Multiplayer is ruining the quality of games
- Thread starter thunderbug
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm sorry, but do you have any idea just how massive a statement like that is? Seriously, compensate for the very small number of things that get thrown in our face constantly and think about just how many titles 'overall games' encompasses.The Long Road said:
Maybe you didn't mean it that literally, but that's still a pretty grandiose claim to make. Frankly, gaming rocks right now. Look past whatever huge new title is eating up all the ad space online and you can find almost anything you want. Some of it's big, some small, some mainstream, some off the wall ridiculous. It's still far from perfect, but despite what a lot of people like to say on threads like these we've got a pretty diverse playing field right now. And it hasn't been getting worse, far from it.
Well put bro clap clap clap
sept' I haven't played the games on the good side so thanks for the advice ^.^
one last thing is that I think Phlakes is like my evil twin that likes everything I used to like & now hate. But I play like crap on a stick in multiplayer games so it may just be that simple.
sept' I haven't played the games on the good side so thanks for the advice ^.^
one last thing is that I think Phlakes is like my evil twin that likes everything I used to like & now hate. But I play like crap on a stick in multiplayer games so it may just be that simple.
Fortunately, as long as we have people on the internet who do not bother to show courtesy or communicate clearly online, there will be a market for single-player games. There are times, lots of times, in fact, that I simply don't want to deal with other people... especially strangers, and choose to curl up with something a bit more story-driven.
The world is a vast place, where many things live on despite their time having supposedly passed. One might think that TV, movies, video games and the like would have totally replaced books by now, but they haven't. People still write them, and even modern folk who enjoy all that other stuff still buy them. And read them, for fun. Likewise, I cannot imagine that the day is coming when there won't be lines of people waiting for quality single-player games on launch day... Mass Effect 3 will find its way into my library as soon as possible, and I'll be buying it long before I give Old Republic any of my cash.
The world is a vast place, where many things live on despite their time having supposedly passed. One might think that TV, movies, video games and the like would have totally replaced books by now, but they haven't. People still write them, and even modern folk who enjoy all that other stuff still buy them. And read them, for fun. Likewise, I cannot imagine that the day is coming when there won't be lines of people waiting for quality single-player games on launch day... Mass Effect 3 will find its way into my library as soon as possible, and I'll be buying it long before I give Old Republic any of my cash.
Uh, last year I would have agreed with you, but it seems like more games are coming out that actually focus a lot on single-player. Halo Reach, Gears of War 3, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Arkham City, The Old Republic (Story is what separates it from the other MMO's, besides, it's BIOWARE. They always have some kind of story, even if it's only decent.) Skyrim, The Darkness 2. Compared to the only two multiplayer-driven games coming out (Call of Duty and Battlefield), this is a lot.
So, yeah, gaming is coming around full circle, and you're about to get your hands on some great story-driven games.
So, yeah, gaming is coming around full circle, and you're about to get your hands on some great story-driven games.
Although I agree with you 100%, as a Halo fanatic, I have to say that Reach is a bad example >.>Fidelias said:
On the contrary, if these multiplayer truly are a pox on the gaming industry, then no one would buy them thus forcing publishers to make different style games. Many people, myself included, enjoy these types of games and are willing to spend money on them. As long as people deem these multiplayer games as "good quality" they will continue to buy them. Therefore, the overall consensus of the paying consumer is that these games are fun and enjoyable which makes them "good quality" games.
P.S. if you just want to play games that you feel are "high quality" with character development and fantastic storytelling then I highly recommend you play Bioware games.
P.S. if you just want to play games that you feel are "high quality" with character development and fantastic storytelling then I highly recommend you play Bioware games.
thing is, if a game has multiplay along side its single player...that usually is a warning sign, for me anyway
I dont hate multiplayer I just wish it would stay the fuck out my single player, I get the feeling they tack it on because they feel they "have too"
I dont hate multiplayer I just wish it would stay the fuck out my single player, I get the feeling they tack it on because they feel they "have too"
Yeah, I know, but it does have a slightly above average story, and it's the newest one, so it's more pertinent (wow, look at me with the big words at midnight!) to this discussion.ZeroMachine said:
Halo 1, Halo 3, and Halo ODST are much better at story, in my opinion.
