Is bad single player excusable?

[Nazulu]

If single-player is tacked on, I don't consider it to detract from the quality of the multiplayer. OTOH, bad tacked-on single player campaigns can be useful to pick apart as, for instance, examples of what not to do.

Not even if it's a full priced game and they advertise the single player as a selling point?

I wouldn't pay full price for a game with crappy single player, even if I loved the multi-player.

 

[BamWam]

My opinion is that if it's a game focussed on multiplayer e.g. CoD, Starcraft then yes, lacklustre singleplayer is forgiven in my eyes.

 

[Indecipherable]

Counterstrike was a great game and the single player in it (Condition Zero) was terribad.

Next question.

 

[Mister K]

It actually depends on what is this game.
For example, if it is shooter, which mainly focuses on multiplayer (example: Team Fortress 2), bad single player or complete abscense of it is forgivable. But, if it is shooter, which was advertised as a game with great story, characters AND great multiplayer, and it misserably fails in all asspects exept for multiplayer, then it most deffinetly should be taken into account and general score should be lowered.

 

[Cry Wolf]

SNIP

The market is bloated with multiplayer titles. Unless you do something insanely awesome, unique or interesting have a solid muliplayer component and a lackluster singleplayer campaign really doesn't cut it.

For what it's worth, of the reviews I've seen, Starhawks looks interesting enough - though I can't test that because it's a PS3 exlusive - for me to give up maybe $20. However, I'm more than willing to give $80 for games with great single player - like the first two Mass Effect games, the Witcher titles and (my favourite) Deus Ex.

So yeah, single player centric games are far superior and get much more of my money than multiplayer centric games.

 

[Cobbs]

It seems that single player and multi player experiences should receive different scores. E.g. Call of Duty's single player is generally the same thing through all iterations, as opposed to the multiplayer which seems to get tweaked daily. Logically two different scores should apply.

 

[Nouw]

It comes down to whether or not it was a selling point or focus of the devs. Take Bad Company for example. It has an average, although hilarious, single-player but goddamn it is the Multiplayer outstanding. D.I.C.E. obviously put a lot more effort, I hope, into the Multiplayer and that's good enough for me.

 

[Kimarous]

Lacklustre single-player is inexcusable. Why? Because no matter how well made your multiplayer is, it's only as good as the server population. If nobody is online, or if the servers get shut down, what are you stuck with?

 

[veloper]

Just as long as the person doing the review clearly states at the beginning of his piece where he's coming from, ignoring the campaign or multiplayer part is fair.

Reviewers should be more upfront about their preferences in general.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Single player should be the large pudding, and Multiplayer should be the cinnamon sprinkled on it. If the cake is horrible, the cinnamon would not make it any better.
[sub][sub][sub]I was gonna use custard but custard does make some things better so I randomly chose cinnamon.[/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Iwata]

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?

Nah, I like big dumb generic shooters, and I do like to see my games reimagined.

But yeah, I've seen a couple of playthroughs, and the campaign is seriously underwhelming.

Ah well... I have Syndicate Wars bought on the Playstation Store, and that does the job just fine.

 

[Vault101]

Nah, I like big dumb generic shooters, and I do like to see my games reimagined.

.

................................

what are you doing on the escapist?....

....are you an alien?

 

[Rumpsteak]

If it is being marketed as having a single player mode then it should be judged against the same standard as every other game. Whether or not the games focus is multi-player if time was spent on a single player option the it shouldn't get a free pass just because it is not the main focus.

 

[Ando85]

I recall Shadowrun got some bad ratings for its complete lake of single player altogether. I spent 100s of hours having fun playing the multiplayer. So I think I got my money's worth.

 

[Iwata]

Nah, I like big dumb generic shooters, and I do like to see my games reimagined.

.

................................

what are you doing on the escapist?....

....are you an alien?

I am that rare person who still plays games to have fun. That does indeed qualify me as an alien in this day and age.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Obviously the single player is the only important thing.
That's why I hate these two pieces of crap I played called Team Fortress 2 and MAG. MAG's single player can be beaten in literally five minutes, if you go slow. TF2 doesn't even HAVE one.

God what terrible games

 

[shintakie10]

That's fair, but what game has been marketed that way? I'm all for truth in advertising, but I don't remember, say, CoD being marketed primarily on the singleplayer, and that's the one that gets brought up the most in these discussions.

Homefront is a pretty good example of that. The single player got hyped to hell and back. There also was a multiplayer that was, from what I've heard, really really good. However because they completely ignored marketin for the multiplayer when the game launched a huge group of people that they could have easily brought in went completely ignored. Then when the game didn't sell nearly as well as they'd hoped because of its SP issues, they tried to drag people into the multiplayer too little too late.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Nah, I like big dumb generic shooters, and I do like to see my games reimagined.

.

................................

what are you doing on the escapist?....

....are you an alien?

I am that rare person who still plays games to have fun. That does indeed qualify me as an alien in this day and age.

an alien that's overcharging us for oil, based on your avatar.
See, this is basically my whole deal: Play what is fun.
So, games like Darkwatch, which is so awful it can make me rage-puke, but the multiplayer is accidental genius, I still play.
games like Soul Calibur 5 which isn't fun to play by yourself or with anyone else, I ignore
I do come up biased for single player, because that's how i prefer to play, but still

That said, having EITHER game mode tacked on with no regard for quality DOES irk me, but then I probably won't purchase that game anyway

 

[Nazulu]

Nah, I like big dumb generic shooters, and I do like to see my games reimagined.

.

................................

what are you doing on the escapist?....

....are you an alien?

I am that rare person who still plays games to have fun. That does indeed qualify me as an alien in this day and age.

Care to explain what everyone else does with video games?