I don't think multiplayer is ruining games--Call of Duty 2 seems the same to me as Call of Duty: Black Ops--but it sure is making it hard to get Platinum Trophies (stupid Crysis 2). That's my only complaint. COD did it right: No trophies for multiplayer, but special unlocks in the game mode itself to keep people interested.
Poll: Is Multiplayer content ruining Singleplayer content?
- Thread starter Spartan448
- Start date
Recommended Videos
We're not talking about who's doing multiplayer right, or wether or not it's ruining games in general. We're talking about wether or not constant expectation of multiplayer modes is contributing to a constant decline of quality of singleplayer campaigns.
The thing is, with the ability to access the web from nearly any device, companies are concentrating on that one feature, connectivity between others worldwide. And we're eating it up.
Like a dog eating a T-bone steak.
No one wants to be that game that didn't make it because it didn't have online, so everyone tries to integrate it somehow, and sometimes, that game doesn't need it.
I see no reason why Final Fantasy needs to be online over and over again, I mean, sure, it seems like a good MMO concept, but it doesn't work like World of Warcraft or Rift or Aion, and it only sells because the fanbase is big enough to get them playing.
But what about the players who don't have Xbox Live, PSN, or even a Broadband Internet connection? We're just cutting them out of the picture and hurting them.
For example, Mass Effect 2 online, didn't need it, didn't get it. Perfect.
Halo Reach, needs it, but concentrated on the Campaign before the Multiplayer, to make it the game it needed. Perfect.
Call of Duty: Black Ops, many people didn't even bother with the sub-par campaign, but played multiplayer, so the campaign crowd got jipped. No good.
See what I mean, we're just hurting a larger than expected number of gamers. I play games for the story, and the immersion, not the bang bang, I killed someone in China in a Video Game.
Like a dog eating a T-bone steak.
No one wants to be that game that didn't make it because it didn't have online, so everyone tries to integrate it somehow, and sometimes, that game doesn't need it.
I see no reason why Final Fantasy needs to be online over and over again, I mean, sure, it seems like a good MMO concept, but it doesn't work like World of Warcraft or Rift or Aion, and it only sells because the fanbase is big enough to get them playing.
But what about the players who don't have Xbox Live, PSN, or even a Broadband Internet connection? We're just cutting them out of the picture and hurting them.
For example, Mass Effect 2 online, didn't need it, didn't get it. Perfect.
Halo Reach, needs it, but concentrated on the Campaign before the Multiplayer, to make it the game it needed. Perfect.
Call of Duty: Black Ops, many people didn't even bother with the sub-par campaign, but played multiplayer, so the campaign crowd got jipped. No good.
See what I mean, we're just hurting a larger than expected number of gamers. I play games for the story, and the immersion, not the bang bang, I killed someone in China in a Video Game.
Yes! Multiplayer is ruining singleplayer content in a big way. Developers are trying to make all these games, that are supposed to have a singleplayer story, with multiplayer as the main focus. I can understand wanting a game to have a good multiplayer, but why does the story have to suffer for it?
I have been playing video games for the majority of my life, and I find that games from when I was little (80s and 90s) had much better stories than the games we're getting today. I don't think there are too many developers out there who can still tell a good story in a game. However, everybody and their dog seems to be able to find something new to tack on to deathmatch.
I have been playing video games for the majority of my life, and I find that games from when I was little (80s and 90s) had much better stories than the games we're getting today. I don't think there are too many developers out there who can still tell a good story in a game. However, everybody and their dog seems to be able to find something new to tack on to deathmatch.
It really does depend on your view of the goal of the game's developers. A mainly campaign-oriented game with a tacked on multiplayer is fun just to extend longevity, and a mainly multi-player oriented game with a tacked on single player is fun just for being able to learn the basics without being screamed at by a 10 year old. The best way to do this for a single player-heavy game is to simply use aspects from single player and apply them to multiplayer, like Assassins Creed: Brotherhood did with their multiplayer and assassinations. If they try to make another CoD clone out of a generic FPS, and spend large amounts of time working on aspects for multiplayer only, which takes resources away from the campaign effort.
In short: Yes, call of duty proves that.
In long:
This could be a one off thing, off the top of my head I can't think of many games with popular multi-player before the recent generation . I think the reason this happens is because nowadays game need to be either - REALLY good to sell well or COMPLETELY original to sell well or have a huge multi-player system (plus advertising so people populate the servers).
