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

[Spineyguy]

I agree to a certain extent, regardless of the 'Hurr durr Modern warfare 2's the best geam evar' crowd, marketing games solely on their multi-player is not a good way of serving the community. Selling a game like TF2 for £15 or as part of the orange Box for £20 means that you sell people half a game for half the price of a game, which works out. Selling a game whose only appeal is as an online multiplayer mode for £50 is just stupid.

What's worse is that people will buy it. The only reason Activision make such obscene amounts of money is because so much of the gaming demographic are quite happy to pay £34 for a game at release, knowing that they only want it for the multiplayer. I shall relay a typical conversation on this topic.

Person A: Are you going to buy CoD: Black Ops?

Person B: Probably not. I don't see the appeal.

Person A: I hear the multiplayer is good.

Person B: Isn't the multiplayer going to be exactly the same as Modern warfare's.

Person A: Well, there'll be new maps, but pretty much.

Person B: What about the single player campaign, is that any good?

Person A: It has single-player?

No, no, no, no, NO! This is not why you should buy games! Please, stop giving your souls to developers who do this (and I don't just mean Activision) and buy proper games that are sold for their real value!

 

[zombays]

I wanted a single player campaign on Team Fortress 2, or failing that how bout multiplayer with AI bots?

Already done...

 

[chaos order]

to be completely honest i NVR EVER play the multiplayer until i beat the single player campaign. idk i just feel bad if i dont play the single player for some reason

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I've never liked the "If you don't like it, don't play!" line that people spew so often.

If there is a problem with a game, running from it by telling people who point it out to leave won't fix it.

I think games should be able to run on single-player but I understand that multi-player is important to some people (not me though). I think Left 4 Dead is probably the best counter-example against Yahtzee's argument, as I dislike PvP in general and 90% of multi-player seems to be made of PvP, but L4D has a team based style which seems to do what single-player does better. But such examples are rare and overall I agree with Yahtzee in that single-player should be able to hold up a game on its own.

The thing is, we aren't talking about a problem with a game so much as a game focusing on something that some individuals don't like, but many others do. As long as there are games that do focus on the parts you like, there's no reason to complain about something that other people like.

Well, I dislike naggers and whiners as much as the next person, and I think I understand where you're coming from. But ultimately, I still agree with Yahtzee in that if a game has a single-player campaign and it isn't a short tutorial to get a player ready for multi-player, then it should be able to be a decent game with only the single-player.

 

[josh the pokemon]

In the end, it all comes down to personal preference what you really want out of a game.
As for me, I 100% completely agree with Yahtzee. When I play a game if the single player is bad there is absolutely no way the multiplayer can ever save it in my eyes.

 

[Savagezion]

What are the single player fans so worked up about? I enjoy both single player and multiplayer in games. But this argument that a game that only offers multiplayer should be half price doesn't hold merit because you could flip it and say the same thing about a game that only has single player.

I plan on buying BlOps solely for the multiplayer. Yeah, I might play through the campaign at some point. But that isn't why I am buying it, and that isn't what most of the people who did buy it bought it for. That game sold due to its multiplayer focus. You might be able to argue that story for Halo Reach but not BlOps. Playing CoD online has became a staple somewhat, in America at least. I somehow doubt CoD's recent crap stories are favored much overseas. People need to realize that it would be a bad thing for gaming if all games were held to 1 person's standards. If you like single player focused FPS's or games there is a LARGE market out there for you. If you like games built solely focused on multiplayer you will quickly find it is a very small market. I would even go so far as to say that is WHY CoD and Battlefield are so huge. They are some of the few titles out there that do focus solely on the multiplayer and they are aware that is what most of their player base is more concerned with. If they weren't correct, how are they getting more and more successful the more they focus on it?

 

[Geekosaurus]

No. Look at Left 4 Dead - they're basically online-only games. I'd much rather developers spent more time perfecting the multiplayer rather than wasting time making a lacklustre single player.

 

[bojac6]

For example, has anyone on this forum played a multiplayer match in Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II recently?

