On Multiplayer

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

I once again find it difficult to find any particular reason to disagree with Yahtzee but I am also reluctant to agree. Some of his points I have no ability to counter - for example, I live in the United States and therefore have no problems with lag, timing or communication issues. His last three points however are the ones that I find most intriguing.

3. Because there's nothing more to see.

While I cannot reasonably argue that there anything truly new to be found in multiplayer in your average game, to dismiss something because you have seen it before strikes me as being incredibly cynical. Afterall, I've played dozens (hundreds?) of first person shooters and I can rest soundly knowing that it is a rare entry in the genre that will offer up anything new and surprising.

4. Because the single player must stand up by itself.

This is the statement I have the hardest time agreeing with likely because it has the weakest justification. There have been games that have been successful without a significant single player component (Tribes, Quake 3, Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament and many others) so it would seem that by virtue of the existance of such games market success does not rely on a quality single player experience. For a great many players, the single player campaign in games like Modern Warfare represent only a tiny sliver of the overall experience and as such find most of the value contained in the online component.

In short, the statement generally lacks rigour. If someone is opposed to multiplayer in general as Yahtzee appears to be, then I suppose the statement is self proving. If one finds no worth in multiplayer, then the value MUST be contained in the single player experience or else it doesn't exist in that product as far as the user is concerned. In any other case, I'd hope to see a stronger argument.

5. Because people are shit.

I cannot disagree with this statement. My enjoyment in a multiplayer game is based almost entirely upon the other people playing alongside or against me. In some cases, the combination of people and skills produce a great deal of fun. Other times it produces undiluted rage.

That a great many people on XBL (or even PSN, though the relatively low numbers of players with headsets helps ensure you don't have to deal with quite as much silliness) seemingly exist only to drag down the experience for others is not a point I would debate. To regularly avoid an entire mode of play on the assumption that you will never have a good experience however is almost absurd. I hardly expect any attempt to play a game with the unwashed masses will improve Yahtzee's opinion; indeed, it would probably only further erode his opinion.

The part that actually irritates me however is that in ignoring the multiplayer components of games that enjoy commercial and critical success primarily because of multiplayer is tantamount to a music critic presenting reviews based off of the 30 second previews itunes delivers, or perhaps a movie critic writing a review based off a preview for a film. The picture is incomplete. If one truly wants to be a critic, it seems the must be willing to explore all aspects of the medium, even if certain aspects disgust them. Ignoring the existance and importance (in terms of moving copies) of multiplayer when delivering a critique means you have never examined the entire picture.

I've been feeling like point number 1 on MW2 lately :/ It does become frustrating, but sometimes, it's good just to get a bit of an unpredictable challenge.

This doesn't really explain why Multiplayer is less important than Single-player, just why you don't like Multiplayer...but hey, that's fair enough - plenty of perfectly valid arguments, particularly this one:

"...in games like Modern Warfare 2, you join your first game and are immediately flattened by fifty people who have been playing for way longer than you and know every level inside out. It's easy to be discouraged from playing any further."

This is precisely what has happened to me since I got Modern Warfare 2 and today I finally had enough of it, it just is not fun. Only reason I got so involved in Left 4 Dead Versus was because I bought the game on Day 1, so it was much harder to get stamped on; plus Modern Warfare 2 does a poor job of introducing new players, what with overpowered killstreaks and deathstreaks that are useless most of the time.

Yahtzee...

There are alot of people out there that play with friends and do just fine without the fear of being punched. ...People who play to have fun with eachother, for the experience. Sure it seems there's almost none at times, I feel that way while playing S4, but there's alot more out there than you think. They just keep quiet...

I find myself saying "People are shit" sometimes too, usually in public games, or in S4 when some guy calls you a noob for listening to him and sympathy-not-shooting him because he said "don't shoot me I lag" then telling him that lag affects us too... but it takes a good game with people I know or sometimes just one act of compassion in such games (therefore sparking a wave of compassion... this works half the time) to remind me that people aren't shit.

Sure, there's always gonna be fags that make shit smell nice, but not everyone's that fag.

