Multiplayer is ruining the quality of games
- Thread starter thunderbug
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Get this, I bought CoD for the multiplayer BUT I only play with the bots, so I'm technically still playing singleplayer, crazy huh?thunderbug said:
Anyway the only new games I bought (buying) this year are (were) Portal 2 and Batman: Arkham City. Both games strongest emphasis is on singleplayer. So yeah a lot of games have multiplayer, and that's fine, but if you're into singleplayer, there's also a lot of games for that as well.
Until they make a NPC who will respond to voice chat as easily as reasonable teammates, I'll enjoy multiplayer more. It's fun to bring some friends into a round and work together with them, or even against them.
I loved Portal 2, I love Portal 2 Co-op just as much as the single player storyline, it's called having fun with your friends instead of by yourself.
Maybe it's ruining the story of games, but I certainly enjoy multiplayer more than most singleplayer experiences, I like interacting with other humans who I can outsmart or who can outsmart me. I like being surprised. Then again, I'm the kind of person where I can't watch/read the same movie or book multiple times unless I manage to forget the plot, because I already know exactly what is going to happen and it's boring to me.
I loved Portal 2, I love Portal 2 Co-op just as much as the single player storyline, it's called having fun with your friends instead of by yourself.
Maybe it's ruining the story of games, but I certainly enjoy multiplayer more than most singleplayer experiences, I like interacting with other humans who I can outsmart or who can outsmart me. I like being surprised. Then again, I'm the kind of person where I can't watch/read the same movie or book multiple times unless I manage to forget the plot, because I already know exactly what is going to happen and it's boring to me.
MW2 had an epic story, and the ending was fantastic. By the way, you should really put /BF next to all the CoD's in your post. BF is guilty for everything you listed, and is owned by a soulless company, so it's appropriate.
1. This is entirely your opinion. Don't state it as fact.
2. I'm sure we've had this thread before... numerous times.
3. I in part agree with you.
I think you would have been better off saying that multiplayer games are ruining the industry for the customer, as the multitude of multiplayer games usually doesn't too badly affect single player only game quality, only the numbers of them.
Less numbers means less choice, and higher prices. Whilst the multiplayer fanbase gets flooded with clones of other multiplayer games that end up flopping and not returning exactly 'great' profits as people are more inclined to play that multiplayer game they've been playing for ages rather than try a new one.
And shooters do still have some reasonable Single Player games. Play Bioshock to see what I mean.
However, the quality of single player aspects in multiplayer games is quite usually horrible, I will definitely agree with that. Usually the story is short, nonsensical, a pointless 'go shoot people' type or a collection of small side stories barely related to each other.
You know, I think I just came up with a solution for this. Companies need to stop targeting their games at those who aren't old enough to play them (The 'Your mom will hate it' adds for dead space 2 or W/E, obviously targeting an audience that doesn't fit into the MA15+ category, and really a lot of marketing is that way atm), and start targeting them at those who are.
We'd still get the fast paced games some love, but the small things that make the games seem immature, would hopefully go.
Anyway, GTG to work so con't really go into detail right now.
2. I'm sure we've had this thread before... numerous times.
3. I in part agree with you.
I think you would have been better off saying that multiplayer games are ruining the industry for the customer, as the multitude of multiplayer games usually doesn't too badly affect single player only game quality, only the numbers of them.
Less numbers means less choice, and higher prices. Whilst the multiplayer fanbase gets flooded with clones of other multiplayer games that end up flopping and not returning exactly 'great' profits as people are more inclined to play that multiplayer game they've been playing for ages rather than try a new one.
And shooters do still have some reasonable Single Player games. Play Bioshock to see what I mean.
However, the quality of single player aspects in multiplayer games is quite usually horrible, I will definitely agree with that. Usually the story is short, nonsensical, a pointless 'go shoot people' type or a collection of small side stories barely related to each other.
You know, I think I just came up with a solution for this. Companies need to stop targeting their games at those who aren't old enough to play them (The 'Your mom will hate it' adds for dead space 2 or W/E, obviously targeting an audience that doesn't fit into the MA15+ category, and really a lot of marketing is that way atm), and start targeting them at those who are.
We'd still get the fast paced games some love, but the small things that make the games seem immature, would hopefully go.
Anyway, GTG to work so con't really go into detail right now.
Multiplayer isn't ruining the quality of anything.
It is the developers fault for not putting equal amounts of effort into both the single player and multiplayer experience of their titles.
It is the developers fault for not putting equal amounts of effort into both the single player and multiplayer experience of their titles.