As i said before this is been recent, but the reason why it keeps growing is multi-player games are easy to make, clone and makes lotsa dosh! I mean look at little big planet 2(saying this for an original example so people don't complain about CoD anymore). Little big planet was reasonably original but not enough to sell that well, a pretty damn good game and fun even single player - but again not enough to sell well. Then you toss in multi-player and the tools to build your own levels and looks at it! It's pretty damn good overall just thanks to that - without it you'd run out content so fast it wouldn't be worth 20pounds!
Now the reason I bring up little big planet is simply because the multi-player compliments the single-player - you don't have to play other peoples levels with others - it's just a bunch of free content which people stream out endlessly. That concept made little big planet and really the game was fun in multiplayer and singleplayer - this is the kind of game we need. A game where the gameplay is decent and original on it's own but with multiplayer complimenting it beautifully so one doesn't over take the other and ruin it.
Another game I could mention is Saints row 2 - if you've ever played that game co-op with a friend... let's just say it's definitely amusing - but the single player was brilliant good fun too.
To rephrase all that - multilayer is ruining single player content when it's over-used by greedy developers but in the end it'll ruin a series when it becomes stale (yes like call of duty - it WILL most likely eventually die and stop making money) but a game with a multi-player that only adds to the single-player is what we need in games now. Minecraft being a great example of originality, decent game-play, then a multi-player to add to it IF you want.
In long:
This could be a one off thing, off the top of my head I can't think of many games with popular multi-player before the recent generation . I think the reason this happens is because nowadays game need to be either - REALLY good to sell well or COMPLETELY original to sell well or have a huge multi-player system (plus advertising so people populate the servers).
As i said before this is been recent, but the reason why it keeps growing is multi-player games are easy to make, clone and makes lotsa dosh! I mean look at little big planet 2(saying this for an original example so people don't complain about CoD anymore). Little big planet was reasonably original but not enough to sell that well, a pretty damn good game and fun even single player - but again not enough to sell well. Then you toss in multi-player and the tools to build your own levels and looks at it! It's pretty damn good overall just thanks to that - without it you'd run out content so fast it wouldn't be worth 20pounds!
Now the reason I bring up little big planet is simply because the multi-player compliments the single-player - you don't have to play other peoples levels with others - it's just a bunch of free content which people stream out endlessly. That concept made little big planet and really the game was fun in multiplayer and singleplayer - this is the kind of game we need. A game where the gameplay is decent and original on it's own but with multiplayer complimenting it beautifully so one doesn't over take the other and ruin it.
Another game I could mention is Saints row 2 - if you've ever played that game co-op with a friend... let's just say it's definitely amusing - but the single player was brilliant good fun too.
To rephrase all that - multilayer is ruining single player content when it's over-used by greedy developers but in the end it'll ruin a series when it becomes stale (yes like call of duty - it WILL most likely eventually die and stop making money) but a game with a multi-player that only adds to the single-player is what we need in games now. Minecraft being a great example of originality, decent game-play, then a multi-player to add to it IF you want.
In a way, but I think it's more down to marketing than anything else.
You can complain about the story of a game like CoD all you like, it's not supposed to be a single-player game. Sure, there's a single-player mode in it, but the game is intended to be played multiplayer. A lot of games (such as CoD) just have that single-player to set the scene for the multiplayer, but the problem comes when they start having to mostly market based on that single-player and people who are mainly into single-player buy the game just for that and they get disappointed. It's not their fault that they simply don't like multiplayer, it's not the developer's fault for wanting to make a multiplayer-focussed game, it's the marketer's fault for showing the game as something a lot of people will just overlook for the multiplayer. How much (non-leaked) gameplay or trailers did you see for zombies in the run-up to Black Ops? None. And yet, a lot of people only enjoy the zombies mode.
That said, some of the singleplayer-only gamers need to get off their high-horses. I'm not talking to all of them, but I am talking to the few who claim that multiplayer should always take a backseat to singleplayer and that a good game should stand up on singleplayer alone. Those people need to remember that a huge number of people play games mainly for the multiplayer. Even if they lone-wolf it, there is still something about killing other players that killing a ba-jillion AI opponents simply can't replicate for some people. Sure, it's the opposite for others but that doesn't make the multiplayer lovers wrong. To be fair though, I think that the people who think singleplayer should always take a backseat to multiplayer are wrong for pretty much the same reason too and even if I haven't seen them myself, I expect there probably are people out there like this.
