Poll: A Game Must Stand On Singleplayer Alone
- Thread starter TheEmoGhost
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Most games must but something like BF3 or what have you, a game marketed for multiplayer it is excusable but as a general rule, yes...
Absolutely not. A game needs to be a good game, that's all. If the developers wish to create a multiplayer focused experience with a minimal or even non existent single player mode, than that's perfectly fine. As long as it's good, then it doesn't matter how many players are required to properly enjoy it.
If you're going to put a single player campaign into your game then yes it should be able to stand on it's own merits. If your game is multi-player focused then rather than give us a shitty, tacked on SP experience take that time and use it to fine tune your multi-player.
Multi-player focus is no excuse, a shit campaign is a shit campaign. Make it good or don't bother with one at all.
Multi-player focus is no excuse, a shit campaign is a shit campaign. Make it good or don't bother with one at all.
The way I look at it:
If you design a new game that has both single player and multiplayer, then ideally they should both be worth the time and effort, or else you may as well only have one of them.
If you make a series that is single player, and then the multiplayer is added on in a sequel (Assassins Creed Brotherhood+, Dead Space 2, Bishock 2, Mass Effect 3) then the single player should still be the priority. It is a perfectly valid complaint if people are pissed off that multiplayer is added if the single player has any glaring flaws.
Games that are purely multiplayer from the start I cannot see the issue with.
If you design a new game that has both single player and multiplayer, then ideally they should both be worth the time and effort, or else you may as well only have one of them.
If you make a series that is single player, and then the multiplayer is added on in a sequel (Assassins Creed Brotherhood+, Dead Space 2, Bishock 2, Mass Effect 3) then the single player should still be the priority. It is a perfectly valid complaint if people are pissed off that multiplayer is added if the single player has any glaring flaws.
Games that are purely multiplayer from the start I cannot see the issue with.
Does every game have to stand on single player alone? No.
But for F's sake, let me know if you're planning on half-assing it. Most of these "mostly multiplayer" games try to sell me on them by barely mentioning multiplayer and advertising their single-player elements.
You say "people who play Modern Warfare 3 mostly play the multiplayer, so their pathetic single-player can be excused." But, how am I supposed to know that? I played Modern Warfare 1 for its single-player, it was short (about 12 hours, cuz I suck at shooters)but it was great. Subsequent installments have been terrible for me, Black Ops was perhaps the worst shooter I've ever played - dying a billion times trying to get through a bombed out trench because they magically spawned enemies on all sides without telling anyone - then when I finally made it to the other side they shot me dead in a cut scene and even though I spent hours dying and respawning, it was still criminally short.
Thing is, if I hadn't suffered through a number of awful installments - paying 60 bucks for each one - I might get suckered in by their amazing visual effects and think they might have a fun and interesting campaign.
But for F's sake, let me know if you're planning on half-assing it. Most of these "mostly multiplayer" games try to sell me on them by barely mentioning multiplayer and advertising their single-player elements.
You say "people who play Modern Warfare 3 mostly play the multiplayer, so their pathetic single-player can be excused." But, how am I supposed to know that? I played Modern Warfare 1 for its single-player, it was short (about 12 hours, cuz I suck at shooters)but it was great. Subsequent installments have been terrible for me, Black Ops was perhaps the worst shooter I've ever played - dying a billion times trying to get through a bombed out trench because they magically spawned enemies on all sides without telling anyone - then when I finally made it to the other side they shot me dead in a cut scene and even though I spent hours dying and respawning, it was still criminally short.
Thing is, if I hadn't suffered through a number of awful installments - paying 60 bucks for each one - I might get suckered in by their amazing visual effects and think they might have a fun and interesting campaign.
QFT, Im glad to see someone that understands how selfish the mentality that every game on earth has to have a well put together version of your mode of choice cus anything else is a crime against these unfortunate people without an internet connection posting on an internet forum.Zhukov said:
And as long as we are preaching this argument, I want co-op in everything, all the time for 100% of the game, none of this stapled on horde mode clone copy crap, and the fact that every game on earth doesn't do this is a crime against the gaming community as a whole and rabble rabble internet.
<3
I said yes because I assume this is about games that actually have a single player. Team Fortress for example, is a multiplayer game, plain and simple. Call of Duty and Halo claims to be both and shoves in a five hour incredibly mediocre campaign. If you are going to have some kind of campaign, you damn well better put effort into it. Especially when you advertise the hell out of it.