I think he's read my mind and put it into a more understandable context. GET OUT OF MY HEAD YAHTZEE!!!

Eclectic Dreck:

4. Because the single player must stand up by itself.

This is the statement I have the hardest time agreeing with likely because it has the weakest justification. There have been games that have been successful without a significant single player component (Tribes, Quake 3, Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament and many others) so it would seem that by virtue of the existance of such games market success does not rely on a quality single player experience. For a great many players, the single player campaign in games like Modern Warfare represent only a tiny sliver of the overall experience and as such find most of the value contained in the online component.

In short, the statement generally lacks rigour. If someone is opposed to multiplayer in general as Yahtzee appears to be, then I suppose the statement is self proving. If one finds no worth in multiplayer, then the value MUST be contained in the single player experience or else it doesn't exist in that product as far as the user is concerned. In any other case, I'd hope to see a stronger argument.

Tribes had a single player mode, Quake 3 comes from single player roots and MANY complained when Q3 it came out without one (this was before the age of "Lets Boycott Shit" mentality of PC gamers). So did UT... TF and CS started as mods, they wouldn't be what they are today if they had started as new "Multiplayer Only" IPs.

I can guarantee that people who play MW4 in multi will never be anywhere near the sales figure we saw that game achieve. Even with STRONG multiplayer elements, a game without a single player mode will never work as well as one that has it.

There is no "market" for new multiplayer only licenses : Shadowrun, Demigod, etc. Demigod is based in DOTA, but looking exactly nothing like WC3/DOTA didn't help. Battle of Newerth will probably work better because players will still associate it with WC3, and most people that buy it will do so because of WC3.

Developers KNOW that, and this is why you see single player modes in new IPs geared for multiplayer (Take L4D for example). As such, Yatzee's point is valid and he isn't the only one in the industry thinking that way.

Also, don't forget that Yatzee mainly review and talk about console games. Multiplayer on consoles is a vastly different beast than on PCs.

I have to disagree on one point,

I really don't get people who can play end-game content and games like Counter-Strike over and over and over again. Nothing ever changes and nothing is ever achieved. And you're taking your own time away that you could be using to get to grips with the wonders of the unexplored worlds in the next game on the pile.

The thing about games like Counter-Strike, Quake, TF2 and *insert any other player vs player game here* is that it DOES change. Since you are facing off against other players, and often never the same player twice the experience varies greatly from game to game.

Mmm...yup. That's about it. He glamorously praises the games that are competent Multiplayers, but for the ones that are Multiplayers with a puddle of piss of a single player tacked on, I find it interesting how he has nothing but disdain for.

I mostly agree with number 4 and 5. The reason is because I think that a good single-player story is what will keep me playing the game in multiplayer, and also I can get better and learn how to play well enough. As for number 5, I really don't need to elaborate it.

I'm not high on the multiplayer either, I can play it, but it's not the talking kind, although that can be quite awesome when done. So when I play multiplayer, it's often offline.

I'm sure this has been said a dozen times by now, but the argument of "Because the single player must stand up by itself" doesn't hold up too well when you consider purely multiplayer games like Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead (2). But this is probably just a case of "exception that proves the rule" seeing as how these games have no real single-player mode and thus all the effort was put into making the multiplayer - the only aspect of the game - as good as possible, rather than splitting the effort between singleplayer and multiplayer and failing both.

I have to completely agree with multiplayer not being the most important part of the game. Part of this is because eventually nobody will play it online ever. What do you do to play it when this happens? You can't do the singleplayer campaign again, you've beat it enough. So what else? Games need to give us a reason to go back and play singleplayer portions over and over again. Multiple endings, challenge modes, gameplay mutators, mods, etc.

Games are art hippies strike again.

Fine points all around, got a deal of laughs from it :D I do strongly believe that if you get into the games' online play-styles you'd have a lot of fun though, depending on the game. I do however fully understand that you have a job to do and that that job doesn't permit lengthy play of each game.

Wow. I totally agree with Yahtzee, even on the bits that sound sociopathic.

