Is bad single player excusable?

[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.

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?

The way some communities react to the games they suposedly love, I do sometimes wonder why they buy the games myself. it's not just complaining. I complain about features I may not like in a game, but even that takes a distant second place to the fun I had playing it. We're past complaining. We're now into territory so past complaining that you'd think some people are forced to play games at gunpoint.

 

[bigfatcarp93]

It amazes me how people seem to forget that Single-Player is the MAIN POINT of video games. Multiplayer is the supplement.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

No. Either you do both single and multiplyer right, or you make choose one and axe the other and release the game for a reduced price. I hate it when they half ass games like this, especially if we're paying $60 per game.

 

[Nazulu]

The way some communities react to the games they suposedly love, I do sometimes wonder why they buy the games myself. it's not just complaining. I complain about features I may not like in a game, but even that takes a distant second place to the fun I had playing it. We're past complaining. We're now into territory so past complaining that you'd think some people are forced to play games at gunpoint.

Huh, I didn't think we would reach an agreement.

I call these people trained dogs who complain aggresively about certain developers work but still snaps up all their games.

 

[Hussmann54]

Short Answer: NO
Long Answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[spartan231490]

If the game is designed for the multiplayer, then the single player is irrelevant, you're going to be spending the vast majority of your time on the multiplayer, not the single.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

No because once Multiplayer is no longer supported then it's the only thing left that you can actually do with it right out of the box.

 

[Iwata]

The way some communities react to the games they suposedly love, I do sometimes wonder why they buy the games myself. it's not just complaining. I complain about features I may not like in a game, but even that takes a distant second place to the fun I had playing it. We're past complaining. We're now into territory so past complaining that you'd think some people are forced to play games at gunpoint.

Huh, I didn't think we would reach an agreement.

I call these people trained dogs who complain aggresively about certain developers work but still snaps up all their games.

Well, we can agree on that, then. Nice talking to you.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

If you mean should a game that has a real SP(ie not MP just bots) get above an 8 with having a shit SP then no it shouldn't. Is it acceptable for a game to have a standard SP experience when MP is the focus(eg CoD, Battlefield) then yes I'll let it slide. Not every game needs both.

 

[Fidelias]

My opinion is that a multiplayer-focused game should cost at the most 3/4s of what a single-player focused game does.

I mean, let's face it, multiplayer takes a LOT less effort to create than a well-made, or even decently made, single player campaign. Multipayer has only two aspects; gameplay and graphics, while single player has gameplay, graphics, story, soundtrack, and character design.

And a game like the new Call of Duty's, where everything is just recycled from the previous games with improved graphics, shouldn't cost more than 30 bucks brand new.

I mean, I like popping in CoD and shooting some noobs as much as the next guy, but realistically it doesn't have half the quality of Mass Effect, Far Cry 2, Freelancer, Aquanox, etc.

 

[Loonyyy]

Of course it should be taken into account when the game is reviewed. But since the singleplayer and multiplayer are distinctly different, combining these into a single number is of course misleading.

Long story short, review scores mean entirely NOTHING. They are an innacurate representation of the games quality, fun, and serve as a poor piece of consumer comparison. Why they are still included in games is almost beyond me (I get that assigning absolute quantitative measures is tempting, but it's also entirely fallacious).

People should simply take the time to read the written reviews, and try to get an impression of a game, rather than take review scores as given. In fact, that's what most people do. The only purpose served by review scores is for publishers to falsely measure the success of a game, which often results in the punishment of developers.

So not only are they useless, they're also a negative impact.

That said, if a game has singleplayer and multiplayer, and the singleplayer is bad (Which, on a LOGICAL scale would be placed below 5.), and a good multiplayer, how does it average 9? Either they don't consider the singleplayer due to some odd weighting algorithm, or they've given the multiplayer a score over ten. Yet more proof that our absolute scale of subjective opinions is subjectively assigned according to whim. Way to fail science and statistics.

 

[JEBWrench]

Sweet zombie Jesus people - I head into the office for one day, and this is what I come back to?

 

[RagTagBand]

No. No. No. If you include it in the game it should be of a consistent quality as all other components


People *****, reviewers *****, when multiplayer is or "Feels" tacked on, so why should the single player experience be excused from this criticism?

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Of course it is excusable. A bad single-player campaign doesn't make the multiplayer somehow worse in the same way a terrible mode in multiplayer wouldn't diminish how good the other modes are. If the multiplayer is good, ill couldn't really care about the state of the singleplayer mode. Though to be honest, I prefer a game to focus on one or the other, otherwise its a mechanical nightmare.

The old argument is a bad and tacked on singleplayer takes resources away from the multiplayer and vice versa. I do agree with this argument, it does occur. But if either mode is bad, I won't play that mode. If both modes are bad, I wont play the game, because its a bad game. Theres plenty of good games to play. Play those.

Remember, making wise and appropriate purchasing decisions saves lives.

 

[JEBWrench]

People *****, reviewers *****, when multiplayer is or "Feels" tacked on, so why should the single player experience be excused from this criticism?

Personally - I'd like to refer to Nexiusz for a moment. Its single-player mode is the very definition of tacked on. It's "play the game with bots". And I prefer that sort of game to have a "practice" mode offline - to help learn maps and so forth, get used to how weapons handle, without being a detriment to my team.

So in some cases, yes, tacked-on single player is preferable to none at all.

 

[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.

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

No, you are making a silly statement.
Maybe you should talk with CliffB then, I am sure his idea that everything needs multiplayer will sound like an epiphany to you.

 

[Weaver]

I think it kind of depends on the game. If it bills itself as having an engaging story, etc. then I expect it to have a great single player. If it bills itself as an online tournament FPS then I expect nothing of the sort.

 

[Woodsey]

Just read the review. If they say the single-player's shit but the multi-player's good then that's that. The only reason the score matters is because people put an increasingly arbitrary value on it in the first place.

Personally I'd rather developers ditched the tacked-on multiplayer/singleplayer and charged a little less. BF3, for instance. If you're going to include it, then it should be fucking good.

 

[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

No, you are making a silly statement.
Maybe you should talk with CliffB then, I am sure his idea that everything needs multiplayer will sound like an epiphany to you.

Hey. That's CliffyB. Respect bro.