Is bad single player excusable?

[hermes]

It really depends on the focus of the game. Games like Team Fortress 2, Fat Princess, Street Fighter, Battlefield, SOCOM or Starhawk are multiplayer based games. Single player mode is mostly added as a bonus for such game and no one buying it (that actually research it) should feel ripoff. Starhawk is the sequel to a game that didn't even had single player. If that is the kind of game that interest you, if single player mode is nothing but an big tutorial of the features, weapons and vehicles used in multiplayer, then yes, its excusable.

On the other side, we have games like MGS 4, GTA 4, Bioshock 2, Darkness 2 or Red Dead Redemption. Do you think it would be excusable for them to have a tackled on multiplayer? Would it be ok for them to be punished by it? Would you agree with a reviewer that gave Metal Gear Solid 4 a poor score because the multiplayer was lackluster?

 

[hermes]

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

That is like saying I consider GTA 4 and HL 2 two pieces of crap, since GTA multiplayer was god awful, and Half Life didn't even have one.

 

[hermes]

Singleplayer is just as important as multiplayer. If I payed full price for a game, I want the full package. If it's going to be multiplayer only, it should be cheaper.

Why? If the hour/price ratio is what you use to decide what a game is worth, a multi player only game could potentially be worth a lot more than a single player only game.

I am a single player heavy gamer, but I accept there are games that are multiplayer heavy and find it ridicule that people try to use double standards with them. I played through Bioshock 2 and Saints Row 3 and barely touched the multiplayer, I also played Battlefield 3 without touching the campaign for several weeks (its not the reason why I bought it). If a lackbuster multiplayer didn't hurt my impressions with MGS4, its only fair that a lackbuster campaign won't hurt my impressions on Starhawk.

 

[zehydra]

Games really ought to be "multiplayer games" or "single-player games". Having one and then having a lack-luster never feels that great.

However, what some of you guys are saying on here is that a game like TF2 should be considered shit because it doesn't really have a story/single_player

 

[Lt._nefarious]

well to put it lightly... *takes deep breath* NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[General Vagueness]

only for this game we call life, but even then if you can't have fun single-player you probably won't have much fun with other people either

 

[natster43]

Yeah single player should be taken into account for a game whose main focus is multiplayer, if you throw a tacked on single or multiplayer, it should be brought up in the review, and if bad, should detract from the game's score. If their focus is multiplayer, they should not add a bad single player mode just to have it, and vice versa.

 

[Lunar Templar]

yes, its part of the game, main focus or not, thus should be factored into the final verdict and such.

hell give the damn thing to scores if you have to, not that they matter anymore anyway

 

[keinechance]

"Is bad single player excusable?"

No.

 

[TheOneBearded]

Bad single player is even more inexcusable when they try to tack on multiplayer in a game that doesn't need it and end using up resources that could have been used to polish and better the single player.

 

[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?

Well, from what I see lately, they buy them so they can complain about them.

So if they complain about something they don't like in a game, you think they don't buy games for fun?

 

[Nazulu]

Well, from what I see lately, they buy them so they can complain about them.

That and to talk about how art games don't need to be fun, just engaging. Playing purely for fun does make you an odd duck around here.

Who the hell said art games don't need to be fun? That's so ridiculous I reckon you are making it up.

It also adds another level to the explanation of the anti-multiplayer bias around here, beyond "Yahtzee doesn't like it, let's quote him!"

Or maybe they just agree with him? You and your blanket statements, I swear.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Sometime but not all the time, e.g. I bought The Conduit 2 for the multiplayer since I already know that the single player campaign is dull (however it does unlock some reward for multiplater) while the other game The Last Story had a dull multiplayer (it could of been better but sadly it wasn't) while the single player is decent.

 

[lacktheknack]

No. I hate most multiplayer, so single-player is what I actually care about.

 

[370999]

Depends on the game. I don't play multiplayer, I have no interest but I'm fine with a game not having a single player, or the single player being a tutorial, if it means it can do the multiplayer part right.

 

[F'Angus]

Well I don't have many games that don't have a good single-player, and the ones that I do own without single player are games like TF2.

Multiplayer games should be focused on multiplayer like TF2...because the single player is usually poor.

 

[5-0]

If a game claims to offer both single and multiplayer, then it should do both well. Otherwise what is the point of including both. If a game has crap single player, then that's half of its promise out the window, and I believe a review score should therefore reflect this.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Well, from what I see lately, they buy them so they can complain about them.

That and to talk about how art games don't need to be fun, just engaging. Playing purely for fun does make you an odd duck around here.

Who the hell said art games don't need to be fun? That's so ridiculous I reckon you are making it up.

It also adds another level to the explanation of the anti-multiplayer bias around here, beyond "Yahtzee doesn't like it, let's quote him!"

Or maybe they just agree with him? You and your blanket statements, I swear.

Where have you been? People on these forums have been saying for ages that games need to be engaging, not necessarily fun. Personally I think they're crazy, but they do exist. Just do a forum search on "engaging" and your bound to turn some up.

The other was mostly a joke; it's an old running gag on these forums that Yahtzee has a lot of people who like to parrot him. Then it happened with Extra Credits. Now it's happening (to a certain extent) with Jim Sterling. It's weird, but also true.

Edit: Maybe "parrot" is too harsh of a term, but there's a lot of people who seem to like taking the opinion of people who make web shows as their own, and every time this place gets a new editorial video series, there's a huge group of people spouting the opinions of the people on the show, who weren't saying anything of the sort before the show came out. It's true of individual videos within the shows, too.

 

[Nazulu]

Well, from what I see lately, they buy them so they can complain about them.

That and to talk about how art games don't need to be fun, just engaging. Playing purely for fun does make you an odd duck around here.

Who the hell said art games don't need to be fun? That's so ridiculous I reckon you are making it up.

It also adds another level to the explanation of the anti-multiplayer bias around here, beyond "Yahtzee doesn't like it, let's quote him!"

Or maybe they just agree with him? You and your blanket statements, I swear.

Where have you been? People on these forums have been saying for ages that games need to be engaging, not necessarily fun. Personally I think they're crazy, but they do exist. Just do a forum search on "engaging" and your bound to turn some up.

The other was mostly a joke; it's an old running gag on these forums that Yahtzee has a lot of people who like to parrot him. Then it happened with Extra Credits. Now it's happening (to a certain extent) with Jim Sterling. It's weird, but also true.

Edit: Maybe "parrot" is too harsh of a term, but there's a lot of people who seem to like taking the opinion of people who make web shows as their own, and every time this place gets a new editorial video series, there's a huge group of people spouting the opinions of the people on the show, who weren't saying anything of the sort before the show came out. It's true of individual videos within the shows, too.

I wasn't on the Escapist for a whole year but I didn't see this engaging crap anywhere else. But I guess it is possible, from all the crazy shit I hear on the news and terrible entertainment today that's somehow popular, I guess it's possible.

 

[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

That is like saying I consider GTA 4 and HL 2 two pieces of crap, since GTA multiplayer was god awful, and Half Life didn't even have one.

Yes.
That is exactly what it is like
Because that is the idea behind the statement.
You are a silly person