Single player is always playable, and multiplayer is a bonus for people who want to play more competitively.

My biggest problem with this article is that is stems from the belief that a game with a full-fledged campaign is a single-player game. I don't consider Modern Warfare 2 to be a single-player game. It seems to me that the game was created as a multiplayer game, and then the developers crafted the single-player around the multiplayer formula.

This most reminds me of Yahtzee's review of Halo 3. He said that he didn't care about multiplayer and wouldn't review it, but he missed the point. In Halo 3, the game engine was based on the multiplayer, and then a single-player mode was crafted around this engine.

Put simply, games like Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2 are meant to be played online.

I believe it's somewhat selfish to expect a multiplayer game to have an excellent single-player mode and assume it will remain the same price and be released within a reasonable amount of time. It's helpful to compare these games with an inexpensive multiplayer game like Team Fortress 2. It is an excellent multiplayer game that is worthy of being recommended to another online gamer. But let me ask you this: Would you recommend Team Fortress 2 to a friend who never plays online?

This leads to the modern problem with reviews: a game like Halo 3 or Modern Warfare 2 probably does deserve to be called perfect (or near-perfect) for players who game online. These games provide hours (or days) of entertainment, and are worth the investment. However, for somebody who does not play online, these games are only average.

While many reviews point out whether or not the single-player and multiplayer are well made, I have not encountered a reviewer who judges a game based on whether it is single-player or multiplayer--that is, a reviewer who reviews a multiplayer game on the multiplayer exclusively (and only factors in the single-player as an added bonus or if it is horribly broken).

Silk_Sk:
I understand Yahtzee views on multiplayer. I can't really disagree with most of it. But he keeps saying "No one really cares more about multiplayer than single player." when it is clearly not true. As far as I'm concerned MW2's campaign was just so marketing could have some pretty visuals to air. What Yahtzee should be saying is "No one I know/respect cares about multiplayer." People are surprised when the person they vote for isn't elected because "Everyone they know" voted for the other guy.

1. Because I live in a faraway kingdom of fantasy.

Yahtzee lives in Australia and Australia has shit for internet. It stands to reason that most forms of online multiplayer would have a much less consistently enjoyable experience. Elsewhere however, the pros of online play very much outweigh the cons. Outside Yahtzee's experience, multiplayer is an essential aspect to gaming that cannot be overlooked before judging a game.

2. Because of time restrictions.

Once again, a situational argument. Of course he doesn't have time for multiplayer, but a vast majority (yes, MAJORITY) does. Of course I am speaking purely from my own experience. But, I am certain my experience applies to more of the gaming community than Yahtzee's. This is also a flawed argument because "Everyone I know" prefers multiplayer to single player.

I should point out that I am a primarily single player guy. Like Yahtzee, I don't particularly enjoy starting out and getting wasted by 50 kids better than I am. But when I do get a game with multiplayer, I never back down. Every time I push through the learning curve until I am one of those 50 kids it has always, always been worth it. Getting beaten the first few games is part of the territory. It's just a challenge to overcome.

3. Because there's nothing more to see.

I stoically disagree. Any campaign has a finite experience. Multiplayer has an infinite one. Nothing ever happens the same way twice. WoW shouldn't be used in this argument since other people aren't necessarily essential to the experience. Yahtzee got to level 58 by killing bots, not people.

4. Because the single player must stand up by itself

Yes, and so must the multiplayer. There is no rule that says multiplayer must be a bells-and-wistles component. If a game has shit for single player but a Godly multiplayer then I'm going to play that multiplayer. I see nothing wrong with the single player being secondary to the experience. Yahtzee has to by default but he needs to stop clinging to the idea that focusing on multiplayer is bad game design. A good single player with bad multiplayer is bad design as well. But, if I am able to get a meaningful experience out of either then the game was worth the money. Yahtzee, by fault of living in Austalia and having no time for multiplayer is only able to enjoy half of a game. If he were able to enjoy both sides than the odds of the game being enjoyable go up.

