Is bad single player excusable?

[TheSteeleStrap]

If we're talking about a review, don't we have to weigh every aspect of the game? Games like Assassin's Creed and Dead Space are great for their single player, but do have multiplayer aspects. Are we not to mention multiplayer at all if we are talking about every aspect of the game?

At the end of the day, it's still weighted towards the preference of the reviewer - if the reviewer isn't bothered by the lacklustre single-player, said reviewer will rate it higher.

That's true, it's all based on the reviewer's personal experience.

 

[evilneko]

Hm, nope. If you're gonna have single player do it right or don't do it at all.

 

[Iwata]

People buy games for both Multiplayer and Single Player. I'm firmly in the Single Player camp, and when stuff like, say, "Brink" happens, I get annoyed that I spent money on a game whose idea of Single Player is just a Multiplayer match against bots.

So, no, it's not. Single Player should be the main focus, with few exceptions.

this is what annoys me about things Like borderlands, putting multiplayer..even co-op in isnt always simple and you end up with "yeah you can play single player..but your doing it wrong" some peopel have this obsession with "combining" the experence (look at dark souls!) they say...but when the muliplayer dies out what are you left with?

hence why Im kind of annoyed at talk of Dead space 3 having co-op

I understand.

Practical example: I'm a HUGE fan of the Syndicate games, as well as most Bullfrog games. I was over-excited about the new game, and it was a day-1 purchase for me. But then people started saying how the game's really only good once you play co-op, and that the campaign is kinda iffy.

And it went from Day-1 purchase, to I-still-don't-own-it-nor-will-I-own-it-until-it's-dirt-cheap.

 

[Vault101]

I understand.

Practical example: I'm a HUGE fan of the Syndicate games, as well as most Bullfrog games. I was over-excited about the new game, and it was a day-1 purchase for me. But then people started saying how the game's really only good once you play co-op, and that the campaign is kinda iffy.

And it went from Day-1 purchase, to I-still-don't-own-it-nor-will-I-own-it-until-it's-dirt-cheap.

really? the

"being turned into a big dumb generic shooter" didnt turn you off?

Id love to see another theme hospital

 

[pilouuuu]

No. It's not. I couldn't care less about multiplayer. Single player is the reason I play games.

 

[daveman247]

It can only be acceptable if one is phenominal. You can have a great single player, and crappy multiplayer and vice-versa. Put not if both are average. If both are great then good times.

 

[dyre]

Inform one self and then purchase.

If you are buying for the single player inform yourself about the quality of the single player.
If you are buying for the multi player inform yourself about the quality of the multi player.

If you are buying for a combo, then inform yourself about both.

Buy a game for the features you value, and not for the features you dont value. Yes bad single player is excusable. You just need to sell it to the right people. In the end the reviewer shouldn't put an over all number on the thing. They should inform the potential customer of the games flaws and strengths so the customer can make an informed decision based on his values rather than the reviewers.

What this guy said. It looks like most of the Escapist (myself included) is in the pro-single player camp, but in the end everyone has their own priorities and should find out how well games cater to those priorities.

It would be silly of me to play Torchlight, be disappointed about the lack of good plot/characters, and ask "is a lack of plot/characters excusable?"

 

[K_Dub]

OC, you make it sound like the reviewer didn't take into account the story at all. I watched their review, and they certainly did. But they decided that as lack luster as the single player campaign was, it didn't effect their overall enjoyment of the game. Which leads to my main point:

If a game has strong gameplay, an interesting game mechanic, or excellent multiplayer, then I feel that yes, a poor single player campaign story is forgivable. Personally, I play most games for the story, but I also tend to come across games with awful stories and stupendous gameplay that I simply enjoy. Perfect example is Prototype. I couldn't have cared less about the story. It failed to fully grab my attention and stay interesting. However, the gameplay was so fun that I couldn't put it down!

 

[Shoggoth2588]

It should be like a meal. The single player is the main course. The multiplayer and extras are the dessert and such. If the main course tastes like ass, then you won't eat the rest of the food. If the single player sucks, then the rest of its goodies (like multiplayer) shouldn't help bring it up. Think about the people who don't play the multiplayer.

I believe this should be the case.

That being said however, Left 4 Dead is the only example of a game where the main focus is multiplayer and yet playing the game alone is just as fun is a little more frustrating and, challenging.

Another factor to consider is that fewer and fewer games offer single-player settings in multiplayer modes ie: bot-matches. The lose of local multiplayer is also a factor to be considered as both increase a games overall longevity. Bot-Matches, like those found in Duke Nukem 64, TF2 (on PC/Steam), Time Splitters: Future Perfect, etc allow people who play alone primarily the ability to try out the multiplayer mode when they normally wouldn't be able to. As for split-screen/local co-op, there are definite disadvantages such as screen peeking. That being said, I'd much rather put up with screen peekers than be completely unable to play an older game online.

