multiplayer or single player?

[RanD00M]

I think that it's about 60/40 with me.
60 to SP
40 to MP
And 100 to just having all out fun.

 

[Deleted]

There's nothing like 4 player split screen. Anyone over the age of 15 knows what I'm talking about.

 

[Valdsator]

I like both, but sometimes I prefer singleplayer because multiplayer never tries to be...epic I guess. Like, why is there almost never any music in multiplayer games? It would make it more fun, in my opinion.

 

[Cinnonym]

Can't play multiplayer games except competitively--Besides, nothing ruins an immersive experience like someone screaming commands or the word "fag" over and over again.

 

[Tarakos]

I can't stand multiplayer. Most of these games' mulitplayer is the same thing but with different maps and weapons. It's still X number of people running around trying to kill X number of people. Boring. That's why I respect studios like BioWare and Bethesda because they couldn't give two shits about multiplayer and try to craft the best singleplayer experience they can. It seems like more and more, studios just make a story to excuse the multiplayer, rather than tell a story.

 

[Talshere]

No multi player experience has ever managed to replicate the gripping stories and intriguing characters that is the signature of single player RPG's.

By introducing another player you ruin it somewhat because you are, at least in part, forced to experience the story their way, not yours.

As such, I would never, in its current state play games like Kotor, ME, Fallout, Bioshock, Dragon age or alike online. (Boaderlands is not an RPG, its a jumped up FPS)

But on the same note, I would never buy an FPS these days without at least an indication that there is a decent multiplayer aspect.

My reason being, I pay 25-30 pound for an RPG like ME. I spend over 60-70 hours the first run through. Plus whatever I spend running through it again. They dont necessarily have to be challenging combat wise to be mesmerising. Modern FPS's however rarely contain more than 16-20 hours of single player that is relatively unchallenging even on some of the harder difficulties and a plot that is often disjointed at best.

While these are (mostly) entertaining, I think the only modern FPS I can say Ive been back to and replayed is the original CoD4:MW, and it was several months before I did so. The first modern warfare also contains the only level on any FPS I have been unable to complete, the rescue the diplomat mission on the plane after the credits, which on the hardest difficulty setting continues to vex me as I fail it by 3 seconds.

 

[black-magic]

No multi player experience has ever managed to replicate the gripping stories and intriguing characters that is the signature of single player RPG's.

By introducing another player you ruin it somewhat because you are, at least in part, forced to experience the story their way, not yours.

As such, I would never, in its current state play games like Kotor, ME, Fallout, Bioshock, Dragon age or alike online. (Boaderlands is not an RPG, its a jumped up FPS)

But on the same note, I would never buy an FPS these days without at least an indication that there is a decent multiplayer aspect.

My reason being, I pay 25-30 pound for an RPG like ME. I spend over 60-70 hours the first run through. Plus whatever I spend running through it again. They dont necessarily have to be challenging combat wise to be mesmerising. Modern FPS's however rarely contain more than 16-20 hours of single player that is relatively unchallenging even on some of the harder difficulties and a plot that is often disjointed at best.

While these are (mostly) entertaining, I think the only modern FPS I can say Ive been back to and replayed is the original CoD4:MW, and it was several months before I did so. The first modern warfare also contains the only level on any FPS I have been unable to complete, the rescue the diplomat mission on the plane after the credits, which on the hardest difficulty setting continues to vex me as I fail it by 3 seconds.

I find this an interesting post because, I am currently trying to beat mass effect, and slamming my face into my table every time I realize, yes, I did just enter another dialogue cuscene, oh, f@cking, joy, and slamming my face harder into my desk when I get into the sticky at best, broken at worst combat.

The characters are generic, the dialogue is unintereting, and although the world is in depth, I could go read a book, not my codex, or better yet, watch a star wars movie, why don't we play games for what they are, games.

You can play 60 hours on Mass effect for 30 dollars? I think thats what, 60 canadian? I spend about that on modern warfare one, and I have well over a month loged on it, just multiplayer.