5. Because people are shit.

I don't disagree. But if Yahtzee thinks multiplayer is just like killing AIs who curse at him than he has vastly missed the point. Sure playing online cannot compare to having the person sitting right next to you, ripe for pummeling. But, physically present or not, outsmarting, out maneuvering, and out shooting another human being is infinitely more rewarding than knocking off another NPC. Take meeting a boss in single player for example. With enough repetition, you'll know that boss' attacks and weaknesses inside-out backwards. That's because they will. not. ever. change. There is some comfort in that. You can be a pussy and stay in your comfort zone, or go and and face a living, thinking piece of shit human that takes actual brains to defeat.

So what if you can't punch them? Beat them in the game and embarrass them. If you can't do that, then you're free to not play. But don't go ignoring the fact that you are only able to experience half a game before you judge it.

I could go see a chick-flick and complain that it didn't have any action. That's not because it was a bad movie. It's because I just enjoy action flicks. The same principle applies here.

*claps*

Best reply in the thread. In fact this thread has had a lot of good replies. Yahtzeeh should actually respond to some of these instead of picking the lowest common denominator.

I would like to add something; multi-player gaming provides an element of skill not present in single player. Sure you need skill to master the game alone but since you are not facing against a human adversary (or adversaries) it is still more akin to a puzzle no matter how good the AI is. Multi-player offers a chance to put your skills directly up against another player's. Your skill must improve in order to beat other players. With single player you are up against an AI which will become predictable over time.

Its rather simple for me, tacked on anything (singleplayer or multiplayer) is bad. However tacked on singleplayer is worse than tacked on multiplayer because:

Good singleplayer + shit multiplayer = everyone who buys a game can have a good play experience
Shit singleplayer + good multiplayer = some people unable to have a good play experience

I have limited money, so I expect reliability in my entertainment, so I go for singleplayer experiences.

People are Shit? Man I hate when Yahtzee keeps saying stuff like this.Guess what , you are a human too, just as stupid, vile, and racist and ordinary as anybody else. He really thinks he is special for hating people doesn't he?

I don't think multiplayer is bad nor ruining gameing or whatever the kids are saying these days. I just believ that games should focus on o e style of play. Single-Player or multiplayer. Battlefield 2 didn't need a single-player campaign (it did and it sucked). TF2 is multiplayer only and it's great. Condmned 2 was excellent, and it's multiplayer is terrible. Adding unnecessary components to games ruins them, not building them around playng with others and not focusing on a superflous story.

Usually i can get a good lag-freeish experience with my PC shooters but not MW2, i wonder why.

The default state of all human beings is fuckwad. The only reason they don't always act like fuckwads is because they're afraid of getting punched. So they're not just fuckwads, they're cowardly fuckwads.

YES! I am stealing this. I love it.

I play games online and quite enjoy them. However I don't disagree with you on any particular point.

You should play the online multiplayer in games because you are a game reviewer, which means you should review the whole game. Of course the single player should stand up by itself, and yeah so you have to be good at it for it to be fun, blah blah blah. People only really play the campaign once, maybe twice to try to beat it on veteran. This is, of course, the most important part of the game itself, but what people play the most is the online multiplayer. So as a fairly popular game reviewer on whom people often rely to decide whether or not to buy a game, you should review the part of the game people end up playing the most.

I always mute every single person in the lobby when I play multiplayer. I hate listening to their stupid whiny voices.

For what it's worth, Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 arena came out the year _after_ Half-Life.

Its Siddhartha Gautama >.>

scar-x-:
I have to completely agree with multiplayer not being the most important part of the game. Part of this is because eventually nobody will play it online ever. What do you do to play it when this happens? You can't do the singleplayer campaign again, you've beat it enough. So what else? Games need to give us a reason to go back and play singleplayer portions over and over again. Multiple endings, challenge modes, gameplay mutators, mods, etc.

Games are art hippies strike again.

For MW2, I finished the single player in 6 ish hours, but I have probably 15 hours on multiplayer and I'm a bit more than half way through the first prestige. I don't think games should give us a reason to go back and play again. The multiplayer works excellently, and that alone would be enough of a reason for me to buy it.

