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

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If it have a single player campaign, it should be able to stand on SP alone yes.
If the devs don't put enough effort into making said campaign, it would be better to remove it entierly.

Just throwing together a quick uninspired campaign, or a crappy multiplayer mode they just have to "re-do, do right", anything else is just bad for everyone.

I'm seeing this view point a lot in this thread, and while I agree with what you and the other people who have expressed it are saying, how does it make the game as a whole bad if one portion, which obviously was only a secondary draw anyway, isn't quite up to par, especially if the main focus of the game is excellent? As I pointed out earlier, the original F.E.A.R. had such crappy multiplayer that it would have been better off left out entirely, but that doesn't detract from the game as a whole, because the campaign is excellent. So why would any of you say that a game with a crappy campaign, but multiplayer that can stand up on its own, is a crappy game overall because the tacked on feature was of low quality? It's really just different strokes for different folks.

Edit: That last "tacked on feature" should probably read "tacked on feature that is ancillary to the main purpose of the game, not to mention completely optional."

 

[TerranReaper]

Single player will always rule over multi for me because multliplayer games don't stand the test of time , in a few years or less its dead and all your left with is a very short game

the single player experience is the core of gaming especially if you want to consider it an artform

>Implying single-player experience needs to be the core of gaming in order for gaming to be taken seriously. Ya, I really don't get why we need gaming to be considered an art form, considering there will always be people that won't accept it.

OT: I love the opinions on this forum, if a game has tacked on multiplayer but a great singleplayer, it is the best thing ever. When it's the other way around, it's the "worst game ever" and an "abomination". I respect the opinions that most will have, but the logic applied is laughable at best. Yahtzee is an entertainer, anyone that takes his opinion for fact is delusional. Don't get me wrong, I love ZP, but I don't zealously follow his opinions.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

I do think that singleplayer is more important than multiplayer, but all multiplayer should include AI bots because not everyone has the internet connection/dedication/patience for online multiplayer, but ,ay very well be interested in a multiplayer-exclusive game.

EDIT: A good example would be the upcoming Brink where the singleplayer is essentially the multiplayer with bots. However, there is still a storyline and canon which makes the game's plot seem interesting. This combines the best of both worlds really, but I could see it getting quickly repetitive.

 

[Saltyk]

If single player sucks or isn't the focus, why do it at all? Why not just make a really great multiplayer game? If multiplayer sucks or isn't the focus why do it at all? Why not just make an incredible single player game?

I'm of the mindset that not all games need both. Games like Halo, Call of Duty, and Bad Copmpany could survive without single player. No one has spent hundreds of hours on their campaigns after all. Games like Bioshock, Portal, and Final Fantasy don't need a tacked on multiplayer. And still others can do both.

 

[Alandoril]

Indeed, I agree that if a game is supposed to focus on multiplayer then it shouldn't even bother with single player content.

I for one tend to avoid games if they're touted for their multiplayer...it usually means the single player experience will be poor.

 

[Alandoril]

I feel like it would take more skill to create a memorable SP-mode than a MP one.

Exactly it requires actual skill on the part of the developers, rather than just designing a bunch of maps and shoe-horning in a level system before releasing.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Chess can't stand on single player alone.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Some people decided to forget the whole "fun" part of a game. If it's absent from the single player but is present and good in the multiplayer, it would still bring some great amount of fun. Hergo, it doesn't need one section to be called "good".

 

[tlozoot]

If a game provides a multiplayer component then it's simply unprofessional to ignore it. Like it or not, with fast internet being as wide-spread as it is now, it's perfectly reasonable for a game to sell itself mainly on multiplayer, because that's what some people want from a game.

While I love my Bioshocks and my Mass Effects for their wonderful single player experiences, equally I play my Halo Reach mainly for its multiplayer. I enjoyed the campaign, but that wasn't why I bought it. If you go and buy a multiplayer-focused shooter and then ***** because its single player wasn't worth full price then unlucky, because you should have done your research.

While before multiplayer was a tacked on extra and a side-show to the single player, now we have games that are the reverse. There's experiences out there for everyone. Don't cry because all games no longer have single player as their focus.

 

[GunstarHero]

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 agree with this, really. It's a bit like saying 'I like RTS games, but an FPS has come out. It should include an RTS mode, because that's what I prefer. If it focuses on FPS elements, it's a failure as a game.' I'm arguing from analogy, so others please spare me the 'they're genres, not play modes' spiel.

I think just as games with a solid campaign can have a pointless multiplayer (as many, many, MANY do), so too can solid multiplayer-oriented games have a pointless campaign.

Not every game is for everyone. We all want something different from our games.

Come to that, though, Black Ops made a fuss about its campaign and refers to it extensively in the selling descriptions on any number of websites. This, to me, is where our single-player-only comrades are very right to be annoyed. When a game's campaign sucks, but you're expecting better, then you're fully justified feeling ripped off. In this case, the original statement is spot on.

tl;dr, If a game's openly multiplayer focused and you want single player, rent it or don't play it. If it pretends to be both, you're right- they pulled a dick move. Don't expect a game to be something it isn't, but be angry when it's not the all-round crowd-pleaser it pretends to be.