What diversity are you talking about? In each field, there's only one big name to look forward to right now. The exception is the FPS, which has Brown 1, Brown 2, and Brown 3 all coming out this year. And, surprise, surprise, they all have their focus on multiplayer. That and they're all the third installment in their respective franchises. (In case you're lost in the sauce here, they're Gears 3, Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3.)Mike Richards said:
In the RPG department, the big name is Skyrim, and will be until Bethesda announces their next Elder Scrolls. If you're an RTS fan and don't play Starcraft II, well... you aren't really an RTS fan. It's the flagship. The MMO to play is WoW. See the trend? There may be a ton of games being developed, but the majority are either clones of a successful franchise, spinoffs of a successful franchise, licensed titles, or just plain crap. Maybe gaming embraces Darwinian selection to an extreme, but most genres of games really only have one truly good title, or at best, one good type. I challenge you to find a western RPG without elves, orcs, magic, swords, bows, ancient artifacts, and a medieval kingdom setting. Or a (non-Valve) FPS that isn't brown, grey, and sandpaper-gritty. Or an MMO not trying to be WoW. Or an RTS that significantly breaks from Starcraft's model. Or a JRPG that isn't the exact same fucking game as all the others.
Yes, there are some unique titles here and there. But so many are only unique because they go for niche appeal, which is unique by definition. When was the last time there was a Minecraft-like success of a truly unique game? Saying that gaming is diverse right now is like going to a supermarket to find they only have one brand of every item except for soda. They have Coke, Pepsi, and RC Cola there.
Another "I don't like it therefore it's bad" thread. Like there aren't already enough of those. Seriously, if games like CoD weren't made there wouldn't be this massive influx of story driven RPG games to fill the void, it'd just be empty. Games like this get made because they sell, it's a guaranteed return of investment for the publisher. If you want more games like Mass Effect you need to be trying to persuade people to buy these games, so the industry sees that they can make money from them. Bitching about the fact that you don't like multiplayer will just mildly irritate the massive number of people that do infact like that style of game.
I don't enjoy the concept of multiplayer unless it's a game that is based on multiplayer (Such as an MMO). I can completely understand your PoV. I played Black Ops and I found it awful. They focused waaaaaay too much on the multiplayer and I felt the storyline was lackluster, and boring.
Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do. Publishers will keep green-lighting CoD games, for the money. Activision will keep making them for the acclaim and shiny trophy on their shelf. And the story line will always be boring and contain some massive promo stunt, to get the game lots of attention.
The only good thing to ever come out of Activision was guitar hero, Until the publishers decided that all their time should be spent on CoD.
I personally feel that multiplayer (Mainly PvP) is a massive E-peen thing. I have a friend who will ONLY by a game, if it has someone of proving he is better than another person.
TO OP: Stick to games that lack multiplayer. There are still a few good ones coming out. Skyrim, mainly
Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do. Publishers will keep green-lighting CoD games, for the money. Activision will keep making them for the acclaim and shiny trophy on their shelf. And the story line will always be boring and contain some massive promo stunt, to get the game lots of attention.
The only good thing to ever come out of Activision was guitar hero, Until the publishers decided that all their time should be spent on CoD.
I personally feel that multiplayer (Mainly PvP) is a massive E-peen thing. I have a friend who will ONLY by a game, if it has someone of proving he is better than another person.
TO OP: Stick to games that lack multiplayer. There are still a few good ones coming out. Skyrim, mainly
Hey.TCPirate said:
Got that post you originally had.
The one where you quoted me and called me an idiot?
Yeah.
Nice try.
For those that are curious, here's what he originally said to me in response to my first post in the thread:
Story is a gimmick? I'm sorry but you're an idiot.
That's like going to see and film and saying "Screw the story, I want to see explosions."
To me, If a game has no story, I don't want to play it. I play for the epic story arc, Not because killing things is fun. If you play games ONLY to kill things, I think that says something about your character.
OT: I personally feel that multiplayer (Mainly PvP) is a massive E-peen thing. I have a friend who will ONLY by a game, if it has someone of proving he is better than another person.
TO OP: Stick to games that lack multiplayer. There are still a few good ones coming out. Skyrim, mainly
That's like going to see and film and saying "Screw the story, I want to see explosions."
To me, If a game has no story, I don't want to play it. I play for the epic story arc, Not because killing things is fun. If you play games ONLY to kill things, I think that says something about your character.
OT: I personally feel that multiplayer (Mainly PvP) is a massive E-peen thing. I have a friend who will ONLY by a game, if it has someone of proving he is better than another person.
TO OP: Stick to games that lack multiplayer. There are still a few good ones coming out. Skyrim, mainly
He says this to me because he drastically misread something I said- that story is The Old Republic's gimmick. As an MMO, it can say that and it makes sense. MMOs, on average, do not have story, especially not one effected by the player. The Old Republic does. That's why it's a gimmick.
I NEVER ONCE SAID that story itself is a gimmick. It is not. But in certain cases, like having it in a genre where story usually doesn't exist, it IS. It's one of TOR's biggest selling points. It is unique to the genre. Hence: gimmick.