Not that I disliked the single player, the scene "All ghillied up" was genius, but however much fun I can have crawling through grass, I can do the same playing battlefield 2, and actually feel like i'm going somewhere with it, towards a victory, not towards the next checkpoint.

 

[AvsJoe]

I'm almost 100% single player. I do enjoy the occasional party game (played DDR with my flatmate today for instance), but I tend to skip multi-player modes of games. Besides, most of my favourite games don't even have a multi-player option.

 

[Talshere]

No multi player experience has ever managed to replicate the gripping stories and intriguing characters that is the signature of single player RPG's.

By introducing another player you ruin it somewhat because you are, at least in part, forced to experience the story their way, not yours.

As such, I would never, in its current state play games like Kotor, ME, Fallout, Bioshock, Dragon age or alike online. (Boaderlands is not an RPG, its a jumped up FPS)

But on the same note, I would never buy an FPS these days without at least an indication that there is a decent multiplayer aspect.

My reason being, I pay 25-30 pound for an RPG like ME. I spend over 60-70 hours the first run through. Plus whatever I spend running through it again. They dont necessarily have to be challenging combat wise to be mesmerising. Modern FPS's however rarely contain more than 16-20 hours of single player that is relatively unchallenging even on some of the harder difficulties and a plot that is often disjointed at best.

While these are (mostly) entertaining, I think the only modern FPS I can say Ive been back to and replayed is the original CoD4:MW, and it was several months before I did so. The first modern warfare also contains the only level on any FPS I have been unable to complete, the rescue the diplomat mission on the plane after the credits, which on the hardest difficulty setting continues to vex me as I fail it by 3 seconds.

I find this an interesting post because, I am currently trying to beat mass effect, and slamming my face into my table every time I realize, yes, I did just enter another dialogue cuscene, oh, f@cking, joy, and slamming my face harder into my desk when I get into the sticky at best, broken at worst combat.

The characters are generic, the dialogue is unintereting, and although the world is in depth, I could go read a book, not my codex, or better yet, watch a star wars movie, why don't we play games for what they are, games.

You can play 60 hours on Mass effect for 30 dollars? I think thats what, 60 canadian? I spend about that on modern warfare one, and I have well over a month loged on it, just multiplayer.

Not that I disliked the single player, the scene "All ghillied up" was genius, but however much fun I can have crawling through grass, I can do the same playing battlefield 2, and actually feel like i'm going somewhere with it, towards a victory, not towards the next checkpoint.

30 GBP is current 46.5836 CAD. CoD4 cost me £25 which is 38.8429 CAD.

I have also logged a hell of a lot of time on CoD4 online. The point I was making however was that while I enjoyed the campian, I might have felt a little cheated had that been all Id got. As a multiplayer I was highly active in a clan played weekly scrims and graced both my own clan servers as well as a particularly good full metal custom maps sever I found.

Personally I dont mind all the dialog in ME. On the first run through I enjoyed finding out about the intricacies of the various plots and side missions I was sent on. On the second run through though there is no need to do so and all the dialog is skippable, excepting the cuts where you can make a quicktime (sigh) paragon or renegade choice, and there is no real need to explore your crews side plots.
Ive personally never read the codex. Guns shoot bullets. Bigger guns shoot bigger bullets. Engines make the ship go, and shields stop it blowing up. I dont need to know more than that.

Maybe it just takes a certain type to like the dialog heavy options. Personally Ive always been a big reader, into my fantasy book, card games, RP and what have you.

And while I agree pretty much all the characters fit a generic stereotype of some kind, the persecuted daughter on the run, the kind hearted assassin, the solider type who aint to smart but can blow things up, the wizz kid, its kinda hard not to. Every that its possible to have as a personality and remain mentally stable has already been stereotyped, personally I think they do quite a good job of it in ME and I never felt particularly like any of the characters was a walking cliché unlike a certain captain from CoD4. A guy who looks like a 1930's British middle/upper class man with a stunning imitation of what Americans think all Brits talk like.

