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

[Jumpingbean3]

If a game can't stand up on single player why include a single player mode? Halo had a very "meh" campaign mode and the multiplayer is all anyone remembers so, logically, a good idea would have been to make a multiplayer sequel and throw the story in the bin.

I get the feeling Halo was meant to be a single player game with an added on multiplayer so, as a whole, it's just okay. I could let it slide with Left 4 Dead because even with the single player mode added on I could tell right away that it was a multiplayer game at the core. If a game fails at it's main purpose then an added mode won't do much to improve it as a whole.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

I get the impression that he (Yahtzee) doesn't especially care for people in general.

He's openly stated that he doesn't like a lot of people and he doesn't come across as someone who makes friends easily.

 

[ImprovizoR]

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.

And I would rather see an excellent game with no multiplayer at all, ala Biochock or Arkham Asylum, than a mediocre game that tried to do both singleplayer and multiplayer.

 

[Skratt]

A game designed to be a single player game, that has a multi-player aspect should always be able to stand on it's own as a single player game. A game that was designed to be a multi-player game doesn't have to stand on it's own as a single player game.

Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Battlefield Series (most of them), Quake Series & Unreal Tournament are all prime examples of games that have shitty single player experiences because of a lack of story and bad AI (or mostly bad in some cases), but they are not at all bad games as a result of their lack of single player. In fact, one could argue they are better for it.

 

[Dastardly]

snip

Personally, my opinion is that you're partially right.

There are games specifically designed to be played multiplayer. That's the goal, and single-player is mostly practice. Arcade-style fighting games are very much like this. The "game" is your ability to learn all the various characters' styles and moves and combos, and then apply that knowledge against your friends or enemies in multiplayer.

When the game relies on multiplayer, it is deferring the actual development process to the players. "Here, provide yourselves content." This isn't a bad thing. It's the difference between buying a remote-controlled airplane... or buying a "build-it-yourself" remote-controlled airplane kit. As long as the kit provides the tools and parts necessary to build an equivalent model, the two options are equal in value (but with different types of appeal).

It's not that multiplayer-focused games are bad. They're just more of a build-a-game kit than an actual packaged game. What it comes down to is whether or not the game provides enough tools to build the game.

Most FPS games that fall into the "multiplayer is the point" category don't provide even nearly the variety of tools and toys as even your most basic Street Fighter knock-off. Limited character choices. Limited weapons (and even when you have a bunch, they all tend to work in slightly different shades of the same way). Limited selection of maps. Limited size of maps. Limited options for player-side development of any of these resources.

Even with these offenders, it isn't that they're bad games. It's just they're not full games, nor are they kits that allow players to build full games. They're partial games being sold at full price, and that's the issue.

 

[Brian Hendershot]

I see it like this. Video games in general are becoming more slanted towards multi-player (We have seen two wonderful single player games, BioShock and Assassins Creed, in the last year adopt multi-player game modes. Sometimes the multi-player is blah like on BioShock or no one wants to play it on Assassins Creed.)

The point is some people don't want to play those multi-player modes on those games for whatever reason. Could be the online community sucks, could be they can't afford the internet. Either way, they invariably only get half the experience. I can see why people think that a game should be able to stand on single player alone if they are paying 60 dollars for it.

That being said, I don't have that problem. I love multi-player and single-player. As long as I get my money's worth I don't mind what modes they put in there.

EDIT: Obviously the whole a game should be able to stand on it's single player alone doesn't apply to games that are multi-player only. Like Team Fortress 2.

 

[Jandipoo]

If you want me to drop $60 on your game, it better have a damn good single player experience. If you aren't selling a full game, don't charge full price.

 

[spinFX]

TF2 disproves this idiotic notion.

 

[Nico III]

If you don't get your money's worth of enjoyment from the game, then it's a bad game.
Whether you play alone or with other people is irrelevant, as "bad game" does not refer to single or multiplayer strength alone.

 

[Mcface]

If they release a game that only has multiplayer then fine, it doesn't need to stand on a good singleplayer because it is multiplayer EXCLUSIVE.
But if it DOES have single player then it better damn well be good and be well written and up to our standards or it isn't a good game, only the multiplayer will be good and multiplayer STARTED as an extra afterthought when people 1st started to add it to games.

Why? I don't look down on a game for having excellent multiplayer, but a generic or even bad single player. It's just more content for your buck. Also, it can teach you the controls if nothing else, or allow you to play it if the servers are down (which happens a lot on releases)

 

[Rainforce]

if a company needs to prove this argument invalid to excuse a games weak singleplayer, than yes.

 

[Nannernade]

Well if the single player is bad and that is one of the major selling points made by the company producing the game wouldn't other people who see this assume everything else about the game is bad?

 

[Antari]

Its more a perspective of time. To Yatzhee and Me. Multiplayer is a new thing. But its entirely a point of we don't like companies that try to rely on their engine to produce every aspect of fun. Thats fine for the first 30 hours. But after that, games without solid development in a story usually tend to start collecting dust. And it can go either way, when talking about the extremes of gaming. Some are great singleplayer and horrific multiplayer and visa versa. We're just waiting for one game to get both right I guess. It could be a while.

 

[Erja_Perttu]

I dislike multiplayer because I am no good at it. I'm simply not that skilled. I think that for players like me, to make games that are passable as single player and focus mainly on the multiplayer, it is very irritating.

 

[Vortigar]

Multi-player focused games usually need some kind of basic single-player experience to introduce the player to various things. Get the player used to the controls and the mechanics before throwing him to the wolves. Every game gets those guys that will play it for 20 hours on the first day. If you're not one of them you want something else to lead you into the game before you get blown to pieces by those types.

This is why an arcade mode should never be completely removed from fighting games. Sure it's a pretty shallow experience but you can try stuff out, see what the AI is doing and try to copy it or find better alternatives. Sure, career modes like VF4Evo or story modes like the BB and GG games offer are better, but you at least need a basic foothold.


The main thing is that if you as a developer notice the multi-player or single-player is going to suffer from that other half then you should make sure to get your priorities in order. Make sure you get one of the two right and make that your main selling point.

This'll come down to one of two cases most of the time. One: axing the multi-player entirely especially if you're making a shooter. The multi-player market there is saturated to overflow. Two: getting a basic single-player experience in place and then dedicate yourself to building a multi-player support structure with appropriate features for your type of game.

Sometimes you can manage to do both. Case in point being Uncharted 2. It'd have been a shame if they'd ditched the multi-player or sold it seperately for a few extra bucks. Racing games also need very little to have a worthwhile online or single player experience, as long as the mechanics are solid, both should basically always be present in this day and age.


So, no, your game needn't stand on single-player alone. Just make sure the buyer knows what he's getting himself into.

Tldr: The line directly above.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

Well, TF 2 has a shitty single player but it's multiplayer is the best ever, soooooo i guess Yahtzee is wrong? (No suprise there though)