Poll: Is Multiplayer Always Nesscary?

[SextusMaximus]

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.

I love them too, I was saying that if they didn't have multiplayer they would be useless. Because they are multiplayer.

 

[RobCoxxy]

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.

Dead Space.
Mass Effect.
Metroid Prime 1.
Multiplayer on Echoes was tacked on beyond belief.

 

[Bagaloo]

I think it should.
Especially more co-op modes.
Playing a game alone can be fun, playing it with a mate or two is infinitly better.

 

[Dr. Wily III]

Not. At. All.

It's nice, to have Multiplayer but I have also enough fun with Singleplayer Only Games (Wario Land 2, Devil May Cry 1,3,4, Bayonetta, Donkey Kong Country 2, Chrono Trigger, Super Metroid ect.)

 

[Baggie]

Multiplayer can be added into anything, though if it SHOULD is a definate no. If the developers think they can pull off something fun and playable I say go for it.
Though something like dead space I can't see working, I mean the controls in that game were in the Res. Evil school of stiffness and awkwardness, and multiplayer means you'd be fighting the controls, AND other human players. No thank you.

On the bioshock multiplayer note, yes please, do want.

 

[Jandau]

No, multiplayer is in no way needed in many games and they often tend to try to stick it in just because it's the "hip" thing right now. Also, multiplayer also serves as an excuse for a game's shortcomings, which should not be accepted by customers, but often is.

 

[Hiphophippo]

Some games are single player.
Some games are multiplayer
Some games are both

It isn't more complex than that. I would like to see a little more co-op though.

 

[Sight Unseen]

Some games are single player.
Some games are multiplayer
Some games are both

It isn't more complex than that. I would like to see a little more co-op though.

Basically this. Some games like the left 4 dead series are built entirely around the multiplayer experience. Others are built entirely around single player (Fallout 3, Assassin's Creed) and would not be well suited to multiplayer at all. A whole bunch of games have both single player and multiplayer components, and more than a few of these games seem to tack multiplayer on to extend playtime and don't relly put much effort into it.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Not all epic games need a multiplayer componet. Two BIG examples are Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect. Two awsome games and no multiplayer in sight. Sometimes Multiplayer is placed in just get a few more hours out of the game, but if the games single player already stretches far beyond the average game then multiplayer isn't needed.

It's just there to get a few more hours out of the game.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

No.

I'm not looking forward to Bioshock 2's or Dead Space's multiplayer modes.

Some experiences are more rewarding and immersive alone.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Multiplayer is the curse of the console. Many great single-player games have been ruined by the NEED for pvp.

 

[Tomster595]

Definitely not always. For example would AC2 be greatly improved by multiplayer?

 

[Flying Dagger]

could you imagine if they had tried to make batman AA co-op or multiplayer?
ok i'm gonna be batman, you can be the wheelchair woman who gives me advice.
even a vs multiplayer would be ridiculous. this happens in most comic book adaptions i think, at least with spiderman as well.

 

[The DSM]

Mutiplayers that are tacked on are used by many FPSs to expand the game play over 10 hours because they where too lazy to bother making the game long.

And I dont want to have to play with idiots.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

No, multiplayer is not always necessary. Multiplayer games should be designed from the ground up to be competitive and balanced, rather than story based and immersive. Single-player games, similarly, should be designed from the ground up to be the other way around.

In pretty much every genre you have games that favour one or the other. For example:
RPGS: MMORPGs vs Bethesda/Bioware/JRPGs
FPSs: Halo and MW for consoles, the Q3, CS, L4D, whatever-is-hot-now tradition for PC vs HL2, Bioshock, etc.
RTSs: This genre is more muddled, with a tendency towards more multiplayer and less story. One of the most critically acclaimed RTSs released recently, Sins of a Solar Empire, had no story at all, while for older series it was a must -> see Starcraft, AoE, and C&C.
Platformers/Adventure: Still singeplayer mostly, but that's just part of the inherent nature of the genre. That said, some are starting to implement competitive features e.g. Mirror's Edge's scoreboard system.
Sports: Match/Game/Race based vs strategic/managerial

That said, I worry about storybased FPSs being in decline. I miss stuff like NOLF, XIII and the Jedi Knight series...

 

[Jazzyluv2]

most multiplayer games are bad, flat out bad. The standard developer uses gimmicky game play rather than going for a good stable base. A great example would be the UT series vs the Quake series, but can apply to almost all genres. Ut has over-exagerated weapons, most weapons are flat out useless and movement is gimmicky and unsmooth. While quake on the other hand has a more stable foot hold, nothing over the top(it is a dm game so by nature it is over the top) and the weapons are solid, useful, and not random. MW2 vs CS is another prime example, MW2 is gimmicky, over the top, and very shallow, while CS is simple, deep, and easily understood.