Well, that was a bit of a text wall. So, to balance it out, here's a video of a guy trolling a McDonald's Drive-Thru with a Ghillie suit and CoD lingo.
You can complain about the story of a game like CoD all you like, it's not supposed to be a single-player game. Sure, there's a single-player mode in it, but the game is intended to be played multiplayer. A lot of games (such as CoD) just have that single-player to set the scene for the multiplayer, but the problem comes when they start having to mostly market based on that single-player and people who are mainly into single-player buy the game just for that and they get disappointed. It's not their fault that they simply don't like multiplayer, it's not the developer's fault for wanting to make a multiplayer-focussed game, it's the marketer's fault for showing the game as something a lot of people will just overlook for the multiplayer. How much (non-leaked) gameplay or trailers did you see for zombies in the run-up to Black Ops? None. And yet, a lot of people only enjoy the zombies mode.
That said, some of the singleplayer-only gamers need to get off their high-horses. I'm not talking to all of them, but I am talking to the few who claim that multiplayer should always take a backseat to singleplayer and that a good game should stand up on singleplayer alone. Those people need to remember that a huge number of people play games mainly for the multiplayer. Even if they lone-wolf it, there is still something about killing other players that killing a ba-jillion AI opponents simply can't replicate for some people. Sure, it's the opposite for others but that doesn't make the multiplayer lovers wrong. To be fair though, I think that the people who think singleplayer should always take a backseat to multiplayer are wrong for pretty much the same reason too and even if I haven't seen them myself, I expect there probably are people out there like this.
Well, that was a bit of a text wall. So, to balance it out, here's a video of a guy trolling a McDonald's Drive-Thru with a Ghillie suit and CoD lingo.
Personally I found the latest AC to be the worst of the series. The plot hasnt exactly taken huge strides in the other games either but brotherhood felt more like a big and VERY stretched DLC to me. It was a letdown after AC2 for sure.Spartan448 said:
I havent tried multiplayer yet, mostly because I dont care much for it, but I'd say its pretty damn obvious that if a game has a set amount of resources, and its decided it should have MP content too, that will make the SP less awesome.
That said, I dont know enough about game budgeting to say that this is how it always goes. For all I know it might go: MP content? Sure lets double the budget.
No, I honestly think it's making it better. Games today can go only two routes, well two major routes. It can either have a strong MP, or a strong SP. Going half and half just won't do, and what's most impressive is when developers manage both.
You see before MPs were so high in demand, players expectations weren't so high either for a good SP. Now if a SP wants to compete in the market, it better be damn good or players will wonder where all that money went. For instance in the past 8 hour SP weren't something to frown at, games like Vanquish and Bulletstorm would have made a lot more money. Now MPs have hiked up the expectations for SP, gamer's will say, "what? there's no MP for this game? Well, I'll say, the SP better be damn good if it wants to see any of my money."
Mostly what gamers think about today is how much time can be invested into the game, and as long as it doesn't grow repetitive.
You see before MPs were so high in demand, players expectations weren't so high either for a good SP. Now if a SP wants to compete in the market, it better be damn good or players will wonder where all that money went. For instance in the past 8 hour SP weren't something to frown at, games like Vanquish and Bulletstorm would have made a lot more money. Now MPs have hiked up the expectations for SP, gamer's will say, "what? there's no MP for this game? Well, I'll say, the SP better be damn good if it wants to see any of my money."
Mostly what gamers think about today is how much time can be invested into the game, and as long as it doesn't grow repetitive.
No. Multiplayer isn't ruining the games industry, people who only play multiplayer are ruining the games industry.
If it wasn't so easy to turn a profit on Captain Shitface's Wartime Extravaganza games every year, the big time developers would start to move in different areas and work on things like story... and fun...
If it wasn't so easy to turn a profit on Captain Shitface's Wartime Extravaganza games every year, the big time developers would start to move in different areas and work on things like story... and fun...
currently i would say yes!
but!! what really has to happen is games were you merge single and multiplayer. each has something the other is missing.
single player is missing the challange and interaction of multi.
multiplayer is missing the variety of single player also the feeling of accomplishment that leveling can't provide.
games like borderlands are the first seeds of this marrige. hopefully we see a lot more that grow this medium foreward
but!! what really has to happen is games were you merge single and multiplayer. each has something the other is missing.
single player is missing the challange and interaction of multi.
multiplayer is missing the variety of single player also the feeling of accomplishment that leveling can't provide.
