Life without multi player.

[RicoADF]

Life without Multiplayer

Would be a far better world.

I raise my glass to both of you. Rejoice to the gamers who enjoy the good old one-on-one experience.

We should start a club! lol
Yes multiplayer can be fun and split screen is good when you have mates around, but a game has to stand on its own with SP unless its made for MP at the outset (eg: Left 4 Dead) in which case it needs to have split-screen on consoles so u dont need the net to enjoy it

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Multi player. Back when I started gaming it was an optional extra that games had. They had to stand up as a world beating single player experiance.My most cherished gomes, old and new, have all been made with the single player in mind. Banjo-Kazooie, Mario 64, Metal Gear Solid, Skies od Arcadia and mostly Beyond Good and Evil.

These games of the N64/PSOne era also saw the rise of multiplayer. Mario Kart, Star Fox, Goldeneye, Gran Turismo and the like made inroads on the console front while games like Duke Nukem 3D and Quake were all the rage on the early internet. Multiplayer was certainly beginning to rear it's head by this point.

But now I can't go anywhere without hearing about how "Game-X is so awsome online" and how "I'm missing out on the REAL experiance". Yes I don't have Xbox live but I don't see how that changes anything. Surly a game should be good regardles of being online?

It depends entirely upon the context of the game. In most cases I play a single player only game until the end, file it away and never touch it again. Games with interesting multiplayer components can keep me around for months or years. Mechwarrior IV's single player was awful, but the multiplayer component was so excellent I played the game for nearly four years. Games like Call of Duty have single player experiences but the bulk of the content to be had sits online with other players.

In some cases, online play makes little sense, and it's inclusion is baffling. Bioshock was a game that was obviously poorly suited to adversarial OR cooperative multiplayer and yet the included the former regardless in the sequel. After playing both the single player game and the online component I couldn't help but think the resources spent making an utterly uniteresting online game could have been better spent making the first 1/3 of the game interesting.

The point I am trying to make is that why should I have to pay for the real experiance when I allready payed for it?

If you do not pay to play a game who's primary draw is the online component, and you choose to play said game on a platform that charges a fee for the privledge, then you have not, in fact, paid for the real experience. Tribes' single player component consisted of a handful of exceedingly dull tutorial missions, were I to ignore the online component I'd consider the game an enormous waste of money. Instead, it ranks among the best games I've ever played.

I'm not against multi player games (split screen, do you remember that? Left 4 Dead, Time Splitters 2, Golden Eye). I just feel disheartened that more games are aimed at the multiplayer experiance than it is at the bitter lone wolf gamers who play to get away from the morons in life (like Yahtzee does).

Does anyone even know what I'm on about or am I just some dick shouting at a deaf world?

P.S.
Don't even get me started on DLC.

I don't see an argument being made here.


You don't make a case for why a game OUGHT to focus on single player, nor do you give me a reason to dislike games who focus on multiplayer at the expense of the single player element. In all honesty, it sounds like you took a talking point from one of the shows here on the escapist and made a thread.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

I think multiplayer should be made after single player is finished.

If it's done that way, I'm usually ok with multiplayer. Seriously, why does everyone think that multiplayer is always populated with idiots? Sure, you'll find a game now and then full of mic spammers/idiots trying to be black and (unhilariously) failing, but most of the time it's good.

 

[The Night Shade]

I like multiplayer but single player is way better today developers focus to much on multiplayer than the solo player and that sucks

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

If there was no Multiplayer then there would be no wow.
Wouldn't that be an awesome world? Loads of people would be in the sun having fun or playing other games.
But I frown upon Online multiplayer but LAN well I like being next to my buddies.

I played Wow since the beginning (stopped 2009) and it really is a horrible game which does horrific things to you.

Do you really believe this? WoW did not make it's rise because of other games, but rather because of the relative success of Everquest. Everquest itself had but one claim to fame: it was the first 3d persistant version of the old MUD style of game. MUD's, MOOs and other games have literally ben around for nearly as long as games. Indeed, more than 30 years ago Core Wars provided a text based network driven multiplayer experience. There are, in fact, many examples of such things that predate the modern internet by a fair margin.

Moreover, to assert that WoW is some sort of penultimate evil is a bit overwrought in my book. If you look at the pedigree that lead to the Everquest and WoW you'll find that the core gameplay experience has remained the same and the only advancements any such games have brought is in presentation.

Besides, games are and have historically been social experiences. The only way to prevent the rise of multiplayer is to prevent the internet from benig invented. At the very least this would require a dramatic rewriting of history starting in the 20's or so (and you may want to take out Bell, Tesla, Watt...pretty much every major inventor of the last 500 years or so). In much the same fashion, the only way to prevent WoW (or something very much like it) is to travel back in time and kill Gygax and the rest of the Pen and Paper legends. And Tolkien.

 

[Flying Dagger]

Different strokes for different folks.
Do what you enjoy, ignore everyone else.

If you're interested in my opinion, I reckon games should try for one or the other.
Either go down the pure multiplayer route, such as team fortress 2, or pure single player, such as Bioshock or Fallout 3. Co-op is viable, but when you start adding in player facing off against identical player, you inevitably run into issues that change the game from the single player experience.

Best just to focus on one area, and perfect it.

