Poll: Is Multiplayer content ruining Singleplayer content?

[Spartan448]

First of all, no flame. This is a sensitive topic, I know, and a lot of you probably hate me for saying this, but I'm serious here, so hear me out.

And I also don't think that "ruining", is quite the right word, but I don't have a thesaurus handy, so.....

Think about this: In most games we've seen, mainly the popular series' Halo and Call of Duty, Multiplayer content seems to be taking a priority over Singleplayer content. Most of Call of Duty is just blow everything on the screen to smitherines, except for your friends. It seems like the only point of Singleplayer in Black Ops to me was for weapon testing for Multiplayer. Similar things happened in Reach, except Reach had a slightly more compelling storyline and a better character customization system (as well as better voice actors).

Meanwhile, games that have little or no multiplayer support, such as the new Assassins' Creed: Brotherhood, are still going strong when it comes to storyline content (Except FFXIII), and making something that you just want to keep playing over and over again (WHERE THE HECK ARE THOSE DARN FEATHERS!).

So the question I pose to you, the community, is this:

Is Multiplayer content shoving out Singleplayer?

 

[OliverTwist72]

I would say no. When I buy games like Call of Duty I am buying them BECAUSE of the multiplayer not for single player that I can also play online.

Other games that have strong single player components don't really mesh well with online play. Most developers realize this and will not release or do something limited with multiplayer.

That being said, sometimes multiplayer games are fun. I own Fifa and I don't think I would ever play that game by myself. RPG's in general tend to be single player (except co-ops like Borderlands), so I really just think it depends on the game.

I for one enjoy the expansion of multiplayer capabilities in games.

 

[Kyle Roberts]

I think it is since developers are aiming towards mp more then singleplayer.
Example:
Homefront
7 mission story with stupid ending (not going spoil it)
while mp has loads of stuff ect.
i think its unfair towards people who don't like MP or haven't got XBL.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

I think there's a pretty clear distinction between single-player and multi-player games. How many people buy Call of Duty for the campaign, for example? Very few. The same goes for single-player games. Most games that focus on single-player don't even have a multi-player component.

 

[Zantos]

I wish the single player modes in modern FPSs didn't feel so token. I loved the sp in the older call of duty games, now they're just getting shorter.

Ending of MW2 was still pretty badass though...

 

[repeating integers]

I haven't really seen any evidence of it myself. Well, except BF:BC2's ending. Perhaps it's because I've never played CoD, but it seems to me every game I've played has had at least a decent amount of effort put into the singleplayer, no matter how good the multiplayer.

Also, Halo's campaigns have always been great, despite the popularity of the MP. Bit on the short side though.

 

[rockingnic]

I think it just depends on the focus of the developers and their budgets.

 

[Spartan448]

I think there's a pretty clear distinction between single-player and multi-player games. How many people buy Call of Duty for the campaign, for example? Very few. The same goes for single-player games. Most games that focus on single-player don't even have a multi-player component.

I bought all my games for the campaign. Multiplayer is an after-though to me.

 

[Camaranth]

I think it can for franchises and IP's which started out as single campaign with a little multi-player for variety then switch focus to midway to multi-player focus (eg Halo, seriously would never have bought 3 if I'd realised how freaking short the campaign was)

That being said there are games which are designed to be multi-player like soul caliber is great for deciding if it's going to be pizza or chinese for dinner and I've no desire to play a fighting game without a multi-player focus.

 

[Wintermoot]

no shit! the SP of CODVII was RIDICULOUSLY short I didn't bother with the MP (since I would get my ass handed to me by kids with BFG,s) also the SP COULD have included more mission,s as DLC,s (due to the flashback,s)

 

[ronald1840]

Certain games like Battlefield, Call Of Duty, Homefront, or pretty much any FPS thats heavy action oriented is expected to have multiplayer. That is what sells these series into the millions because of the online features.

Although for games that started out singular experiences such as Bioshock, Dead Space, and a teeny bit Uncharted have slowly been shifted to include multiplayer in order to cater to a wider audience. Understand that the reason Dead Space and Bioshock were so well-recieved was because of their SP only experience that made them stand out because they were both shooters at their core (Bioshock=FPS with rpg, Dead Space=TPS with horror). Resources, development time, and production design all go into designing cohesive multiplayer experiences. These same hours and hard thought could and should be put to better improve the SP pacing, possible customizability, more variety, and even smoother set pieces.

Dam, I'm thirsty *runs to get root beer*

Ok well ontop of alotting potential great design decisions and resources to multiplayer, not everyone has access to PSN/Xbox Live internet when they want (I don't). So if you buy the sequel to a 10-13 hour title that you loved because of its strong Single Player moments you'll be screwed out of 50/50 off the product because of online. If you beat the campaign already and still want to experience more fresh times with the title, then ["Durr 2 Bad! U don gotz no Internitz for DLC!".] No access to that online means no more additionally released characters, new stages/maps, extra side quest missions, or even fkin wallpapers!