games like borderlands are the first seeds of this marrige. hopefully we see a lot more that grow this medium foreward
Actually, not perfect. Halo: Reach multiplayer really didn't add anything except the armor abilities. They could've used the same multiplayer types as Halo 3, and everyone would've liked it all the same. Then, they could've devoted more time to make a campaign that doesn't give away the entire plot in the first cutscene.Nicholas Woodruff said:
If you didn't know how Reach was going to end as soon as they started talking about the fall of Reach in Halo: Combat Evolved, than you are sorely missing out. All of Noble team had to die out for it to fit into cannon, even though Reach didn't fit into the Halo: Fall of Reach cannon at all, we still love it.Spartan448 said:
Honestly, i know people like single player but i kinda wish PC FPS games would go back to not having single player. Just an opinion.
Any new IP that deludes itself in thinking it can crack the competitive MP market without being attached to a good single player game gets what it deserves, disappointing sales. Sooner or later, the industry is going to figure this out. Say what you will about the current state of Halo and Call Of Duty, but those franchises made their name with popular single player campaign before switching focus over to MP.
Multiplayer has definatnly ruined games.
Go back to the days of PS2 (Which I recently have) I thought I could get through all of the games in a few hours each, boi, was I wrong.
These games had EXTENSIVE campaigns, games that took me atleast 30 hours to complete, LONGER THAN THAT IN RATCHET AND CLANK, and the last 2 I have gotten had multiplayer!
How long did it take you to beat the last COD campagin? 4 hours for me.
Homefront? HAHAHA, 2.
Halo? About 7
the longest game campaign I have played recently was Crysis. It took me 12 hours to beat that, and I concidered it long!
Now the only games we can get for single player are RPGs and a few other titles that focus on some odd form of gameplay.
Go back to the days of PS2 (Which I recently have) I thought I could get through all of the games in a few hours each, boi, was I wrong.
These games had EXTENSIVE campaigns, games that took me atleast 30 hours to complete, LONGER THAN THAT IN RATCHET AND CLANK, and the last 2 I have gotten had multiplayer!
How long did it take you to beat the last COD campagin? 4 hours for me.
Homefront? HAHAHA, 2.
Halo? About 7
the longest game campaign I have played recently was Crysis. It took me 12 hours to beat that, and I concidered it long!
Now the only games we can get for single player are RPGs and a few other titles that focus on some odd form of gameplay.
I think this needs some specifying: Multiplayer can detract from a games Single Player only when the developers concentrate more on the Multiplayer. Yahtzee said it best himself:
"A great game must be able to stand up on Single Player alone."
Having Multiplayer options in a game is a great feature and shouldn't be avoided in order to make sure that the Single Player is the best it could possibly be. However, there are a large amount of games out there that, all too often, sacrifice making a memorable single player mode just to make sure the Xbox Live crowd is pleased.
I'm not blaming the people who primarily play Xbox Live Multiplayer for the dip in quality of Multiplayer. I've played through Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and played the Multiplayer. I can honestly the Multiplayer in that game is one of the best I've ever played, AND the Single Player campaign was long and fulfilling. That's probably the best example of a game not dipping in quality while still having kickass Single and Multiplayer.
I also played Halo 2's Single player and was solid while it's Mulitplayer was pretty good too. Then, I played Halo 3's Single player and I was incredibly disappointed in how short and poorly written the Solo campaign was. Multiplayer was improved, but I could tell where Bungee placed most of its development time.
So, in short, feel free to have Mulitplayer, but don't make Single Player suffer for it.
"A great game must be able to stand up on Single Player alone."
Having Multiplayer options in a game is a great feature and shouldn't be avoided in order to make sure that the Single Player is the best it could possibly be. However, there are a large amount of games out there that, all too often, sacrifice making a memorable single player mode just to make sure the Xbox Live crowd is pleased.
I'm not blaming the people who primarily play Xbox Live Multiplayer for the dip in quality of Multiplayer. I've played through Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and played the Multiplayer. I can honestly the Multiplayer in that game is one of the best I've ever played, AND the Single Player campaign was long and fulfilling. That's probably the best example of a game not dipping in quality while still having kickass Single and Multiplayer.
I also played Halo 2's Single player and was solid while it's Mulitplayer was pretty good too. Then, I played Halo 3's Single player and I was incredibly disappointed in how short and poorly written the Solo campaign was. Multiplayer was improved, but I could tell where Bungee placed most of its development time.
So, in short, feel free to have Mulitplayer, but don't make Single Player suffer for it.