DestroytheTyrant:
People are Shit? Man I hate when Yahtzee keeps saying stuff like this.Guess what , you are a human too, just as stupid, vile, and racist and ordinary as anybody else. He really thinks he is special for hating people doesn't he?

He says this in another game review, but I forget which one. He says something along the lines of "You know why? Because people are shit. I'm shit, you're shit, we're all shit. And if you are sitting their on your computer, saying 'oh, you're right, everyone is shit but me' then you're a double shit sandwich with extra shit, mister shitface." I saw it a while ago, but I'm pretty sure that's really close. Anyway...

seditary:
Its rather simple for me, tacked on anything (singleplayer or multiplayer) is bad. However tacked on singleplayer is worse than tacked on multiplayer because:

Good singleplayer + shit multiplayer = everyone who buys a game can have a good play experience
Shit singleplayer + good multiplayer = some people unable to have a good play experience

I have limited money, so I expect reliability in my entertainment, so I go for singleplayer experiences.

I would not like it at all if MW2 had a bad multiplayer. Sure, I would have a good play experience with a good single player... for maybe a week. Pathetic.

I want a game that is fun to play for a long time. No matter how good the single player is, it gets old. A good multiplayer is more important because it will be played much more (not that single player shouldn't be good as well)

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Extra Punctuation: On Multiplayer

Yahtzee explains why multiplayer isn't the most important part of a game.

Read Full Article

I strongly believe that if a game relies on its multiplayer then the game isn't worth its salt.

Glad to see this article because of that. I'm getting tired of "Sure the single player was shit but multiplayer is where it is at."

I dont see the difference between forum talk and online gaming, one meets the same old posing fuckwads, its just they go about their putdowns/tardy/trolling in a more stealth way.

Multi player games could do a better job at protecting people from other people who enjoy annoying others, other than that people are far superior to AI(which still in this day and age is still a mixture of hit and miss and reinventing the wheel many times over) and any way people far more entertaining when things go wrong/right.

After 25 years of gaming single player is getting a bit old(for me), thank god for multi player.

Uhm... sorry to break it to you but there are LOTS of games that don't even HAVE a SinglePlayer aside of "Basically playing Multiplayer with Bots", and the number of games which are so hasn't decreased but actually increased e.g. Battlefield (1942, Vietnam, 2, 2142, Heroes, 1943), Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike: Source, Left4Dead, Left4Dead 2, Star Wars Battlefront 1+2, Shattered Horizon, Shadowrun, Unreal Tournament 2008, Day of Defeat, Allegiance, Red Orchestra 1+2, Quake Wars: Enemy Territory, Tribes 1+2, Quake 3: Arena, Warhawk, SOCOM, MAG, Sins of a Solar Empire, Demigod, all MMOs and tons upon tons of Browser Games and imo they just REALLY STARTED to spread and jumped over to consoles in the last 3-4 years...

If anything then the number of games that deal with Multiplayer or require Co-Op to be fun increased by a tenfold in the last ~10 years. (seeing as that Internet thing had a Boom in about that time and has become even more important than a phone or television)

And there's more and more games which DO have a SinglePlayer Campaign but are with an increasing Emphasis on the "Online" part like WarCraft/StarCraft/Diablo, Neverwinter Nights, Call of Duty, Borderlands, Street Fighter 4, Command & Conquer, Soldier of Fortune Series, Jedi Knight Series, Battleforge etc.

Other games still have a huge emphasis on SinglePlayer (like Grand Theft Auto 4, Crysis, Metal Gear Solid 4 or Bioshock 2) but have come to Add at least SOME form of Multiplayer, because it is expected.

Obviously it's a "big thing" and you seem to be missing something... maybe that it's often not that much fun and CHALLENGING when you play against programmed AIs that always act the same way and you got several dozen tactics in your mind of how to abuse them?
Kind of like Sports... you go there knowing you will always just hit the ball with your foot, arm or some sort of racket or stick trying to get it into a goal or a hole, yet most people usually don't say "Meh... it's all the same really no fun" after playing for 2 hours but play those weekly over the course of their lives or even turn it into a career...
All of those (including Multiplayer games in their various variations from Beating that Highscore a family member or friend set in a game, to CoOp (Offline or Online) or Deathmatch/CTF/Whatever) are based on the concepts of FUN and COMPETITIVE play.

