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

[DevilWolf47]

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?

I agree with Yahtzee, but look at it from this perspective. Oftentimes in order to make room for the multiplayer, the single player was compromised and the main campaign lost a lot of it's charm. You also get a few games only suitable to have been released as DLC released as a full title simply because it introduced multiplayer. Multiplayer is only good if your console can go online, and a lot of people don't have that service. Additionally, how often do you see a revolutionary multiplayer game in a console title? It is so often just the same multiplayer with different characters.

If games are going to be released with multiplayer on the same DVD, taking up disk space that normally would have gone into expanding gameplay (Ideally), then people DEFINITELY need to raise the standard of multiplayer games.
As it stands, there seems to be absolutely no standard at all.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Ok look, I'll pay $30 for a multiplayer game, thats fine by me. But if they will charge $60 for a bad singleplayer but great multiplayer then I just overpayed by $30.

Example: TF2 is great (IMO) and BFBC2 is great (IMO again) but BFBC2 costs twice as much and has a terrible singleplayer I would never play. Portal on the other hand has no multiplayer and has great singleplayer so it stands on its own.

P.S. I know my logic is extremely flawed but this system works for me.

As I've said numerous times, $60 is overpriced for any game. It could be the best game in the world, but it wouldn't be worth more than $20 to me, and I really don't see how price even comes in to a discussion of the quality of a game. For example, I've heard really great things about Radiant Silvergun, but it's not worth $200 to me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't consider it an excellent game if I had any way of playing it, just that I'm not willing to pay the going rate. Same thing with Final Fantasy VII, which I absolutely love; the prices on Ebay are exorbitant, but that doesn't make me think any less of the game. This should apply to the prices of new games as well; the pricing really shouldn't play into it's quality as a game, just whether or not you're willing to buy it. I mean, would you dislike the game if someone gave it to you for free? If not, why would paying for it somehow make it worse?

 

[eelel]

Really the only reason I am playing Call of Duty Black Ops is because I find the single player interesting. That and my brother bought it so I don't have to pay for it. There are few games that I will buy just for the multy player. Really the only game I bought for the multy player was Teem Fortres 2 which will not play on my comp unfortunetly.

Ok look, I'll pay $30 for a multiplayer game, thats fine by me. But if they will charge $60 for a bad singleplayer but great multiplayer then I just overpayed by $30.

Example: TF2 is great (IMO) and BFBC2 is great (IMO again) but BFBC2 costs twice as much and has a terrible singleplayer I would never play. Portal on the other hand has no multiplayer and has great singleplayer so it stands on its own.

P.S. I know my logic is extremely flawed but this system works for me.

I don't know whther it is because I am drunk or what but what you said makes no sence to me. I understand why you complain about the price of old games but their price is based on demand and if you can sell your used copy of FFVIII for $70 than that is the price you will have to pay but new games need to make money so I don't blame the publishers charging $60 a pop. If the sold their games for what you say you value them at then they would make very litle money because of advertisment and production cause.

 

[Tdc2182]

Here's the thing.

No one bought Black Ops for its single player alone. Thats a fact.

We all bought it for its multiplayer. If I go out with full intention on buying Blops multiplayer experience which I will undoubtedly spend more time on then single player, then more power to me.

The single player is a plus (I did like it, BTW).

I am not Yahtzee. He doesn't need to tell me how to have fun, and whats worth my money.

 

[Olrod]

However, Final Fantasy X wasn't marketed as a sports game or even a Sports/RPG hybrid.

Games that are actually marketed as single-and-multiplayer games need to have single-and-multiplayer modes that work.

That's the biggest and most important issue with this whole situation, games that are marketed as having both modes, need to have both modes able to provide solid enjoyment of the game independently of each other.

Otherwise it's just false advertising, and any game that does this deserves any harsh criticism that it gets.

Let me let you in on a little secret: marketers lie. It's kind of their job, actually. Besides, in the vast majority of the games we're talking about, the hype was put behind the multiplayer, basically saying "look at all the stuff you can do online! Oh, and it also has a campaign, I guess." Either way, if you're relying on the marketing efforts of the people who make the games to tell you whether it's worth playing or not, that makes you a sucker. A little research goes a very long way when it comes to videogames, or anything that costs money, for that matter.

Indeed.

And critics critique.

Any game that gets harsh criticism due to not being a good game for whatever reason, especially when the consumer's expectations (due to the marketing) are not met, deserves that criticism.

If a game has both single and multiplayer modes, and one of those modes just isn't very good, then criticism is rightly deserved.