It's just....*Sigh* If your gonna pay $63 (tax Lulz) for a product that is supposed to keep you entertained and coming back for more why limit your core audience that got you there in the 1st place?

*Mom: Dinner!!

Me:

 

[Mike Richards]

I think the problem is more that games have gotten too expensive. Multiplayer content appears to be overtaking singleplayer because it has more longevity. If you're going to be shelling out at least 50 bucks for a game you're probably going to get the one that lasts longer, assuming that one game isn't just inherently better then the other.

Games like Ninja Theory's extremely underrated Enslaved probably would have done much better for themselves if players weren't expected to pay the same for its six to seven hour experience as they do for CoD's technically unlimited one.

Now, I thought Enslaved's extreme quality was worth it's price, but then again I didn't have to pay for it myself, and the sad truth is that maybe if I had I wouldn't have gotten it.

I don't know nearly enough about what goes into the budgeting for triple-a games these days to say what can be trimmed down, if anything. But if there's someway to cut down on the expense I think it could end up helping a lot of things in the industry, more even the just this.

 

[typhon923]

it is for fps, most of the stories for them kinda of games seem to be the same old thing in a new skin. i havent had fun playing a fps story since crysis

 

[WonderWillard]

Well what I find weird is the marketing campaign for these games. Like with Homefront, all the commercials and adds hyped up the campaign, made it seem like it was going to be a really unique and compelling single-player campaign, and multiplayer was barely shown. Then it comes out, and all the reviews say that the campaign is short and disappointing, but the multiplayer is really good. ??? I didn't care about the multiplayer, I only cared about the singleplayer, but it turned out to be a disappointment.

 

[Dogstile]

I think it is since developers are aiming towards mp more then singleplayer.
Example:
Homefront
7 mission story with stupid ending (not going spoil it)
while mp has loads of stuff ect.
i think its unfair towards people who don't like MP or haven't got XBL.

However, if a game is a multiplayer game with a singleplayer tacked on (COD *cough) then wouldn't that be acceptable?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

No, it really isn't. At least not most of the time. What the multiplayer mode requires is time, that same unit that determines exactly how much content is in the game in total. Would having a longer single player game really be necessary in Call of Duty considering that the game is fundamentally nothing more than a walk down a corridor shooting guys in the face broken up by increasingly erratic storytelling moments? Would doubling the length of Homefront somehow make the actually quite bad single player game worth playing? Did Battlefield, a series notable for being multiplayer ONLY really need a lengthy single player game?

Most FPS games are designed around the premise that they will be played online against other people and it's easy to understand why. If you hook millions into playing your game you can rest assured they will not pawn your game the minute they finish the campaign. You can sell them small amounts of additional multiplayer content at a fantastic price. Multiplayer more than anything is what has driven the phenomenal success of the Call of Duty franchise and I don't think people look at a string of a billion dollar hits without thinking "I want in on that".

Of course, this presupposes that a game is designed around the multiplayer experience first and foremost. Adding a multiplayer mode to games that were seemingly never designed to be played with others is often folly because the time lost implementing such a system will be time not spent making the single player game better. Bioshock 2 is a notable example of this in action.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

When you look at games like Call of Duty that thirve on their multiplayer it just begs the question: "Why do they even bother with their poor attempts as single player? You can see where most of the time and effort is going in the finished product right?

I think it is since developers are aiming towards mp more then singleplayer.
Example:
Homefront
7 mission story with stupid ending (not going spoil it)
while mp has loads of stuff ect.
i think its unfair towards people who don't like MP or haven't got XBL.

However, if a game is a multiplayer game with a singleplayer tacked on (COD *cough) then wouldn't that be acceptable?

Of course not, it's about time that Activision split Call of Duty into two affairs. Treyach are much better with their single player and can pour all of their time and money into something potentially epic, perhaps with a bit of split screen/bot multiplayer. Infinity Ward can then make their noob friendly online and then people will get to choose which part they want to play.

 

[Lokithrsourcerer]

in many cases it is having a negative effect.
in theory this should sort it's self out by people not buying the games that do this
unless they are only interesting in the multilayer and then the sales figures should reflect the mistake that the developer has made.

in practice misleading marketing and the sycophantic reviewers that plague the industry may well be preventing this natural economic process from working

 

[Spartan448]

Addmittedly, there are some games that are designed for multiplayer, but the majority of games, as I stated earlier, seem to be lowering their standards for singleplayer content and raising them for multiplayer content. I'm not saying that shouldn't be happening, I'm just saying there's no reason to lower any standards.

 

[DustyDrB]

Maybe they are for first-person shooters, but I don't play that genre. Most RPG and platformer multiplayer I've seen are more afterthoughts.