Poll: SP only vs MP only. Thoughts?

[Killer_tom]

I like all three type, but however if a game with both just threw a threw the other in for the sake of it then that will annoy me because for me I will always play single player first before touching the multiplayer and if the single player was just throw in then it will give me a bad opinion of the multiplayer. For the other side, if the game had good single player but has a bad multiplayer then it feels like that they just wanted people to play it more (which would be the case anyway).

In short, I don't mind all three as long as they have:
If single player only- A good story to make me want to play again (kingdom hearts is my example)
If multiplayer only - A game that that makes me want to play with my friends (dust 514)
And for both- A game that has a story to come back to but with a good multiplayer to play inbetween.

 

[CaptainThom]

While i generally prefer single player RPGs like skyrim,fallout or mount and blade, my favourite game has to be L4D2. As for games with MP&SP as long as the multiplayer is implemented into the game without the developer cutting the single player content i have no problem with it.

 

[A3Bf72rVWE5hA]

I voted for "As long as the game itself is good, I don" a cape and go around exacting my vigilante justice. That's how that option ended, right? Anyways, yeah, a good game is a good game whether it be single player or multiplayer. Just look at skyrim and tf2 for examples of each.

 

[Agayek]

It all depends on the game itself. Some games work best as multiplayer only and adding a campaign would only serve to detract from the experience (see: Team Fortress 2). Other games work best as a campaign and adding multiplayer would only detract (see: Spec Ops: The Line). And still others can blend the two together and have a fantastic result (see: Mass Effect 3).

You can't really say one should exist while any of the others should not. The only thing that should be said here is that publishers need to not force the developers to add multiplayer to a SP game or vice versa so that they can check it off the list. That is guaranteed to detract from the game.

 

[mirage202]

I personally think a game should play to its strengths. Why should every game be all things to all people and then be crap at the lot? (Seriously Publishers, explain this some day).

There is nothing wrong with a suitable game being SP only, if MP becomes a huge demand then sure have the framework and release a MP expansion or standalone later.

Also nothing wrong with a game being MP only, some people just plain prefer playing with others all the time.

The issue is with games that shoehorn in one or the other when it really isn't needed, Battlefield and CoD are obviously the most widely known candidates, they both have a next to pointless interactive movie for a SP campaign. Why bother? The vast majority buy those games for the MP.

As there was no option for "Yes both options are fine" I didn't vote in the poll.

 

[LordLundar]

My personal taste is on the SP side. I'm not a fan of MP games but that is simply personal taste and I don't want to see either type completely removed from the market.

That said, much as I don't want to see either type vanish, neither do I want to see both types in every single game in existence. Not every game needs a multiplayer mode (I've seen people ask for it in Kerbal Space Program ffs. First time the acceleration stuff is used will wipe that idea out real quick) and not every game needs a SP function (Arena style shooters like TF2 just lose the appeal when it's only bots).

If a game is really good on one aspect, slapping together a crummy alternative just to try to get another part of the market is counterproductive. Focus on what works best for the game itself.

 

[Hero of Lime]

For me, it feels like the idea of a multiplayer only game would feel somehow incomplete. In my mind multiplayer still feels like something extra compared to a single player experience. Multiplayer can be fun, but I've always preferred single player. I wish Titanfall had single player, but without it I don't have much interest.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

SP first, then MP. An im not interested in MP. If you make a game with 5 hour crappy SP story, then i wont buy it, mostly i will rent it. An if that SP sucks, it will make me not want to buy the sequel brand new. Its why i havnt bought a CoD new since the WW2 era of CoD.

 

[NightmareExpress]

I enjoy an experience that is both masterful in gameplay and story.
Such a thing is nigh impossible to accomplish through the means of multiplayer alone.
Though it is indeed true that a good singleplayer game can have good multiplayer.

