What multiplayer games would you like to play in singleplayer?

[Squilookle]

Flipping Dr. McD's thread on it's head, what multiplayer only or multiplayer-focused games would you like to see a proper singleplayer for? Naturally it is assumed that whatever game you pick will have AI that can play the game as well as you can. How much story (or none at all) is entirely up to you. What are your picks?

As for my picks:

Warhawk (PS3)​

I never played this game because it was online only, and therefore useless to me, but it looked like so much fun. Like Army Men meets Battlefront, and it's simple arsenal looked incredibly well balanced. Even an instant action mode like Battlefront 1 and 2 had would have been amazing.

Subrosa (PC)​

This would be particularly tricky to code AI for: a city based crime game involving three teams or 'corporations' that all need something from another team to get money. Do they trade peacefully while sending the 3rd on a wild goose chase? will they kill one team to deliver to the other? will a normal deal get ambushed by a particularly acute remaining team? Every round can play out in a million different ways, and in some ways it's the ultimate carpark shootout/carchase simulator you've always dreamed of.

Forgotten Hope Secret Weapon (PC)​

AKA the greatest WW2 experience you'll ever live through, but one that is exclusively multiplayer. It's old, but with 690 vehicles and 138 maps, it's giant and glorious. Seriously if this mod had a singleplayer campaign in the same vein as say... Operation Flashpoint, then that would be it. I'd never need to touch another historical war shooter as long as I lived.

 

[Saelune]

Warframe. It is the best "free to play" game I have ever played...but it is still a f2p game. If it was a full priced single-player game though, would probably be pretty neat.

 

[BrawlMan]

Overwatch could have used a good single-player that would have worked given all the backstory they put in to the characters.

Anarchy Reigns has a single-player, but it could have been better. It's functional, but I wish Platinum had done things differently. Some characters are underused in the story, and the campaign is really a glorified tutorial has you going through the same game twice, albeit with different missions and challenges for the Black and White Side. I love the battle mechanics, but wish they were some more things done. The multiplayer is dead unless you know a couple of friends that have the game. At least you can do the multiplayer with the CPU.

 

[CritialGaming]

World of Warcraft.

I get that the running joke it that it's mostly singleplayer now, and the other people you get into LFG with might as well just be bots for how skilled they are.

But seriously. I would love a WoW single player version, where fighting raid bosses was like fighting a Dark Souls boss. Just you, your gear, and your skill to get you through all their fuckery.

 

[American Tanker]

I would LOVE a single-player tank combat game that played like World of Tanks or Armored Warfare. Maybe use a system more like Ace Combat for the acquisition of vehicles and weapons, though, instead of WoT's EXP system. You know, earn money by blowing stuff up, spend that money on new tanks and weapons to blow more stuff up.

 

[pookie101]

I would LOVE a single-player tank combat game that played like World of Tanks or Armored Warfare. Maybe use a system more like Ace Combat for the acquisition of vehicles and weapons, though, instead of WoT's EXP system. You know, earn money by blowing stuff up, spend that money on new tanks and weapons to blow more stuff up.

my thought exactly. add a full campaign with randomised procedural enemies. a full strategic map.. id buy it

they are almost there with armored warfares pve mode too

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Literally almost all of them. I don't like having my fun depend on others or paying money for something that will be rendered useless because a communal exodus happens.

... I still miss Monday Night Combat...

Warframe. It is the best "free to play" game I have ever played...but it is still a f2p game. If it was a full priced single-player game though, would probably be pretty neat.

Same. Although I mainly play single player as is, since no one is doing the missions I am now. I started playing when it first came out and when I got back into it. .. there were all these "missions" and stuff.

 

[American Tanker]

my thought exactly. add a full campaign with randomised procedural enemies. a full strategic map.. id buy it

they are almost there with armored warfares pve mode too

I wonder if something couldn't be done with WWII vehicles that would be kind of a "DieselPunk post-apocalypse", like if WWII didn't end in 1945 and dragged on into the 50s, then left a ravaged world with no centralized governments. Basically just a global wasteland of tanks, and some mercenary groups hired by various factions for various missions.

