Multiplayer

[cutecuddely]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the escapist,

I am sure it has been done before but multiplayer... well. it's a difficult point for me. I have been put off mulitplayer firstly because my Xbox live ran out and i couldnt be bother shelling £35 for 12 months only to do it again. (and before people say why didnt you get a PS3? I dont know the Xbox appealed to me more. but also i have seen that the multiplayer has affected the single player in games, I follow the Yahtzee style of thinking and that a game should stand up on singleplayer alone, but i have seen it noticable in especially the Assassins Creed series.

Assassins Creed II was the highlight of the series but Brotherhood then came with multiplayer, which saw less sequences with the ones before the last one finishing in about 15 minuets which annoyed me somewhat as it feels they had removed some of the singleplayer to make space for the multiplayer.

Don't get me wrong but multiplayer is a fabulous idea allowing friends to play with each other and to share the gaming experience but i feel that games are now being judged more on their multiplayer rather that their singleplayer which is annoying if you can't use multiplayer. I suppose it does not matter to anyone on the PS3 but just think how the singleplayer could be so much better if both could be made good without sacrificing one or the other.

So people of the escapist. What is your view? Or opinions? and please no flame wars.

 

[SarcasmoPope]

I reckon if a game is gonna half-ass a segment of their game to ship with the main attraction (BF3 etc) they should just not include it at all so it doesn't detract from the overall quality. I wouldn't have a problem with a Battlefield game without singleplayer. Who buys Battlefield for the singleplayer? nobody. So why have it? It just makes the game look worse because you judge the two together, and the singleplayer was awful.

 

[cutecuddely]

That is almost the point i am getting at but I am saying that an overall good game with multiplayer should have a good singleplayer letting people stil play the game once people start getting bored of the multiplayer.A good singleplayer will then let people enjoy the game more after the something new comes out. IF there are games that want to be solely multiplayer based then they will probably do a very good job on it or just a singleplayer game which will also be a job well done. It's just that if a game is going to be made with a single and multiplayer then one should not be worse than the other and feel as if you are being skimped out for one or the other.

 

[cutecuddely]

well im sorry but i am not a journalist and do not have much experience in writing articles. Paragraph 2 was saying that in assassins creed brotherhood the last few sequences were incredibly short that took me about 15 mins to do. well paragraph 1 is badly written but you still understoond what i was trying to convey? (none of this was ment to sound sarkey)

 

[Elvis Starburst]

I hate AAA games because the single player is usually ass, and the multiplayer is just meh at times (to me, take it easy) I really wish games would have great singleplayer, and great multiplayer, not just constantly giving us a good multiplayer experience and leaving the rest to die. Seriously, I stopped playing Halo cause all their was to enjoy was multiplayer, and even then I hated the people in it. So, I lost interest, which is sad. I really enjoyed it when it was fun. I don't even wanna bother trying another CoD game for that matter, for the reasons above *puts flame shield up for CoD nerds. Don't even bother trying to rant towards me, you'll never see me think differently towards it until I see something good bout it (in my opinion, which is mine alone)*

 

[loc978]

I'm a gigantic hater on online multiplayer. Good multiplayer is pretty much always local, as far as I'm concerned. LAN, split screen, or good ol' invisible walls that box in the players.

As for the funding dichotomy between single and multiplayer... we have no one to blame but ourselves. Modern gamers as a group demand competitive multiplayer in most games (especially shooters). Multiplayer is shoehorned into games it shouldn't be simply because of its popularity.

 

[him over there]

I reckon if a game is gonna half-ass a segment of their game to ship with the main attraction (BF3 etc) they should just not include it at all so it doesn't detract from the overall quality. I wouldn't have a problem with a Battlefield game without singleplayer. Who buys Battlefield for the singleplayer? nobody. So why have it? It just makes the game look worse because you judge the two together, and the singleplayer was awful.

Battlefield games in the past were only multiplayer. It added single player to better emulate CoD to sell more copies. So basically more 12 year old whiners bought CoD than battlefield so battlefield added singleplayer to convince the 12 year olds it was just as good. Despite the fact that they only play multiplayer but were too ignorant to realize this and stuck to the repetoire that no single player meant lazy developers and therefore bad game. I know plenty of people play play these games for the single player and people aren't all 12 year old squeaky voiced brats but I know people who fit the stereotype perfectly.

