I once again find it difficult to find any particular reason to disagree with Yahtzee but I am also reluctant to agree. Some of his points I have no ability to counter - for example, I live in the United States and therefore have no problems with lag, timing or communication issues. His last three points however are the ones that I find most intriguing.
In short, the statement generally lacks rigour. If someone is opposed to multiplayer in general as Yahtzee appears to be, then I suppose the statement is self proving. If one finds no worth in multiplayer, then the value MUST be contained in the single player experience or else it doesn't exist in that product as far as the user is concerned. In any other case, I'd hope to see a stronger argument.
That a great many people on XBL (or even PSN, though the relatively low numbers of players with headsets helps ensure you don't have to deal with quite as much silliness) seemingly exist only to drag down the experience for others is not a point I would debate. To regularly avoid an entire mode of play on the assumption that you will never have a good experience however is almost absurd. I hardly expect any attempt to play a game with the unwashed masses will improve Yahtzee's opinion; indeed, it would probably only further erode his opinion.
The part that actually irritates me however is that in ignoring the multiplayer components of games that enjoy commercial and critical success primarily because of multiplayer is tantamount to a music critic presenting reviews based off of the 30 second previews itunes delivers, or perhaps a movie critic writing a review based off a preview for a film. The picture is incomplete. If one truly wants to be a critic, it seems the must be willing to explore all aspects of the medium, even if certain aspects disgust them. Ignoring the existance and importance (in terms of moving copies) of multiplayer when delivering a critique means you have never examined the entire picture.
While I cannot reasonably argue that there anything truly new to be found in multiplayer in your average game, to dismiss something because you have seen it before strikes me as being incredibly cynical. Afterall, I've played dozens (hundreds?) of first person shooters and I can rest soundly knowing that it is a rare entry in the genre that will offer up anything new and surprising.
This is the statement I have the hardest time agreeing with likely because it has the weakest justification. There have been games that have been successful without a significant single player component (Tribes, Quake 3, Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament and many others) so it would seem that by virtue of the existance of such games market success does not rely on a quality single player experience. For a great many players, the single player campaign in games like Modern Warfare represent only a tiny sliver of the overall experience and as such find most of the value contained in the online component.
In short, the statement generally lacks rigour. If someone is opposed to multiplayer in general as Yahtzee appears to be, then I suppose the statement is self proving. If one finds no worth in multiplayer, then the value MUST be contained in the single player experience or else it doesn't exist in that product as far as the user is concerned. In any other case, I'd hope to see a stronger argument.
I cannot disagree with this statement. My enjoyment in a multiplayer game is based almost entirely upon the other people playing alongside or against me. In some cases, the combination of people and skills produce a great deal of fun. Other times it produces undiluted rage.
That a great many people on XBL (or even PSN, though the relatively low numbers of players with headsets helps ensure you don't have to deal with quite as much silliness) seemingly exist only to drag down the experience for others is not a point I would debate. To regularly avoid an entire mode of play on the assumption that you will never have a good experience however is almost absurd. I hardly expect any attempt to play a game with the unwashed masses will improve Yahtzee's opinion; indeed, it would probably only further erode his opinion.
The part that actually irritates me however is that in ignoring the multiplayer components of games that enjoy commercial and critical success primarily because of multiplayer is tantamount to a music critic presenting reviews based off of the 30 second previews itunes delivers, or perhaps a movie critic writing a review based off a preview for a film. The picture is incomplete. If one truly wants to be a critic, it seems the must be willing to explore all aspects of the medium, even if certain aspects disgust them. Ignoring the existance and importance (in terms of moving copies) of multiplayer when delivering a critique means you have never examined the entire picture.
I do strongly believe that if you get into the games' online play-styles you'd have a lot of fun though, depending on the game. I do however fully understand that you have a job to do and that that job doesn't permit lengthy play of each game.