Or if we're going with modern vehicles, have a WWIII scenario where it never actually goes nuclear, but devastates the economies of the nations involved and causes them to destabilize and crumble. Similar to the former idea, just set in a different time frame with different technology.

 

[pookie101]

my thought exactly. add a full campaign with randomised procedural enemies. a full strategic map.. id buy it

they are almost there with armored warfares pve mode too

I wonder if something couldn't be done with WWII vehicles that would be kind of a "DieselPunk post-apocalypse", like if WWII didn't end in 1945 and dragged on into the 50s, then left a ravaged world with no centralized governments. Basically just a global wasteland of tanks, and some mercenary groups hired by various factions for various missions.

Or if we're going with modern vehicles, have a WWIII scenario where it never actually goes nuclear, but devastates the economies of the nations involved and causes them to destabilize and crumble. Similar to the former idea, just set in a different time frame with different technology.

i like your thoughts

with ww3. you could have the whole cold war for instance.. same style maps of west/east germany and mark campaigns by era, even other wars like korea

my other suggest is star trek online.. its mostly single player already but id love for it to go totally single player as well

 

[American Tanker]

with ww3. you could have the whole cold war for instance.. same style maps of west/east germany and mark campaigns by era, even other wars like korea

What I was thinking with regards to WWIII was something more akin to Frontlines: Fuel of War, a near-future conflict that eventually grinds down to the point where none of the involved countries can sustain it. Eventually, the nations begin to destabilize and crumble, and the war ends with a whimper, leaving behind a world where simply having access to a factory capable of significant output or a farm that can sustain a number of people makes you a major power. Relatively speaking.

A world ruled by warlords and raider bands, with many just trying to scrape enough together to survive. And in the middle of all this, the player, with not much more than a pieced together tank made of scrap and second-hand parts. And you're going to have to fight your way to the top of the food chain, bit by agonizing bit. Eventually, you'll be the biggest warlord in the wasteland, but how you fight and what you fight for will decide what kind of world you'll end up creating. Will you pave the road to a brighter future, where civilization once again thrives? Or will you be a brutal despot, taking everything for yourself and leaving nothing for anyone else?

 

[pookie101]

with ww3. you could have the whole cold war for instance.. same style maps of west/east germany and mark campaigns by era, even other wars like korea

What I was thinking with regards to WWIII was something more akin to Frontlines: Fuel of War, a near-future conflict that eventually grinds down to the point where none of the involved countries can sustain it. Eventually, the nations begin to destabilize and crumble, and the war ends with a whimper, leaving behind a world where simply having access to a factory capable of significant output or a farm that can sustain a number of people makes you a major power. Relatively speaking.

A world ruled by warlords and raider bands, with many just trying to scrape enough together to survive. And in the middle of all this, the player, with not much more than a pieced together tank made of scrap and second-hand parts. And you're going to have to fight your way to the top of the food chain, bit by agonizing bit. Eventually, you'll be the biggest warlord in the wasteland, but how you fight and what you fight for will decide what kind of world you'll end up creating. Will you pave the road to a brighter future, where civilization once again thrives? Or will you be a brutal despot, taking everything for yourself and leaving nothing for anyone else?

hmm sounds like battletech but with tanks.. i like it

i will say i do like armored warfare at least trying to add lore and reasons for the battles

 

[Prime_Hunter_H01]

World of Warcraft.

I get that the running joke it that it's mostly singleplayer now, and the other people you get into LFG with might as well just be bots for how skilled they are.

But seriously. I would love a WoW single player version, where fighting raid bosses was like fighting a Dark Souls boss. Just you, your gear, and your skill to get you through all their fuckery.

