Poll: single player

[massau]

doe you think that the single player needs to get longer again? because most games give more and more attention to the multiplayer and so the single player get shorter. some games need a multiplayer but others don't they just need a story and a good gameplay.
and yes i am a multiplayer fan because some games are really good in the singleplayer like Overlord (more games need to have a length like this game)

and yes i have tried a MMORPG and i just didn't find the fun there is always someone that thinks he is cool because he is a high level but in fact it means he is the largest geek

and i mean the online multilayer not the split screen that you can do together at home with beer and stuf
plz say your opinion and don't get of the threat
(i hope that some game makers will read this and see that they chance it back to the "good side")

and one more argue the games get more expensive because of the servers for the multiplayer

PLZ VOTE

 

[aperpheldy]

No, if anything, multiplayer needs more attention. There is nothing worse then playing a game while your friend sits there doing nothing or waiting for a turn.

 

[massau]

No, if anything, multiplayer needs more attention. There is nothing worse then playing a game while your friend sits there doing nothing or waiting for a turn.

k i will EDIT it i mean online multilayer not split screen for the campaign.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

doe you think that the single player needs to get longer again? because most games give more and more attention to the multiplayer and so the single player get shorter. some games need a multiplayer but others don't they just need a story and a good gameplay.
and yes i am a multiplayer fan because some games are really good in the singleplayer like Overlord (more games need to have a length like this game)

and yes i have tried a MMORPG and i just didn't find the fun there is always someone that thinks he is cool because he is a high level but in fact it means he is the largest geek

Yes, it seems like games are getting shorter and shorter these days. It's bound to get worse though, seeing as multiplayer is near enough a requirement for any game where it's possible.

Like the avatar by the way. HOT LAVA.

 

[AwesomeNinjaPowers]

Yes it does. I'm a social recluse. I don't want to listen to other people when I'm playing games (Battlefield 2 you know what you did), and I certainly don't want them in my house, they might want me to interact with them or something equally horrible, and hell most of the people on multiplayers are a bunch of hooting yahoos.

 

[Hutchy_Bear]

Unfortunatly I havn't got my 360 online so single player is a must. Note I'm only talking about online multiplayer.

 

[Toners]

No, if anything, multiplayer needs more attention. There is nothing worse then playing a game while your friend sits there doing nothing or waiting for a turn.

Oh man, I was playing Conflict: Desert Storm 1 the other day while stoned with a couple of mates, and it was ridiculous because even on multiplayer the first mission is you by yourself while they wait to be freed... And after that, in the next level one of you has a sniper rifle and pistol while the other one control the team leader and guy with the bigass machine gun. So basically, for player 2, the game just isn't that fun for the first 2 levels They fixed that in the second one, so all is good ^.^
I just felt a bit rubbish because the other guy wanted to play on hard and it took me three attempts to get to where he was, taking a while using my usual stealthy bollocks.

 

[massau]

Unfortunatly I havn't got my 360 online so single player is a must. Note I'm only talking about online multiplayer.

agree i don't have mine PS3 online so i cant play the multiplayer but i think gone use a HDMI cable and set it on mine computer screen

 

[CinosNroca]

No, if anything, multiplayer needs more attention. There is nothing worse then playing a game while your friend sits there doing nothing or waiting for a turn.

Luckily I have solved this problem. I have 2 tvs in the same room. If my friend(s) want to play anything, all they have to do is fire it up on the spare. Nowadays you can purchase a relatively decent tv for cheap, and if you have the money, buy HD.

Yes, I believe the single player needs more attention, both in the length AND story dept. And before you start, I like multiplayer as much as anyone else, I just happen to be a hermit and have less oportunity to play them.

 

[Anachronism]

Screw multiplayer. If I wanted more friends I would go out and socialise and not play games to start with. Bring back single player!

*high five*

Exactly this. When I play games I like to play them by myself; I don't particularly want to play them with people I've just met over the Internet. If I'm going to play multiplayer, which I only do on occasion, it's going to either be split-screen or on a LAN, so I can play with my friends.

