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

[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?

 

[acolyte]

I always enjoyed singleplayer over multiplayer for some reason...but more importantly why did u make this topic? and even more importantly why didn't you put a pole on it...that renders the topic even more useless...

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

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.

Developers KNOW that we mostly review single player as the core of a game (if it has single player) if they think it's unfair that we call a game bad because the single player sucks then they shouldn't have added it, if multiplayer was all that was meant to make the game good then why add single player?

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.

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, and if the big part sucks then the game sucks but we will still occasionally mention "but the multiplayer isn't bad" afterwards, you know, like any other extra feature that was good.

 

[Ocoton]

So... basically, you're upset that someone doesn't agree with your opinion on multi-player and wanted to ***** about it on a website full of his fans? Also, Yahtzee enjoyed team fortress 2, his only problem with it being a lack of variety in the maps that were out at that time.

 

[PixelKing]

If you ask me for £40 on launch day and I take you home and finish you in 8 hours and you have no multiplayer you are a bad game. (Mafia 2)

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

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.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I always enjoyed singleplayer over multiplayer for some reason...but more importantly why did u make this topic? and even more importantly why didn't you put a pole on it...that renders the topic even more useless...

I didn't include a poll because I want discussion on a common viewpoint, not a tally of who prefers multiplayer to singleplayer. That's what the thread that inspired this is for. And I made the topic because a significant portion of the answers in that thread showed a viewpoint that I consider ignorant, with not a little bit of "me-too-ism" to it, but addressing it would have really been outside the scope of the thread, and it deserved its own topic.

 

[Cheesus333]

why didn't you put a poll on it...that renders the topic even more useless...

He made the topic because, as someone who enjoys multiplayer, it's an issue that affects him.

I quite agree OP, I'm normally more focused on the single player side of things (more for an omnipresent fear of cocking up and embarrassing myself online than anything) but there isn't much love for multiplayer in a lot of games. However, some just suit it more than others - as you pointed out, Bioshock is single player only but I wouldn't say that were a bad thing. But yes, good multiplayer done right can really improve a game, and increase the longevity drastically.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

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.

Doesn't BF 2 have bots? DUN DUN DA DUN DUNNNNN!!!!

Yeah, anyways I think the whole standing up on singleplayer alone kinda thing makes sense, the singleplayer doesn't need to be really really good but if its ok, like playable and at least somewhat fun than thats ok.

 

[GlorySeeker]

Personally, I prefer to buy games cause they have good Single player. But then again, some Games pitch themselves on the multiplayer experience. I know nobody bought either of the L4D games for the single player. And when Bioshock 2 came out, Im sure when Multiplayer was announced, you were more stoked for the story. (Which was crap) It prolly just depends on the game, and what you expect out of it.

 

[Neverhoodian]

I can see both sides of the coin here. I frequently play multiplayer and have a blast. Hell, my current favorite game (Team Fortress 2) is almost exclusively multiplayer. However, I tend to prefer games that have a well-designed single player component as well for a few reasons:

1. Sometimes I don't want to put up with the annoyance of dealing with douchebag players.

2. Eventually, every game's multiplayer community will die. Console titles will eventually lose their multiplayer components because it's not profitable enough to continue supporting them with the release of the newest-gen system (Halo 2 is a good example of this). More commonly, it's because everyone moves on to newer titles, and the old titles are forgotten. For example, has anyone on this forum played a multiplayer match in Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II recently? Yeah, I didn't think so. For those of us who want to take a trip down memory lane from time to time with cherished classics, we'll want to do more than wander an empty map in an empty server. That's where a good single player component steps in.

In short, there are few things more enjoyable than a good multiplayer game. Just remember that it won't last forever, so ultimately the single player experience is what matters most.

 

[RobCoxxy]

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.

Pretty much this. That game absorbed so much of my life. I can't wait for Battlefield 3 to go back to that type of gameplay (and modability - Project Reality: BF3 anyone?!)

On the same kind of note, Bad Company 2. The multiplayer is the game. The singleplayer's more of an add-on.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

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.

Doesn't BF 2 have bots? DUN DUN DA DUN DUNNNNN!!!!

Yeah, anyways I think the whole standing up on singleplayer alone kinda thing makes sense, the singleplayer doesn't need to be really really good but if its ok, like playable and at least somewhat fun than thats ok.

Yes.

However, you won't say that the game would be any good if that was the only mode in the game, will you?

Therefore, it doesn't stand on its singleplayer alone.