And if it's all the same why play Shooters at all? They basically ARE all (mostly) the same with a few different scenarios. You shoot Aliens/Nazis/Indians/Cops/Criminals/Mutants/Giant Insects in all of em and you know that by the end you're gonna win the game by defeating the big bad boss.

I agree about the point with MMOs though. If I don't give up on them before, after I reach "Endgame" and it comes to "Grinding" to keep playing the game and I've basically seen/done everything it is time to move on... Luckily that point is often reached in Betas so I don't even have to bother with buying most of those games xD

Hey look, I'm on tv! =)

So you're suggesting that shooting mindless NPCs that couldn't care less is more enjoyable than winding up racist homophobic adolescents? Whatever floats you're boat...
Multiplayer can be a mixed bag, but the high points are so much higher. After you've played games for a few years, you can pretty much pull any single player game to bits first time- I've found with most first person shooters that if I'm given so much as a spud gun the only thing left open to debate is whether the trail of corpses will have holes in the front or back of their heads. With multiplayer you can really get a challenge. Its not enough to be able to simply stick the target reticule over your opponent's bonce as quickly as possible, you also have to think about what they're thinking and are going to do next, and second guess accordingly.
You didnt mention the other great thing about multiplayer-you can work with people as well as against them. Again, this can be a fustrating experience, especialy when you find yourself teamed up with some whinging drooling imbecile who labours under the impression that the sniper rifle was placed on the map solely for their benefit. When you do get a tight team together, you get a playing experience you simply can't get on your own. I couldnt stand the multiplayer on GOW2- its was hopelessly inbalanced and clearly designed to fluff the egos of players whos desire to win hopelessly outweighs their abilities as a player. Horde, on the other hand, was a different experience altogether. After a half dozen or so sessions, I'd got enough players on my friends list to reliably get a decent team together any time I played. Being part of a cohesive group where each player has a role to play and look out for each other is very satisfying, and definatly worth the week or to it took me to get enough players (the same goes for CTF and team based games, where you tend to get a better class of player than the piss-ridden paddling pool that is deathmatch)-to suggest there is no merit in the argument that a games gets better over time is utter bollocks-instant gratification can only go so far.

Gutterpunk:

Eclectic Dreck:

4. Because the single player must stand up by itself.

This is the statement I have the hardest time agreeing with likely because it has the weakest justification. There have been games that have been successful without a significant single player component (Tribes, Quake 3, Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament and many others) so it would seem that by virtue of the existance of such games market success does not rely on a quality single player experience. For a great many players, the single player campaign in games like Modern Warfare represent only a tiny sliver of the overall experience and as such find most of the value contained in the online component.

In short, the statement generally lacks rigour. If someone is opposed to multiplayer in general as Yahtzee appears to be, then I suppose the statement is self proving. If one finds no worth in multiplayer, then the value MUST be contained in the single player experience or else it doesn't exist in that product as far as the user is concerned. In any other case, I'd hope to see a stronger argument.

Tribes had a single player mode, Quake 3 comes from single player roots and MANY complained when Q3 it came out without one (this was before the age of "Lets Boycott Shit" mentality of PC gamers). So did UT... TF and CS started as mods, they wouldn't be what they are today if they had started as new "Multiplayer Only" IPs.

I can guarantee that people who play MW4 in multi will never be anywhere near the sales figure we saw that game achieve. Even with STRONG multiplayer elements, a game without a single player mode will never work as well as one that has it.

There is no "market" for new multiplayer only licenses : Shadowrun, Demigod, etc. Demigod is based in DOTA, but looking exactly nothing like WC3/DOTA didn't help. Battle of Newerth will probably work better because players will still associate it with WC3, and most people that buy it will do so because of WC3.

