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

[badgersprite]

Well, there are a lot of people (like myself) who are likely not going to touch multiplayer. So, if you're advertising it as a single player campaign first, then that's really all some of us are ever going to be able to judge these games on.

 

[voetballeeuw]

I don't think it's necessary for a game with multiplayer to have a stellar single player experience. I like the COD games and the sp is mediocre at best but they shine in the MP department.

 

[ManInRed]

Saying "a game needs to standup on single player alone" is as unfair as saying "a game needs to standup on multiplayer alone." In both cases, you are invalidating games that do not carter to a particle form of game play. Some games are meant to be multiplaying games, like fighting games, driving games, strategy games, MMO games, and card games. Some games are meant to be single player, like adventure games, metroidvania games, horror games, and many platformers, hack & slash, and RPG games.

But then there are games that are developed to be both a single and multiplayer game. This is seen in many shooters, sport games, puzzle games, music games, Co-op games, and competitive RPG games like Pokemon. These games often have two types of game play to judge, which can make it tricky to do fairly as it's often impossible to compare single player game play to multiplayer game play.

Considering this, I have no problem with a critic stating he'll only judge a game based on single player mode. However, this means he cannot reasonably review the solely multiplayer games I listed, and will probably focus more on reviewing the purely single player games listed. There will obviously be some controversy on whether a game with both single and multiplayer modes was meant to be judge on single player mode at all, but for the most part this avoids more conflict than a critic who unfairly compares single player games to multiplayer games.

 

[major28]

i like chicken enchilladas

 

[GLo Jones]

I absolutely adored the Shadowrun FPS, but so many people attacked it because the only single player was just 'multiplayer vs bots'.

If FASA hadn't collapsed thanks to the initial backlash, and had been able to actually update the game 'ala' TF2, I'd probably still be playing it to this day.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

Somewhat agree, since I HATED Transformers War for Cybertron's single player. Its boring and easy, online on the other hand is one of the best this year. I wouldnt have bought it for 60 though instead the $35 dollars I spent is great.

But if a game is ever online only (MAG/Shadow Run) I wont pick it up for a while if at all.

 

[Ashbax]

a mediocre game that tried to do both singleplayer and multiplayer.

I just stopped reading the tl;dr topic right here and started thinking 'CoD CoD CoD CoD CoD CoD CODCODCODCOD'

 

[DarkChoclate]

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?[/quot

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?

Almost every multiplayer can argued to be "tacked on". You know why? I'll start like this. shooters have been basically copying some of the first shooters that established the genre like Wolfenstein or Doom. (don't crucify me if those are bad examples)So shooters then copied their basic gameplay elements. Now, look at what game(or games) really had the first success and defined multiplayer. I think halo is a prime example. So with developers and publishers looking at Halo and saying "that really works" they basically copied that design. Sure there are differences with story, setting, weapon design, etc., but a lot of it obviously ties back to that original design. Yeah there can and are so new innovations to them, but these ideas get copied too, like perks for say. Outside the shooters too, like with pc games (I'm looking at you World of Warcraft clones)just fall along the line of same shit, different smell. Oh yeah i can't really speak for rts's cause i'm not really big on them so i don't know.

And you really didn't listen to Yahtzee's argument. I know you didn't exactly mean it like he hates all people or most. But if your calling him out on not liking people, then call me Hitler cause I fucking hate a lot of the people online with any games. Warcraft, Call of duty, Halo, you name it, they have assholes. And that was sort of Yahtzee's point. Developers and Publishers can't really be responsible for them and how they affect your experience. I mean the guy threatening to skull fuck my mom because I made one itsy bitsy mistake or the annoying ten year old who thinks he's "the man" and wont shut hell up about how cool he thinks he is and throws a hissy fit when anyone disagrees, or the fact I can't actually get anything done because people refuse to cooperate. Company's can't do anything about that, I mean, think about after a year or two when the next Monster Power House Call of duty game comes out? Smaller games might not even have the population to be properly played. Can you really judge the game then? And finally what about when call of duty just becomes boring? (What? it could happen...)Sure there will be people who refuse to let go but will the game be good then?


