Poll: Multiplayer vs Single-Player

[Seldon2639]

Since there does seem to be a pretty decided breakdown between the ability to create a good single-player game which is also good at multi-player, I was wondering how everyone felt. I'm even looking back at the first online games (Phantasy Star Online, Starcraft), and they were good at online play, but the single-player campaign took a hit. You can make an argument that Halo is great at both, but I'm seriously wondering if anyone would objectively say that the story, and single-player mechanics were good enough to justify the kind of adulation it has received. So, first, does there have to be a choice, or could a game conceivably do both equally well, and if there must be a choice which is better?

I think it'll come down to an individual's view on games, and what kind of games you play, but I am curious.

 

[Tanthalos]

Ok well this is not the perfect response to the question as worded but I think it is the type of response you are looking for.

I have a new rule about buying games, the better the multiplayer is the faster I run away. I honestly do not believe that a game can have amazing single player mode and amazing multiplayer.

Games tend to have...we'll say 100 points of value.

Games with "amazing multiplayer" (going by average comments and critiques) tend to suck in single player mode.
Halo for example tends to be a 3/4 (75 points) on multiplayer (any of the Halos) and honestly a 1/4 (25 points) single player, a generic kinda pointless shooter in single player.
Gears of War suffered the same problem.
Army of Two put everything into multiplayer leaving single player a fetid diseased undying corpse that envies the guy in any herse that drives by the player's house.

Call of Duty 4 is a well done but not excelling single player game, and is an average well done multiplayer game. The points are spread 50/50.

If there must be a choice it should be towards single player, seeing as not everyone has the internet on their machine, nor the head set to play. Also if I am going to spend 60 bucks on a game and have it only be good when I am paying for the right to play with other people on the internet why am I not playing World of Warcraft.
Before the MMO hate flames the board and myself to a cinder allow me to state that if I am going to be playing a game online with people I personally would rather do more than sneak around the same maps trying to prevent people from using the same cheesey glitches, unseen weapon uses and strategic positioning nightmares that I want to use on them.
Also not everyone thinks the idea of head shotting people for 6 straight hours to make yourself feel good or to help make fun of people in places you don't like is fun.

If you do find such things fun more power to you. If you are among the few who play multiplayer as a tactical exercise I honestly don't believe you would begrudge a person wanting something at least playable when they are by themselves.

In my personal opinion I believe that games like Army of Two should never have wasted disc resources slapping together a poor attempt at single player mode. Just designed it as multiplayer and drop the price by about 10 bucks.
Also I believe that any Tom Clancy game should only be designed for single player priced at about 40 bucks and then have an expansion that has all the multplayer's needs for 20 bucks.
Sure the company will make less money per base unit sold but they should be able to sell more base units which will make them more money.
This way I and others like me who enjoy single player mode won't be shunned to the corner; like the older guy who watches every high school track meet though he has no children of his own; by every game and its mother.

 

[Cooper42]

Generally, good single player games win out.

It is possible to have decent single player and multi player games (C&C, Quake II) in one package, but it's becomming increasingly rare.

If I buy a game for multiplayer, which is a lot less often than I do for single player, I usually buy game which are multiplayer only - Defcon, Quake Wars etc.

Given that games cost increasingly more money and time to make, I'm all for a move towards MP or SP-only games. That way, game makers can hone the strengths of the game towards those (very different) modes of play, and end up with something hopefully excellent, rather than just mediocre, but covering both bases.

 

[Evilbunny]

Well, when I think amazing and groundbreaking games, I tend to think single player games. I like a game that tells a good story and single player games tend to do that better than multiplayer ones do. But in terms of replayability I think multiplayer games tend to excel in this more so than single player. Super smash brothers, for example, I still play to this day because of it's amazing multiplayer. I can't think of a single player game that still had me playing it years after it came out.

 

[Jumplion]

I need a good single-player game FIRST and THEN a good multi-player.

I need to be able to practice with the enemy AI before i can pwn some peoples online.

An example of this is the Ratchet and Clank series. I aboslutly love the game and i don't need a bunch of mouthy hormone-raged teenagers yelling at me that i suck (or vice versa for that matter)

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I pick single player, because games like bioshock kept me up at night thinking a out it. Multiplayer is fun, but it never hits home as well as single does.

 

[Omnidum]

What about using the Unreal theory? (first singleplayer release, then multi, then single and so forth..)

 

[Sylocat]

A singleplayer game is as good (or as bad) as the game's designers make it.

A multiplayer game is as good (or as bad) as its userbase.

Overall, I tend to shy away with games that advertize "online multiplayer" on the box. Because those games were designed with online multiplayer in mind, and other areas tend to get skimped on. That wouldn't be so bad if just about every online multiplayer game I've ever played didn't have a userbase populated almost entirely with trolls and "ZOMFGhardcoreuberl337n355urtehepicph41l" idiots, but most of them are.