Oh, I also forgot to mention that Crysis 2 was very story-driven, and the upcoming Mass Effect 3 is going to be so awesome! (Hopefully, my faith in Bioware took a hit with DA 2, But I still believe!)
Though I do agree with the OP that multiplayer ruined Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, and probably Battlefield. Though maybe Battlefield will be awesome, but the beta sucked... (FLASHLIGHTS OF DOOM!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!)
Another one of these threads? The negativity of the people who talk about these kinds of things really gets to me.
If you don't like the game, DON'T PLAY IT. It's perfectly okay to have an opinion and personal taste in what kind of games you like, but to say that a certain part of gaming is ruining the quality of gaming as a whole just sounds stupid.
Also, need I state, AGAIN, that the industry has been making games based off of what's popular since it first came around? Back in the late eighties to mid 90's, when Super Mario Bros. and Sonic the Hedgehog were popular, several different developers also made games that centered around colorful mascots in a 2-D platforming setting. Same goes with the late 90's through early 2000's when 3-D platforming games with colorful mascots were all the rage. And now shooters ,games with motion controls, and online multiplayer are what's popular now.
My point is, the game industry has been making profit off of what appeals to the masses the most at the current time. That's how it's always been. And I wish people would get that through their heads already.
Also, not every single game has to have a good story and character development to be good. Just look at games like Super Meat Boy, that game was, IMO, fun and addictive, so was Plants vs. Zombies.
Finally, I suggest you stop limiting yourself to looking in the AAA section of gaming for "quality". Dig a little deeper. And you may find gems such as these:
Multiplayer is not kill the industry. People not even attempting originality because "its not safe" is killing the industry. People making games and then locking content on the disc until you pay extra or cutting content with the intention of selling it later is killing the industry. Companies trying to tell you that you don't own your console you're only renting it is killing the industry.
i some what agree but not, i don't like the way you argued it nor the fact you were attacking other games to get to your point.
i think multiplayer has infected the potential of single player, i think the recent nescessity of multiplayer in horror games like Deadspace2, Metro Last light and Deadisland best emphasise where multiplayer has become a nuisance.
i think no thought is being given to wether multiplayer would enrich the playing experience.
Valve are good at this thought buisness, left4dead undermines a great deal of what you said being built from the ground up as a multiplayer experience with character development and story (without losing the drama and tension of horror too much).
that said multiplayer is incredibly inhibiting to what a game can do because there will almost always be the overbearing spectre of "teamwork" gimping artistic potential and the array of themes a dev team can choose from.
i think multiplayer has infected the potential of single player, i think the recent nescessity of multiplayer in horror games like Deadspace2, Metro Last light and Deadisland best emphasise where multiplayer has become a nuisance.
i think no thought is being given to wether multiplayer would enrich the playing experience.
Valve are good at this thought buisness, left4dead undermines a great deal of what you said being built from the ground up as a multiplayer experience with character development and story (without losing the drama and tension of horror too much).
that said multiplayer is incredibly inhibiting to what a game can do because there will almost always be the overbearing spectre of "teamwork" gimping artistic potential and the array of themes a dev team can choose from.
Now see people the problem here is...the single player loving people get maybe one or two good games a year, while multiplayer gets so much attention it pumps out 3 to 5 good games a year depending on the year. So you should see why we single player loving gamers are pissed. Most people who prefer multiplayer over all else wouldn't have been gamers back when i grew up. now it's getting to where people who love single player really have no reason to buy consoles or computer games anymore because "Fraternity Shooters" are so in demand we're being alienated by the companies we grew up loving.