Poll: A Game Must Stand On Singleplayer Alone

[BreakfastMan]

If a game is going to include a single-player mode in addition to a multiplayer mode, they should at least include a good one. Otherwise, why bother? It is just as pointless it include a crappy, token single-player mode into your multiplayer game as it is pointless to include a crappy, token multiplayer mode into your single-player game. :\

 

[Xdeser2]

Personally: A Good Single Player beats a good Multiplayer in my book, however, no, a game can be excused with Good multiplayer, If They just dont ship it with a campaign in the first place.

 

[gamexpert1990]

Yes, but co-op may excuse it.

My reason is that many of my favorite games are single player, some of which include a co-op option. Also, I think that there are some (though maybe not many) strictly single player games that could work just as well as a co-op effort. Here's an example of one of my personal favorite games: Dark Cloud 2 (PS2) - One player could control Max/Ridepod, while the other player could play as Monica/Monsters. If anyone has ever played this game before, I think they could see the potential...

 

[Danzavare]

Not at all. I think this is one of those times where Yahtzee is saying something to rag on current shooters (COD, Battlefield) without necessarily thinking how it also affects old shooters.

To illustrate my point: Timesplitters 2.

As far as console shooters go, that game is one of the all-time classics. A certain age-group of FPS fans will always go misty-eyed whenever the game is mentioned. It's one of the most beloved shooters of any generation, even if it didn't rack up the sales of Halo or COD.

Does it have a good single-player? Fuck no. The single-player campaign is literally just a bunch of random levels thrown together with no real story, and only an occasional cutscene to tie everything together. The campaign isn't bad, but it's hardly great either.

So why did people love Timesplitters 2? The multiplayer. At the time it came out, it had one of the most complete multiplayer components of any console shooter. Not only did it have full options for split-screen and lanning, it allowed for massive amounts of bots too, meaning you could hook up with your friends and fight against hordes of enemy chimpanzees and robot cowboys. Even more importantly, it had its own level-creator, years before Forge, and complete customisation of match rules, meaning you could create a level and set the game rules to whatever you wanted.

Timesplitters 2 as a single-player game is alright, but ultimately pretty underwhelming. As a multiplayer game, however? It's one of the most fun shooters ever released for a console, and an example of developers going above and beyond the call of duty (ha!) to give players a rewarding, deep, fun experience. And I get the impression that even Yahtzee, hipster for old shooters that he is, would have to agree.

I wouldn't call it underwhelming as a single player game. I spent plenty of time having fun with the numerous challenges and tournaments single-player. The ability to use a wide range of bots with different stats and an awesome collection of weapons meant I could enjoy all the match types without needing to have friends by my side to do it. I definitely enjoyed the multiplayer too, but going back to it now I think the single-player aspects of it stand up just fine on their own. I thought Timesplitters 2 did an excellent job of making conventionally multiplayer-styled gameplay accessible to a single player. I wish more modern FPS games adopted a similar approach.

In short: I feel it worked great as both a single-player and multiplayer game.

On topic: I tend to dislike when multiplayer or single-player is tacked on in a shallow or half-hearted way. If single-player is essentially just a tutorial or lead-in to multiplayer, then don't advertise it as a single-player experience. Likewise, if your multiplayer is just a few short minigames or only partially functional version of the single-player game then don't have it or at least don't try to present it as anything more.

Edit: I should add that my personal favourite is offline co-op. So something like Borderlands 2 or maybe (ironically) Phantasy Star Online Episode 1 & 2, but definitely not like Fable 2 or 3.

 

[Okulossos]

whatever you include has to be done right or not done at all. If you include Sp then do it right.
The game has to feel like it was made for SP with everything it needs, such as SP-type gameplay, decent AI, a (halfway) decent story.
For a decent MP you just might need a different type of gameplay (look at quake 4 for example), different physics etc.

But in the end I think, that a game that focuses only on MP with no option whatsoever to play offline is not doing it right. You at least have to give new players the ability to try out the weapons, look at the maps, check out the movement and gameplay etc... So you should at least include some bots if you do an MP mod that stands alone or is different from the delivered SP.

I think that games can do very well without MP, but without SP the game has to be near perfect, or offer something special to stand it's ground.

 

[ikoian]

While I do prefer games single player standing on it's own in a game, I'm not entirely against sticking multi player into something so long as it is presented in a way that suits the game. For example, while an Elder Scrolls MMO doesn't sound appealing to me, what with all the restrictions the upcoming one will have versus the single player games, what does sound interesting is a BattleNet style drop in drop out multiplayer mode where players can host their game and what not. Or say have special seprate co-op dungeons in a Zelda game that would be both optional but have special benefits for completing them.
What does sadden me though, is when studios feel pressured into wasting resources into adding multi player in a game where it might not belong, or if those resources could be spent building a better single player mode in a game that is trying to sell itself on both.

 

[DementedSheep]

No, so long as its clearly marketed as a multiplayer focused game. If they are actauly advertising the single player campaign THEN it needs to stand up on its own.
I think its fine to have single player as a bit of fun on the side or as more of a tutorial that isn't really meant to stand up on its own.

 

[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.

 

[Auzzie Taco]

Hitman Absoloution is a prime example, promoted with MP, but the singleplayer is the highlight, because drooling idiots can find replay value without MP (there was an old Jimquisition about this). Spec Ops: The Line is another fine example, but if that was MP only the world would cave in out of disrespect for humanity.

