Poll: Is Multiplayer Always Nesscary?

[jimduckie]

i think that multiplayer games should be on a separate disc ,so single player games aren't so fucking short ... cod mw2 ... and then game s like gta4 could have more cheats ... but when rockstar added multiplayer to gta4 it killed the game a little , it would of been a better game without mp

 

[high_castle]

Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of multiplayer out there. I'd much rather a strong single player game. People tend to annoy me. Even worse, as a girl, the comments I tend to get when signed into Live and using the mic are just...wrong. So I like Dragon Age and Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect, which give me a wonderful experience without it being sullied by juvenile asses. I'm very disappointed that Dead Space 2 is pushing the multiplayer aspect. Here's hoping they didn't compromise the story.

 

[ffxfriek]

multiplayer is not always necessary.

 

[Fingolfin High-King of the Noldor]

I think games need something for more than one person. If I had a single player only game I would feel like a loser, but that's just me.

 

[Vimbert]

Absolutely not. A vast majority of RPGs manage to be stellar without any multiplayer, but for some genres- FPS, for example- it's virtually mandatory, since some FPSs seem to ignore single player entirely these days.

 

[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

They have 2 different developers working on Bioshock, the devs of the first are doing the SP.

this i know but it doesnt mean that theres no creative consultation between the 2 teams

ie the mutiplayer team coulda gone well we dont like the switching its causing issues in game and whatt not implemented the both at once thing and the SP guys coulda picked it up

or it coulda happened differently the main point is that the MP can have adverse effects on SP

MW2 " so guys how long do we make the SP"
"well there just buying it for MP so how bout we whack a bunch of movie scenes together for about 5 hours"
"sweet less work for us"

 

[BlindMessiah94]

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.

/agrees

 

[alinos]

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.

Hmm really with an MMO or whatnot if theres no story in the main stretch of the game i stop playing (the wow lore is not story in the wow:vanilla and BC there is no truely overarching plot given to us its just lets go kill the boss of this Xpak i heard thats changed with RotLK but i dont feel like leveling a char the whole way just to see)

it still the number one reason i fell in love with GW the Story was great and had a great setup while the MP was awesome being confined to 8 skills out of thousands for each member on the team really meant that teamwork was essential and that you had to come up with strategys and build for it not just pimp out gear and whack each other with the same spells

 

[Lazy Kitty]

No, all I care about is singleplayer.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Never. Unless the game is something like Team Fortress or Counter-Strike or UT , there's no excuse for wasting development time that could be spent on level design, plot and so on.
This is what irks me about Bioshock 2. It's going to have the exact same game modes as every other multiplayer FPS on the market, with one or two gimmicks. People will forget about it as there's a rash of multiplayer deathmatch games built from the ground up to cater to that style of play. The only thing this achieves is less effort put into the campaign.

Look at the Halo and Call of Duty series. They're basically deathmatch games with a story tacked on. The opposite shouldn't be done to story-based titles.

/rant

 

[linkblade91]

Certain games just don't warrant the inclusion of multiplayer elements. Great examples would be a Final Fantasy, Assassin's Creed, or any other where the addition of another player can destroy the game's story and depth by increasing how many people have to become involved.

Army of Two is a good example of a game that not only warrants, but DEMANDS a multiplayer option. Obvious examples would be other FPS, strategy, or sport games. But certain, story-driven RPG and action/adventure games can be ruined by including other players.

And for crying-out-loud, if you're going to include both split-screen and online multiplayer options, would it kill you to include the ability to do both at the same time!?

 

[metza]

I generally buy multiplayer, rent single-player (some exceptions, of course). I guess if other people are doing that too, adding multiplayer is an easy way to make sure its your game getting bought. That said, some games really do not need multiplayer. At all. Ever.

 

[tino1498]

I wouldn't buy a game if it had no multiplayer, there isn't enough replay value without it. From an artistic standpoint multiplayer probably isn't necesassary, but from a financial standpoint, a developer needs to add multiplayer if it wants to sell the game.

 

[FactualSquirrel]

Well, no, but a focus on multiplayer (a la MW2) is all well and good, and those people who say that "a game should be single player, then if it's good they can add multiplayer" are living in the past and refusing to move forward.

 

[RJ Dalton]

I've never cared for Multiplayer games. Well, I suppose it depends on how they do it, but in general, multiplayer is just a bland thing that drags the rest of the game down.

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

I think multiplayer is a good thing. It helps you extend to other players. (While they probably call you names.)

It adds more gaming time, which is good fun.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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.

What this guy said should be implement imediately as this is why Rachet and Clank were sure a great series I haven't played new ones so I don't know ifthey still are.

In some games it is necessary but not all games.