 

[Grimfolse]

I generally hate multiplayer. It often comes at the expense of the single player, and when it doesn't, there are way too many jerks and "stop having fun" guys to ruin it anyway.

The only multiplayer games I used to like were way back in the Nintendo 64 era. Give me a couple friends and a copy of Smash Bros, Goldeneye, or Mario Kart 64 and I'm a happy guy. Also, I do have a little bit of fun with the occasional co-op campaign (like Portal 2), but other than that...bleagh.

 

[Granny Smith 07]

I comply agree with OP singleplayer is the only reason I play games. Occasionally some multiplayer is good and I'll play it for a bit, but it's overly repetitious and I just like a good story. Campaigns have been decreasing in quality as graphics get better and multiplayer gets popular and it's getting annoying paying 60 dollars for a product that is every except what you're really looking for in a game.

 

[LobsterFeng]

If it's a game that people only buy for the Multiplayer then I don't really see why people make a big deal about the Singleplayer because the way I see it you might as well put it in there. See I'm one of the few weirdos that actually enjoys the CoD campaigns. I do buy it for the Multiplayer but it's nice to have something else to do.

And why doesn't anyone ever bring up things like Spec Ops or Zombies in these conversations? Because those can be both Multiplayer and Singleplayer, personally I think games should make more things like that.

 

[dave1004]

Single-player > Multi-player for me, easily. I prefer too have my own little "World" to be god in, without anybody else. I've rarely ever played any form of multi-player game (Well, some Runescape, but...), so maybe my opinion is invalid, but meh. I hate playing with others online. I'd prefer to play with friends on a LAN network.

 

[BathorysGraveland]

Well, I only ever play one game on multiplayer and that is Mount & Blade: Warband. No other games multiplayer interest me, so as far as my preference goes, I'd rather developers spend more time fleshing out the single player quality.

 

[Something Amyss]

Multiplayer is fine as long as it's not shoehorned in. I don't think that's the problem with AssCreed Brohoof. Multiplayer was kind of the whole reason it was being pushed, and I think they probably should have just gone with it.

I don't mind a multiplayer only game, though I have ZERO interest in AC online. In other words, I wouldn't have bothered with the multiplayer, but I would have still been fine if it wasn't pretending to be an AC single player title as well.

 

[DuplicateValue]

Just correcting your post. Paragraph 1 is badly written. I have no idea what you're trying to say in paragraph 2.

Tip: Before you post, ask yourself "Is my post contributing anything? Am I going to address the topic at hand? What image am I creating of myself if I just come into threads to nitpick people's sentence structure?"

It's not that bad, I understood it pretty easily.

OT: Very few games get both right, but that doesn't mean the presence of multiplayer always impacts negatively on the singleplayer. It depends what the developer's focus was. For example, you shouldn't go in to a game selling itself on amazing multiplayer expecting an amazing story too (and vice versa).

Sometimes there's exceptions - COD4 was a notable one - but I've found them to be pretty rare.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Multiplayer is generally all I play anymore. It is just really easy to get back into, because of all the possible team combinations and player skill sets. There are varying levels of enjoyment with multiplayer (with a bunch of guys you know on one team = good), mind you.

But that's just how multiplayer works, it lasts longer. How long did you spend on the campaign compared to the multiplayer in most games?

 

[kenu12345]

Multiplayer is generally all I play anymore. It is just really easy to get back into, because of all the possible team combinations and player skill sets. There are varying levels of enjoyment with multiplayer (with a bunch of guys you know on one team = good), mind you.

But that's just how multiplayer works, it lasts longer. How long did you spend on the campaign compared to the multiplayer in most games?

actually months multiplayer on the other hand

 

[Joby Baumann]

a game can have shit multiplayer, but good single player and be fun
a game can have shit single player. but good multiplayer and be fun
a game can have good single player, and no multiplayer. and be fun
a game can have good multiplayer, and no single player, and be fun

as long as the game is an enjoyable experience, the game is good