Actually, yes. Steam just sold it for like 50 cents (I picked up the full Dark Forces pack for 5 bucks) and played some multiplayer. I was surprised by the number of people on it. (I mean, less than a few hundred, but still, surprising for a 10 year old game.)

Your point is valid, though, communities die out pretty quick for some games.

 

[thegamermn]

I don't think that's entirely true. Sure, if you have a game that includes both single-player and multi-player (And I mean a single-player storyline, not the battlefield sort of single-player) Then yes, a game should have a good enough single-player campaign that it can succeed with just that, and have multi-player that's good enough that players will keep coming back for more. However if a game is geared towards multiplayer and online play:Then that's just fine, so long as the multiplayer works.

 

[C95J]

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.

Yeah, when it first started, now some games are much more centred around multiplayer because much more people prefer to play the multiplayer rather than the single player. If you know the game is centred around multiplayer, but still bought the game hoping for an excellent single player campaign then complained when it didn't, then don't you think that is pretty stupid?

Single player USED to be more important than multiplayer in some games, now it is the opposite way around, and game developers would naturally want the largest amount of people happy with their game, which is why they focus more on multiplayer. What's to say that single player is still better than multiplayer anyway?

Just because the single player is not top class does not mean it is a bad game, just not the right game for you.

 

[supermariner]

i agree with the statement
very little effort needs to go into multiplayer compared to the campaign
other players do the work for them
plus usually after a few months online multiplayer for a lot of games becomes a ghost-town leaving you with only the campaign left anyway
so for me, if the campaign is crappy, i don't bother with the game

 

[SilverUchiha]

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.

If you know anything about Yahtzee (I did some reading a while back), he used to be really big into TF2 until they started making a lot of changes and he hadn't been playing in a while, so the many changes really fucked him up a bit. Plus he liked Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 (mostly) and they are BIG in the ways of CO-OP. So I don't think he outright HATES multiplayer games.

I think his issue with Multiplayer-heavy or Multiplayer-focused games (and I understand and agree with his points if I'm right) is that they take away from the experience he likes in games. It's the same deal with motion-controls. He's the type of person who likes to kick back and relax with his games. But if he has to deal with several other people in a game, then it becomes relaxing and a bit more frustrating because you have dickheads teabagging you while you're trying to enjoy the game. There are quite a few games (like I mentioned) that seem to not earn Yahtzee's scorn for being focused on multiplayer. It could be because they are Valve games and we all know how much he loves Valve. Maybe because Team Fortress is essentially a mod while Left 4 Dead is just a more mature Multiplayer experience (or at least I think so cuz I have yet to see anyone teabagging people in it).

I don't know. This is mostly speculation. But I do know that he doesn't hate ALL multiplayer games. There are a few that he seems to enjoy for whatever reason.

 

[Da Joz]

A game should have a strong multiplayer or single player mode. For those that like multiplayer they could get the multiplayer games and for those that want single player they could get the single player games. I fall into the latter category myself.

 

[Lunar Shadow]

I do believe that qualifier that the game HAS a SP. If it has one it should stand on the merit of that instead of hiding behind a half assed SP to drum up sales.

 

[Deleted]

The quote is destroyed by entire genres like fighting games, racing games, RTS games, and arena shooters. I think he means games with both single and multiplayer...?

Not everything he says is to be taken seriously anyways, he's more of a comedy dude than a reviewer.

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

I don't play CoD for it's story anymore. I liked MW 1's story but after that I only played for the Multiplayer.

 

[Demodeus]

Well, 2 of my 3 favorite games ever were Multiplayer only so..
But I do agree that theres not enough singleplayer games out there. I actually preferred playing the campaign mode of many popular multiplayer games (for example Call of Duty, Starcraft/Warcraft3, Crysis, etc), but however good a games design is, it just cant stand against a well designed game that you play with other people because they just add a lot to the game. (Unless its an epic game of awesomeness like Epic's Unreal 1)

 

[astrav1]

Games like Team Fortress 2, the older Battlefield games, and Counter-Strike don't even need single player campaigns. However, games like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor need to put more work into the campaigns since they were originally meant to be single player games. If the put some work into the Campaign then they have to make it the top priority.