Is bad single player excusable?

[Vault101]

I heard about that new game..starhawk..it looked really cool but the general consensus seems to be that the single player is lack luster

so unfortunatly it would be a miss for me

now I had a look over at IGN and they gave it a 9...I know IGN is synonamous with over inflated reveiw scores but this got me thinking

[b/]should they have taken the lack luster story/single player into account in the reveiw? [/b]

as I said, its pretty clear that IGN seem to get a little to "excited" about multiplayer

but I mean is the single player not an important part of the game? should that have brought the score down a little?

the reason I think this is kind of a thing is that single player seems to be "under threat" a 10..8 or 6 hour campagn may be considered "acceptable" if people don't call them out on that

 

[Kahunaburger]

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.

 

[TheOneBearded]

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.

 

[JEBWrench]

If you're interested in the multiplayer, the single-player doesn't matter. If you're looking for a single-player experience, then it's probably not what you're looking for.

People weight aspects differently. I don't think there's a need for excuse one way or the other.

 

[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.

 

[arnoldthebird]

If you're interested in the multiplayer, the single-player doesn't matter. If you're looking for a single-player experience, then it's probably not what you're looking for.

People weight aspects differently. I don't think there's a need for excuse one way or the other.

I share this view, I buy CoD and Battlefield for the intention of Multiplayer. A solid singleplayer experience can be found elsewhere.

If a publisher says they have a 'Campaign', then I expect a good one. But most Multiplayer games only promote the Multiplayer aspect

 

[Tony2077]

i prefer single player so if it bad then its inexcusable. i don't care if its online or not as long as i can play by myself and have fun I'm happy

 

[Vault101]

snip.

I understand this, it would be my fault if I bourght battlefeild 3 and complained about the single player

however I really do feel like there is a "tacked on multiplayer" trend happening, weather as some form of DRM or "popularity" reasons

my point is..does NOT calling out this kind of thing just kind of say "hey...were totally fine with 6 hour single player now!"

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

 

[Sean Hollyman]

I think single player needs to be the main focus of a game

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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've never understood this. Singleplayer is not always the main course. In many genres, it's the dessert. In some genres, it's that little piece of ginger you're supposed to eat between sushi courses to cleanse your palette and prepare your taste buds for the next course.

OT: I think you can see what I'm getting at here. In some genres, single player being nothing but multiplayer matches with bots instead of human opponents is all that is needed. In those genres, knocking off points for the single player being mediocre is just silly, just like knocking off points in, say, Half Life 2 because you didn't like the multiplayer would be silly[footnote]For the record, I think the multiplayer in HL2 was okay, but nothing special. Well worth the price of $0.00 that I paid for it, but not something I'd want to pay money to get on its own.[/footnote]

 

[TheOneBearded]

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've never understood this. Singleplayer is not always the main course. In many genres, it's the dessert. In some genres, it's that little piece of ginger you're supposed to eat between sushi courses to cleanse your palette and prepare your taste buds for the next course.

OT: I think you can see what I'm getting at here. In some genres, single player being nothing but multiplayer matches with bots instead of human opponents is all that is needed. In those genres, knocking off points for the single player being mediocre is just silly, just like knocking off points in, say, Half Life 2 because you didn't like the multiplayer would be silly

Okay, I see your point. However, when you advertise a mulitplayer centered game as the next summer blockbuster of singleplayer stories and people buy it for the story, then don't be surprised when people start complaining and moaning.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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've never understood this. Singleplayer is not always the main course. In many genres, it's the dessert. In some genres, it's that little piece of ginger you're supposed to eat between sushi courses to cleanse your palette and prepare your taste buds for the next course.

OT: I think you can see what I'm getting at here. In some genres, single player being nothing but multiplayer matches with bots instead of human opponents is all that is needed. In those genres, knocking off points for the single player being mediocre is just silly, just like knocking off points in, say, Half Life 2 because you didn't like the multiplayer would be silly

Okay, I see your point. However, when you advertise a mulitplayer centered game as the next summer blockbuster of singleplayer stories and people buy it for the story, then don't be surprised when people start complaining and moaning.

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.

 

[JEBWrench]

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.

The noob and vet campaign was pretty much focused on multiplayer, Owyn.

EDIT: Misread, sorry.

 

[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?

 

[JEBWrench]

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.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

The noob and vet campaign was pretty much focused on multiplayer, Owyn.

EDIT: Misread, sorry.

's cool.

That slowbro avatar is perfect for this response, though XD