 

[Nazulu]

If it advertises the single player in any way, then I'd expect it to. Same when they just show cinematics.

 

[Joccaren]

That depends IMO, though I mostly say yes.

If the game includes a single player aspect, and its not just the multiplayer with shitty bots, then it must be able to stand on that aspect alone. If the single player aspect is just the multiplayer with bots, then it doesn't really matter either way, as the gameplay is still the same, there's just stupid enemies rather than smart ones [I'll let you guess which one is which]. If the game is multiplayer only, then of course it doesn't have to stand on its non-existant single player - this includes pure multiplayer games with a short 'Training' mode you can do single player.

 

[CCountZero]

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?"

So, the 5-minute example is a little extreme, I'm sure we can agree. Normallty, it's closer to five hours, which I'm sure we can agree is still "too short" for a single player campaign. However, in the case of games like CoD of BF, why would you ever not want it in there?

Do you think the game is gonna be made cheaper, if they decide to rip that out?

Now, ordinarily, I'd set a standard on what people wanna give me. If someone wants to give me a blender that's inferiour to the one I currently own, I'd probably turn it down, 'cus I don't need it and it'd be taking up space.

But a digital single-player campaign doesn't take up space. It just sits there, on the same disc, in the same box, as the MP component of the game to which it belongs.

So, if I wanted the MP component, and knew that whatever company making it would never, ever lower the price of the MP component, even if they'd never included the SP, then why the hell am I complaining?

Worst case scenario, I know it's crap, and I don't bother with it, and nobody loses out. Best case scenario, I have a little fun playing it through.


Sure, I'd rather have them spend more time with the SP. I'm far from exclusively SP, and I don't play a whole lot of CoD, not BF3 really. I'm an ArmA 2 and a PlanetSide 2 kind of Shooter.

The "I got ripped off" and "I expected better SP" lines aren't excuses. Reviews are there for a reason, and people should better know better.

 

[Magicman10893]

I really hate when single player games throw in a crappy Multiplayer mode because it detracts from the experience by diverting resources from the single player. The same applies to single player modes wrenched into multiplayer games. Call of Duty is primarily a multiplayer experience and therefore the crappy single player component should be what the entire game stands on. People can still enjoy a single player game with a stupid multiplayer component because they can choose to ignore it, why can't it work the other way around?

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

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!

 

[Squilookle]

I don't think it should hinge on singleplayer, but it should hinge on what a single player can do.

There's a key difference.

See, something like, say, Unreal Tournament doesn't really even have a story, just a sequence of bot matches. As far as narrative goes, it's pretty weak. Thing is though, absolutely everything in the game that you can experience online against other players, can also be experienced alone, without any need of other players. The bots can play all the maps, all the modes, and kick your arse too if you're not careful.

I consider that to be a good game- paper thin campaign or no.

Now something like Battlefield 3 has a campaign that at least tries to have a story to it. It's multiplayer is quite extensive, with gunfights and jet dogfighting and helicopter/tank combat etc. Unfortunately, you can't experience a shred of instant-action like gameplay as seen in multiplayer unless you go online. The game has no bots to fight, no way to set up a particular fight you may want (like an AA tank vs a jet for example), and doesn't even have tutorials/minigames by which you can jump into the vehicles and get to know them while fighting live targets. So everyone has to learn to shoot/drive/fly entirely online, pissing off a lot of more experienced players in the process.

I consider this to be a very poor game.

The main reason I distinguish the two is that instant action/offline multiplayer/bot matches/whetever you want to call them can be played until the end of time and still feel emergent and fresh. Online playerbases are a fickle lot- they'll ride a game for a few years (if it's lucky) then move on.

If you buy a game you like, you should be able to play the game to it's full potential for as long as YOU want to. Not until a whole crowd you've never even met decide not to play it with you anymore.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

A game selling at full price on the promise of a wealth of gameplay modes and ways to play should be able to justify any of those modes existing.

Pricing is important - Team Fortress 2 has been mentioned, but dude, that was selling for $20, it was selling as part of The Orange Box, and is now free. Goddamn free! If it was being sold for $60, then I might take issue with it.

There's also the idea that when you pay full price for a game, you expect in return your investment to last a reasonably long time. Singleplayer will satiate for, in theory at least, ever. Multiplayer? There's no guarantee that the servers won't be empty in a month's time, or the company won't go bankrupt and stop supporting the game. So if it doesn't stand up on its singleplayer... one year down the line, chances are it'll be all that's even left of the game, unless you want to gather friends around for a LAN or something. When you've paid $60 for the game? That's not exactly comforting.

So yes, its not EVERY GAME EVER MUST STAND ON ITS SINGLEPLAYER ALONE. Its every game that is selling, boxed copy at an exorbitant price, needs to justify that price with the one mode that isn't dependent of outside contributing factors for player enjoyment. I think that's a reasonable expectation.

 

[Zetatrain]

No, I believe you should rate the game based on how much you enjoyed the game as a whole. For instance, while I agree that BF3's single player was average at best, I have enjoyed the multiplayer immensely. I have 130+ hrs. invested in multiplier and I had played 120hrs before I even touched single player.

Now having said that if you only play single player then I guess its fair to say that a game must stand on single player alone for you since multiplayer is irrelevant. Though if that's the case then you shouldn't be making claims that your opinion represents the game as a whole.