Is bad single player excusable? Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
If single-player is tacked on, I don't consider it to detract from the quality of the multiplayer. OTOH, bad tacked-on single player campaigns can be useful to pick apart as, for instance, examples of what not to do. | |
It should be like a meal. The single player is the main course. The multiplayer and extras are the dessert and such. If the main course tastes like ass, then you won't eat the rest of the food. If the single player sucks, then the rest of its goodies (like multiplayer) shouldn't help bring it up. Think about the people who don't play the multiplayer. | |
If you're interested in the multiplayer, the single-player doesn't matter. If you're looking for a single-player experience, then it's probably not what you're looking for. People weight aspects differently. I don't think there's a need for excuse one way or the other. | |
People buy games for both Multiplayer and Single Player. I'm firmly in the Single Player camp, and when stuff like, say, "Brink" happens, I get annoyed that I spent money on a game whose idea of Single Player is just a Multiplayer match against bots. So, no, it's not. Single Player should be the main focus, with few exceptions. | |
Inform one self and then purchase. If you are buying for the single player inform yourself about the quality of the single player. If you are buying for a combo, then inform yourself about both. Buy a game for the features you value, and not for the features you dont value. Yes bad single player is excusable. You just need to sell it to the right people. In the end the reviewer shouldn't put an over all number on the thing. They should inform the potential customer of the games flaws and strengths so the customer can make an informed decision based on his values rather than the reviewers. | |
I share this view, I buy CoD and Battlefield for the intention of Multiplayer. A solid singleplayer experience can be found elsewhere. If a publisher says they have a 'Campaign', then I expect a good one. But most Multiplayer games only promote the Multiplayer aspect | |
i prefer single player so if it bad then its inexcusable. i don't care if its online or not as long as i can play by myself and have fun I'm happy | |
I think it depends on the particular game. What matters most is which area it was trying to focus on. For most games I think bad single player isn't particularly excusable. But really, if the multiplayer is excellent and is the kind that would be lasting then it would deserve a good review for that. It would just be a multiplayer focused game. Personally I care the most about single player, but I just have to acknowledge that if they gear it towards multiplayer and not single player that it's simply a matter of it not being to my tastes, not that it isn't necessarily a bad game. Really though, perhaps single player and multiplayer ought to be scored separately. There are things that are in common between the two, but they're different enough I think it's worth giving each a separate score so those who like one better than the other aren't confused. Someone who likes both can still see both scores and judge. | |
I understand this, it would be my fault if I bourght battlefeild 3 and complained about the single player however I really do feel like there is a "tacked on multiplayer" trend happening, weather as some form of DRM or "popularity" reasons my point is..does NOT calling out this kind of thing just kind of say "hey...were totally fine with 6 hour single player now!"
this is what annoys me about things Like borderlands, putting multiplayer..even co-op in isnt always simple and you end up with "yeah you can play single player..but your doing it wrong" some peopel have this obsession with "combining" the experence (look at dark souls!) they say...but when the muliplayer dies out what are you left with? hence why Im kind of annoyed at talk of Dead space 3 having co-op | |
I think single player needs to be the main focus of a game | |
I've never understood this. Singleplayer is not always the main course. In many genres, it's the dessert. In some genres, it's that little piece of ginger you're supposed to eat between sushi courses to cleanse your palette and prepare your taste buds for the next course. OT: I think you can see what I'm getting at here. In some genres, single player being nothing but multiplayer matches with bots instead of human opponents is all that is needed. In those genres, knocking off points for the single player being mediocre is just silly, just like knocking off points in, say, Half Life 2 because you didn't like the multiplayer would be silly[1] [1] For the record, I think the multiplayer in HL2 was okay, but nothing special. Well worth the price of $0.00 that I paid for it, but not something I'd want to pay money to get on its own. | |
Well I suppose, but the market doesn't sway to popular opinion. It sways to what makes the most profit. What we want is irrelevant to what we can get. We want both, but in reality both costs more than one of them. If most people would want the single player to be the carrying part, then market would reward providing resources in that direction. Mass Effect is a good measuring stock of the amount of single player content you need to make to do a Single player only game, where TF2 is the opposite. A small combination of the 2 is chosen to add value to the opposite oriented customers. | |
If they clearly market a game to focus on multiplayer, then kudos on them for trying anyway. But I play single player mostly so if that stinks I won't even bother with multiplayer. | |
Okay, I see your point. However, when you advertise a mulitplayer centered game as the next summer blockbuster of singleplayer stories and people buy it for the story, then don't be surprised when people start complaining and moaning. | |
That's fair, but what game has been marketed that way? I'm all for truth in advertising, but I don't remember, say, CoD being marketed primarily on the singleplayer, and that's the one that gets brought up the most in these discussions. | |
