Poll: SP only vs MP only. Thoughts?

[Anathrax]

So recently with the announcement that TitanFall won't have a single player campaign as it "wouldn't justify the costs", some people [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view][footnote]lolol[/footnote] have been upset or disappointed.

However, when the announce came that Machine Games boldly(I really respect Machine for this) announced that Wolfenstien: The New Order wouldn't have a multiplayer mode as it was considered "tacked on" by the developers, nearly every comment I've read has been giving them praise.(Note: I also did praise them for this.)

Now, regardless of what your thoughts are on both games, what do you think of Multiplayer only games and Singleplayer only games?

Poll options in case they bug out:

Q: Opinions on SP only/MP only games?

1) No to MP only games.
2) No to SP only games.
3) No to both types of games, they should have both.
4) We can have all types.
5) As long as the MP/SP mode that is being focused on is good, I don't care.

 

[Zhukov]

How dare anyone make or play games that do not cater to my specific demographic!

I am gamer nerd, hear me whine!

...

In case it isn't obvious, I think people getting upset over a game not having single player are stupid. Irritated the shit out of me for some reason. Also, I hope every single one of those people whined their little heads off about Team Fortress 2 as well.

We can have different things that cater to different audiences. You'd think that would be a pretty fucking simple concept. But noooooo, we're fucking gamers on the internet, we cannot possibly tolerate the notion!

 

[9thRequiem]

I'm fine with any, as long as it fits the game.

"Spec Ops: The Line" was a victim of a publisher demanding forced MP, and it was to the detriment of the game itself; led to poorer review scores as it was judged based on having both.
Meanwhile, Mass Effect 3 had a multiplayer mode in an otherwise SP game, and it was actually really good.

On the other side, I think that a lot of CoD's sales are based on MP; I'm sure there would be interest in a MP-only CoD. With the prevalence of MMOs and MOBAs, MP games are fairly commonplace, and work great for some situations.

I really wouldn't like a world in which all games required both, as it's unnecessary shoehorning, and results in both sides being worse off.

In an ideal world, it would be nice if some games game the option as to what you could buy, with an optional upgrade later on if you decide you want the other side.
But that would require a more advanced infrastructure, wouldn't really work for physical media, and would definitely result in some consumer confusion.

 

[Stinovitch]

I'd rather have them focus on one of the two then see them both in a game. If they focus on both it's more likely that one of the two modes is lacking. Either the singleplayer's story isn't well thought out or the multiplayer is lacking. Of course it's not always like that, but that's my overall experience.

 

[Anathrax]

How dare anyone make or play games that do not cater to my specific demographic!

I am gamer nerd, hear me whine!

...

In case it isn't obvious, I think people getting upset over a game not having single player are stupid. Irritated the shit out of me for some reason. Also, I hope every single one of those people whined their little heads off about Team Fortress 2 as well.

We can have different things that cater to different audiences. You'd think that would be a pretty fucking simple concept. But noooooo, we're fucking gamers on the internet, we cannot possibly tolerate the notion!

Tolerance? Wassat, some sort of gay thing? #2hardcaor4u

While reading the Titanfall MP only announcement my mind went to another MP only game, I just couldn't figure out what it was. Here's a hint: "Say goodbye to your kneecaps chuckle-head!" I hope TF(YES I JUST CALLED IT TF. SUMMON THE PRESSES) can live up as a great FPS multiplayer experience.

 

[MysticSlayer]

It depends. If the developers make the one game mode enjoyable, then it really doesn't matter that they don't have any others. On the other hand, if a developer decides to make a game with multiple modes and all the modes are at least entertaining for a while, then I really can't complain either. There are plenty of good games that either focus on one mode or on multiple modes, and there also plenty of bad games in both of those categories. Personally, I prefer single mode games, as I rarely invest considerable time in every available mode, and I don't like buying games where I would only play one mode and leave the rest untouched. At the same time, though, I'll praise any game that can pull off multiple game modes (ex. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare), but I'll also criticize any game that shoehorns in a second mode and the increased investment hurts the product as a whole (ex. BioShock 2).

As far as Titanfall goes, I can't really complain. Before the major migration of Infinity Ward employees over to Respawn, it was obvious that the team was more concerned about multiplayer, and it felt like Modern Warfare 2 was only hurt by having the other modes, as it took away from time they could have spent polishing and balancing the otherwise enjoyable multiplayer. Hopefully the added focus will help make Titanfall's single mode more enjoyable, as the former Infinity Ward team (before they moved to Respawn after MW2) was one of the few developers that kept me interested in multiplayer.

 

[Sixcess]

Suits me.

Despite spending most of my gaming time on MMOs (or perhaps because of it) I never ever touch the multiplayer option on a single-player game, so Titanfall has just dropped entirely off my radar. That's good, as it means I won't have to wonder if I'll waste time and money on a game where the SP campaign is merely an afterthought.

 

[JEBWrench]

How dare anyone make or play games that do not cater to my specific demographic!

I am gamer nerd, hear me whine!