 

[Zephirius]

I really enjoy playing challenging games multiplayer (typically coop, and the rare game where you need to specialize, like PlanetSide or any of the large Battlefield games), because it usually requires strategies, tactics, role distribution and teamwork. If you succeed, you will really feel like you accomplished something together. If you fail, you can attempt to think up a new plan and go with that. Either way, it's fun in my eyes.

Unfortunately, most games nowadays take the singleplayer content and tack on a networked mode. This usually results in something meant to be done alone being unchallenging and pretty easy when working together. If not, it's pretty much always competitive gameplay without any required specialization (as in needed to be effective, not personal taste. Think anti-tank soldier or medic, or a PlanetSide hacker.) I enjoy any role pretty well as long as I'm useful, so personally such games are best for me.

Best times I had in multiplayer was Faces of War 4-player co-op. Most of the missions were commando-sized, so you'd typically have a squad of 4 guys (sometimes more guys and maybe a vehicle). We always had someone find a sniper rifle off a dead enemy, one guy running around with an anti-tank weapon, or, if we had more than 4, people crewing anti-tank guns and mortars whenever it was necessary. That game was fantastic. Not in the least because it was an incredibly adaptive tactics game. You could easily control your units with keyboard shortcuts, or go into Direct Control mode with one guy or vehicle and determine where to fire, what ammo to load, what your soldier should loot (the game kept track of every unit's inventory), where to throw grenades, you name it. Hell, it even had mine-laying and controllable coastal guns.

Enough about that though. Point is, dedicated multiplayer can make a game so much more enjoyable. Cooperative play just becomes so much deeper and more interesting with actual human intelligence by your side.

 

[DarkHourPrince]

Life without Multiplayer

Would be a far better world.

I raise my glass to both of you. Rejoice to the gamers who enjoy the good old one-on-one experience.

We should start a club! lol
Yes multiplayer can be fun and split screen is good when you have mates around, but a game has to stand on its own with SP unless its made for MP at the outset (eg: Left 4 Dead) in which case it needs to have split-screen on consoles so u dont need the net to enjoy it

Lol, we should so start a club XD
I don't mind a little multi-player, I always loved a nice dose of Mario Kart DS while on long band trips with whoever else brought their DS, but that's as far as it goes. Good ol' split-screen are good at parties or long trips. That's about it.

 

[Janus Vesta]

In my day multiplayer meant sitting on the sofa with your friends playing co op or 4 player deathmatch. These days I'm lucky to find a game that can be played by two people on the same console, but EVERY game has an online multiplayer.

Maybe I'm just crazy but I don't enjoy being yelled at by 12 year olds.

 

[crazypsyko666]

Without multiplayer, video games could have potentially had better developed storyline in single player. High scores would still be big, and who knows, maybe the arcades would still be around.

 

[Darkblaven]

Actually in my experience life without multiplayer was great but I got envious of my friends playing online games without me, so I bought a wireless router, wireless adapter, and a year of gold for Xbox 360, I enjoy playing with friends, and also playing some online but I feel sometimes I shouldn't be playing online cause I play alot of Soul Calibur 4 online, and people who play fighting games are very cheap gamers. Anyway I enjoy both online, and offline play.

 

[superbatranger]

For me, the best multiplayer experience is split-screen. I'm just old school like that.

 

[theincurabletragedy]

Life without Multiplayer

Would be a far better world.

/thread

 

[Logic 0]

Life without Multiplayer

Would be a far better world.

I raise my glass to both of you. Rejoice to the gamers who enjoy the good old one-on-one experience.

Seconded

I third with this opnion we need more single player games because I don't want to pay a large sum of money for a game over time that I'll probably get bored of then do something else.

 

[The Stonker]

If there was no Multiplayer then there would be no wow.
Wouldn't that be an awesome world? Loads of people would be in the sun having fun or playing other games.
But I frown upon Online multiplayer but LAN well I like being next to my buddies.

I played Wow since the beginning (stopped 2009) and it really is a horrible game which does horrific things to you.

Do you really believe this? WoW did not make it's rise because of other games, but rather because of the relative success of Everquest. Everquest itself had but one claim to fame: it was the first 3d persistant version of the old MUD style of game. MUD's, MOOs and other games have literally ben around for nearly as long as games. Indeed, more than 30 years ago Core Wars provided a text based network driven multiplayer experience. There are, in fact, many examples of such things that predate the modern internet by a fair margin.

Moreover, to assert that WoW is some sort of penultimate evil is a bit overwrought in my book. If you look at the pedigree that lead to the Everquest and WoW you'll find that the core gameplay experience has remained the same and the only advancements any such games have brought is in presentation.

Besides, games are and have historically been social experiences. The only way to prevent the rise of multiplayer is to prevent the internet from benig invented. At the very least this would require a dramatic rewriting of history starting in the 20's or so (and you may want to take out Bell, Tesla, Watt...pretty much every major inventor of the last 500 years or so). In much the same fashion, the only way to prevent WoW (or something very much like it) is to travel back in time and kill Gygax and the rest of the Pen and Paper legends. And Tolkien.

I was seeing this from a simple by stander point I wasn't taking any thought into it.
I think it's a bigger question what if video games never existed? What would then have happened.
Personally I was quite a hippocrit since I started playing WoW again and I learned to contain my self so it is not the games fault but the gamer who plays the games.

 

[Smagmuck_]

I agree, the only reason, in my opinion, that few people liked ODST, is becuase it didn't have the multiplayer like 2 and 3. I still liked the game and will high-5 Bungie for trying something different.