Poll: Games multiplayer make it more appealing?

[jnixon]

In modern day games there are titles e.g. tomb raider, which you would of never of dreamed of having a multiplayer yet here they are. Genuinely the last time a game blew me away with it's online multiplayer was halo 3 possibly due to it being so new to me.

SO is multiplayer a genuine need for a title to be a brilliant 10/10 game or is it more of an overstated feature that is nice, but not needed?

 

[Goofguy]

Absolutely not required. It can be a great (and potentially integral) component of a game if it is executed well. Personally, the type of multiplayer I'm more drawn to is coop. I don't really like competitive multiplayer because I get way too in to it. If a great game has an added coop feature, it's a win-win situation for me.

 

[Melon Hunter]

It's not required, but it can certainly add something to a game that at first glance doesn't need it. Mass Effect 3 is a perfect example of this; a single-player action RPG seemed like a terrible candidate for a multiplayer mode, but the 4-player co-op was surprisingly great fun. It was interesting playing as different species from the ME universe and trying out a plethora of different weapons and abilities, quite a few of which weren't in the single-player game. The only problem was that annoying tie to the 'war readiness' in the single player -- multiplayer should never leach into single player, in my opinion.

But, that aside, it was a good example of how multiplayer can enhance a single player game without being overbearing or out-of-place. I wouldn't mind seeing more thoughtful attempts at multiplayer like ME3 being tried out, although I completely disagree with the current zeitgeist amongst publishers that multiplayer is nigh-on essential to a game. Shoehorning it into games where it can't logically fit, such as Tomb Raider, only serves to detract from the game.

 

[krazykidd]

Not needed . But i will admit that a good multiplayer will prolong the longevity of a game.


Even if it's not " good" it can only add to the game . Even for a short while

 

[jnixon]

Absolutely not required. It can be a great (and potentially integral) component of a game if it is executed well. Personally, the type of multiplayer I'm more drawn to is coop. I don't really like competitive multiplayer because I get way too in to it. If a great game has an added coop feature, it's a win-win situation for me.

I agree good co-op is a more attractive feature than competitive especially in recent games where it's in everything, i think with games like borderlands showing how good co-op can be we will see a lot more co-op emphasised games, even bungie seems to be getting in on it

 

[Tahaneira]

Multiplayer is just a game type. It can be packaged with something else or stand on its own; it can be detailed, well thought-out, and well-developed, or it can be an afterthought, a slapped-on rush job. Just like singleplayer really. Now me, personally? I'm not really a multiplayer kind of guy. I care more about the campaign. Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was a pleasant surprise, though, so I'll at least give it a shot if a game I get has it included. But so far I have never sought out a game for its multiplayer component. Doesn't mean I think it's invalid to do so, though.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

As long as there's a single player mode in there somewhere, I don't care what else a game has, it'll be a bonus. My friends aren't always available to play with me, so I need something to pass the time.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It really depends on the game. I would never touch the multiplayer in something like Spec Ops the Line, or Tomb Raider, or Uncharted, because the integral experience in those is the single player, and all of the mechanics of the game were created in service of that. Because of that, no matter how well done the multiplayer may be, it still feels like a tacked on afterthought.

Then again, there are other games where I wouldn't buy the game without a multiplayer component. Halo 4 for example is a game I bought entirely because I just wanted to play the multiplayer with my friends and for no other reason (though I did of course end up playing through the campaign and the spec ops missions).

 

[skywolfblue]

It's not required, but it can certainly add something to a game that at first glance doesn't need it. Mass Effect 3 is a perfect example of this; a single-player action RPG seemed like a terrible candidate for a multiplayer mode, but the 4-player co-op was surprisingly great fun. It was interesting playing as different species from the ME universe and trying out a plethora of different weapons and abilities, quite a few of which weren't in the single-player game. The only problem was that annoying tie to the 'war readiness' in the single player -- multiplayer should never leach into single player, in my opinion.