On the other hand, I find the singleplayer mode of Super Smash Bros. Brawl to be incredibly fun, and the multiplayer has great AI to compensate for when there are no good people around online and none of my friends (yes, I actually have offline friends o_0 ) are available, so maybe the two aren't mutually exclusive after all.

 

[Nettacki]

Multiplayer is a pretty occasional thing for me due to mostly the same reasons as previously stated.

Singleplayer is something that I am always involved in, with no one else to bother me except myself, and probably someone else physically there in the real world.

So overall, I pick Singleplayer.

PS: What about when online buddies are invited to spectate me playing a Resistance 2 campaign, for example? Would that be a good example of online multi to a certain extent?

 

[bulletproof12]

for me definatly multiplayer. i usualy play single player first just to get a feel for the controls and see how all the gardgets and stuff should be used, but after that i never touch the campaign. but i also think a large part of this is based on the system, if it is on the wii it needs good single player, the wii online doesnt work to well. if it is on xbox it can be all multiplayer and there will be minimal moaning from people. and ps3, i havnt played enough online to do a fair judgment but i would say it needs single player to.

 

[ingsoc]

Single player mode is the only thing that matters. I could care less about multiplayers gaming (sans Team Fortress 2).

 

[propertyofcobra]

Multiplayer is a cute bonus. But for a game to truly have value, the single player has to be pure gold.
This means, sadly, that 99% of the FPS games released since, oh, late 2006, are steaming piles of crap that can be completed in five hours THE FIRST TIME AROUND, but they try to excuse it cause the multiplayer is good (yes Halo 3. I'm looking at you. REAL close.)
Man, remember when FPS games took over 10 hours to complete and they made single player first and multiplayer second? Those were the freaking days.

 

[Shrapnelwolf]

"OMG WTF YOU NOOB"
"ZOMG ROCKET ***** USE A REAL WEAPON"
"HACKER WTF"

Yeah, give me single player any day. The only game I've ever really bought for the multiplayer was Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

 

[Seldon2639]

for me definatly multiplayer. i usualy play single player first just to get a feel for the controls and see how all the gardgets and stuff should be used, but after that i never touch the campaign. but i also think a large part of this is based on the system, if it is on the wii it needs good single player, the wii online doesnt work to well. if it is on xbox it can be all multiplayer and there will be minimal moaning from people. and ps3, i havnt played enough online to do a fair judgment but i would say it needs single player to.

If you don't mind my asking, since you're the only multi-player person to post, why do you feel that way? We've already heard from people on why single-player is most important, why is multi-player of primary concern for you?

 

[UncleAsriel]

With single player mode, one can have finality - the game ends after N hours of play. With multiplayer, it keeps on going and going - there's either another quest to go on, or another round of Capture the Flag. Singleplayer doesn't consume the rest of your life in quite the same way as multiplayer

 

[bulletproof12]

for me definatly multiplayer. i usualy play single player first just to get a feel for the controls and see how all the gardgets and stuff should be used, but after that i never touch the campaign. but i also think a large part of this is based on the system, if it is on the wii it needs good single player, the wii online doesnt work to well. if it is on xbox it can be all multiplayer and there will be minimal moaning from people. and ps3, i havnt played enough online to do a fair judgment but i would say it needs single player to.

If you don't mind my asking, since you're the only multi-player person to post, why do you feel that way? We've already heard from people on why single-player is most important, why is multi-player of primary concern for you?

so many single player FPS are exactly the same, defend point A from rushing mobs of enemies. usualy the hardest part is finding the best corner to hide in and ways to make the AI break down.

in multiplayer people are always different and so are the games, you get to talk to people, you get a teammates that CAN be good. personally i find it really fun finding someone who is about as good as you and playing multiplayer with a teammate (yay XBL friends list and private chat)

so for me singleplayer is reliable, nothing great but i usualy play it just to see it. and multiplayer is a hit or miss. i think the reason why people dont like multiplayer so much is you need to screen games a bit closer for them, while singleplayer you can almost always count on to be at the very least decent. like almost always games with more people in each game 4v4+ tends to reduce amount of camping. and if you cant handle competive people either change your gamer zone (XBL) or play unranked matches, who really cares if your a lvl 55 anyways?

and just to clarify i am talking about online multi, 95%of games even if they have awesome online have shit multiplayer if it is you v the one guy sitting on your couch.

 

[Lightbulb]

I don't see why you differentiate? A good game is a good game. Genre, platform and single/multi/persistent doesn't make a difference to whether its good or bad.

 

[bulletproof12]

i think the question is if you had to pick between a multi only game and a solo only game which would you pick

 

[rusty_cage]

Solo play for me, I don't really enjoy multiplayer unless it's with friends and they're in the room with me.