 

[richasr]

Single Player, but Multiplayer only in terms of co-op, where it's just the single player campaign played with a bunch of mates.

I don't know about the PSN but Xbox Live is full of irritating morons, hackers, campers and people who just want to win rather than have fun, so it gets quite frustrating, for me anyway

 

[Talshere]

Single Player, but Multiplayer only in terms of co-op, where it's just the single player campaign played with a bunch of mates.

I don't know about the PSN but Xbox Live is full of irritating morons, hackers, campers and people who just want to win rather than have fun, so it gets quite frustrating, for me anyway

Morons, hackers and campers I get. But seriously what is everyone beef with people wanting to win. I have yet to find a single person who does not enjoy winning. Ive never been beaten by someone only to have them tell me, "you know what, I wish youd won, it would have been far more enjoyable", Ive had people tell me I deserved to win, or I should have won and they got lucky, but not once have anyone of them said, damn I wish Id lost.

Ok I know sometimes you join a game to piss about and say idk, kill each other in the safe room on L4D. But if your guna do that it should really be with 3 mates otherwise the only one being a dick is you.

Could someone please try and explain this "I want to lose" mentality to me?

 

[The_Healer]

I will restrain from spamming the words "Search Bar" for around 3 pages, but only because I fear the wrath of the mighty banhammer, not because this thread is at all in any way original.

Just to say something relevant, I enjoy single player games more mainly because of the shithouse Australian internet connection I am forced to use.

Otherwise who knows, I might like playing against others.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

Back in '02 I picked up a wondorous game, a game called MOH:AA, for the uninitiated, MOH:AA is medal of honor: allied assault, this was one of my first video games, I went through the single player, had a little fun.

Then I got to the multiplayer. It became the only game I would play, day in and day out, for 4 years, after which I discovered counterstrike and WoW.

What i'm saying here is, I don't play single player games, I play the occasional one, but even then I feel like i'm just slogging through to the end so I can get back on WoW, why do people play single player games, do you?

I realize I made no points as to why I prefer multiplayer, I want you to point out yours reasons, I just play multiplayer because it's something I can master and feel like i'm beating others at, that and single player games are just dull.

I think you are playing the wrong single player games if you feel you have to slog through.

Try playing Eternal Darkness or BG&E and then tell me you don't like single player.
As for me I used to like Multiplayer, but now I hate humans in generally so I tend to steer clear of it. I use games to escape the reality of dealing with real people and revel in the solitude of being in a world where I am in control.

 

[black-magic]

Back in '02 I picked up a wondorous game, a game called MOH:AA, for the uninitiated, MOH:AA is medal of honor: allied assault, this was one of my first video games, I went through the single player, had a little fun.

Then I got to the multiplayer. It became the only game I would play, day in and day out, for 4 years, after which I discovered counterstrike and WoW.

What i'm saying here is, I don't play single player games, I play the occasional one, but even then I feel like i'm just slogging through to the end so I can get back on WoW, why do people play single player games, do you?

I realize I made no points as to why I prefer multiplayer, I want you to point out yours reasons, I just play multiplayer because it's something I can master and feel like i'm beating others at, that and single player games are just dull.

I think you are playing the wrong single player games if you feel you have to slog through.

Try playing Eternal Darkness or BG&E and then tell me you don't like single player.
As for me I used to like Multiplayer, but now I hate humans in generally so I tend to steer clear of it. I use games to escape the reality of dealing with real people and revel in the solitude of being in a world where I am in control.

i've played better rated single player games, ive never met one that didnt make me want to kill myself, even bioshock, mass effect, dragon age, every silent hill ive set my eyes on ive never got more then an hour into, and zelda games make me cry blood.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

Back in '02 I picked up a wondorous game, a game called MOH:AA, for the uninitiated, MOH:AA is medal of honor: allied assault, this was one of my first video games, I went through the single player, had a little fun.

