Poll: A Game Must Stand On Singleplayer Alone

[AnarchistFish]

No, but its multiplayer would have to be pretty fucking special. So the games that have turned into multiplayer fests (Halo, CoD) would fail cos their multiplayers are just rehashed versions of the previous games'. And their campaigns suck. Basically there'd have to be a reason that I'd buy the game for its multiplayer.
But that works on both fronts I guess.

 

[CCountZero]

Interesting that you should mention battlefield, because 1942, vietnam, 2, 2142 ect didnt bother with single player campaigns and they sold just fine without them. The idea of shoehorning in a singleplayer is fairly recent so no, I wouldnt want it there, it is pointless and I do think less of the game because of it. NO ONE goes to Battlefield for single player, so it is a waste of money to even bother with it, give me a few extra guns instead.

CoD, well I cant comment there, because I have played the CoD games for the story and didnt bother with the multiplayer.

But then again the point of the OP wasnt that they are rip offs, or that we expected better, the question was should a game be judged on its single player if it includes one, which is a solid Yes.

Sure, I'd prefer they'd spent whatever length of time it took them to make the SP components, making the MP better (, or less shiet in the case of CoD), but that's not the point.

Oh, and yes, I'm actually the same in that regard, I've bought and played every single version of CoD, because I enjoy playing through the SP once in a while, and because some of the CoOp elements, Zombies especially, are rather good.

Anyway, the point isn't that they could, and maybe should, have spent their time elsewhere and not have bothered with the SP, but that, now that it IS in there, there's no reasonable excuse for complaining about it.

Bottom line is that nobody is forced to play it, and that we all know it is in there, and what it's like to play, whether we like playing it or not.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I think a great co op game could excuse the quality of the single player. For example Trine. Playing single player is terrible, but playing with a couple of buddies is great because players often need to work together to succeed, in combat or puzzles.

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?

Personally, shoving multiplayer into everything is a step in the wrong direction.

Game are more often than not labelled as requiring an internet connection. If it's multiplayer only, it will say that a broadband connection is required to play this game. Although I definitely agree that shoving a deathmatch into every game that happens to have combat is stupid, a waste of money for the developers/ publishers and a forgettable experience for us.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

No of course it shouldn't. A game should be judged based solely on the enjoyment you get out of it. I mean what if the next Fallout's campaign was 5 minutes long but had some multiplayer feature that you enjoyed more than all your favorite games combined. You would look like and idiot saying "I'm not playing this because, despite being the best game ever, the single player wasn't good."

No the player would look like a person with a brain for asking "If this game is better than every other game ever made with the multiplayer why in the hell did they decide to drag that amazing epic experience down by including a 5 minute singleplayer shitstain in the game?"

That would be a reasonable question but it would still be stupid to dislike the game over it.

That would depend on why you bought the game now wouldnt it?

Say they buy it on an Xbox (in this case like I do for console games) and the entire back of the box is dedicated to blurbs about that 5 minute campaign, meant to play it up make it look awesome and engaging ect. But this person cant afford XBL subscriptions (also like me) now, wouldnt that person have quite the reason to be pissed off when they realized that the campaign was so tragically short and they couldnt get access to the other bits?

Personally, I know I was rather pissed off when I got halo 4, a friend told me how boss the spartain ops campaign was. it says it can be played single player, I go to boot up that campaign and it tells me something along the lines of: "oops, sorry fucker! you have to pay for XBL even if you want to play this solo!"

Shitty misleading advertising and information means whoever made those done a bad job. However hardware and what things are necessary to enjoy the game to the fullest are a different discussion. For this example access to multiplayer is a given.
The game I gave as an example could have plenty of reasons to piss people off with the lacking single player but it is still a good game and one would be an idiot to refrain from playing because it can't stand on single player alone.
Also, I thought Spartan Ops was kinda boring. I loved the campaign almost as much as Halo 1 and 2 but Spartan ops never really interested me.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

My answer is this: Team Fortress 2.

Really though, my opinion in a nutshell: If you're got good single player and good multiplayer, fucking brilliant. If you're got either one without the other, still good. What I dislike is when either is tacked on, because it still took effort and thus detracted from the component that is the actual game at hand.

