is meant to play multiplayer.

BUT

If you're going to put a single player aspect into the game, then you should try to make the game AS good for those who ONLY want to play single player. If you want your game to have a half-assed singleplayer just for the sake of saying you have single player AND online (when obviously your game is meant to be played multiplayer online), I would say don't bother making the single player portion and focus on what you want the game to shine in.

Battlefield has traditionally been a multiplayer only affair. It was only when the console exclusive Bad Company came out that a single player campaign was even considered.

But that begs an interesting question. Why does Bad Company have a campaign when it is obviously a multiplayer game at it's heart? The only reason I can fathom is that people simply expect a console game to have a single player element in much the same way they expect an FPS to have a multiplayer component.

It is this expectation that I stand against. I spend plenty of time playing games of both types. Truth be told, in many circumstances it is obvious that one segment or another ought to be cut for the good of the product. Bioshock 2 wasn't a bad game but resources were definitely wasted working on a multiplayer element that wasn't any fun and has already been forgotten. Bad Company could have shipped with more maps and the like had resources not been wasted on a campaign.

But, it would seem that we have two forces at work. Tacking multiplayer onto a game is generally the result of the publisher/developer realizing they stand to make more money if they can keep people from selling the game. Single player on the other hand is generally demanded by the people destined to buy the game.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

If a game has a singleplayer and a multiplayer it should be able stand up perfectly fine on both ends. A game like TF2 is perfectly fine as a multiplayer only game because that is how it is intended same as say Enemy Territory Quake Wars even though that has a single player which is just a warm up for multiplayer. Something like CoD which has both a singleplayer and multiplayer needs to be able to stand up as either a full multiplayer or full singleplayer neither should be a tacked on bonus.

 

[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.

The fact remains that, on the games in question, the single player is a bonus given for added value, the way multiplayer used to be on pretty much every game that had it. What's so bad about allowing games like that to exist? We aren't saying you have to play them.

If it is a bonus value, it HAS to be good, people play these games JUST for that you know.
Single player always has to be good, because there are people who only review that part.
Multiplayer must also always be good but because OTHER people review only that.

My point is that if they add single player then it has to be good because that is what the game's setting is based all around on, if it isn't good then that is what it is saying for the game, not good.

If it was a multiplayer exclusive that doesn't want to focus on the setting of the game and can't be too bothered with that then it should have had an offline bot mode instead of a story driven campaign. If single player story wasn't meant to be what makes the game good then there shouldn't have been one in the first place.

Come on, man, what part of "added value" don't you understand? If you buy a hot dog, and it comes with a free bag of chips, are you going to complain that the bag of chips is too small?

No, i would complain that the chips taste like crap.

 

[Savagezion]

-snip-

Come on, man, what part of "added value" don't you understand? If you buy a hot dog, and it comes with a free bag of chips, are you going to complain that the bag of chips is too small?

No, i would complain that the chips taste like crap.

First, one of the top complaints about single player campaigns in shooters nowadays is that they aren't long enough, thus it is an issue of size, not quality. Being able to beat the game in 8 hours is bitched about more often than how "good" (subjective) the story is.

Second, in this example let's say the the hot dog in question is honestly one of the best hot dogs around thus is getting a lot of attention by the public. Then you hear a few people talking about how they liked that you get a free bag of chips with the hot dog and they thought they were pretty good. They may or may not mention the hot dog because it goes without saying it was as delicious as everyone else out there is already saying.

Now, wouldn't it be silly for someone who doesn't like hot dogs to go buy a hot dog just for the free chips and criticize the chips thus the vendor? Why the hell not just go buy a bag of damn chips?

 

[Netrigan]

If a game has a singleplayer and a multiplayer it should be able stand up perfectly fine on both ends. A game like TF2 is perfectly fine as a multiplayer only game because that is how it is intended same as say Enemy Territory Quake Wars even though that has a single player which is just a warm up for multiplayer. Something like CoD which has both a singleplayer and multiplayer needs to be able to stand up as either a full multiplayer or full singleplayer neither should be a tacked on bonus.

I think this is pretty much the case. You judge a game by what it is.

Such as, I think there's a big different between a single player game (with or without multiplayer content) like Bioshock or Call Of Duty, a multiplayer only game (with or without bot support) like TF2, and a Tournament Shooter Unreal Tournament.

1) Single Player Games -- since the majority of people play these games for the campaign, the single campaign is the single most important criteria. I respect the right of any critic or fan reviewer to exclusively devote his criticisms (good or bad) to the single player campaign. This would be an incomplete review, but I think it's still valid criticism that speaks to a lot of potential customers, especially when these companies spend months bragging about the effort they're putting into the single player campaign... and considering that the two big multi-player elephants in the room are both built upon compelling single player games. The good single player game experience came first, the good multi-player followed. There is flat-out no excuse for these companies to be let off the hook for putting out a shit single player campaign. Shooters tend to be in the 6-10 hour range, so I don't even give them shit for being short. We've already adjusted the curve on this one.

2) Multiplayer Games -- if you're loud and you're proud that you have a multiplayer game, then the game needs to be judged on that criteria. Good bot support is part of that, but anyone trying to judge the game on single player criteria is missing the point.

3) Tournament Games -- this one is a trickier beast, because it's technically a single player game... even though the greatest enjoyment is derived from multi-player. If the new Street Fighter came out and had brilliant multiplayer, but the single player campaign was total shit by Street Fighter standards; would it be a good game? Or if Mortal Kombat delivered a great single player campaign, but multiplayer was shite, would that be a good game? Unreal Tournament was a much better Tournament game than Quake 3, although Quake 3 is likely the better multiplayer game.

 

[Cj Vanek]

Ideally, only three types of games would be made.

1: An excellent singleplayer game with no multiplayer. Like Dragon Age, Oblivion, Fallout, Mass Effect, 3D Dot Game Heroes, Demon's Souls, the good Legend of Zeldas, the good Marios, etc. These generally work best as RPGs, platformers, puzzle, and adventure games. Which are rather tough to design a good multiplayer for. A bad multiplayer, like in Bioshock, makes the game worse overall and holds it back.

2: An excellent multiplayer game with no singleplayer. Like MAG, Team Fortress 2, MMOs to some extent, etc. Usually shooters or MMOs (I include MMos because most don't require you to do anything without other people with you.) These games are meant to be played with others, a good singleplayer experience is hard to make for a game clearly designed for multiplayer, like CoD or BFBC2 or Soul Caliber, a crappy singleplayer tacked on makes the game worse overall.

3: An excellent singleplayer with excellent multiplayer. Like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Red Dead Redemption, Fable2/3, Dead Rising 2, Medal of Honor(imo), etc. These games are few and far between, they also tend to vary greatly, so there is no overall genre they excel in. But these game are usually the best, and I wish there were more of them, but sadly, there aren't.