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

[Criquefreak]

Can't really think of any times I've played a game that had both single and multiplayer modes that I'd honestly believe the two were actually the same game.

It's generally a bad idea to try and mechanically span both single and multiplayer games with one system. Similar's fine, but they're just two different game play styles no matter how much they'll ever have in common and will need wholly different mechanics in places. Might as well just sell them separate from one another or pick one on purchase and unlock the other as downloadable content if you really have an interest in both.

As for those games which have an obvious preference as to which they are, they should just focus whole-heartedly on it and either toss the other or work on it as a separate game or an upgrade option for later. The development costs and times alone would probably cut ten or twenty off the sale price and whole months from the release date.

 

[Jaidenator]

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].

My thoughts exactly

 

[Anathemic One]

Certain games and franchises are multiplayer focused. Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, fighting games... in my opinion those games shouldn't be judged poorly if they have a mediocre single-player, because it's obvious to anyone that's paying attention that single-player wasn't the focus of the game.

FYI StarCraft, StarCraft: Brood War, StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty, do not have mediocre single player campaigns...

 

[Abseith]

The way i see it a good campaign always makes a game sure a good multiplayer can help but if i dont enjoy the story enough i usually dont feel the need to go online and see the same maps a hundred times over

COD so far has been the only exception to this for me campaign was a little lacking but the multiplayer is enjoyable enough for me to go back to but i would never rate the game high purely because i got so bored of the campaign i let my girlfriend play it for me cos i couldnt be botherd with it

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The notion that a game must stand on singleplayer alone is pretentious garbage. Traditionally, games have been multiplayer affairs. Some of the first known video games were ancient precursors to MUDs and MOOs (which themselves are the precursors to MMORPGs). Games like Pinball were asynchronous multiplayer games (you play alone but you compete with others through High Score). For well over a decade, the height of video game technology and the beating heart of the industry lay in arcades that featured traditional multiplayer along with various takes on the asynchronous games.

As the world transitioned to consoles, plenty of games retained couch play and asynchronous multiplayer as well while the Arcade culture continued to thrive. Eventually, as technology progressed, it became more reasonable to rely on methods other than local multiplayer to get the experience and at long last the Arcades began to dwindle in significance.

Multiplayer has always been a part of games - an incredibly significant part. The presumption that play, a social activity must be judged on it's merits for a single participant who plays in isolation is silly. All games are multiplayer affairs. Even when you construct a presumably single player game, various systems and constructs take the part of the other players.

To assert that we must ignore parts of a game because of silly nonsense like "convenience" and "technical hurdles" is laughable. These things ought to be judged by their own merits, not upon some theoretical set of circumstances that might happen. That is what we call "projection", and given the source of the argument in this case I feel confident enough that we can dismiss that sort of crap given that he is perfectly willing to do the same.

More importantly, to judge a game poorly because it failed to do something it never intended to accomplish is folly. Should I judge Schindler's List poorly because it was a terrible action film? Should I judge Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid a poor book because it wasn't a supernatural thriller? Most reasonable people would say that such complaints were absurd. Much the same that if I complained Morrowind was a terrible game because I couldn't play with other people or that Quake 3 wasn't worth playing because it's single player component was entirely insubstantial.

 

[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?

"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."

If you look back on the part right before you quoted me I say "games" and the fact that if halo was a bad fps, the multiplayer would have gone to shit. What makes it the shooter that it is? Games like Wolfenstein and Doom (I'm looking at you >_> -->Owyn_Merrilin)halo just came to mine, and last time I check its not a bad example. You can prove me wrong but hey i tried.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I just wanted to see if you had pulled it out of your arse or if you actually thought it was a good multiplayer game. I thought it was, but these days most of the people who I ask or hear the opinions of on multiplayer either say:
" CoD is the best. Halo is shit"
Or
" TF2 is the best. Halo is shit"

Just wanted to make sure you actually thought that and didn't imply it by accident.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I agree with Yahtzee's quote for 1 simple reason. Unless the multiplayer works like CoD: Black Ops then it can NOT stand on multiplayer at all, because in years to come multiplayer will be left and the servers closed. Because of this I can not say "This game has an awesome multiplayer but horrible single player, I will get it" because when I get a game I would like to be able to enjoy playing it ANYTIME, not just before everyone leaves it.

Yet there are some great multiplayer only games, like L4D and TF2, however what happens when people stop playing TF2 and valve closes the servers to save money and be able to open servers for MORE multiplayer games? Well then TF2 was just a waste of money at that put and you might as well just delete it off your PC/Use your disc as a frisbee. If games take Black ops idea and make a multiplayer playable via AI's (And I use Black ops because TF2 only allowed AI's to be used on the PC version, so that doesn't count.) then the game can NOT stand unless it's single player is good.

