Poll: Is Multiplayer Always Nesscary?

[StigmataDiaboli]

It seems to me that a lot of new releases this year (yeah I just remembered its 2010) were once single player games but now all of a sudden have had multiplayer added on; the two big names that hit me being Dead Space 2 and Bioshock 2. Now is it completely nesscary to have multiplayer these days? It also goes for less awesome games that just have multiplayer tacked on despite the success of the single player.

Feel the same way? Reckon we should have a few more purely single player games like Alan Wake and Bayonetta? Is multiplayer just added to get players get a few more hours out of it? Or is it a welcome feature?

 

[Balaxe]

Multiplayer is just added so people can't complain about replayability or the game being too short. Most are unneeded and the devs should work on the campaign having more replayable, eg. on seconded play through there are a few more features are added and you can unlock more weapons/items/other.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[alinos]

definetly not in some games it actually can infringe on the SP which is my biggest gripe with bioshock 2 atm the weapons and plasmids at once to me its sumthing come from a MP standpoint that theve moved into SP because they want to familiarise you with it

the challenge was balanceing switching on the hardest difficultys makes the 1 2 punch kinda redundant

far cry 2 i think coulda either done with more effort into the MP or have it not there at all it felt broken when i played it long ago

the other issue i have is because of the multiple platforms people end up spread out like im sure that the stupid listen servers that MS and PS use for there MP would be way better if it linked everyone probs not an issue inside the states but elsewhere it can become quite annoying

 

[comadorcrack]

Multiplayer is the greatest challenge.

No matter how tough a single player campaign may be, you play against a group of 1337 Multiplayer vets and you wont be winning easilly.

And Also! Not all games should really have to have it. But I think Most Shooters should

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

Multiplayer's added on for replayability and hopefully better reviews. It's not necessary though. If the single player storyline's good enough that's all you'll need.

 

[Zing]

Depends whether they put effort into it, not just killing each other. That gets boring fast. Successful multiplayer games like Modern Warfare 2 are constantly rewarding you and changing things up, Similarly for WoW and other MMO's.

 

[SextusMaximus]

No. But it certainly helps.

*Except for Half Life 2 Deathmatch, DOD and Counter Strike

 

[alinos]

which is basically his point bioshock and dead space are far from a shooter fair

anything that is world war 2 or what not fps should be

but dead space is survival horror co op maybe MP is lame
bioshock is a action RPG although it can be played by a straight out FPS

to me the only games that truely require it is RTS(needs lan and online ) and FPS cos i mean if mw2 hadnt had mp no one woulda bought it

Depends whether they put effort into it, not just killing each other. That gets boring fast. Successful multiplayer games like Modern Warfare 2 are constantly rewarding you and changing things up, Similarly for WoW and other MMO's.

really mw2 just took the only gun i wanted made it an end level gun and said lvl to 70 on our unbalanced game it doesnt reward you for changing it up since if it did people wouldnt have spent a month rocking the akimbo 1887's

 

[Woodsey]

NO.

You get games like MW and MW2 (never saw the fascination with MW multiplayer) which are the most played (along with Halo) and then everything else has a multiplayer mode which people play on twice (if that) before everyone ignores it.

Just focus on the singleplayer please.

I also don't see why, if I buy a game, I must pay extra to "unlock" the multiplayer side of things on the 360.

Luckily I:

a) Buy most things on the PC

and

b) Very rarely give a toss about multiplayer

 

[Sir Prize]

I can see the sense in some games, such a Halo and MW2 but it isn't a must, a game can stand up without the need for mass online multiplayer. I don't play online much and when I do I sometimes just quit because I don't like the people who I'm teaming with or who I am against.

I think that the whole multiplayer thing is now used to cover up for a lacking in the single player mode or just to grab attention. It's the idea that you can team up with other people and work together to win, or that you can win against other people for the sake of a slight challange.

What you find is that the other players won't play to your rules and may not work well with you. You find yourself getting either some annoying whiner who you keeps blocking you from the match or someone who beats you a little too quickly, but ia still a challange. I seem to find many of the whiners.

This is the thing, players and developers seem to have very high hopes of multiplayer modes because allot of people like that idea. I'm one of those who likes soloing because it's easy to do, even if you end up facing tough challanges.

 

[Legion]

Certain series it works such as Halo and Gears of War, but when you get the first of a game series having no multiplayer, then the sequels adding it, it can feel tacked on. I sincerely hope Bioshock 2's will not go the same way as say, Turoks.

That said, Condemned 2 had multiplayer and it was brilliant, the only let down was the frequent lag that made it too frustrating to play.

The Splinter Cell games added them too and they were fantastic.

NO.

You get games like MW and MW2 (never saw the fascination with MW multiplayer) which are the most played (along with Halo) and then everything else has a multiplayer mode which people play on twice (if that) before everyone ignores it.

Just focus on the singleplayer please.

I also don't see why, if I buy a game, I must pay extra to "unlock" the multiplayer side of things on the 360.

Luckily I:

a) Buy most things on the PC

and

b) Very rarely give a toss about multiplayer

Agreed. That's why I think they should make "versions" one with single player only and ones with the multiplayer online as well, so those who just want the story-side don't get forced to pay extra.

Although of course that will never happen.

 

[veloper]

Multiplayer should be done well or it shouldn't be done at all.
Same for singleplayer campaigns.

I´d prefered it if devs focused on one or the other and get it perfect.

 

[Syl4r]

Multiplayer isn't necessary in in all games, i think fallout 3 proved that.
However, in some games it just wouldn't be half as good (the COD games,left4dead, every RTS) especially multiplayer only games like tf2.

 

[oneshotfinchy]

If you don't have multiplayer, you should have at least a 15hour+ single player that doesn't involve backtracking or repetition.

 

[StigmataDiaboli]

Multiplayer should be done well or it shouldn't be done at all.
Same for singleplayer campaigns.

I´d prefered it if devs focused on one or the other and get it perfect.

My thoughts exactly. I just see Dead Space 2's multiplayer as identical Issac's going round and blasting off limbs with no real stand out features. That or just their version of GoW2's Horde...

 

[Lemon Of Life]

Multiplayer should be done well or it shouldn't be done at all.
Same for singleplayer campaigns.

I´d prefered it if devs focused on one or the other and get it perfect.

My thoughts exactly. I just see Dead Space 2's multiplayer as identical Issac's going round and blasting off limbs with no real stand out features. That or just their version of GoW2's Horde...

What?? They can't do that! Oh, Visceral, what are you doing??

 

[Ashbax]

No. But it certainly helps.

*Except for Half Life 2 Deathmatch, DOD and Counter Strike

OI! What was wrong with the source multiplayer pack? I personally LOVE CSS and HL2M, though...DOD, meh.

Still, some servers on those games get pretty creative.