I swear, I would buy you all the beers.

On-topic: Why can't it be all? Seriously. This shouldn't even be a question. There are great games in all forms.

 

[shrekfan246]

I would say I don't care, but I don't think my actual stance would make it seem like I don't.

I don't mind if a game is going to be made multi-player only. But if it's going to be multi-player only, then it's extremely unlikely I'll buy it. Simple as that.

Now, I don't know what the developers think of why they're making the game, but part of the issue I have in particular here is because the talking head over at EA came out saying that TitanFall was going to be "competing with Gears of War and Halo" and I don't think that's a stance you should be holding when you're trying to make your game. It's like all of the MMOs who think they want to "compete" with World of Warcraft: You're never going to forcefully take that demographic, and you're probably not going to see the same level of success at all, so why don't you try making your own thing and market it off of its own merits rather than saying it's going to ape other highly-popular games? People aren't going to move from Gears or Halo, or they'll just play them in addition to TitanFall and the only way they'll keep playing is if their friends are also playing; Much like WoW, the only thing that's going to make people stop playing Gears or Halo is, well, Gears and Halo.

You should be trying to get your own slice of the market, rather than trying to steal a piece from a different slice of the market. But then I guess that's not really in the spirit of 'competition', is it?

 

[thesilentman]

It depends on the game. Is it made for multiplayer, like Dota 2 and TF2, or is it solely a single player experience? I'm fine with either as long as the game has an offline bot practice mode (for applicable games, obviously) and LAN support, because some of us still like LAN parties. -.-

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

The last two poll options amount to the same thing, don't they? We can have all three; as long as the game is good it doesn't matter. That's pretty much how I feel about it.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

How dare anyone make or play games that do not cater to my specific demographic!

I am gamer nerd, hear me whine!

...

In case it isn't obvious, I think people getting upset over a game not having single player are stupid. Irritated the shit out of me for some reason. Also, I hope every single one of those people whined their little heads off about Team Fortress 2 as well.

We can have different things that cater to different audiences. You'd think that would be a pretty fucking simple concept. But noooooo, we're fucking gamers on the internet, we cannot possibly tolerate the notion!

wut ar yuo, fukn casul?

OT: As long as it flows with the game i'm in favor of any of the above, but i will say in series/trilogies i would prefer them to keep it consistent *glances at mass effect 3*

while i did enjoy the mp of me3, i didn't like its implementation with the single player portion.

 

[Genocidicles]

I only really have a problem with multiplayer only games (without dedicated servers) costing the same price as a regular game.

I think they should cost less (or be f2p) because they're completely dependent on servers that will be taken down eventually, making your original $60 purchase pointless.

On the other hand a singleplayer game will last as long as the disc does (or forever if it's digital), and a multiplayer game with dedicated servers will last as long as people are still playing it, so they're both inherently more valuable than a multiplayer game with just matchmaking, so I have no problem with those kind of games charging full price on release.

 

[TehCookie]

At first I was thinking about skill points and mana points are basically the same thing, why do you care about the name that much?

I prefer singleplayer only games since the only time I play multiplayer is with friends on the same couch, never online. However it's nice to have options so I'd choose both, I enjoy my party games.

 

[Altercator]

Why not split the release of two? Start out with a strong SP first half of the year, and the other half add-on the MP?

The other option is to have devs give mod tools to everyone so that they can make create their own MP, like how Counter-Strike did for Half Life 2.

 

[Tahaneira]

It all depends. Tacked-on multiplayer is the much bigger issue, but there have been some tacked-on singleplayer campaigns as well. Battlefield 3 comes to mind; you could tell that the programmers just wanted to bang it out to satisfy the monkey holding the pursestrings so they could get back to the multiplayer.

There's nothing wrong with multiplayer-only games, just as there's nothing wrong with singleplayer-only or hybrids. I'm just probably not going to play MP-only games. Plenty of people do, though; I'm sure plenty of players only touch the CoD campaigns for the achievements/trophies/whathaveyou and just want to run around shooting their friends in the face.

Is that really so much to ask?

 

[Rylee Fox]

I just uninstalled a game I got in a bundle awhile ago because I tried it just now and found out it was multiplayer only. Unless its an mmo, I do not play multiplayer only games.

Give me a game that is both SP and MP I have no problem. I have no issue with SP only since I rarely play anything MP anyway.

 

[Angelous Wang]

I think we need all 3.

Just by using Steam general game categorizes:

Single player only games for story based games:
RPG's,
Action
Adventure
Simulation
Casual
Indie

Multiplayer only games for non-story focused games:
Action AAA FPS and 3PS games, Titanfall was correct Step IMO
Sports
Racing
Casual
Indie

Single player and Multiplayer hybrids:
Action
Adventures
Strategy
Simulation
Casual
Sports
Racing
Indie

Of course it does depend on the game. But in general.

And MMO's kind of defy this entire list because of the way they try to make any type of game to a completely Multiplayer only.

 

[superline51]

I play zero MP, so any game that focuses on that is out (CoD)