Thus, my preference lies towards SP only but I don't care too much so long as the overall quality of the product is not lesser as the result of multiple dev teams (outsourced, even) with entirely different principles in mind. If your game has no real story to tell, by all means go all in for multiplayer. Just don't expect too much longevity. For at some point, it will be hard to enjoy when nobody else is playing whereas it is marginally easier to pop in a classic SP experience without relying too much on others.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

I'm a single player person, I love a game for the story, I don't mind playing co op occasionally but for the most part I like to lay back on the couch and get lost in a great story (pity I got mass effect on PC rather than PS3 so have to hide in computer room to play that).

Now as for why people are getting upset, there are so many Multiplayer games already, even where the games SHOULD be single player they have been pushed into multiplayer and lots of us are just not that interested in playing multiplayer

I can see exactly why the wolfinstin Devs have gone SP only, thats the history of the game, its not COD where its all about the competitive MP and the chances of drawing that crowd in are low so dumping that to focus more on the story and the experience for those of us who play SP is fantastic. I'm not against optional local co-op games either if they can pull it off so it doesn't hurt the SP experience (unfortunately that means games like resident evil 5 where the computer player SUCKS). In reality a good example of this is probably diablo 3, you can play single player and if someone joins you the difficulty goes up, now if they could do that with a console split screen shooter or RPG that would be great but if its going to hurt the SP then don't bother

I have no vested interest in Titanfall because its on the Bone so I haven't even looked at it but I would say that any disappointment would come back to how it was announced, was it announced as a MP game only or was the story pushed the way companies market SP games and then days latter they come out and say "oh BTW its only MP"? No one would go into wolfinstne ONLY for the MP, they MIGHT chose to play it multiplayer down the track but its bought as a SP game and its fans are SP fans. Titanfall is new IP so people are looking at it based only on what was announced.

I will say though that if Ubisoft came out now and said "oh BTW, watchdogs is MP only" people would be very peeved (including me) because that's not the expectations that we have for that game based on what has already been stated

 

[MikailCaboose]

Eh, I don't care so long as the game itself is good. I certainly didn't mind the original Battlefield games, and to be honest with what I played of BF3 it probably would have fared better staying as such. And if it's singleplayer only, then it's singleplayer only. Not much of a problem either, as I for one still like playing singleplayer campaigns and the like. If the game is good, then I'll like it. If it's not, then single/multiplayer changes wouldn't really help it in my mind.

That being said, I do mind (kind of) if either the multiplayer or singleplayer feels tacked on. If it's tacked on multiplayer I'm not going to be all that fussed over it. But tacked on *singleplayer* just stings me to the core.

 

[Miss G.]

I suppose a healthy balance of all 3 would be the best thing - but even so, I like my games SP only because I don't care for anything else and I don't like paying even the slightest bit of my purchase on things I'm not gonna use.

 

[Vegosiux]

If I have to pick one or the other for each game I play, I'll be going about 95-5 in favor of SP only with my games.

 

[neppakyo]

SP. Cause I pretty much hate most people. People in Co-op Mp annoy me.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

A good game is a good game a million times over: A bad game is a bad game a BILLION times over. Team Fortress 2 kicks ass even though I can't play it by myself. Super Mario Bros 3 is fucking legendary even though you can't play with other people simultaneously. Crackdown 2 and Bioshock 2 tried to have its cake and eat it...we don't really talk about those games anymore. Predator, Quest 64 and, Final Fantasy XIII are single player only and we don't really like to talk about them anymore. Brink, Arkham City Impostors and, Mindjack are multiplayer (or meant to be) and we don't like to talk about them anymore either.

 

[RJ 17]

Deleted this post because apparently I'm a moron that fell for a lame joke.

 

[trollnystan]

Apart from the occasional, highly sporadic, foray into MMORPGs, I am very much a SP gal. However, I don't see why we can't have games that are only MP. Plenty of people out there like MP more than SP after all. It's a niche to be filled! So I voted for option 4.

 

[WoW Killer]

I choose all the above! Some games are meant for SP, some games are meant for MP, and some games are meant for both. Nothing wrong with that.

Though lately? I've been seeing more of single player gameplay encroaching on my multiplayer games... Yes, I'm talking about that fucking Bumba's Mask :/