Then I got to the multiplayer. It became the only game I would play, day in and day out, for 4 years, after which I discovered counterstrike and WoW.

What i'm saying here is, I don't play single player games, I play the occasional one, but even then I feel like i'm just slogging through to the end so I can get back on WoW, why do people play single player games, do you?

I realize I made no points as to why I prefer multiplayer, I want you to point out yours reasons, I just play multiplayer because it's something I can master and feel like i'm beating others at, that and single player games are just dull.

I think you are playing the wrong single player games if you feel you have to slog through.

Try playing Eternal Darkness or BG&E and then tell me you don't like single player.
As for me I used to like Multiplayer, but now I hate humans in generally so I tend to steer clear of it. I use games to escape the reality of dealing with real people and revel in the solitude of being in a world where I am in control.

i've played better rated single player games, ive never met one that didnt make me want to kill myself, even bioshock, mass effect, dragon age, every silent hill ive set my eyes on ive never got more then an hour into, and zelda games make me cry blood.

I've played every game you mentioned on your list and I still prefer Eternal Darkness and BG&E to them by a large margin.

Both Eternal Darkness and BG&E offer a unique experience, one that no other game I've played has ever recreated. I really do recommend them. If you don't like them, well then you have your answer. You know what you like, and stick with it! After all, gaming is about having fun, no sense doing what you don't like.
In general though I would suggest playing these two games through to the end and not to give up after an hour. It will be worth it.

 

[Milney]

I play both, but I've definately always been more of a Multiplayer person myself.

At first it was simply because Multiplayer extended the replay-ability of the game, or added an extra "aspect" to the game. Breaking into the school's server to install Doom or Heretic to play on the limited network of the day extended the awesomeness of those games from the single player, same for Descent Freespace and the like.

Then with games like Half-Life hitting the shelves (where monsters were no longer just zerging cardboard cutouts running straight at you) singleplayer gained somewhat better AI, but it was really predictable, so multiplayer was fun as it provided opponents who you couldn't predict exactly what they were going to do (well, at least no 100%, though most people are annoyingly predictable) and heralded the dawn of popular modding.

Back then cheating was also less rampant, as gaming was still "cult", so people didn't really care about thier "e-peens" and fun was had. Now I have to say I'm slowly getting poisoned from Multiplayer with the amount of cheating going on. Spend an evening flicking through multiplayer games and joining random servers and I'll put money on you finding at least one cheater a day, if not alot more.

I still love my multiplayer, but I limit myself to playing with my various online contacts and only delve into the cess-pool that is "anonymous" multiplayer when desperate.

 

[black-magic]

No multi player experience has ever managed to replicate the gripping stories and intriguing characters that is the signature of single player RPG's.

By introducing another player you ruin it somewhat because you are, at least in part, forced to experience the story their way, not yours.

As such, I would never, in its current state play games like Kotor, ME, Fallout, Bioshock, Dragon age or alike online. (Boaderlands is not an RPG, its a jumped up FPS)

But on the same note, I would never buy an FPS these days without at least an indication that there is a decent multiplayer aspect.

My reason being, I pay 25-30 pound for an RPG like ME. I spend over 60-70 hours the first run through. Plus whatever I spend running through it again. They dont necessarily have to be challenging combat wise to be mesmerising. Modern FPS's however rarely contain more than 16-20 hours of single player that is relatively unchallenging even on some of the harder difficulties and a plot that is often disjointed at best.

While these are (mostly) entertaining, I think the only modern FPS I can say Ive been back to and replayed is the original CoD4:MW, and it was several months before I did so. The first modern warfare also contains the only level on any FPS I have been unable to complete, the rescue the diplomat mission on the plane after the credits, which on the hardest difficulty setting continues to vex me as I fail it by 3 seconds.

