Poll: Does online multiplayer make a game less appealing to you?

[The Enquirer]

It's a pretty basic question but when you answer it try to remember that sometimes the developers put so much effort into making a multiplayer aspect to the game it detracts from the single player aspect making a great story only good or decent at best.

Take Mass Effect 3 for example, Bioware was rushed to finish that game and part of the reason for that would be because they took a good portion of time to develop a multiplayer section. They could have used that time to better the ending (obviously) or patch some plot holes up or add more to the game as a whole.

One of the only games I'm looking forward to this upcoming generation is Watchdogs and when I found out that it had multiplayer I was sorta upset over that because I figured they would take a lot of time developing it. Upon finding out it was basically single player with the occasional other human player in it and it was optional, I felt a lot better since they had been doing everything right with this game from the get-go.

So vote as if acting that the multiplayer is a primary focus in it like Call of Duty.

I'll admit since I am more of a single player guy having a large focus on online multiplayer does turn me off of most games when I was mostly looking forward to the single player and story elements.

 

[Cabisco]

I like multiplayer, hell I actually really enjoyed the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer with my friends.

It actually enhances a game for me.

Though I get what you mean, when a company tries to force multiplayer (or anything) into something without proper care, time and attention it can dilute the overall experience of the game.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I hated the ending of ME3 as much as the next guy, but that had nothing to do with the multiplayer (which I thought was pretty damn good, by the way). The team that worked on multiplayer was completely separate from the single player side of things.

The ending of ME3 sucked for a myriad of reasons, but that wasn't one of them.

Even if that were the case, I'd love to see your reasoning on how something unaffected by gameplay, would be influenced by a game mode completely comprised of said gameplay.

 

[The Enquirer]

I hated the ending of ME3 as much as the next guy, but that had nothing to do with the multiplayer (which I thought was pretty damn good, by the way). The team that worked on multiplayer was completely separate from the single player side of things.

The ending of ME3 sucked for a myriad of reasons, but that wasn't one of them..

The deadline was rushed, if they took the time they spent on that to give a satisfactory ending...

But I do enjoy the multiplayer, just I felt as if too much time was spent working on it when it should have been used on the monumental task of ending their award winning series on a good note.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I hated the ending of ME3 as much as the next guy, but that had nothing to do with the multiplayer (which I thought was pretty damn good, by the way). The team that worked on multiplayer was completely separate from the single player side of things.

The ending of ME3 sucked for a myriad of reasons, but that wasn't one of them..

The deadline was rushed, if they took the time they spent on that to give a satisfactory ending...

But I do enjoy the multiplayer, just I felt as if too much time was spent working on it when it should have been used on the monumental task of ending their award winning series on a good note.

And besides, even if that were the case, why would writers (the people responsible for the ending), be working on a piece of the game with zero story?

 

[ShinyCharizard]

No it doesn't ruin the game for me. However I only have the time to devote myself to maybe one or two multiplayer titles (currently Gears of War 3 and Battlefield Bad Company 2). So multiplayer in most games is a try once and forget affair for me.

 

[The Enquirer]

I hated the ending of ME3 as much as the next guy, but that had nothing to do with the multiplayer (which I thought was pretty damn good, by the way). The team that worked on multiplayer was completely separate from the single player side of things.

The ending of ME3 sucked for a myriad of reasons, but that wasn't one of them..

The deadline was rushed, if they took the time they spent on that to give a satisfactory ending...

But I do enjoy the multiplayer, just I felt as if too much time was spent working on it when it should have been used on the monumental task of ending their award winning series on a good note.

And besides, even if that were the case, why would writers (the people responsible for the ending), be working on a piece of the game with zero story?

I can't say I can give you your citation lol its just a belief I have. They may not have needed writers for the multiplayer but they sure as heck needed artists, level designers etc. Resources that could have been used to give a better revamped ending.

Like I said I did enjoy the multiplayer, just I would have enjoyed a proper ending more.

 

[DyqstARD]

As long as it doesn't detract from the singleplayer I don't care whether it's good or not.

 

[Miss G.]

Its usually a deal breaker. The only games I have that even have that option are Pokemon (kinda, I guess) and The Last of Us because its not something that detracts from the single player experience and as my inner Yahtzee would tell you, I sure as hell would not touch multiplayer with a 12 ft sterilized barge pole that's being held by someone else.

 

[Catfood220]

If its well done and doesn't effect the main story in any way, then I don' have a problem with multiplayer in games. For example, The Last of Us has a pretty fleshed out story mode and it also has a pretty good multiplayer mode included with it, which is pretty good fun (even if I suck at it)

On the other hand, the new Tomb Raider is a good game with a pretty awful multiplayer tacked on, I only played that a couple of time before deciding that it wasn't worth my time.

 

[Voulan]

I don't mind them at all - in fact, for me they guarantee some form of replayability after I've completed the main game. Especially if its a separate thing from the main story, like Uncharted, Tomb Raider, Far Cry's 2 and 3, and The Last of Us.

Unless they're completely uninspired, or a large amount of development time is spent on them.

 

[Hero of Lime]

It makes me think a little less of the developer or publisher when they tack on useless multiplayer onto games that are meant to be single player focused that no one could care about. If you have the time and money to develop more stuff for a game, use it to either make more of the game, or polish it up to make it the best it can be.

If you want people to not trade in a game make it the best game it can be, if you have interesting multiplayer ideas, great! If you add it just so you can put it on the back of the box, then it did not need to be made.

 

[Verrik]

My real answer? Not really. As long as the Multiplayer has absolutely NO effect on the Singleplayer, then I'm fine. Example. Mass Effect 3, remember (what was it called again?) War Assets? And how it was either really hard or impossible to get that up to max unless you played the Multiplayer? Yeah, that's when I really REALLY begin to hate the multiplayer in a game.

Keep Multiplayer and Singleplayer separate. One should have absolutely no effect on the other.

 

[Abomination]

I only care when they start having an effect on the other.

SimCity is a perfect example of multiplayer killing a game. I understand what they were going for but what they were going for needed its own IP.

 

[shootthebandit]

I like battlefield 3 but the single player is dredful and i suppose knowing that BF4 will have a single player portion too is kinda off puting but i know itll still be a great multiplayer experience

GTA online looks kinda fun but im mostly looking towards the single player but then again i can imagine GTA online is going to be great for random greif wars. Me and a friend used to have a load of fun in GTA IV flying over people and dropping molotovs out of a chopper. Or shooting people doing stunts at the airport

 

[novem]

Multiplayer as in some form of competitive mode doesn't interest me at all, but a game with online co-op will get my attention real fast. Games like Saints Row (for example) don?t appeal to me at all but playing SR3 in co-op was an absolute blast.

Other games that I don?t think need co-op can still benefit from it if it?s handled well. The newest Simcity got a ridiculous amount of flak for its multiplayer but I look at Anno 2070 and marvel at how well it pulled off cooperative city management.

 

[TehCookie]

It does because I hate online multiplayer. I want to play with my friends on my couch not random people on the internet. Also I'm with the "Don't let it affect single player" group.

 

[DanielBrown]

Not really. It doesn't do it any favor either, since I quit bothering with online multiplayer since my Counter-Strike days back in 2003-2006(apart from MMOs). As long as single player doesn't suffer and/or the campain is really fucking short.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I think the issue with the title is that you should have had it ask if devoting time to making a game capable of multiplayer hurts games or some similar question.