It all comes down to how much you can get out of a game for me. You could have made the best game in the world but if you limit the game to a single player mode that lasts about as long as the Star Wars trilogy and several multiplayer modes that require you to be online, that won't last forever, maybe not even until the decade ends. Whereas I can still pop on Duke Nukem 64 and kick a little bot ass years upon years later.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Sure but it depends on two things:
A - If the Multiplayer content is exceptional.
&
B - If they don't do something pants on head retarded and lock the exceptional multiplayer content behind an online pass (the way Sony does with everything now) so renters & borrowers only play the lackluster portion. Battlefield 3 made this mistake too and I know it cost them at least one sale. One also has to wonder why they think a used purchaser would pay another $10 if the SP portion isn't compelling.

 

[Zhukov]

Sure. I can enjoy a game just for its multiplayer.

Although one would think that if a developer is going to make a crappy single player campaign they might as well just not bother and focus their efforts on the multiplayer.

I'm not quite sure why so many folks around here get all snobbish at the mention of multiplayer. It can be good fun.

 

[Charli]

No it's not excusable. Some days I just want to play a game with a 'fuck the world' attitude and that usually means playing something satisfactory by my lonesome. If you haven't made a good single player you're losing customers. Less time spent playing your game is more interest lost.

 

[Aidinthel]

I almost exclusively play single-player games (the exception being the occasional game of TF2, which you will note is free), so bad single-player is a deal-breaker for me.

 

[RatRace123]

No, it's not. Singleplayer should never be a tacked on addition. If you're gonna have it just for the sake of having it, then don't even bother. I feel the same way when it comes to multiplayer, having a subpar tacked on mode just lowers the overall quality of your game.

 

[Fuhrlock]

If a game is designed for multiplayer a tacked on single player can be excused, but I do question why they even bothered in the first place. Starhawk is the sucessor to warhawk (a game I did play alot of) which was multiplayer only, and I respected the fact it made its' intentions clear 'I am a multiplayer game'. Why they added a single player mode in starhawk is beyond me, when it was clear any sucessor to warhawk would be multiplayer focused.

Developers need to understand that tacking on either a single or multi player mode to a game that is primarily designed to be the other just will cause one to devalue the other. They just need to remember if people are only buying your game for one mode (which is a perfectly fine approach to take) then the aim should be to make that mode the best you can and not try and appeal to a wider audience by creating a pseudo single/multiplayer mode that the main fanbase won't like (but if the main mode is acceptable they will tolerate through ignoring it) and the extended audience you try to appeal to will just think is mediocre

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

No, it's not excusable. A s*** single player mode should be picked apart for being s***, no matter how good the multiplayer is. But if multiplayer is the focus (and is worth the whole price of the game to you), then people can buy it if they don't mind about the single player, just think of it as if it isn't even there.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

If the series is a single player series with tacked on multiplayer, and the single player leaves plenty to be desired, then pan away, let those scores drop. If a game like Gauntlet (may it rest in peace) or TF2 had a terrible single player, then feel free to use your hand to smack yourself in the face, because you missed the point of those games. If, however, a game touted with both single and multiplayer playability, with an actual difference between the two, has a terrible SP, then, again, pan the living hell out of it. I can enjoy games just for the multiplayer, but I don't always want that. Sometimes, I just want to do it on my own. If the multiplayer is the focus, and they tack on a crap single player just to boost sales, then I would also agree that lowering the score is acceptable.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

My thinking is that if a game has single player then I should be the main focus of the game, otherwise, why bother? If you're gonna have one then do it right. I know games that have strong multiplayer like CoD and it's like, but if that's all your gonna focus on and tack on single player just for giggles, then what's the point?

I know MAG was just mainly multiplayer, and from what I understand it didn't do too bad and is still played, it makes me wonder why developers don't go that route if they just want to have a strong multiplayer if they know the single player won't be that great.

 

[Broken Blade]

I don't buy a game for the Multiplayer component, and games that have it I never play. If multiplayer is the whole point of a game with the singleplayer as a tacked-on thing, then I won't buy the game. I've probably played a grand total of fifteen minutes of multiplayer game in my life, not counting Spiral Knights where I only play with friends. So, for me, the singleplayer absolutely HAS to stand up on its own, or there's no point to it. End of discussion.

 

[MammothBlade]

It should be like a meal. The single player is the main course. The multiplayer and extras are the dessert and such. If the main course tastes like ass, then you won't eat the rest of the food. If the single player sucks, then the rest of its goodies (like multiplayer) shouldn't help bring it up. Think about the people who don't play the multiplayer.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that makes any sense if you just want a game for the multiplayer aspects. I mean, you wouldn't judge an MMO that way. No MMO worth its coin is going to emphasise a single-player campaign over multi-player.

Some single player games, on the other hand, should be judged harshly for even having a tacked on multiplayer.