I second this. It is a game not lacking for content, and I would imagine re balancing it to be like Xenoblade Chronicles would make it an excellent single player game. Especially if your tanks behaved like Reyn. Reyn from Xenoblade Chronicles has the best Tanking AI i have seen in a game, I was really only in danger when I played too well and drew aggro from him in the late game due to the high damage.

 

[shrekfan246]

Thirding World of Warcraft. It wouldn't be overly difficult to do, there are plenty of RPGs with party-based combat that functions on the same Tank-DPS-Healer setup that defines WoW. Also, frankly, I still do love the progression system. I like the fact that the overworld is so large, and separated into many different zones with their own level ranges, I like that there are tons of little optional dungeons spread throughout the questing areas, I like the variety of the endgame raid content, and I want all of it in a single-player RPG.

Other than that, I've long been interested in a single-player MOBA with the same sort of character variety as LoL or Heroes of the Storm.

I'd also really like a single-player campaign for Overwatch.

Hm. Seems there's quite a bit of Blizzard properties here. I wonder if that means anything...

Oh, how about Star Trek Online and Star Wars: The Old Republic? I think both of those could be made into pretty solid single-player RPGs as well.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Any given FPS that doesn't have bot-matches but an emphasis on MP or online MP really. It might be a bridge-too-far to ask for those online-only trochievos (I call them trochievos) to be unlockable by allowing MP play offline using bots but ideally, that would be so...for me anyway. I concede that playing with actual people is more fun than playing with bots but some of the best times I had as a kid was playing Duke Nukem 64's bot mode until 3am on weekends. I don't see why I can't also do that with...well, any-given shooter really.

Since I don't really play MP games, I don't know of many others that I would want to play on my own...I just have that one gripe with modern shooters.

 

[Squilookle]

Any given FPS that doesn't have bot-matches but an emphasis on MP or online MP really. It might be a bridge-too-far to ask for those online-only trochievos (I call them trochievos) to be unlockable by allowing MP play offline using bots but ideally, that would be so...for me anyway. I concede that playing with actual people is more fun than playing with bots but some of the best times I had as a kid was playing Duke Nukem 64's bot mode until 3am on weekends. I don't see why I can't also do that with...well, any-given shooter really.

Since I don't really play MP games, I don't know of many others that I would want to play on my own...I just have that one gripe with modern shooters.

Wait... what!? Duke Nukem 64 had multiplayer bots you could play solo against?

Damn... I might have to go check it out now

 

[Hawki]

...the heck made you go back to this thread? I mean, not complaining, but, huh?

But, okay, the simple answer is "any and every," but I'll work with what I've got.

Overwatch could have used a good single-player that would have worked given all the backstory they put in to the characters.

Pretty much this.

I mean, it's not just the characters, but Overwatch benefits from having a reasonably sound world to work within. The fanbase knows this, and given all the shorts and comics Blizzard's released for it, they know it as well. I mean, something in the Omnic Crisis, or something in the current era, fuck, anything.

World of Warcraft.

I get that the running joke it that it's mostly singleplayer now, and the other people you get into LFG with might as well just be bots for how skilled they are.

But seriously. I would love a WoW single player version, where fighting raid bosses was like fighting a Dark Souls boss. Just you, your gear, and your skill to get you through all their fuckery.

I'd be happy with that...sort of.

Fine. Warcraft IV's probably never going to happen. But I'd be fine with some kind of singleplayer RPG set in Azeroth...

...which is even less likely to happen than Warcraft IV, but hey, we're dealing with hypotheticals.

Other than that, I've long been interested in a single-player MOBA with the same sort of character variety as LoL or Heroes of the Storm.

I'm mixed on that.

If you want an idea of how a singleplayer MOBA would function, look at the Horde campaign from The Frozen Throne. Now, as a mini campaign in of itself, it's quite fun. Could it sustain an entire game though? Not so sure.

That said, of the two, League certainly has the lore to support a singleplayer campaign - heck, just make a different game entirely set in the Rune Wars. HotS, not so much - I mean, it has lore, but it's far less engaging lore at that. Still, I figure if Blizzard won't make Warcraft IV, they could make a HotS RTS, with different factions corresponding to the different realm lords. Again, never going to happen, but still...