As a disclaimer or whatever, I'm not really complaining about these thing, well I am... But I accept them because people are going to keep being assholes, and I can play with people I actually know to avoid some hate, but I still completely agree with Yahtzee.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Tribes 2 was all the proof I needed that Yahtzee is full of it.
Of course from a review perspective single player works better, because multiplayer doesn't offer as much content to criticize since it's meant to be replayed over and over again.
That doesn't mean it cannot satisfy the average player's requirement for entertainment.

 

[MrJKapowey]

...I think halo is a prime example. So with developers and publishers looking at Halo and saying "that really works" they basically copied that design. Sure there are differences with story, setting, weapon design, etc., but a lot of it obviously ties back to that original design. Yeah there can and are so new innovations to them, but these ideas get copied too, like perks for say...

So with that statement you say that HALO is one of the only original games with multiplayer?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

...I think halo is a prime example. So with developers and publishers looking at Halo and saying "that really works" they basically copied that design. Sure there are differences with story, setting, weapon design, etc., but a lot of it obviously ties back to that original design. Yeah there can and are so new innovations to them, but these ideas get copied too, like perks for say...

So with that statement you say that HALO is one of the only original games with multiplayer?

Seriously. Doom had multiplayer for cryin' out loud.

 

[JoshGod]

As long as something in the game is worth the price tag i don't care, unless it's focus is offline co-op. Surely there are others out there who like both single and multiplayer, however i would prefere a focus on on just one, as the other will be a waste for many people and each part will drag the other down.

 

[Netrigan]

...I think halo is a prime example. So with developers and publishers looking at Halo and saying "that really works" they basically copied that design. Sure there are differences with story, setting, weapon design, etc., but a lot of it obviously ties back to that original design. Yeah there can and are so new innovations to them, but these ideas get copied too, like perks for say...

So with that statement you say that HALO is one of the only original games with multiplayer?

I amused myself one day by checking out the MP entry at the Halo Wiki and figuring out where they got all their MP modes. Fan mods was the #1 answer, Unreal Tournament scored a few hits, and I think LucasArts managed a mention with a variation on "Kill The Fool With The Chicken".

 

[FlyAwayAutumn]

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...

Polls take away from the discussion that happens in the thread because people tend to vote and not post at all.

OT: I like multiplayer focused games and campaign focused games, not both. I'd rather a developer make up their mind and focus solely on one or the other. That way the one they focus on (hopefully) is better for getting more attention. Thusly we have more above average multiplayer or campaign games and not average/mediocre multiplayer and campaign games.

 

[Alphavillain]

If games have any putative claim to being "works of art" they have to tell stories, hence a single-player component, and a strong one at that.

Multiplayer is a lazy way for developers to extend the life of a game without being creative. Plus I don't like playing with or against people online, because so many people are dicks online, including me.

 

[Grey_Focks]

Eh, I had a whole rant forming in my head as I started reading the posts, but really there is no point. I'll just say that Yahtzee is wrong, judging a primarily multiplayer based game (Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield, etc..) solely on it's single player is just "pants-on-head retarded", people need to get with the modern age where multiplayer is more than just an "add-on".

 

[Ophi]

I, personally, prefer a game to stand on single player.

However, I realize that games with a focus on multiplayer are NOT automatically bad games.

It's just not my taste; people out there DO like multiplayer oriented games.

Just because I wouldn't buy them doesn't make them bad.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

To me a game can stand on either a multiplayer or singleplayer basis. As long as it is good!

And even better combine the two, the Halo games actually do a good job at this (esspecially Reach). Not many games encourage multiplayer in their story mode that provide the same experiance as playing the singleplayer. This is something Bungie do well, it is just a shame that other developers can not do this.

 

[Gothtasical]

i would assume not seeing as most fps focus on multiplayer while still having a descent interesting campaign the single player alone is not worth 60$ or 70ish euro idk if i'm right on the exchange rate but most fps need multiplayer otherwise no one would buy them

 

[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.

also my veiw on this isn't influenced by yahtzee I just simply agree with him on this, If I agreed with everyhting that guy said then I would hate every game I played and thats just no fun (I know he dose this for enertainment...but you never know with him)

Sorry, I should've worded my post a lot better, I was addressing people in general that spews out the exact words that Yahtzee says when in an argument. Not saying that you yourself do this as well.