This is why many of us feel justified in being harsh towards games that have rubbish single-player modes when instead they could (and probably should) have been multiplayer-only.

 

[Legion IV]

Ok look, I'll pay $30 for a multiplayer game, thats fine by me. But if they will charge $60 for a bad singleplayer but great multiplayer then I just overpayed by $30.

Example: TF2 is great (IMO) and BFBC2 is great (IMO again) but BFBC2 costs twice as much and has a terrible singleplayer I would never play. Portal on the other hand has no multiplayer and has great singleplayer so it stands on its own.

P.S. I know my logic is extremely flawed but this system works for me.

I completly! disagree. I love singleplayer am a huge jrpg fan but. My heart lies in the heat of a the compition. I play fighting games like no tommorow and attend tournys.

Fighting games are ONLY multiplayer. Sure theres an aracde mode but thats it. its 60$ for a single multiplayer game mode 1v1 on fighting. Its ALL worth it.

A game should be priced on quality and depth of gameplay. If anyone here has actually played a fighter like really looked into one. You'll relize the insanme amount of depth in it.

Another good example. Armored core. What you get is like an 8 hour campaighn and multiplayer thats it. YET because the games story is so amazing. i've spent over 100 hours on the story. But i'd spend 60$ just for the multiplayer because of how insane it is. I dare somone to build an amazing Next from scratch with no online help for online mode. It takes a lot of thinking and the online atmosphere blends with the single player great.

sorry i rambled on there. A game based on multiplayer can be 60$. thats it if it has a ok story oh well they are all about multiplayer so hows that a problem?

I honestly think this site is just scared of multiplayer. I dont think anyone on this site could last 5 seconds in Armored Core For Answers online. mabey like 3 but thats it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

However, Final Fantasy X wasn't marketed as a sports game or even a Sports/RPG hybrid.

Games that are actually marketed as single-and-multiplayer games need to have single-and-multiplayer modes that work.

That's the biggest and most important issue with this whole situation, games that are marketed as having both modes, need to have both modes able to provide solid enjoyment of the game independently of each other.

Otherwise it's just false advertising, and any game that does this deserves any harsh criticism that it gets.

Let me let you in on a little secret: marketers lie. It's kind of their job, actually. Besides, in the vast majority of the games we're talking about, the hype was put behind the multiplayer, basically saying "look at all the stuff you can do online! Oh, and it also has a campaign, I guess." Either way, if you're relying on the marketing efforts of the people who make the games to tell you whether it's worth playing or not, that makes you a sucker. A little research goes a very long way when it comes to videogames, or anything that costs money, for that matter.

Indeed.

And critics critique.

Any game that gets harsh criticism due to not being a good game for whatever reason, especially when the consumer's expectations (due to the marketing) are not met, deserves that criticism.

If a game has both single and multiplayer modes, and one of those modes just isn't very good, then criticism is rightly deserved.

This is why many of us feel justified in being harsh towards games that have rubbish single-player modes when instead they could (and probably should) have been multiplayer-only.

But how many times have we established that, with the games in question, people would have to explicitly not pay attention to what they were buying to have the expectations you are assuming here? We're talking about series that are known for their multiplayer, played for their multiplayer and yes, primarily marketed for their multiplayer. The fact that they have an extra mode, one that clearly didn't take enough resources up to negatively impact the main draw, really shouldn't be seen as anything but a little bit of added value for the money.

Although, if you want to get into good things being advertised as something they're not, look no further than Blade Runner, which is widely regarded as one of the greatest films of all time. It was marketed as an action movie, which couldn't have been farther from the truth, but that clearly had no bearing on the quality of the actual work.

 

[Legion IV]

Also i'd like to ask one very important question.

It has NEVER EVER made sence how people here think that a single player only game is worth 60$. BUT a game with multiplayer as its MAIN focus with all iys effort into it isint worth 60$.

Just like to itterate. The escapist seems terrified of man to man fights. Fight the bot there easyier......

 

[Judgement101]

Ok look, I'll pay $30 for a multiplayer game, thats fine by me. But if they will charge $60 for a bad singleplayer but great multiplayer then I just overpayed by $30.

Example: TF2 is great (IMO) and BFBC2 is great (IMO again) but BFBC2 costs twice as much and has a terrible singleplayer I would never play. Portal on the other hand has no multiplayer and has great singleplayer so it stands on its own.

P.S. I know my logic is extremely flawed but this system works for me.

I completly! disagree. I love singleplayer am a huge jrpg fan but. My heart lies in the heat of a the compition. I play fighting games like no tommorow and attend tournys.