But, that aside, it was a good example of how multiplayer can enhance a single player game without being overbearing or out-of-place. I wouldn't mind seeing more thoughtful attempts at multiplayer like ME3 being tried out, although I completely disagree with the current zeitgeist amongst publishers that multiplayer is nigh-on essential to a game. Shoehorning it into games where it can't logically fit, such as Tomb Raider, only serves to detract from the game.

Took the words right out of my mouth!

It didn't detract from the campaign or the story, it was more of a bonus. A bonus that I ended up playing a whole lot more then I did the campaign.

 

[layden radeen]

I think that games can run on online and multiplayer like tf2 and l4d2 but it needs to suite the game like bioshock having online play just took away disc space and had no point because people who got bioshock did not buy it for multiplayer I did like the half life system having one game for online and the other for single player with one having nothing to do with the other

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I'm a singleplayer person, unless the game is built to be multiplayer dedicated (TF2, LoL, etc) it's multiplayer (if present or not) does not impact my decision.

Like Yahtzee said, a game shouldn't rely on multiplayer.

 

[natster43]

Completely depends on the game. Like if I bought Bioshock Infinite, Multiplayer would mean jack shit to me as I am playing that game for the story, but if I bought a game like Battlefield 3, the Multiplayer is the reason I am buying it because you aren't buying a Battlefield game for the singleplayer story.

 

[Windcaler]

It depends on the game. Some games multiplayer is the whole game like Chivalry: Medival warfare or Guns of Icaris. In other games with both it really depends on the game. Battlefield: bad company 2 had a great single and multiplayer and it made that game amazing instead of just good (like BF3). For other games like Spec Ops: The line or Bioshock 2 multiplayer actually detracts from the experience. In those cases I always think about how much better the game could have been if they had more assets doing the singleplayer

IMO the only right answer is "know what your game is good at and build on that. Dont do the extra dibits unless its DLC or an expansion"

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Why do people have to be such absolutists?

There are games where multiplayer is the main draw and there are games where the singleplayer is the main if not the only draw. It's all based on the situation and execution. Multiplayer in Starcraft 2 or left 4 dead makes an otherwise average game into one of the biggest games in the world. Multiplayer in a game like Hitman Bloodmoney or The Walking Dead would be a misstep and a waste of time and development resources.

There is no one right answer that automatically multiplayer makes a game more or less appealing; just like there is no right answer that a divergent dialogue system automatically makes a game better or worse. Call of Duty + dialogue tree would be a comedic misstep. So I'll simply point out that it all depends on what the dev is trying to accomplish and what their target audience and play style is.

 

[The AmeriCanadian Gamer]

I am personally a multiplayer gamer at heart (mostly for shooters), and I really only buy games for multiplayer to be honest. I do have some singleplayer titles I enjoy, but a good multiplayer romp is always a blast for me.

 

[RicoADF]

It depends on the game, some it can be but others it has no effect. Can you add that option for those that play both mp and sp games?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well going on past experience I can expect a game with multi to have poorer content, and one that is multiplayer only to have the poorest.

So that is quite a factor in my purchasing decision.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

The latter. It's overstated and overblown. I've never once felt that a good game couldn't survive if the multiplayer had been ditched and they used that time and money to work on the main game.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Why do people have to be such absolutists?

There are games where multiplayer is the main draw and there are games where the singleplayer is the main if not the only draw. It's all based on the situation and execution. Multiplayer in Starcraft 2 or left 4 dead makes an otherwise average game into one of the biggest games in the world. Multiplayer in a game like Hitman Bloodmoney or The Walking Dead would be a misstep and a waste of time and development resources.

There is no one right answer that automatically multiplayer makes a game more or less appealing; just like there is no right answer that a divergent dialogue system automatically makes a game better or worse. Call of Duty + dialogue tree would be a comedic misstep. So I'll simply point out that it all depends on what the dev is trying to accomplish and what their target audience and play style is.

The sad thing is that (some) publishers and developers have taken the absolutist attitude which inevitably results in getting games that are half-assed or have problems. So inadvertently people respond to it similarly.