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

[OneOfTheMichael's]

From what i understand, multiplayer seems like a added 'campaign' on its own without a real purpose or story.
For example: Assassin's Creed brotherhood has a excellent campaign that it could stand on its own really. People just randomly started to say "Hey do you ever wonder what assassin's creed will be if it had multiplayer in it?".
A game doesn't need multiplayer to have it stand up, sure some gamers think like it does but it really doesn't.

 

[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.

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).

Well, I play on the PC. A PC game with decent multiplayer is going to have some kind of community for at least ten years, since the servers are provided by the community anyway. If I haven't moved onto a new game at that point, either the game is still around in full force, or I really need to get out more.

massive snip

See the OP. If you don't like multiplayer, or you can't play it due to internet problems, these games aren't for you. Those of us who do have the interest and the means would like to keep our good multiplayer games, thank you very much.

 

[TheFPSisDead]

I would say that it's not about good or bad, but a matter of personal preference. If you like multiplayer games then a game like Q3A is great. If you are intimidated by that competetive environment or like a slower paced game, that does not demerit the TF2's or Q3A's or SCII's. Just go play Fahrenheit or Heavy Rain instead.

 

[Emilin_Rose]

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).

Well, I play on the PC. A PC game with decent multiplayer is going to have some kind of community for at least ten years, since the servers are provided by the community anyway. If I haven't moved onto a new game at that point, either the game is still around in full force, or I really need to get out more.

massive snip

See the OP. If you don't like multiplayer, or you can't play it due to internet problems, these games aren't for you. Those of us who do have the interest and the means would like to keep our good multiplayer games, thank you very much.

So what happens when you get banned from whatever community you play on, or lose internet access after buying these games? What are you left with? Once you beat the campaign, you're out of luck.

 

[GunstarHero]

So what happens when you get banned from whatever community you play on, or lose internet access after buying these games? What are you left with? Once you beat the campaign, you're out of luck.

Getting banned? If it's easy to do, then the community would die quickly anyway, and if it's hard to do (3 strike policy, say), then it's your own fault-up there with dropping your console.

As for the other points, if it's a good campaign, play it again. If it's not, sell it and play something else.

I may be a really twitchy gamer, but I never buy a game with a mind to playing it in perpetuity. I don't plan to be playing it still in 6 months, let alone a year or more. If it's amazing MP, then the community won't die for a long time. If it's crap, why would you care?

 

[Ampersand]

A good single player is a nice thing to have when you want to kill some time but if we're honest with ourselves I think we all know that it's the digital equivalent of bouncing a ball off a wall like Steve McQueen. (with the possible exception of games that have more of an emphasis on story). In my opinion you're missing the true spirit of playing a game if you don't at least sometimes play it with other people.

 

[Vibhor]

I read the first post.
You seem to have mistaken call of duty to tf2
TF2 costs 40$ whereas call of duty costs 60$.
And yahtzee doesn't hates multiplayer games.He hates the multiplayer games who are called best game ever and are with shitty campaign(Halo and COD to name some)
It is no wonder why people want good singleplayer from a multiplayer game for which they pay 60$

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

I think that Games shouldn't have BOTH Singleplayer and Multiplayer in it. It should be one or the other.
If you're making an SP game, have a good story, well-realized world, and interesting conflicts. Don't make a SP game because you "HAVE to churn out one game a year". Just Don't. Make an SP game because you have something to say (that is not Russians/Middle-Easterns are Eeviel!) and want to use your video game to say it. SP games are Games as an art-form.
If you have a cool idea for a multiplayer game, make that. it doesn't need to have a story (though a backdrop or a video, like in Battlefield 2, is ok) and has no other options except a multiplayer which is always patched and maintained. This is basically games as service.

Every medium has both examples of Art and service (Encyclopedia/Harry Potter books; Documentaries/Inception; American Idol/Lost.etc.) Gaming is a medium so why should it be different.

 

[Signa]

I played Team Fortress 2 on PS3, and I fucking LOVED it.

Oh jeez, don't play it on the PC or you might jizz your pants.

OT: The way I feel about this is I agree with Yahtzee's very incomplete thought. A game is crap if it can't stand on its own as a single player game. BUT if that game is centered around a multiplayer experience, then there is nothing to complain about. TF2 is possibly the best Multiplayer game I've played, and yet playing by yourself only recently became an option.

Then you have games like UT3 where the game is meant to be a multiplayer game, but they tacked on a cheesy but challenging campaign mode. I didn't buy UT3 for it's campaign, but I did play the hell out of it.