Developers KNOW that, and this is why you see single player modes in new IPs geared for multiplayer (Take L4D for example). As such, Yatzee's point is valid and he isn't the only one in the industry thinking that way.

Also, don't forget that Yatzee mainly review and talk about console games. Multiplayer on consoles is a vastly different beast than on PCs.

Tribes single player would hardly stand on it's own. It consisted of a handful of levels where a few atrociously stupid bots ran into your weapons fire as a tutorial. You may be thinking of Tribes Vengeance, which had an entire campaign for single player.

Quake 3 also had a single player component, but it was EXACTLY like the multiplayer, only not as good. Again, I hardly think it would "stand alone" as it were. UT and the rest I mentioned may have come from a series of games with single player, often experiences that were top notch for the time. This does not, however, change the fact that the single player experience packaged in the games was incredibly lacking and represented little more than an extended tutorial.

To claim there is no market for a multiplayer only game is a statement I cannot possibly fathom. Demigod is a game that received absolutely ZERO advertisement from a company (Stardock) nobody has ever heard of. Those that did purchase the game found that the multiplayer experience was all but unplayable. Shadowrun is a game that played exactly like counterstrike with cheats and left most frustrated. Demonstrating that games that had legitimate problems failed proves nothing other than a bad multiplayer product will fail just as readily as a bad single player product.

You really did nothing to address the gist of my quoted point - WHY does a game's single player component have to stand on it's own? Is there some intrinsic value found in single player that cannot be found in multiplayer? If we consider MW2, since it is probably the impetus for this article, I have found that I spent 4 - 5 hours in the single player campaign and more than 20 online. It's obvious where I have found my value. Battlefield Bad Company is another example. A single player game was tacked on to a game that has traditionally been multiplayer only, and from where I stand it actually detracted from the game. The inclusion of a single player element may have helped move more copies of the game, but did this really have as much of an impact as the Battlefield brand?

Yahtzee may have a valid point buried somewhere in point three but there has been no justification from either your post or Yahtzee's article that actually supports the point put forth. Demonstrating failures of multiplayer only games is readily countered by demonstrating the continued success of multiplayer only games (The MMO market for example. Much of the content in these games cannot be played alone).

Although all of the posted reasons to avoid it are true, online gaming still has a draw. When you get the right planetary alignment or whatever and find a game with people who use teamwork, play fair, are reasonably nice to new players, and just generally don't shit on other players' experience, it can be a blast like no other.

As for playing against bots, that's never as satisfying. The thrill of competition is missing, regardless of how good the bot is.

Part of the problem with online communities is that we accept that "that's just how they are" with regard to rudeness, racism, and other assorted asshattery. I know a few friends who turn into dicks when they play online, just because "everybody else does it." It doesn't have to be this way!

The funny thing about the "its all about multiplayer" MW2 defense is that so many people pre-release were saying stuff like, "I don't even care about MP I'm buying it because I know the single player is going to be totally awesome!"

Of course now that everyone knows the single player sucks big fat donkey nuts they've changed their tune, but most people are not fooled. The lesson once again is that fanboys (or viral marketers) are everywhere and will defend a game more hypocritically than a conservative radio nutjob defends Reagan. (Zing! Take that Limbaugh!)

Name99:

seditary:
Its rather simple for me, tacked on anything (singleplayer or multiplayer) is bad. However tacked on singleplayer is worse than tacked on multiplayer because:

Good singleplayer + shit multiplayer = everyone who buys a game can have a good play experience
Shit singleplayer + good multiplayer = some people unable to have a good play experience

I have limited money, so I expect reliability in my entertainment, so I go for singleplayer experiences.

I would not like it at all if MW2 had a bad multiplayer. Sure, I would have a good play experience with a good single player... for maybe a week. Pathetic.

I want a game that is fun to play for a long time. No matter how good the single player is, it gets old. A good multiplayer is more important because it will be played much more (not that single player shouldn't be good as well)

You have different priorities in your gaming than me, congratulations.
Of course MW2 is the second category so without the multiplayer it'd be only shit.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here