 

[TiefBlau]

This is one of the few points on which I entirely disagree with Yahtzee. I feel obligated to correct him, but at the base of his argument, he feels no need to play the same game/level over and over again, and he hates playing with other people. What he doesn't see is that the other people he plays with make that game/level different each time he plays it.

But after all, multiplayer is still, to some extent, a social thing, just like movies. Some people want to experience a movie alone and take in each individual element, some people want to bring their friends so they can enjoy it together, and some people want to sample a little of both every once in a while.

In any case, Yahtzee isn't any more correct the other end of the spectrum, the people who feel that real gaming should be a challenge of skill and nothing else. It's idiots like those that tell developers to ignore making good stories, good graphics, or anything and focus solely on the "gameplay" aspect of a game with reckless disregard for any other point of view out there.

 

[Superior Mind]

I think if a game is Multiplayer alone then fine. BF1942 is still one of my favourite games as is TF2. However if a game includes a Single Player campaign there's nothing worse than it being half-arsed. Franchises that know the replayability lies in Multiplayer don't tend to create good Single Player games and opt for passable. I hate "passable", it's why I don't bother with CoD any more.

See Single Player campaigns have to be made with a bit more thought that Multiplayer games, that's a given. If a game advertises having both Single Player and Multiplayer and delivers a shit Single Player game with a decent Multiplayer one it's obvious that the entire game is half-arsed. Multiplayer's easy, Single Player, not so much. Therefore, in my opinion, if a game's Single Player doesn't stand up on it's own then the game overall will get a "meh" from me.

 

[Oliver Pink]

Well, here's my theory:

If a gaming series started out as a Single Player dominated series like Half Life 2 - they are obligated to focus more on making good single-player segments, with Multiplayer done only once the campaign is perfect.

If a series has always focused more on their Multi-player, like Unreal Tournament - they should focus on the multiplayer. (I am very much aware Unreal was SP mainly, but let's be honest, Unreal Tournament doesn't Need a story mode - it just needs big lads and rocket launchers.)

If the series has tried to balance both......... Well - that's where it gets tricky.
Take Halo for example -

I never played Halo for the multiplayer as I had no online access - all I could do is one-on-ones with my brother, and that got old Really fast. I played it for the frankly fun-as-beans Single-Player which I thoroughly enjoyed - same thing with Star-craft, which I always played for the Campaign, not for the elitist Multiplayer.

However, there are others who prefer the online stuff, perceiving the Campaign as secondary to the online multiplayer... Which is fine - but in those cases, if you start sacrificing the quality of the Campaign to make the multiplayer better, you're alienating the fans who don't give a hoot about online play.

Halo isn't the best example, because it Is a fun single-player game... Not the deepest game by far, but still fun.

It's a case-by-case thing, but these days, unless a game has a Great single-player, I'm unlikely to buy it for multiplayer alone... usually because I buy pretty obscure games, and there's never anyone online to game with - see [insert-obscure-multiplayer-indie-game-here].

 

[Oliver Pink]

I think if a game is Multiplayer alone then fine. BF1942 is still one of my favourite games as is TF2. However if a game includes a Single Player campaign there's nothing worse than it being half-arsed. Franchises that know the replayability lies in Multiplayer don't tend to create good Single Player games and opt for passable. I hate "passable", it's why I don't bother with CoD any more.

See Single Player campaigns have to be made with a bit more thought that Multiplayer games, that's a given. If a game advertises having both Single Player and Multiplayer and delivers a shit Single Player game with a decent Multiplayer one it's obvious that the entire game is half-arsed. Multiplayer's easy, Single Player, not so much. Therefore, in my opinion, if a game's Single Player doesn't stand up on it's own then the game overall will get a "meh" from me.

Curious that you use BF1942 as a 'multiplayer' example given that BF1942 HAD a single-player Campaign mode... not very advanced sure, but it was still there. I was Mortified that BF2 didn't have a campaign mode.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I think it depends on:
- What the developers promises before releasing the game.
- What you expect from the game.

For example, take a developer who promises an amazingly compelling singleplayer campaign with a solid multiplayer to boot. After the game releases it turns out that the singleplayer is very lackluster, but the multiplayer is as they promised. In that case, yes I'd say it can't stand on it's multiplayer alone.

But there are also games like UT99, TF2 and the Battlefield series. I don't think Valve promised a fantastic singleplayer experience when they were making TF2, same goes for EA and BF2.