I find this an interesting post because, I am currently trying to beat mass effect, and slamming my face into my table every time I realize, yes, I did just enter another dialogue cuscene, oh, f@cking, joy, and slamming my face harder into my desk when I get into the sticky at best, broken at worst combat.

The characters are generic, the dialogue is unintereting, and although the world is in depth, I could go read a book, not my codex, or better yet, watch a star wars movie, why don't we play games for what they are, games.

You can play 60 hours on Mass effect for 30 dollars? I think thats what, 60 canadian? I spend about that on modern warfare one, and I have well over a month loged on it, just multiplayer.

Not that I disliked the single player, the scene "All ghillied up" was genius, but however much fun I can have crawling through grass, I can do the same playing battlefield 2, and actually feel like i'm going somewhere with it, towards a victory, not towards the next checkpoint.

30 GBP is current 46.5836 CAD. CoD4 cost me £25 which is 38.8429 CAD.

I have also logged a hell of a lot of time on CoD4 online. The point I was making however was that while I enjoyed the campian, I might have felt a little cheated had that been all Id got. As a multiplayer I was highly active in a clan played weekly scrims and graced both my own clan servers as well as a particularly good full metal custom maps sever I found.

Personally I dont mind all the dialog in ME. On the first run through I enjoyed finding out about the intricacies of the various plots and side missions I was sent on. On the second run through though there is no need to do so and all the dialog is skippable, excepting the cuts where you can make a quicktime (sigh) paragon or renegade choice, and there is no real need to explore your crews side plots.
Ive personally never read the codex. Guns shoot bullets. Bigger guns shoot bigger bullets. Engines make the ship go, and shields stop it blowing up. I dont need to know more than that.

Maybe it just takes a certain type to like the dialog heavy options. Personally Ive always been a big reader, into my fantasy book, card games, RP and what have you.

And while I agree pretty much all the characters fit a generic stereotype of some kind, the persecuted daughter on the run, the kind hearted assassin, the solider type who aint to smart but can blow things up, the wizz kid, its kinda hard not to. Every that its possible to have as a personality and remain mentally stable has already been stereotyped, personally I think they do quite a good job of it in ME and I never felt particularly like any of the characters was a walking cliché unlike a certain captain from CoD4. A guy who looks like a 1930's British middle/upper class man with a stunning imitation of what Americans think all Brits talk like.

I love to read, I finished battly royale last week, the manga and the book, and i'm an avid player of both harvest moon and visual novels, but these I play maybe 2 hours a month, where I spend 4 or 5 hours a day on CoD and Wow, minimum.

However, why would the option to skip dialogue be an incentive to play? better yet, why would the option to be able to skip dialogue so you can get back to walking around aimlessly and/or fighting in some of the worst combat ive ever seen be an incentive? If I want to go read/watch about a unlikeable character, i'll go read about Kiriyama or Shuya again, and I wouldent need to spend half my time flipping through a horridly stupid item screen.

To tell me to play a game to learn a story instead of intuitive and streamlined gameplay is fundementally flawed. Mario never had a story originally, maybe people played it for, lets say, fun.

 

[richasr]

Single Player, but Multiplayer only in terms of co-op, where it's just the single player campaign played with a bunch of mates.

I don't know about the PSN but Xbox Live is full of irritating morons, hackers, campers and people who just want to win rather than have fun, so it gets quite frustrating, for me anyway

Morons, hackers and campers I get. But seriously what is everyone beef with people wanting to win. I have yet to find a single person who does not enjoy winning. Ive never been beaten by someone only to have them tell me, "you know what, I wish youd won, it would have been far more enjoyable", Ive had people tell me I deserved to win, or I should have won and they got lucky, but not once have anyone of them said, damn I wish Id lost.

Ok I know sometimes you join a game to piss about and say idk, kill each other in the safe room on L4D. But if your guna do that it should really be with 3 mates otherwise the only one being a dick is you.

Could someone please try and explain this "I want to lose" mentality to me?