This illustrates an interesting point and yet it is an utterly obvious one many have missed. For a game to be considered "good", it must be a good game. One can make a good multiplayer only game just as one can make a good dedicated single player experience.

Unfortunately, where this argument jumps the tracks is largely in the theoretical space and questions "What happens when something keeps you from playing". Such a question has no basis because the future will guarantee you will eventually be unable to play any of these games regardless of support and more importantly because events in the future do nothing to detract from the game of the present.

 

[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.

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)

I don't look DOWN when it has good multiplayer but bad single player, but the single player is meant to show you what the game is about, what the story and setting is, what the weapons are and where they came from, it is basically there to tell you what the game is all about.

If it is done bad, then it is just really losing points with me.

 

[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.

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.

As I said earlier in another post, the single player is there to explain the story of the game, the setting, where the weapons come from, why they are there, what the characters are doing, etc. It tells me what the game is using to identify itself, if the game was not meant to be identified in such a way then it shouldn't have single player at all but rather a multiplayer mode with bots.

I love multiplayer, I love how it can increase a game's longevity, but if it has single player with a story then I am assuming that this is the big introduction to tell me what the game is all about, then it has to be good, multiplayer is only there to increase how long the game will be played after you finished single player and is in my opinion therefor not necessarily unimportant but just not as much as the single player.

 

[Nouw]

Battlefield:Bad Company and Starcraft 2 begs to differ. Both lacked in Campaign strength( for me and others ) but the multiplayer is much, much better. More so for Bad Company, Starcraft 2 is meh >.>

 

[Craig Cameron]

We can all argue either side of this debate until we're blue in the face because as it stands both sides have a solid argument.

I would like to put it to both sides that if a game chooses to have both multiplayer and single player then it should be able to stand on either leg. We all hate when a game with a great single player has terrible multiplayer and vice versa. So we should all agree that no matter our personal opinion on how games should be, that none of us appreciate when a mode is simply tacked on to appeal to the other side.

For example. The Battlefield series, games which were made to be played online or over lan with a lot of people, the heart of every battlefield game is multiplayer, we all know this. Then came the xbox 360, with it's huge following of multiplayer gamers, so they released Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, it seemed like a good idea, but they decided to tack on a single player element but ignored all form of story or characterisation, they simply gave the player an objective and a bunch of bots to play with. This made for a terrible game, which is why most people will have forgotten it.

My point is that while it's not impossible to make a game that can stand on both single player and multiplayer, it is difficult and one will always suffer slightly because of it.

So yes, if a game has a single player campaign and it can't stand alone on it, it is a bad game even if the multiplayer is great not only because the majority of gamers will have their opinion coloured by the single player but because neither multiplayer or single player should be an afterthought.

 

[Kimarous]

To all of you who tout Team Fortress 2, I raise you Chromehounds. It was a great game that stood entirely on multiplayer... and it is dead. Its servers are gone. It has ceased to be a great game. Was it a bad game? No, but it has become one. It has failed to stand the test of time and has become bargain-bin waste that nobody will ever play again.

I up this with Halo 2. How long did the community struggle to keep the servers from going down? As valiant as their fight was, they could not maintain it forever. It, like many others, has effectively lost its multiplayer component forever. Oh, people loved it when it worked, but who is going to pick it up now besides die-hard fans of the game's story?

Is a game bad if it cannot stand upon single-player alone? No, it is not bad. It is, however, doomed to die a slow, painful death. No matter how much people love it now, they will move on to greener pastures in time; the community will fade and the once great game will collapse into a barren waste. Great multiplayer games like Chromehounds or Halo 2 simply cannot match the lasting glory of a good single-player game.

 

[kurtzy23]

A game needs to stand up on its singleplayer alone. Buying a game just for multiplayer is about the equivelent of buying a book and only reading the blurb on the back of it.

 

[Indecipherable]

A game needs to stand up on its singleplayer alone. Buying a game just for multiplayer is about the equivelent of buying a book and only reading the blurb on the back of it.

So what about all those people that bought Counterstrike.

Some people have very, very closed minds.

 

[Hunter65416]

Im gonna go with it should be able to stand up on single player alone because not everyone has internet access..well in some parts of Africa anyway

 

[GrinningManiac]

Multiplayer games (TF2 etc) stand up based on their multiplayer

Singleplayer games (Assassain's Creed) stand up based on their singleplayer

If the SP in an MP game is good, hooray! Likewise the other way around

But if, say, Assassain's Creed Brotherhood's singleplayer sucked, what would be the point?

 

[Eponet]

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

What about if the menu said "Tutorial" instead of "New Game"?