I feel that developers need to start focusing on single-player again. Multiplayer is becoming far too important; even BioShock 2 is going to get multiplayer, even though the reason the first one was successful was because of good single player. The same goes for GTA IV; a series that had been founded on single player threw in a multiplayer mode simply because they could. Multiplayer is fine, but if a game was made with single player in mind, the developer should focus on that and make it as good as they can. The problem is that, these days, a lot of people see multiplayer as a requisite for a good game, which really irritates me.

 

[Worr Monger]

I generally only play single player... I can't stand most multiplayer games.. unless it's a mindless shooter like Quake.... or something incredibly fun as TF2.

But I hate when single player falls short because the developer just had to squeeze in some pointless multiplayer portion that no one will ever touch.

I play games to escape reality... not to play virtual sports with little kids and morons.

 

[Heatseeker]

The issue of singleplayer portions of games getting shorter is complex, with the state of the industry as it is. Many players are demanding a high level of graphical polish which generally increases production time for most games. Also there's the issue that many gamers today are veterans, having played games for most of their life and may finish a game in a much shorter time than others, so it's all relative.

I agree that singleplayer in some games really needs attention, especially in some very disappointing singleplayer only games, however I don't think just length is the answer. Plenty of potentially good games have been ruined by just adding on pointless things to increase the length. The focus needs to be on creating a great experience for the player no matter the length e.g. Portal and Braid: short but great experiences

 

[PlasticTree]

It doesn't need more attention in games that are all about the multiplayer. In those games singleplayer is simply a training mode, and that's ok. But a lot of games add a multiplayer because it sounds nice. In those games multiplayer is often nothing more than a feature that is more used in reviews than in the game itself. Nothing wrong with that as long as the singleplayer doesn't suffer from it, but it often does. 10 or less hours of singleplayer is just too short for 60 bucks.

 

[massau]

Multiplayer is fine, but if a game was made with single player in mind, the developer should focus on that and make it as good as they can. The problem is that, these days, a lot of people see multiplayer as a requisite for a good game, which really irritates me.

i fully agree with this and there are stil some games that are gooing for the single player for example overlord it has multiplayer but they say that it is more a singleplayer so it has a really good singleplayer and i really enjoyed it (it was a long time ago that i have had so much fun with a game)

 

[massau]

It doesn't need more attention in games that are all about the multiplayer. In those games singleplayer is simply a training mode, and that's ok. But a lot of games add a multiplayer because it sounds nice. In those games multiplayer is often nothing more than a feature that is more used in reviews than in the game itself. Nothing wrong with that as long as the singleplayer doesn't suffer for it, but it often does. 10 or less hours of singleplayer is just too short for 60 bucks.

most times it is 5 hours for 40?

 

[Keldon888]

"Yes, but not for games like COD"

Truth in this, I love single player, 9/10 its much much better than any multiplayer. But if it's a multiplayer based game, stop tacking on these weak not really a story series of matchups(Unreal I'm looking at you) and pretending its a single player story.

 

[massau]

The issue of singleplayer portions of games getting shorter is complex, with the state of the industry as it is. Many players are demanding a high level of graphical polish which generally increases production time for most games. Also there's the issue that many gamers today are veterans, having played games for most of their life and may finish a game in a much shorter time than others, so it's all relative.

I agree that singleplayer in some games really needs attention, especially in some very disappointing singleplayer only games, however I don't think just length is the answer. Plenty of potentially good games have been ruined by just adding on pointless things to increase the length. The focus needs to be on creating a great experience for the player no matter the length e.g. Portal and Braid: short but great experiences

they have made some kind of script that modifies itself so it will get harder for the player they just need to introduce it in al games so the games get harder and stop to be mindles shooters

 

[Chipperz]

I think they should bring back sustained offline multiplayer deathmatches. So many of my favourate memories have been offline play against mates that you can see and talk to directly.

Also, there are no whiny Americans in offline Halo matches. I know some, but we don't let them play!