I think you're taking that statement either too literally or out of context. Rather than "A game must stand up without having a multi-player aspect or mode", I think it should be "A game's single player mode should be able to stand up on its own in spite of its multi-player content". It's a matter of efficiently allocating resources. If the dev team feels that including a single player mode as a core component in a multi-player focused game is important enough to devote time and money to, then it should be competently strung together and be able to provide a good experience to the player. Otherwise it's just a massive waste of resources that could be used to polish the mutli-player. Likewise, if a single player focused game must have a mutli-player aspect, then it should be consistent with the game's overall tone (i.e. if you're developing a claustrophobic horror game emphasizing fear and oppression like Silent Hill, don't include 4 player co-op), not penalize people who choose to forgo it (i.e. terrible NPC partner A.I. or features only available during co-op), and clearly be second in priority to the single player when it comes to rationing company resources to.
I'm a little more forgiving when it's clear that tacked on single/multi-player doesn't interfere with the main focus of the game and isn't advertised as a core feature. Sometimes they're just little fun tidbits to extend the life of the game after you've beaten the single player campaign, or provide some quick entertainment when you're taking a break from the mutli-player or waiting for your friends to come on.
I'm a little more forgiving when it's clear that tacked on single/multi-player doesn't interfere with the main focus of the game and isn't advertised as a core feature. Sometimes they're just little fun tidbits to extend the life of the game after you've beaten the single player campaign, or provide some quick entertainment when you're taking a break from the mutli-player or waiting for your friends to come on.
Every game must stand on single player alone,before trying anything else in my own opinion.
There are some exceptions to this where the games are only made for multiplayer(Counter Strike,Team Fortress 2 etc).
There are some exceptions to this where the games are only made for multiplayer(Counter Strike,Team Fortress 2 etc).
No a game should stand on what it's selling, if you promised SP then you better damn deliver or we will tear you a new one.
That being said I couldn't really think of a game that would be worth the full price with MP alone.
That being said I couldn't really think of a game that would be worth the full price with MP alone.
TF2 doesn't really have singleplayer - it has a training mode with bots, but that's about it
Compare to something like Terraria where you can easily play single player up to a certain point - but hardmode is damn near impossible unless you're in multiplayer
Games in the Elder Scrolls series or the Deus Ex games are good examples of singleplayer games that stand well on their own - and having no real multiplayer
MMS games like Call of battlefield black shooter down... well - their singleplayer campaigns are IMO just training tools to get players good enough to move over to multiplayer afterwards - so they're basically self-glorifying training maps, with a silly story tacked on 'just because'.
But it all comes down to what you want to make/sell. If you want to sell a good singleplayer experience, then make that. If you want to sell a good multiplayer experience, make that. If you want both... well... try.
Compare to something like Terraria where you can easily play single player up to a certain point - but hardmode is damn near impossible unless you're in multiplayer
Games in the Elder Scrolls series or the Deus Ex games are good examples of singleplayer games that stand well on their own - and having no real multiplayer
MMS games like Call of battlefield black shooter down... well - their singleplayer campaigns are IMO just training tools to get players good enough to move over to multiplayer afterwards - so they're basically self-glorifying training maps, with a silly story tacked on 'just because'.
But it all comes down to what you want to make/sell. If you want to sell a good singleplayer experience, then make that. If you want to sell a good multiplayer experience, make that. If you want both... well... try.
Well that's not entirely fair is it. There are some games with good single player campaigns with rather lackluster multiplayer, but it'd be crazy to review the game SOLELY on the multiplayer. Likewise it's only fair that a multiplayer focused game, like say Battlefield (which Yahtzee based his review more or less on campaign only), shouldn't be dragged down by a crappy single player mode.Carsus Tyrell said:
The OP was, in fact, talking about games with both, not just one or the other.Zhukov said:
As for what I think: absolutely. If singleplayer can't stand alone, then don't bloody include it, or put more funds toward it. Multiplayer games, for the most part, are played for a little while by the majority of players, then quickly forgotten about and relegated to being kept up by a small, hardcore group of players.
Singleplayer games will, if they are done right, be played for years after their release.
If its a full $60 price, then yes. No excuses.
I haven't played any multiplayer game worth that much.
I haven't played any multiplayer game worth that much.
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."