What I said was a bit misleading, I mean the people that are focused so much on their kill-to-death ratio, the amount of games they've won etc. to the point that they exploit the game's shortcomings. Nothing wrong with wanting to win, as long as you don't start cheating and using pussy tactics all the time just to do so, where's the fun in sitting in a bush for the majority of a 10 minute match with Cold-Blooded Pro, a silenced Barret and Ninja?

 

[Talshere]

Single Player, but Multiplayer only in terms of co-op, where it's just the single player campaign played with a bunch of mates.

I don't know about the PSN but Xbox Live is full of irritating morons, hackers, campers and people who just want to win rather than have fun, so it gets quite frustrating, for me anyway

Morons, hackers and campers I get. But seriously what is everyone beef with people wanting to win. I have yet to find a single person who does not enjoy winning. Ive never been beaten by someone only to have them tell me, "you know what, I wish youd won, it would have been far more enjoyable", Ive had people tell me I deserved to win, or I should have won and they got lucky, but not once have anyone of them said, damn I wish Id lost.

Ok I know sometimes you join a game to piss about and say idk, kill each other in the safe room on L4D. But if your guna do that it should really be with 3 mates otherwise the only one being a dick is you.

Could someone please try and explain this "I want to lose" mentality to me?

What I said was a bit misleading, I mean the people that are focused so much on their kill-to-death ratio, the amount of games they've won etc. to the point that they exploit the game's shortcomings. Nothing wrong with wanting to win, as long as you don't start cheating and using pussy tactics all the time just to do so, where's the fun in sitting in a bush for the majority of a 10 minute match with Cold-Blooded Pro, a silenced Barret and Ninja?

A see while I take your point of lame tactics as in spawn camping (although sometimes it is unavoidable) I count myself a fairly good sniper and while I dont do it every match some maps are just setup for it. Sometimes a good game of sniper wars between you and 2 enemy snipers can be entertaining and challenging. Just as finding a concealed but not blatantly obvious spot with good viability to snipe from is rewarding. Tbh though. In my experience few people have to suffer this long. Either the sniper is good and burns though his ammo, he is bad and burns though ammo, is either but keeps getting shot so while it may be frustrating for you he is dying just as much as anyone else, or the battle is fluid in location and constant repositioning is required.

I do find that IW maps tend to be easy to abuse in terms of sniper positioning. Often only one side has good positions which leave it open to much abuse. As a PC player I used a fair few of custom map servers on most Fps' I play. They tend to be more haphazard or open. I know on some custom CoD4 maps I played on noone used snipers because as a scoped weapon they had a max range, G3's didn't.

Also, cheating you already covered. Someone who is playing to win is not a cheat. They are 2 different breeds of people.

No multi player experience has ever managed to replicate the gripping stories and intriguing characters that is the signature of single player RPG's.

By introducing another player you ruin it somewhat because you are, at least in part, forced to experience the story their way, not yours.

As such, I would never, in its current state play games like Kotor, ME, Fallout, Bioshock, Dragon age or alike online. (Boaderlands is not an RPG, its a jumped up FPS)

But on the same note, I would never buy an FPS these days without at least an indication that there is a decent multiplayer aspect.

My reason being, I pay 25-30 pound for an RPG like ME. I spend over 60-70 hours the first run through. Plus whatever I spend running through it again. They dont necessarily have to be challenging combat wise to be mesmerising. Modern FPS's however rarely contain more than 16-20 hours of single player that is relatively unchallenging even on some of the harder difficulties and a plot that is often disjointed at best.

While these are (mostly) entertaining, I think the only modern FPS I can say Ive been back to and replayed is the original CoD4:MW, and it was several months before I did so. The first modern warfare also contains the only level on any FPS I have been unable to complete, the rescue the diplomat mission on the plane after the credits, which on the hardest difficulty setting continues to vex me as I fail it by 3 seconds.