Also, I play games for story or challenge. I don't play games JUST TO KILL THINGS. I play it because I find the gameplay fun.
So before you start pointlessly insulting people, why don't you think for a second about what they've said and make sure you haven't drastically misinterpreted them or something and accidentally call them an idiot.
Now, if you'd like to, in a civil manner, actually discuss the point I made about story being a gimmick in TOR, be my guest.
Gears 3 story: "Oh shit, we're out of ideas, what haven't we done yet? I know! Let's make the bad guys threaten to blow up the world! Such shining originality!"sravankb said:
I strongly disagree that MMOs are bad arguement.
If this was how most games with Multiplayer elements (any FPS game) have a weaker storyline, I would completely agree. I am sick and tired of the whole 'Oh, but it's good in Multiplayer!' arguement. If I want to be social I will go out and meet people who will treat me with, what I hope would be, respect. And FPS Multiplayer game generally doesn't support that premise.
If this was how most games with Multiplayer elements (any FPS game) have a weaker storyline, I would completely agree. I am sick and tired of the whole 'Oh, but it's good in Multiplayer!' arguement. If I want to be social I will go out and meet people who will treat me with, what I hope would be, respect. And FPS Multiplayer game generally doesn't support that premise.
ZeroMachine said:
i agree with MOST of this.
the bold bit being the area of contestation.
games aren't getting worse because of multi player, or MMO's. story and 'characterization' aren't needed in EVERY GAME, more over having these is no guarantee the game will be good (see:X-men Destiny, White Knight Chronicles) and some times having it open ended on both story, and characterization allows for greater enjoyment
i have, out of close to 30 character on City of Heroes, an MMO, more then 2/3's with a back ground, and story set for them, there are missions i do with one person, but not another due solely to 'they wouldn't do that' or run it differently, say one hero saving some one while another ignoring said person to beat the bad guy down so they don't do it again. it's called making your OWN fun/story
what IS ruining games are people not caring about turning out a quality game, or copy/pasting the game from last year (see: sports games, and a large chunk of FPS)cause their quick to turn out and have a high profitability.
anyway, that's my 2cents
What I said specifically was to look past the single big-name thing that dominates everyone's perspective. Yes there's always going to be a very small number of things that dwarf all the others, and yes there are always going to be lots of other titles that steal from them or just outright rip them off. But when you really go looking for things that are different you're gonna find themThe Long Road said:
There's absolutely a lot of room for improvement, but we've still got it pretty good. You want a western RPG without a medieval setting? How about all 3 Mass Effects, Jade Empire, Deus Ex: HR, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. FPSs that aren't brown, gray and gritty? Why should you exclude Valve? What about Uncharted (Yes, I know it's a third person shooter, but you said Gears so I'm following you), Bioshock (First and Infinite), Crysis 1 and 2, FarCry 3, Just Cause 2, Saints Row 3. Minecraft like success of a truly unique game, well... Minecraft obviously! You throw independents into the mix too and things get even wilder.
Maybe it isn't quite easy enough to find the outliers as it should be, and maybe we don't celebrate them quite as much as we should, but they're there. And if you care enough to complain about how much those few big names dominate, you should care enough to know how to go look somewhere else. It's all there ready and waiting, and especially now that indies are taking off it's only gonna keep getting bigger.
It depends on what you play for, i mostly play single player so games that are more focused on multiplayer are just of no interest to me.
So it does annoy me when a game has a cruddy or short single player cause all the money went into the multiplayer.
And games i hate even more are ones that to some extent, you have to play in multiplayer or struggle, fear 3 and the end of borderlands (playthrough 2) are a couple of examples that spring to mind, thoguht to be fair ive yet to encounter a game with co-op mode, like fear 3 and borderlands, where the single player is broken by the need for a second or more players, just kinda annoying or a hard slog where it didnt really need to be.
But id point the finger for decreasing the quality of games at the fps genre, as most of them seem to be largely either trying to rip halo or cod off and rarely care about much else.
But thats just what i think and the only fps games i still own on the ps3 are borderlands and fallout 3, i have had others but ive sold them before long.
So it does annoy me when a game has a cruddy or short single player cause all the money went into the multiplayer.
And games i hate even more are ones that to some extent, you have to play in multiplayer or struggle, fear 3 and the end of borderlands (playthrough 2) are a couple of examples that spring to mind, thoguht to be fair ive yet to encounter a game with co-op mode, like fear 3 and borderlands, where the single player is broken by the need for a second or more players, just kinda annoying or a hard slog where it didnt really need to be.
But id point the finger for decreasing the quality of games at the fps genre, as most of them seem to be largely either trying to rip halo or cod off and rarely care about much else.
But thats just what i think and the only fps games i still own on the ps3 are borderlands and fallout 3, i have had others but ive sold them before long.