Hm. Seems there's quite a bit of Blizzard properties here. I wonder if that means anything...

Chances are you'll never read this, but it does mean something...unfortunately.

I'll put it this way. Right now, Blizzard has 5 active IPs. Of them, two of them are multiplayer only (HotS, Overwatch), and one of them (StarCraft) is in a position where it's continuing to receive content, but multiplayer-only content. Of the remaining two, Diablo is basically in stasis until D4 or something comes along, where the one thing we know for sure is that it won't be announced at BlizzCon 2018. That currently leaves only Warcraft, which is the only IP to get singleplayer-only content. You can technically point to stuff like StarCraft's Co-op Missions (all of which take place during LotV), or Overwatch's Archives missions (which delve into past events in the lore), but all of these require multiplayer and playing with, bleh, fellow human beings.

So, on one hand, Blizzard's currently in a point where a lot, arguably all of its focus, is on multiplayer. Now, Blizzard's always had a lot of focus on that, but until Hearthstone, it never made multiplayer-only games. Still, another thing Blizzard's good at is worlds and characters, so they've continued to pump out (usually free) tie-in lore for stuff like Overwatch, StarCraft, and even HotS. So, on one hand, Blizzard's still interested in creating engaging worlds (even if HotS isn't that engaging for me, but hey, 4/5 isn't bad). On the other, it's either unable or unwilling to do that in many of the games themselves.

Which isn't that unusual, since the idea of tie-in lore for multiplayer-only games isn't new (see LoL and TF2 for instance - heck, even Warhammer), but it is a shift for Blizzard itself. So, much as I like watching Overwatch shorts, or the Shadow Wars comic series for instance, it's kind of a substitute for the real thing.

Oh, how about Star Trek Online and Star Wars: The Old Republic? I think both of those could be made into pretty solid single-player RPGs as well.

Considering how many people are clamouring for KOTOR 3, I think they'd agree with you.

Not the biggest fan of either Star Wars or Star Trek, but both those games would be much more engaging to me if they were singleplayer. Heck, toss in LOTRO as well (though admittedly Middle-earth has no shortage of RPG tie-ins).

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

So many of them! Gonna second Warframe and Overwatch. They're both cool games with interesting character designs, nice levels, and fun mechanics that I'm positive would be a blast in single player.

DCUO is a game I've wanted to experience offline for ages. I've created a group of 6 heroes and villains, giving them backstories, motivations, nemesis', and some neat designs. I've played through the "plot" once, but once it was time to actually play nice with others? I dropped off quick. I nice, single-player version of DCUO, maybe even with the nemesis system because comic characters never stay dead, would really kick ass. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

 

[BrawlMan]

The recent Quake game. I know they didn't want to compete with one of their other IPs, but Quake needed a single-player so badly. The last game came out in 2005. The game could have been either a new sequel having nothing to do with 4 or just a reboot of the original. Either case would have worked for me.

 

[Hawki]

The recent Quake game. I know they didn't want to compete with one of their other IPs, but Quake needed a single-player so badly. The last game came out in 2005. The game could have been either a new sequel having nothing to do with 4 or just a reboot of the original. Either case would have worked for me.

2008 technically.

As for Champions, wouldn't mind singleplayer, but Quake's lore is so damn schizophrenic, that even with QC trying to weld it together...well, good luck with that.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Wait... what!? Duke Nukem 64 had multiplayer bots you could play solo against?

Damn... I might have to go check it out now

Iirc, all versions of Duke3D from the Atomic Edition (which I think Duke 64 is based on) onwards have bots. I remember playing some botmatches back in the day, although I also remember it being kind of a pain to set up, by the standards of young inexperienced me, at least.

And I think you can't do a mixed match of human players and bots. It's either you vs bots only, or you vs other people. Although it's possible the newer releases made that possible. Been ages since I played any version.