Fighting games are ONLY multiplayer. Sure theres an aracde mode but thats it. its 60$ for a single multiplayer game mode 1v1 on fighting. Its ALL worth it.

A game should be priced on quality and depth of gameplay. If anyone here has actually played a fighter like really looked into one. You'll relize the insanme amount of depth in it.

Another good example. Armored core. What you get is like an 8 hour campaighn and multiplayer thats it. YET because the games story is so amazing. i've spent over 100 hours on the story. But i'd spend 60$ just for the multiplayer because of how insane it is. I dare somone to build an amazing Next from scratch with no online help for online mode. It takes a lot of thinking and the online atmosphere blends with the single player great.

sorry i rambled on there. A game based on multiplayer can be 60$. thats it if it has a ok story oh well they are all about multiplayer so hows that a problem?

I honestly think this site is just scared of multiplayer. I dont think anyone on this site could last 5 seconds in Armored Core For Answers online. mabey like 3 but thats it.

That's extrodinarily opinionated. Depth of gameplay is determined by the one playing it. Most people say Borderlands isn't very "deep" but if you manage to get 4 people together and take on a boss where everyone is under leveled you get one of the deepest fights I've ever seen.

 

[Olrod]

But how many times have we established that, with the games in question, people would have to explicitly not pay attention to what they were buying to have the expectations you are assuming here? We're talking about series that are known for their multiplayer, played for their multiplayer and yes, primarily marketed for their multiplayer. The fact that they have an extra mode, one that clearly didn't take enough resources up to negatively impact the main draw, really shouldn't be seen as anything but a little bit of added value for the money.

Then why bother having a single player mode to begin with if you're not going to put any effort into it?

Either disregard the single player aspect of your multiplayer game, or put some effort into it if you don't want it to be harshly criticised for being exactly what it is: a tacked-on afterthought.

If multiplayer is one whole game in itself, and singleplayer is only half a game, together I don't consider the whole to be the sum of its parts, but the product of its parts.

In other words, it's not a case of 1 + 0.5 = 1.5, but a case of 1 * 0.5 = 0.5.

I would presume you disagree with my assessment, but all I ask is that you try to understand it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

But how many times have we established that, with the games in question, people would have to explicitly not pay attention to what they were buying to have the expectations you are assuming here? We're talking about series that are known for their multiplayer, played for their multiplayer and yes, primarily marketed for their multiplayer. The fact that they have an extra mode, one that clearly didn't take enough resources up to negatively impact the main draw, really shouldn't be seen as anything but a little bit of added value for the money.

Then why bother having a single player mode to begin with if you're not going to put any effort into it?

Either disregard the single player aspect of your multiplayer game, or put some effort into it if you don't want it to be harshly criticised for being exactly what it is: a tacked-on afterthought.

If multiplayer is one whole game in itself, and singleplayer is only half a game, together I don't consider the whole to be the sum of it's parts, but the product of it's parts.

In other words, it's not a case of 1 + 0.5 = 1.5, but a case of 1 * 0.5 = 0.5.

Then we are coming from different worlds, and we aren't going to agree on anything. For me it's most definitely 1+0.5 = 1.5.

 

[magwaaf]

ah the reason modern warfare 2 sucks!

seriously tho, i really hate games that feature both and the single player sucks. if the game has to rely on other players to be any good than it's a bad game. the only exceptions are games that are made SOLELY for multiplayer like TF2

 

[likalaruku]

I solo in multiplayer games (partly because you'll be hard pressed to meet anyone who types slower than I do). & I've never bothered with the multiplayer that comes with single player games (partly because my computer chugs every time a group of non NPCs crosses my path).

 

[Savagezion]

I honestly think this site is just scared of multiplayer. I dont think anyone on this site could last 5 seconds in Armored Core For Answers online. mabey like 3 but thats it.

I agree. I think the site has a lot of sore losers though not necessarily poor players. Additionally, anti-social tendencies. Kind of strange for a forum when you think about it. It makes sense when you see the amount of people that trash talk multiplayer. I sometimes wonder if I am matched up with any escapists when I play BlOps. The other day I saw a guy named GameInformer. Killed him twice and then didn't see him much after that.

 

[Savagezion]

But how many times have we established that, with the games in question, people would have to explicitly not pay attention to what they were buying to have the expectations you are assuming here? We're talking about series that are known for their multiplayer, played for their multiplayer and yes, primarily marketed for their multiplayer. The fact that they have an extra mode, one that clearly didn't take enough resources up to negatively impact the main draw, really shouldn't be seen as anything but a little bit of added value for the money.