EDIT: And yes, I understand that multiplayer-oriented games could forego the campaign entirely, and perhaps in CoDBlOps' case it should have.. And I have no following justification for that, actually. I thought the campaign utterly sucked.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

Battlefield 2.

That's basically it.

Instead of writing a dull speech about how Yahtzee's incorrect in saying that every game should stand on its singleplayer, but I'm not going to.

I'll just say "Battlefield 2" and leave.

Possible internet win?

As for the OP, it doesn't have to, but because the majority of people buy games for single-player campaigns, they want it to be worth the money they paid and don't want the devs to put less focus on the majority.

 

[DoctorObviously]

My opinion is just the contrary of the OP's, so I won't bother telling how much I despise multiplayer.

 

[GunstarHero]

the majority of people buy games for single-player campaigns

Not to be a dick, but what's that based on?

Strikes me that the amount of active WoWers suggest there's a pretty heavy number of onliners. That, and how many people will persistenly play an 8 hour campaign rather than trading the game in? It's long past this stage that the online grinders keep the game, continue playing, and eventually dabble in DLC and such.

Without Black Ops' multiplayer, I'd have traded it in on day 2, having hated the campaign. Unless the multiplayer REALLY killed the campaign by draining funds, time etc (which, judging by the number of people calling it a slightly modified MW2 I'd guess is unlikely) that the campaign is the best they could come up with. Sad, yes, but them's the breaks.

 

[DataSnake]

I would say any game should be enjoyable when offline. There's nothing wrong with the Unreal Tournament or Quake III model, but you'll notice both included bots. A game that's only fun when you play it with other people relies too heavily on factors outside the devs' control, such as the state of the player's internet connection.

 

[Estocavio]

My opinion is just the contrary of the OP's, so I won't bother telling how much I despise multiplayer.

I wasnt even going to bother replying, but reinforcing this statement should do fine.
The only time i do MP is with people i know.
To put it into context, i did 4 rounds of Multiplayer in total in all of 2010. Thats not 4 games, or 4 sessions, 4 matches/rounds.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I would say any game should be enjoyable when offline. There's nothing wrong with the Unreal Tournament or Quake III model, but you'll notice both included bots. A game that's only fun when you play it with other people relies too heavily on factors outside the devs' control, such as the state of the player's internet connection.

This opinion has been turning up a lot too, but seriously, offline with bots is the single most tacked on of all tacked on single player modes. I don't care how good the AI is, it's going to get real old, real fast, because it's going to be lacking the unpredictability factor you get when your opponents are actual humans. You could make an argument that offline with bots can be great in 4X games, chess simulators, and the like, but even the most complicated 4X game is going to have a number of options that is limited when compared to even the simplest FPS, making it much easier to program competent, human like AI.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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?

Bah I also would say if its heavily mediocre(FO3,Bioshock,ect) its practically a bad game. They should sell SP and MP content separately just so people know what they are getting also SP stuff should be half the price or cheaper than the MP stuff.

 

[GunstarHero]

I would say any game should be enjoyable when offline. There's nothing wrong with the Unreal Tournament or Quake III model, but you'll notice both included bots. A game that's only fun when you play it with other people relies too heavily on factors outside the devs' control, such as the state of the player's internet connection.

Black Ops (I know, I'm banging on about that a lot, sorry) sure does annoy the crap out of me not being able to play with bots when offline, especially with a sometimes unreliable wireless connection. Being booted when I'm the only human involved is a punch in the cock.

I'd like to add to your point the *other people are sometimes better, sometimes worse* factor. This makes a session entirely unpredictable, and if I've only got a short time to play, I'd rather not spend it being spanked by elite-mo-tron. That's why I never played C&C Red Alert 2 online, since I'd be destroyed every time; yet I've played the non-campaign skirmish mode for at least 300 hours, because I LOVED the gameplay.

So yeah.. Bots for the win, I suppose. Sod the campaign, sod the online. Give me smart bots and customisable game modes!

 

[Wargamer]

Of course a shooter has to have kick-ass single player; what else are you going to do with the game in 12 months when everyone has pissed off to play Call of Dumbass: Noobs At War?

Seriously, it's terrifying how bad all multiplayer games become once all but the obessive compulsives pack up and leave. Resistance 2 is now nothing but wraith-whores on ranked matches, though unranked is better.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I would say any game should be enjoyable when offline. There's nothing wrong with the Unreal Tournament or Quake III model, but you'll notice both included bots. A game that's only fun when you play it with other people relies too heavily on factors outside the devs' control, such as the state of the player's internet connection.

This opinion has been turning up a lot too, but seriously, offline with bots is the single most tacked on of all tacked on single player modes. I don't care how good the AI is, it's going to get real old, real fast, because it's going to be lacking the unpredictability factor you get when your opponents are actual humans. You could make an argument that offline with bots can be great in 4X games, chess simulators, and the like, but even the most complicated 4X game is going to have a number of options that is limited when compared to even the simplest FPS, making it much easier to program competent, human like AI.

Meh bots all the way, why? When they shut the severs down at least you can still play the game..... it also can add flavor a mix of teams with AI and human players(even more soif you can customize an AI buddy and focus im on 3 or 4 play styles, heavy,grenadier,sniper,ect).