I find this an interesting post because, I am currently trying to beat mass effect, and slamming my face into my table every time I realize, yes, I did just enter another dialogue cuscene, oh, f@cking, joy, and slamming my face harder into my desk when I get into the sticky at best, broken at worst combat.

The characters are generic, the dialogue is unintereting, and although the world is in depth, I could go read a book, not my codex, or better yet, watch a star wars movie, why don't we play games for what they are, games.

You can play 60 hours on Mass effect for 30 dollars? I think thats what, 60 canadian? I spend about that on modern warfare one, and I have well over a month loged on it, just multiplayer.

Not that I disliked the single player, the scene "All ghillied up" was genius, but however much fun I can have crawling through grass, I can do the same playing battlefield 2, and actually feel like i'm going somewhere with it, towards a victory, not towards the next checkpoint.

30 GBP is current 46.5836 CAD. CoD4 cost me £25 which is 38.8429 CAD.

I have also logged a hell of a lot of time on CoD4 online. The point I was making however was that while I enjoyed the campian, I might have felt a little cheated had that been all Id got. As a multiplayer I was highly active in a clan played weekly scrims and graced both my own clan servers as well as a particularly good full metal custom maps sever I found.

Personally I dont mind all the dialog in ME. On the first run through I enjoyed finding out about the intricacies of the various plots and side missions I was sent on. On the second run through though there is no need to do so and all the dialog is skippable, excepting the cuts where you can make a quicktime (sigh) paragon or renegade choice, and there is no real need to explore your crews side plots.
Ive personally never read the codex. Guns shoot bullets. Bigger guns shoot bigger bullets. Engines make the ship go, and shields stop it blowing up. I dont need to know more than that.

Maybe it just takes a certain type to like the dialog heavy options. Personally Ive always been a big reader, into my fantasy book, card games, RP and what have you.

And while I agree pretty much all the characters fit a generic stereotype of some kind, the persecuted daughter on the run, the kind hearted assassin, the solider type who aint to smart but can blow things up, the wizz kid, its kinda hard not to. Every that its possible to have as a personality and remain mentally stable has already been stereotyped, personally I think they do quite a good job of it in ME and I never felt particularly like any of the characters was a walking cliché unlike a certain captain from CoD4. A guy who looks like a 1930's British middle/upper class man with a stunning imitation of what Americans think all Brits talk like.

I love to read, I finished battly royale last week, the manga and the book, and i'm an avid player of both harvest moon and visual novels, but these I play maybe 2 hours a month, where I spend 4 or 5 hours a day on CoD and Wow, minimum.

However, why would the option to skip dialogue be an incentive to play? better yet, why would the option to be able to skip dialogue so you can get back to walking around aimlessly and/or fighting in some of the worst combat ive ever seen be an incentive? If I want to go read/watch about a unlikeable character, i'll go read about Kiriyama or Shuya again, and I wouldent need to spend half my time flipping through a horridly stupid item screen.

To tell me to play a game to learn a story instead of intuitive and streamlined gameplay is fundementally flawed. Mario never had a story originally, maybe people played it for, lets say, fun.

As you missed what I ment. On the second run though you can skip the dialog that doesn't change based on your choices. So mission briefings and alike. So you don't have to listen to stuff you already know.

It depends where you get the fun from the game. I enjoyed finding out the plot of ME, and to a lesser extent I did with Dragon age. For me, a good story doesn't need to be embellished with good shooting to make it good. As long as it is told well overall. Plus, that combat wasnt THAT bad. Ok it was no gears of war but that whole game was build on the concept of chest high walls.


I wont play MW:2. They removed dedi servers. No ta. As to wow that is somewhat unique. Its more like real time very fast chess than an FPS. Correct positioning and proper use of resources wins the day. FPS is just pull the trigger.

Personally, even the FPS's which I said have disjointed plot I still play somewhat for the plot. I cant play a game with no objective. I tried that, its called borderlands. Arguably one of the worst games Ive played in years.