Then why bother having a single player mode to begin with if you're not going to put any effort into it?

Either disregard the single player aspect of your multiplayer game, or put some effort into it if you don't want it to be harshly criticised for being exactly what it is: a tacked-on afterthought.

If multiplayer is one whole game in itself, and singleplayer is only half a game, together I don't consider the whole to be the sum of its parts, but the product of its parts.

In other words, it's not a case of 1 + 0.5 = 1.5, but a case of 1 * 0.5 = 0.5.

I would presume you disagree with my assessment, but all I ask is that you try to understand it.

By that logic one could just as easily make the arguement that a game with multiplayer and singleplayer should have to be able to stand on it's multiplayer alone. 1(SP) * 0.5(MP) still equals 0.5

Seriously, there are 3-5 games that use this approach to development. Why is everyone bitching that those 3-5 exist?

Especially, when they topping sales charts as well as bringing gaming to the forefront of pop-culture.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

I'll say this as an aside:

Phantasy Star Universe has a god awful single player, and was always designed as a multiplayer game.

 

[DarkChoclate]

...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.

Me personally, I liked it, but it didn't matter if it was really as good as people said it was. Because just because of that statement i made, people thought it was good, amazing even. A lot of people thought like this, and within that thought lies profit. So publishers obviously took advantage of it and kept remaking property like it. Like we've all seen world war 2 genre of video games beaten to death for its worth. But your still going to see games of it because it made money.

 

[Bang25]

I always thought that Yahtzee didn't hate multiplayer, but that he thought that games should focus on either single player, or multiplayer alone. Working between both would just make them both mediocre. For example, Bioshock was a great game and absolutly WOULD NOT be improved with multiplayer. Team Fortress 2 is also a great game, but that's because it was created with the sole intention of it being played as a multiplayer game, and if it had included a single player campaign then the whole game would have suffered for it.
I thought Yahtzee's mindset was along the lines of: If a game includes single player, then the single player campaign should be good, otherwise it should just be a multiplayer game. If a game attempts to appeal to both single player's and multiplayer's then they should both be equally fun. (Just imagine this being delivered in a funny and possibly obscene metaphor.)

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

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"?

Isn't it obvious enough that I was referring to a campaign mode?
Do I really have to explain?

I actually think that "Tutorial vs. New Game" line is an excellent point.

EDIT: You do realize that he is stating that most players use the campaign as a "tutorial" to prepare for online multiplayer, right?

He can't know that for certain, that isn't a fact.
I might as well state that most people here don't play it for tutorial, I can't know that, it isn't a fact.

I can for certain say that SOME of them do.
And people playing single player as a tutorial doesn't automatically change the single player INTO a tutorial mode anymore than anybody that plays the single player for the romantic scenes makes the single player a porno.

Sorry, doesn't work that way, it still remains a single player, not a tutorial, however you may treat it, it is not it's purpose.

Unless the actual title WAS in fact, tutorial.

The fact remains that, on the games in question, the single player is a bonus given for added value, the way multiplayer used to be on pretty much every game that had it. What's so bad about allowing games like that to exist? We aren't saying you have to play them.

If it is a bonus value, it HAS to be good, people play these games JUST for that you know.
Single player always has to be good, because there are people who only review that part.
Multiplayer must also always be good but because OTHER people review only that.

My point is that if they add single player then it has to be good because that is what the game's setting is based all around on, if it isn't good then that is what it is saying for the game, not good.

If it was a multiplayer exclusive that doesn't want to focus on the setting of the game and can't be too bothered with that then it should have had an offline bot mode instead of a story driven campaign. If single player story wasn't meant to be what makes the game good then there shouldn't have been one in the first place.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

I always thought that Yahtzee didn't hate multiplayer, but that he thought that games should focus on either single player, or multiplayer alone. Working between both would just make them both mediocre. For example, Bioshock was a great game and absolutly WOULD NOT be improved with multiplayer. Team Fortress 2 is also a great game, but that's because it was created with the sole intention of it being played as a multiplayer game, and if it had included a single player campaign then the whole game would have suffered for it.
I thought Yahtzee's mindset was along the lines of: If a game includes single player, then the single player campaign should be good, otherwise it should just be a multiplayer game. If a game attempts to appeal to both single player's and multiplayer's then they should both be equally fun. (Just imagine this being delivered in a funny and possibly obscene metaphor.)

This is exactly what I think, if it is meant to only have good multiplayer then it shouldn't have had single player.