Multiplayer is ruining the quality of games

[Total LOLige]

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.)

Gears 3 only focuses on multiplayer. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...oh man, that's a good one.

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!"

It's obvious that Gears 3 focused on multiplayer because the whole advertising campaign was all about the multiplayer. /sarcasm

Single player is the strongest aspect of gears 3 the multiplayer is a fantastic extra.

 

[Batou667]

Tl;dr

I skimmed your argument and I'm afraid you're wrong.

Counterpoint 1: There are still a great many good-quality single-player games out there. A lot of people dont have Xbox Live subscriptions and/or don't have reliable internet and/or just aren't interested in multiplayer, and what do you know, the games market reflects this.

Counterpoint 2: A well-constructed, fair and balanced multiplayer game requires just as much work as a single-player game.

Counterpoint 3: Some games have equally good single-player stories and multiplayer modes. For example, the Halo series (in my opinion).

 

[Something Amyss]

No, we're just getting multiplayer centered games now. And some good ones at that.

Actually, yeah. I think the Multiplayer thing is kind of a plague, but blanket hate is annoying, because they're finally starting to get it right sometimes.

 

[Bad Jim]

Multiplayer appeals to a large number of people who buy few single player games, if any. You're unlikely to find such people on the Escapist, but they do exist in great numbers.

That's why multiplayer is popular, and also why multiplayer is not ruining gaming. The money spent on it would not be spent on single player.

 

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

You ask anyone who buys COD and he never says "oh i bought it for the single player".

Um I buy Call of Duty for the single player. Call of Duty 4 had a fantastic campaign with a great story and good character development, I'm not trying to compare that to a Mass Effect or Bioshock, but I really enjoyed playing COD4's campaign and subsequently purchased MW2 for the story, not for the multiplayer which I've barely played. Multiplayer games may be the cash cow of the game industry but there are still plenty of strong going single player games/series.

Elder Scrolls and Mass Effect both have sequels coming out soon, Dark Souls has just been released. You really aren't looking at this right... What I find worse than a tacked on campaign, is a tacked on multiplayer, like Bioshock 2 or Dead Space 2.

Single player is the strongest aspect of gears 3 the multiplayer is a fantastic extra.

Multiplayer is definitely a stronger aspect of Gears than the single player, but the single player is refined and despite what people who spend 10 minutes playing it think, actually does have reason behind all the "machoness and explosions." As for the "brown and grey" well if you've played it you will se Epic have really expanded their colour pallet for this game and it actually looks amazing, levels like Sandbar and Azura (in the campaign) really do add something beautiful to the game.

 

[Elijah Ball]

when either multiplayer or single player are tacked on, they suck. if they both have the time put into em they are fine.

 

[hazabaza1]

Hey guys, I hate CoD!
Really I do!
[sub][sub]Someone pay attention to me...[/sub][/sub]

 

[KarlMonster]

The only gun-wank game I own is CoD4:World at War. Multiplayer was meh. Solo campaign was more meh, but I really just bought the game to play with the period weapons in a World War II simulation. So mission sorta accomplished. Plus I played with some nice folks online. Except for that one guy who kept hiding in the shadows by my spawn....

I think multiplayer is generally a meh thing which will have benefits... eventually.

Most Momorpuguhs are grind-tastic and most Mumofips are shoot-em-ups. They both get re-packaged and re-sold because the publishers want another serving of your disposable income. It should be obvious that its harder to keep a Momorpuguhs fresh because that usually requires whole new territories or new aspects to existing gameplay. Mumofips just get new skins, and different colored levels. Its much harder to code a new area of sandbox than skins and levels. Once in a while someone will come along and do something slightly different - which is the benefit part. Brink had interesting new idea(s), but still got lost in shoot-em-ups with control points. Points for trying, I guess - but Brink won't have imitators because the fundamental gameplay is still control point-driven warfare. Even the fancy (annoying, says I) new 3D is still just new skins and level colors. Until something really novel happens in the way of fundamental gameplay, the reiterations will continue.

I'm counting on this regurgitation to depress demand, just from sheer repetition. I tend to think it is working out that way, because of the Black Ops putrescence. Apparently somebody thinks that the games need to ramp up the grit and racy content to help sales along. In general, I don't think that is a good thing. Fortunately, there's a limit to the vulgar titillation they can insert before the game becomes obscene. [Though I could *totally* see more titles getting X ratings in the future - and liking it.] At some point in time, the dreaded innovation has to come. Nuclear Dawn and Natural Selection 2 are baby steps in the direction of new kinds of gameplay - but they were new 8 years ago.

Its all a big, rusty, calcifying machine, and I'm hoping something else will break.

 

[rohansoldier]

I think that there are plenty of decent single player only (or mainly) games on the horizon - me3, arkham city and skyrim just to name a few.

