Poll: A Game Must Stand On Singleplayer Alone

[TheEmoGhost]

A debate that comes up on Zero/Extra Punctuation regularly is that a game must stand up without having a multi-player aspect or mode. I have had a similar debate with friends and my brother with this regarding Hitman: Absolution, and it's Contracts mode. So, what is your view on this topic? (I am only referring to games with BOTH Single and Multi-player e.g Call of Duty, Far Cry 3, Max Payne 3 ect.)

 

[craftomega]

The answer is not simply yes or no, it is simple though, IF a game includes single player then it should stand on its own; But if a game does not include it then it should not.

 

[Jandau]

Depends. If it's a multiplayer-focused game then any SP is an afterthought. For instance, you can play League of Legends in single-player (bots only), but it's terrible compared to the actual game.

However, if it's a game where the single-player campaign is a major aspect or even a primary feature then it should be able to stand on SP alone, with MP being a nice bonus.

 

[Zhukov]

What kind of bullshit is that?

I'm a primarily single player chap myself, and I'm not too keen on the idea of crowbarring multiplayer into everything. (Although I am yet to see a game significantly lessened by the inclusion of MP). That said, a multiplayer game is allowed to be a multiplayer game.

I don't see anyone slagging on Team Fortress, League of Legends, Tribes or Natural Selection for not "standing on single player alone". They don't have to. They're multiplayer games. Anyone who buys them and complains about the lack of single player is a twit.

 

[Batou667]

A debate that comes up on Zero/Extra Punctuation regularly is that a game must stand up without having a multi-player aspect or mode. I have had a similar debate with friends and my brother with this regarding Hitman: Absolution, and it's Contracts mode. So, what is your view on this topic?

I think people get too literal with this, even Yahtzee enjoys the occasional multiplayer game, and I don't recall him slamming TF2 for not being a good single-player experience. I think the point is that a game marketed as a single-player experience should stand up on its single-player mode, whereas a game that is sold as a multiplayer experience doesn't have that onus on it.

Thing is, a lot of games are at least implicitly co-op/multiplayer these days, but some people still insist on calling anything short of an Arena Shooter or MMORPG a "single player game". Like, when people moan that "Modern Warfare 3's campaign was unimaginative and only 5 hours long, worst game ever", my response is that they're missing the point. Sure, there's a single-player mode, but that's not "the game". The majority of players will spend the majority of the game in PvP multiplayer mode.

Tl;dr: modern gaming is too complex to be summed up by sweeping statements, and what's more Yahtzee gets misquoted like a mofo every time the subject comes up.

 

[FalloutJack]

Here's what I have to say.

I personally have no great need to get on multi-player. I don't feel that - with some exception, like TF2 - I need to bother, so I look at games largely for the single play. HOWEVER, I'm going to be open-minded enough to say you judge it for what it was REALLY MEANT FOR. Anything that's got multi tagged on just becsuse isn't good enough. It has to be smooth and sexy, and by that I mean it has to be really functional and fluid, workable. Yahtzee is a hard man to please, and alotof the things he says are clearly taking the piss on purpose, but there are SOME things he says that make sense.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

It all depends on the game, what it`s going for and your personal preferences. I`ve no problem with a missing mp aslong as the game is good and i`ve also no problem with missing out a game because it`s to/only focused on mp. i didn`t bought the last COD or BF games because of this. I rented them for entertaining (more or less) 5-6 hours. On the other side there are enough people buying these titles without ever touching the campaign, i`m just not one of them.

A fun racer without mp (or splitscreen in that regard) or a MMO wouldn`t make sense without other players. My personal favorite is still a fun co-op mode with a good friend sitting next to me.

 

[TheEmoGhost]

What kind of bullshit is that?

I'm a primarily single player chap myself, and I'm not too keen on the idea of crowbarring multiplayer into everything. (Although I am yet to see a game significantly lessened by the inclusion of MP). That said, a multiplayer game is allowed to be a multiplayer game.

I don't see anyone slagging on Team Fortress, League of Legends, Tribes or Natural Selection for not "standing on single player alone". They don't have to. They're multiplayer games. Anyone who buys them and complains about the lack of single player is a twit.

I'm not slagging those games out. I should have phrased this post better. Those are all great games but I am refering to games that include both SP and MP.

 

[DoPo]

If people have no internet connection (If it is down or they just don't have one) They are pretty screwed if they want to play games with no singleplayer aren't they?

Like World of Warcraft or Counter-Strike? Some games are fine being multiplayer only. Yes, you can't play them when not with others (at least, I don't count the bots in CS as being fun enough to use them alone) but they are tailored to be MP. Including SP option is just...weird.

OT: Well, obviously, if a game is MP only, then it would probably be fine the way it is. If it only has SP tacked on to..well, I'd say it still depends on the game. Yes, the SP might not be a defining feature, but it is possible it is fun enough to not complain about it. Although, in many cases it isn't...

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

If it's a fully priced $60 game at launch, yes, I'm paying good money for a game that isn't going to leave me regretting my purchase. If it's a multiplayer game, or not fully priced, I can excuse it.

 

[King of Asgaard]

The answer is not simply yes or no, it is simple though, IF a game includes single player then it should stand on its own; But if a game does not include it then it should not.

Pretty much this.
I'm quite tired of seeing shoddy campaigns tacked onto a multi player experience, just for the sake of putting them there.
If your single player experience sucks, then it should not even be there at all.

 

[grey_space]

The answer is not simply yes or no, it is simple though, IF a game includes single player then it should stand on its own; But if a game does not include it then it should not.

Could not agree with you more. If a game wants to concentrate on multiplayer then let it concentrate on multiplayer exclusively.

I probably won't play it 'cause I don't like multiplayer generally as a rule but I can see the attraction and each to his own/whatever.

However it really bugs me to pay for a full price game only for 8+ hours of a single player campaign with shoddy ai only to be told 'well the real fun is in multiplayer'.


Edited for typos

 

[omicron1]

If the devs want my money, then yes. Simple reason being, I don't play multiplayer. Unless a game has singleplayer worth its salt, well, it's just not worth my time.

 

[shrekfan246]

I think your title a word.

Going by the specifications the OP stated, games like WoW, LotR Online, LoL, TF2, etc. wouldn't be included. So my answer is as follows:

If a game is billed as a primarily multi-player game, then it doesn't necessarily need to stand on the single-player but if they're not going to put in the effort to make a decent and enjoyable single-player campaign, then they'd probably be better off making it fully multi-player to begin with.

If a game is billed as a single-player experience, or is the sequel to a game that didn't have multi-player and they're only adding in multi-player to 'appeal to a wider audience', then I think they shouldn't bother with the multi-player in the first place, because it's not going to tear anyone away from CoD, Gears, Halo, TF2, etc. for longer than a week.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

IF it has a single player component than yes, the single player component should be able to stand by itself. If it can't then the game has failed. Good multiplayer isn't an excuse for a terrible single player experience.

 

[TheRussian]

If the game is built from the ground up as Multiplayer, hell no! If there is a singleplayer, yes. Yes it has to stand up.

And I just realized that everyone above me has said the exact same thing.