 

[Brendan Stepladder]

A game can rely on multiplayer alone, as nobody has the authority to dictate an entire medium.

 

[Woodsey]

If it's a game with single and multiplayer then each should stand-up. I very much doubt he's arguing the likes of TF2 and CS:S should stand up on their own in single-player.

If anything, it's a reaction to the people who say "STFU, who cares about singleplayer?" when you criticise the likes of CoD for having poorly constructed campaigns.

 

[TrevHead]

The fault of many games with both SP and MP content is that not enough ppl plays the MP to keep it alive. Considering how hard it is for new IP these days, MP isa waste of time and money unless the dev goes f2p or works very hard to attract a hardcore crowd with beta testing.

More so for niche genres. There are loads of arcade games on XBLA with dead servers.

Imo much of the faultt lies with gamers and reviewers who are too focussed on value for money, which a 10hr SP for $60 comes off badly.

 

[TheEmoGhost]

You can have good singleplayer games, like Asura's Wrath
You can have good multiplayer games, like Team Fortress 2
You can have good Singleplayer-Multiplayer hybrids like Uncharted 3

But for God's sake, if you're going to focus on one aspect while half-assing the other than don't bother including it in the first place!

That was the intent of the OP. I count Hitman: Absolution in the latter catergory of equality

 

[Vykrel]

i would have to say no... i mean, just think about games like say, Battlefield. the main selling point of a series like that is the multiplayer. the campaign is a nice addition, but it doesnt need to hold up. the multiplayer must shine, though. BF has always been about the multiplayer.

games like Halo should be half and half. both single and multiplayer need to be about equally great, because both are equally important to the fan base.

and a game like Mass Effect 3 just needs the single player to be excellent. the multiplayer was new and it didnt matter much if it was good. the real draw was the single player. thankfully, the multiplayer turned out to be great.


anyway, it all depends on the game.

 

[jab136]

I honestly could give a vorcha's ass about most multiplayers (the only ones that I play regularly are ME3 and any COD zombies) but whenever a MP is tacked on, then the SP tends to suffer case in point ME3.

 

[RN7]

This question is somewhat ambiguous, and a yes/no type of system doesn't really do it justice. If the game is designed to be multi-player-based, like League of Legends or Team Fortress 2, there is literally no need for any sort of single-player element to be included. However, if a game chooses to include a single-player element, that game should have a reasonable single-player experience, or else it's pretty much just a waste of resources. For example, recent Call of Duty games have what I would call a paltry single-player experience, and would likely be better off simply focusing on the zombie and multi-player game modes.

 

[wild0061]

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.)

Unless i didn't notice a part of the contracts mode allowing more than one person to play a contract at any one time, it is SP, only made by other people rather than the devs, so 'technically' hitman is all SP isn't it?

Don't care for MP personally, the 'tacked on' MP trend is a bit tedious (its funny if the devs even agree its tacked on like Spec Ops), though its fair enough for the MP with tacked on SP campaign, they make the majority of the dough from selling $15 map packs (i would assume at least) and they need MP to be able to peddle that to their customers.
But if the focus is on MP, then the whole game will sell dirt cheap late in the map pack cycle anyway (when they'll try flog it off on the cheap to get more customers buying map packs), and you can pick it up really cheap for a quick/cheap SP experience if you want.

It is a bit worrying if long running SP games get the MP fever, and feel the need to tack on a MP component even if its not appropriate, and divert resources away from a good SP campaign just for a map pack cash grab (or items etc.), though nobody's forcing us to buy anything, just watch for trends, buy cheap, or don't buy at all, easy.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

No. In the vast history of games and play you tend to find other people are often involved. The electronic game simply makes it possible for one or more participants to be non-human - that does not mean that this is the only valid model.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

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.

The second post sums this up.

There are:
-Singleplayer only games
-Multiplayer only games
-Games with both
-Games with singleplayer that have an optional multiplayer side component that works its way into the singleplayer.