The noob and vet campaign was pretty much focused on multiplayer, Owyn. EDIT: Misread, sorry. | |
If we're talking about a review, don't we have to weigh every aspect of the game? Games like Assassin's Creed and Dead Space are great for their single player, but do have multiplayer aspects. Are we not to mention multiplayer at all if we are talking about every aspect of the game? | |
At the end of the day, it's still weighted towards the preference of the reviewer - if the reviewer isn't bothered by the lacklustre single-player, said reviewer will rate it higher. | |
's cool. That slowbro avatar is perfect for this response, though XD | |
That's true, it's all based on the reviewer's personal experience. | |
Hm, nope. If you're gonna have single player do it right or don't do it at all. | |
I understand. Practical example: I'm a HUGE fan of the Syndicate games, as well as most Bullfrog games. I was over-excited about the new game, and it was a day-1 purchase for me. But then people started saying how the game's really only good once you play co-op, and that the campaign is kinda iffy. And it went from Day-1 purchase, to I-still-don't-own-it-nor-will-I-own-it-until-it's-dirt-cheap. | |
really? the "being turned into a big dumb generic shooter" didnt turn you off? Id love to see another theme hospital | |
No. It's not. I couldn't care less about multiplayer. Single player is the reason I play games. | |
It can only be acceptable if one is phenominal. You can have a great single player, and crappy multiplayer and vice-versa. Put not if both are average. If both are great then good times. | |
What this guy said. It looks like most of the Escapist (myself included) is in the pro-single player camp, but in the end everyone has their own priorities and should find out how well games cater to those priorities. It would be silly of me to play Torchlight, be disappointed about the lack of good plot/characters, and ask "is a lack of plot/characters excusable?" | |
OC, you make it sound like the reviewer didn't take into account the story at all. I watched their review, and they certainly did. But they decided that as lack luster as the single player campaign was, it didn't effect their overall enjoyment of the game. Which leads to my main point: If a game has strong gameplay, an interesting game mechanic, or excellent multiplayer, then I feel that yes, a poor single player campaign story is forgivable. Personally, I play most games for the story, but I also tend to come across games with awful stories and stupendous gameplay that I simply enjoy. Perfect example is Prototype. I couldn't have cared less about the story. It failed to fully grab my attention and stay interesting. However, the gameplay was so fun that I couldn't put it down! | |
I believe this should be the case. That being said however, Left 4 Dead is the only example of a game where the main focus is multiplayer and yet playing the game alone is just as fun is a little more frustrating and, challenging. Another factor to consider is that fewer and fewer games offer single-player settings in multiplayer modes ie: bot-matches. The lose of local multiplayer is also a factor to be considered as both increase a games overall longevity. Bot-Matches, like those found in Duke Nukem 64, TF2 (on PC/Steam), Time Splitters: Future Perfect, etc allow people who play alone primarily the ability to try out the multiplayer mode when they normally wouldn't be able to. As for split-screen/local co-op, there are definite disadvantages such as screen peeking. That being said, I'd much rather put up with screen peekers than be completely unable to play an older game online. It all comes down to how much you can get out of a game for me. You could have made the best game in the world but if you limit the game to a single player mode that lasts about as long as the Star Wars trilogy and several multiplayer modes that require you to be online, that won't last forever, maybe not even until the decade ends. Whereas I can still pop on Duke Nukem 64 and kick a little bot ass years upon years later. | |
Sure but it depends on two things: | |
Sure. I can enjoy a game just for its multiplayer. Although one would think that if a developer is going to make a crappy single player campaign they might as well just not bother and focus their efforts on the multiplayer. I'm not quite sure why so many folks around here get all snobbish at the mention of multiplayer. It can be good fun. | |
No it's not excusable. Some days I just want to play a game with a 'fuck the world' attitude and that usually means playing something satisfactory by my lonesome. If you haven't made a good single player you're losing customers. Less time spent playing your game is more interest lost. | |
I almost exclusively play single-player games (the exception being the occasional game of TF2, which you will note is free), so bad single-player is a deal-breaker for me. | |
No, it's not. Singleplayer should never be a tacked on addition. If you're gonna have it just for the sake of having it, then don't even bother. I feel the same way when it comes to multiplayer, having a subpar tacked on mode just lowers the overall quality of your game. | |
| Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
I heard about that new game..starhawk..it looked really cool but the general consensus seems to be that the single player is lack luster
so unfortunatly it would be a miss for me
now I had a look over at IGN and they gave it a 9...I know IGN is synonamous with over inflated reveiw scores but this got me thinking
should they have taken the lack luster story/single player into account in the reveiw?
as I said, its pretty clear that IGN seem to get a little to "excited" about multiplayer
but I mean is the single player not an important part of the game? should that have brought the score down a little?
the reason I think this is kind of a thing is that single player seems to be "under threat" a 10..8 or 6 hour campagn may be considered "acceptable" if people don't call them out on that