Poll: Is pvp/multiplayer a copout for creating real game content?

[Spearmaster]

I am not referring to MMORPGs.

PVP/multiplayer is good and I have nothing against it, I was just wondering if game developers are using it to evade having to create actual game content.

Also is a game worth $60 if 90% of the focus is just in multiplayer, maps are smaller and limited, no scripting has to be written, seems to be a game mode, character models with guns and the users have to create the content for themselves/each other.

 

[tippy2k2]

In my ever so humble opinion, creating multi-player content is harder than creating single player content.

With multi-player, there are a large number of variables that will cause your game to crash and burn. Weapon balance, perk/variables balance, unbalanced maps, bad servers, bad hit detection, a unfriendly user interface; all of these things are things that will sink a multi-player game before it even gets off the ground...

Now if you do manage to get a player-base hooked, you have to deal with patches, balancing issues, assholes, cheaters; a large number of these types of issues that will cause players to abandon your game.

Look at multi-player games that have failed and the few that are succeeding and I'm guessing that you will see the good ones get most of these right while the bad ones fail at that.

Besides, if someone doesn't like it, don't buy the games. If you don't like heavy multi-player games and don't think the campaigns are worth the money, don't buy it.

So No, I don't think it's a cop-out and it's a much harder job than it looks.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Well, do you think Valve made Team Fortress II as copout to avoid making a real game? I think multiplayer content is actual content and players want to play it. If you are making a game that has single player anyway, just throwing in more single player content is way easier than designing a multiplayer mode as well.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I don't believe that multiplayer is inherently a cop-out.

However, I do believe many developers do use it as such.

 

[Padwolf]

To be honest I don't think it is a copout at all. It just seems like another way to play the game and is a much harder job to make than it looks.

 

[Mirroga]

I just consider that single player games and multiplayer games need to be as far away from each other as possible. If a game needs multiplayer, it should abandon single player in favor of using the budget and time to refine the multiplayer further as well as the support and servers.

Single Player games just need to abandon the notion of trying to improve replayability through multiplayer or online competition because they already have replayability through tons of side missions, collectibles, easter eggs, new game+, UGC missions, etc. They should refine the single player further than try to make their own unrefined multiplayer.

I always like the notion that a master of only one thing is better than having all of them but mastering none whatsoever.

 

[StriderShinryu]

In my ever so humble opinion, creating multi-player content is harder than creating single player content.

I don't knoq that I'd say it's harder, but I'd certainly agree that it's at least just as challenging to create solid, deep and engaging multiplayer content that lasts a long time as it is to create a single player experperience. There's a reason people still play games like Super Street Fighte 2 Turbo and CounterStrike decades after release but are done with even great classic single player games after one playthrough.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

It can be if it clones some other game that's already done that, and makes that look shiny while the rest of the game is pretty much tacked on.

 

[skywolfblue]

PVP/multiplayer is good and I have nothing against it, I was just wondering if game developers are using it to evade having to create actual game content.

Since when is PvP/Multiplayer "Not Content"?

It may not be tailored to those who like single-player, but it's "Content" nonetheless.

There are games that neglect their singleplayer portions almost entirely, but aren't short on multiplayer content. Battlefield and CoD have a large selection of maps, characters, guns and other multiplayer content.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think its a bit silly when they add it on to a game that clearly has a single-player focus. Games like Uncharted, GTA and Stranglehold really didn't need to have multiplayer in it. It just seems like the people making decisions want to emulate all the successful portions of other games and add them in.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No as good PvP/Multiplayer is hard to balance.

 

[Rednog]

Multiplayer centered games are just fine, the only problem I have with multiplayer is when it is tacked on just for "replay-ability".

I honestly think companies need to tell consumers to shove it up their arse when gamers complain that there is no replay-ability in a game. Seriously, in this day and age with so many forms of entertainment striving for our attention people still are demanding games that they can play for hundreds of hours on end.

I'm sorry but I'll take my finely crafted story that is only a few hours long instead of the monotonous nonsense that is copy and pasted repetitiveness in games with "replay-ability". But I think I'm the minority in this sense because people are still going to call the biggest offender, Skyrim, the greatest game evar until the Elder Scrolls 6.

 

[PromethianSpark]

I just hate that fact that some multiplayer games (such as halo) where nurfed into shit so that field was leveled so fucking scrub noobs cud feel like they where gud at it and get a misdeserved sense of gratification. All while other sections sections of the industry try to claim sport status. This mixed messages will get us now where. Multiplayer games for skill! If u want to appeal to retards, dont make mutiliplayer!

EDIT: Spelling mistakes due to being home form a night on the piss. Regardless, am sure I will stand by wat I said in the morning