My opinion is this: if you have a singleplayer campaign at all, You are leaving it open to criticism based on the singleplayer alone. The online features should not be required. Multiplayer only games

This was the primary controversy of the Diablo III thing, it required you to be part of the online experience even when you didn't want to.

 

[l3o2828]

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.

Well....
I have nothing else to say.
This is it.
I don't care if the game is multiplayer focused, if you have a single player in any way, then that single player has to stand tall and provide as much enjoyment as possible.

 

[Russian_Assassin]

Life is mostly single player, so it feels more interesting to me. Besides, I tend to become feral when I lose in an online match, so for the sake of not buying a new keyboard every day, I stick with single player experiences.

 

[NinjaSniperAssassin]

I don't think every game needs to stand on single-player alone, but there definitely individual games that do. The biggest problem I have, however, is when MP is shoehorned into games that don't need it. Bioshock 2 is a prime example. Who looked at the perfectly-paced, story-driven, methodical, haunting, brilliant masterpiece that was the first Bioshock and thought "Ya know what that needs? Twitchy idiots swearing at each other over headsets! Yeah!" Oh that's right, the one who looked at the CoD sales figures. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood is another example. I never played it so I can't comment on the quality of the MP or if SP suffered, but I did love AC2 and there's no way in hell that game needed a MP component. At least they tried to be original about it.

The latest example of this is God of War: Ascension. Seriously, who in the flying mother of fuck thought the GoW series needed MP? At least Bioshock's story was setting-based instead of character-based so it didn't feel TOO weird being put into the shoes of a run-of-the-mill splicer (yeah, I know the main character was important, but he was still a blank slate: Rapture was the star of the game). GoW, on the other hand? Playing as Kratos IS GoW! The point of the series isn't just to explore ancient Greece, or kill Minotaurs, or even curb-stomp the Greek Gods, it's doing all that as demi-god one-man wrecking crew Kratos. You empathize with him (to a point), you guide him through the game, but in the end the satisfaction comes from seeing Kratos work out his daddy issues in the most awe-inspiringly brutal fashion imaginable. Taking you out of his shoes (or sandals, whatever) and making you a faceless nobody destroys what makes the series so enjoyable and turns it into another generic hacky-slashy-stabby gorefest. I'm not saying the game won't be good, but if the SP suffers a dip in quality because the crew allocated valuable resources to the most pointless MP mode since Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal I'm gonna be so pissed. Like, charge up the side of Mount Olympus on the back of a rampaging Titan to introduce the King of the Gods to the business end of my blade pissed.

 

[rob_simple]

I think the issue is more on how games should be marketed. If a game only has a tokenisitc single player campaign like the CoD games, it shouldn't be advertised as involving a rich and complex narrative like it often is; the focus of advertising should instead be about the multiplayer elements.

I have no problems with games being multiplayer-focused; I do have a problem with being tricked into buying a game with a four hour campaign, but a thriving multiplayer community I have no interest in.

I also find it grating when games have a completely broken single player element like Dead Island, which rendered the levelling system completely pointless by having all enemies in the game level up at the same rate as you if you play alone.

 

[Nerexor]

For me it does, but that's because I generally dislike playing multiplayer, especially in shooters. Which explains why I haven't bought a lot of shooters lately, as they all seem to be designed with only multiplayer in mind.

At the end of the day though it depends on what we're talking about in terms of the games faults. A game with poor gameplay mechanics probably won't be saved by multiplayer because multiplayer will probably just be more of the same. A game with solid mechanics but a poor campaign will at least seem better in multiplayer because the crappy campaign aspect isn't there anymore.

In my mind what really needs to stop are games trying to be both. If you're going to have a single player campaign, make it fun please. If you're making a game pretty much solely for multiplayer, then how about you just make it a multiplayer game! Those seem to be doing pretty well from all the warking I hear about League of Legends and Team Fortress 2 (which is still apparently popular despite being ages old). But if you're making a primarily story based single player game don't pull a Mass Effect 3 and add useless multiplayer to it. And if you're making another overly brown realistic shooter game, don't feel compelled to add a campaign to it! Instead try being creative and coming up with new and interesting multiplayer modes or something.