THEN you have games like Halo 3 and MW2 (I'm pretty sure the quote everyone is getting from Yahtzee came from one of these games). I've not played either because of the warnings of a poor single player experience, but had I bought either, it would have been based on the expectations of CoD 4 and Halo 1/2. Both games had a great single player with multiplayer as an added bonus. It was only after those games became a mad success in multiplayer that the companies that made them decided to ditch a worthy single player experience and just give people more multiplayer. This is where the problem lies because it has nothing to do with making a game good and everything with making a game fun.

Fun games are plaguing the industry right now because everyone can make a game fun, but no effort has to go into making a game good. Compare the effort that has to go into making the games Bioshock and Team Fortress 2. I love both games to death, but Bioshock has a great story and well written characters. TF2 just has some well drawn characters, but we are left to fill in the blanks ourselves (TF2 may be a bad example here because I enjoy this about TF2, but I'm trying to highlight the lack of writing. Other MP games aren't so attractive or deeper than "shoot other team"). If all games go the TF2 route, we might have some fun games for a while, but as others pointed out, gaming communities move on to the next hottest thing, and then this "fun" game is left in the dust. Nothing about these MP only games are good, just fun. Giving game makers a pass based solely on great MP and shallow SP is poor judgment because they are going to just keep doing it. If they want to make MP games, go ahead, but then they need to spawn a different "Deathmatch" series instead of bastardizing the Single Player line (Which is something I give Quake 3 crap about to this day. What the hell was wrong with calling it Quake Online?).

 

[Ashcrexl]

as long as some aspect of a game doesnt suck, it's ok. it was alright for mw2 to have a terrible campaign because its multiplayer was awesome. it was alright for cod1 to have a terrible multiplayer because its campaign was awesome. now if you're cod4:mw1 and you have an awesome campaign and, you're pretty awesome.

 

[Lerxst]

Checkers, Chess, Backgammon, even *ahem* Yahtzee. Ever try playing any of them by yourself? Gets real boring, real fast.

Point is, there are just some games meant to be multiplayer. There are others though, that are meant to be single player. When the two cross, you have problems.

 

[darthotaku]

I can't play multiplayer caus my parents wont let me play online and my friends live way too far away to come over and play games. Therefore a game must stand on single player for people like me

 

[LordOrin]

Multiplayer didn't "suddenly" become an afterthought, it was one when it was first added in games YEARS ago, single player has always been the main part of a game, been like that since retro games.

I don't know, I hear Pong's single-player is kind of meh.

 

[scar_47]

there have been a few games I bought pretty much based on them having a good multiplayer game giveing little thought to the campaign. BBC 2 and COD are the 2 main culprits the campaigns I feel are decent enough but the main draw was the multiplayer. I don't think theres anything wrong with a game that focuses on multiplayer as long as it's clear that thats supposed to be the focus of the game, and even a biased review makes it pretty clear what the main draw of the game is for most people. It's like some people complain about a series not changing over new installments do 5 minutes worth of research and it's pretty easy to tell if you'll like the basics of a game.

 

[sheah1]

Well first of all games need to tell a story, we need to feel like we´re doing something epic and meaningful to the game world and multiplayer can´t do that right now, even in mag where winning or losing affects the game world I bet most people just see that as a framing rather than an actual part of the game. Without that drive, without that feeling of advancing through a story, beating the bad guys and saving that world I usually can´t be bothered to play a game´s multiplayer. Single player is still seen as the main function of a game as well, take brotherhood, it has an absolutely fantastic, innovative and new multiplayer, but because of the terrible single player (in comparison to the other games of the series) I remember brotherhood as a badly designed game with poor design decisions and a god-awful story. However, since MAG is a multiplayer centric game, the multiplayer is immediatly thrust forward as the main part, I remember MAG as a pretty fun, innovative game, so obviously it depends on what the game is marketed as. Most of all though I think it comes down to reliability, if a single player game lags and glitches, or if people could hack into it and mess things up, it would be seen as a bad, broken game, multiplayer games are allowed a pass on this because they´re multiplayer games. Oh and, a person can always play on the single-player, but not always the multiplayer.

 

[DataSnake]

Checkers, Chess, Backgammon, even *ahem* Yahtzee. Ever try playing any of them by yourself?

On PC, all the time. There's this brilliant new innovation you might want to look into sometime. I think they call it "A.I." or some such.

 

[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).

Well, I play on the PC. A PC game with decent multiplayer is going to have some kind of community for at least ten years, since the servers are provided by the community anyway. If I haven't moved onto a new game at that point, either the game is still around in full force, or I really need to get out more.

massive snip

See the OP. If you don't like multiplayer, or you can't play it due to internet problems, these games aren't for you. Those of us who do have the interest and the means would like to keep our good multiplayer games, thank you very much.