However, that doesn't mean that multiplayer games (or games that have sp and mp in them) don't have their place.

I find that games with solid multiplayer content like gears, call duty, even space marine, are a nice addition to the game that keeps you interested long after you have finished the single player (until you want to go back and play it again anyway).

The one thing I don't like is xbox live only multiplayer and achievements. Not everyone wants to pay £40 to play online or pick up a few extra gamerscore points. They should be available to everybody who buys the game (an unfortunate example is the gears of war series, I think they all have online only achievements, which is a real shame).

 

[42]

Um this is gonna be awkward but i actually DO play CoD for it's single-player. It's actually quite fun.

 

[Winterfel]

I like how you mentioned MW 1 as a multiplayer only game when it has one of the best single player campaigns I've seen in a looong time for an fps, just thought I'd point that out and be like half of the other replys here.

 

[rockhard556]

(it will NEVER NEVER NEVER be as good as KOTOR 3 would have been) - well i don't completely agree with you (some things i do) this might not be because is obsidian got there hands on it then it would be completely ruined like everything else they're useless hands touch i wish they would stop ruining better companies games (alpha protocol i liked though).

 

[Jakub324]

I liked the campaign of every CoD game I've played (Finest Hour, MW1, MW2 and Black Ops) but I agree that single player portions of games are an endangered species.

 

[Smooth Operator]

It's ruining the quality of single player games, of course you haveto split up teams and time to do the multiplayer.
But as long as the blabering masses demand it that is how things will be sold.

 

[thunderbug]

Your argument seems to boil down to multiplayer focused games ruining the quality of games because they aren't single player games.

Not only is that a silly argument to make, but it's impossible to back up. Get over it. There are still plenty of great single player games, and there are even games that do both aspects well. Uncharted 2 immediately comes to mind, having an even better single player than the original and of similar length, but with a pretty enjoyable multiplayer added in as well.

All these games took real thought to make, and they are not just a few maps with some idiots with guns running around teabagging each other.

This statement alone pretty much shows that you have absolutely no understanding of how much thought and effort goes into making a truly great multiplayer game.

well with your example u pretty much made my case for me yes there are good single player games and Uncharted 2 is a good example but as u stated by the use of the word "added" it a single player game first with a multiplayer stuck on. What im talking about is games that are multiplayer first with a shitty single player camp stuck on end. Uncharted is the former, COD is the latter.

Also, to your second point, after i stopped thinking stupid troll, i realized u may have been trying to make a point. A good multiplayer game involves 2 things a)good maps for competitive play b)balance.

The maps are much easier to make than a game world from say Oblivion and balance is all numbers. If these 2 things are present then a multiplayer game will be good if they are not then it will fail. Balance also needs to be in a single player game to make the difficulty of said single player neither too easy nor too hard but challenging. As mentioned above a few tiny maps are much easier to make than multiple large areas spread over several missions, or a fully free roam world. So not only are both things required to make a good multplayer game presant in the making of a good single player game there are also other matters in single player game such as story, voice acting, character development etc etc.

Also to clarify i never said multiplayer games were super easy to make i merely said that a single player game is much harder to make.

 

[Terminate421]

Eve online may have multiple people playing it, but it isn't a multiplayer game

I just made the same argument you made.

Now go actually play several multiplayer games before bashing a genre/mode that helps fuel the industry.

 

[Vivi22]

Also, to your second point, after i stopped thinking stupid troll, i realized u may have been trying to make a point. A good multiplayer game involves 2 things a)good maps for competitive play b)balance.

The maps are much easier to make than a game world from say Oblivion and balance is all numbers. If these 2 things are present then a multiplayer game will be good if they are not then it will fail.

Sure, balancing a competitive multiplayer game seems absurdly easy when you over simplify things. If you honestly believe that making good competitive multiplayer maps is easier than big open worlds and that competitive balance comes down to simply adding the right values to a spreadsheet then you really only prove my point that you don't understand what is involved in making a truly great multiplayer game.

And honestly, I'm not trying to troll you here, but game balance is not simply a matter of tweaking some game values, nor is making a good multiplayer map easy. Fine tuning a good competitive game requires tons of iteration, play testing, and fine tuning. A single map may not be a huge open world, but fine tuning it until the game plays just right on it could easily take longer than making any single area in a game like Oblivion, and play balance is far touchier than in a single player game where the player only has to contend with battling the AI. Particularly in games like Oblivion where the AI is best described as dumb as a rock. Competitive play is much more sensitive to small imbalances than single player, and gameplay can quickly degenerate if you don't take the time to do it right.

Sure, a big open world may require the creation of more art assets, but saying that making a single player game is harder than making a good competitive multiplayer game is naive to say the least. Don't believe me? Try your hand at making a somewhat competitive board game sometime, then get a friend to play it with you. Even a simple exercise like that can quickly demonstrate just how hard multiplayer is to get right.