Looking at game dev and design the end user providing a server is becoming a thing of the past. At least for non indie games.

 

[Jackhorse]

This isnt a discussion, this is some trolls power fantasy blown out of proportion by an overwhelming response from legitimate fans.

I see legitimate discussion with only the occasional troll cropping up in the later comments >_>

OT: I can't understand all those criticisms of multiplayer people being rather-not-nice-people (not sure how strong they come down on cursers here) admittedly I've only played TF2 and Black Ops but I've never heard anyone swear online and I've had cordial back and forth messages congratulating nice headshots or smooth spy moves whether they've been done to me or the enemy.
When there is someone who is a cursing and a cheap shotting and a evilling surely theres some white knight appeal in taking them down for their wicked ways, ever felt the satisfaction of killing the guy who had you pinned down in your base for ages? The guy with the grenade launcher or the sticky bombs who kept you dead, the one who it was so satisfying to burn down or plant a knife in their back?
When you take down a bot its like putting down a robot, theirs little satisfaction in having killed a plain series of 1000100101110001's with no malice or cunning, they will respond to your actions in a set way and will only go down as many times as they are programmed to, the situation only changes as much as you make it change and the whole experience feels more hollow to me.
When you take down someone in multiplayer whatever course of action you took you were not automatically going to win, even if your behaviour was exactly the same in each instance the situation would change as the outcome of the battle would no longer be binary, this time they could move left or right. When you win in multiplayer you are a better shot, a quicker hand a smarter player or just luckier than the one on the other end of line , when you win in singleplayer you are beating something doomed to lose when you became this good, the uncertainty in makes it more thrilling and rewarding, like playing poker as opposed to solitaire. In poker everything can change because of the others playing in solitaire you are always doomed to failure or destined to win after you finish shuffling.
Single player win will never stand up to multiplayer win, I would far rather a game stood on multiplayer alone than on singleplayer alone therefore ...

TLDR: Me prefer multiplayer as uncertainty make game funner than game where outcome fixed according to your skill. Imagine game where you were told you would win every round and you won every round or game where you were told you would lose every round and lost every round the latter would give frustration and the first boredom. It fine for game stand multiplayer as multiplayer better to me.

 

[gl1koz3]

Sorry, but Quake 3 had quite good bots balanced for... pretty much every player experience level, starting with a newcomer and some beyond that, even up to uber-hardcore. I could just jump in and have some fun. If I beat the bots, I could go online. Same can apply to some other games, but it depends. L4D has terrible bots, for example. Nothing short of idiots. But that is because the game relies on horde mechanics, which can be hard to process for them. MW4 was enjoyable (for some time). Also because of the single player. UT3 has nice bots. C&C has cut-scene cheese all over its campaign.

Wait, what are we discussing, again?

EDIT: So, yes. "If a game can't stand on single player alone, it's a bad game." Because otherwise it is social interaction. A game, too. But very different kind.

EDIT2: As for the BF examples. Take BF2 or 1942. A newcomer can go and have some fun. And NOT cringe at the dumbness of the campaign in BC2, for example.

EDIT3: Games SHOULD have a taste of the game be possible without the online stuff. Otherwise it gets wobbly as to what you're actually paying for - gameplay or... social interaction? You can get the latter for free.

That's an interesting standpoint. I wouldn't say that it's social interaction that makes online worth it so much as the ever changing nature of an online game. No matter how smart you make your AI, it's not going to match the challenge of a human opponent, or even act like one in most cases. Social interaction can be a part of it, but for the most part it's about bite sized sections of play time which are never exactly the same twice.

Yes, I was pointing out that the single player experience almost always tells what to expect. Given that the SP experience is not (level-, mechanics- etc-wise) closely tied to the online, then, if they make it like crap, then what to expect from the online stuff? And what I said about AI already covers the online-superior-opponent issue.

The real point was that, if they can't make the computer play their own game to show off what remotely could be a great experience, then that means either they are a) dumb (can't program) or b) the game mechanics do not contain an algorithm (that means it's too complex or relies on humans that can't quite be simulated by an algorithm). Either way, it is no longer a game in a traditional sense, thus what game can we talk about at all in this case? Again, the (randomness of) social interaction? I can get that for free... again.

 

[ethaninja]

Storylines or at least some form of a plot has always gripped me a lot more then a kid cussing at me for "stealing his kill". I'd just rather the peaceful fun of SP over the chaotic mess of multiplayer. Unless I'm having a LAN with mates. Then multiplayer (coop specifically, or BOTS) is key.