Single Player vs. Multi-Player

I've hever really understood what makes Multi-Player modes so great. (pardon while I channel Yahtzee) I've always prefered to play alone because you need to really think to solve the in-game puzzles. If you play multi-player than one of three things happens;
A)you are the ball and chain dragging the person who has logged 50 hours on a game new to you.
B)THEY are the ball and chain to your 50 hours.
or C) you are equal and begin to compete to the point where someone rage quits.

other games that offer mulit-player force one player to sit dead until the first player dies or remembers that they are not playing alone and decide to tag you in, example, Donkey Kong on the SNES. this is also a game that the three scenarios above can be applied to because there is a counter that tracks how many levels the person controlling DK has beat and how many the person with Diddy has beat. sorry, lost my train of thought.

anyways, my point is that multi-player makes no sense when so many games have content unlockable only in the single player mode. why would someone want to play with a person who's spent THAT much time on a game that they( the friend) has never heard of?

I'm very curious what others think about this.

I see you are mainly talking about cooperative multiplayer and not competitive. I agree with you that I really don't like co-op gameplay. I prefer to play the game on my own terms and pace. I have played some co-op games every now and then with real life friends, but I refuse to do that with random people online.

Community, that is all multiplayer is about.
And no matter how much we hide in our basements we do all still crave that social interaction and by extent no matter how dull the game it feels really great with more people, but at the same time that community can equally destroy the game by being pricks.

First off, I generally don't play CoOp with randoms, other than in MMOs ofc, where it can indeed get frustrating sometimes.

I've played a lot of games where having one or more friends take over the role of otherwise AI-controlled characters would help immensely, as well as add a whole heap to the fun.

Even games that feature actual puzzles, I've never been faced with a friend not wanting to just sit down and talk it through, before going all crazy on it.

When introducing friends to things I've already played, I'll simply let them solve it on their own, resorting to answering their questions rather than just telling them the answers outright. I don't mind that, I find it to be a decent amount of fun to observe how they go about it.

I've played a lot of games where having one or more friends take over the role of otherwise AI-controlled characters would help immensely, as well as add a whole heap to the fun.

Dragon's Dogma is a game like that for me. I can't even count the number of times I've gotten stuck with mages that charge into the middle of enemies and start casting.

OT: For me I do tend to stick with single player games a lot more than multiplayer. Even when it's competitive and I'm on a team I usually bring everyone down with me. I also get tired quickly of fps multiplayer. Even with different maps I feel like I'm doing the exact same things each game.

This is where I feel Nintendo falls flat on it's face, which is a pretty big reason why I denounce them. I've had my 3DS for a year, and I got 3 games for it.(I barely touch two of them.) The Wii is okay, but the only enjoyable title I've found for it is Wii Sports, and I haven't had a shot at the WiiU. Sorry, you mentioned Donkey-Kong. But I would have said the same thing if you said "Sonic 2" instead.

For me, it's all about Co-op. If you play a game like Natural Selection or Team Fortress, having someone who's dedicated to back you up, and vice versa really makes the game that much more enjoyable. Having someone to go for whatever crazy class pair you want in TF2 is great provided you want to go with whatever crazy class pair they want to try next. (Pyro-Medic, anyone? Swap it up, Scout-Demo.) Furthermore, playing with other friends in the Strategy games also gives you a helping hand to fall back on sometimes. Need Buildmats in Anno? Done. Need a little copper for your reactor in Minecraft? Let's get some together. I'm out too.

Who wouldn't want to spend time with your friends? Why give a shit about such sad paltry shit like "Oh, I'll just slow him down." You should be enjoying the time spent together. Though, there's still nothing wrong with Singpleplayer games. Mario Kart, World Ends with You, Antichamber, KSP, FTL... They're still very enjoyable on their own.

Unless your playing with randoms, then just fuck with them. That's something that never gets old. (Wha? Beertent didn't bring weapons on our SK run?!)

I like Co-op so long as my teamates are at least REMOTLY competent. I like in a certain way begin the only competent member in a group and carry them to victory. Again, so long as tey are at least REMOTLY competent (Ex: HEAL me if I am on low hp medic! Thats ALL I ask for, it cant be THAT hard-), then I am fine. Its also awesome when said players actualy manage to do something by themselves.

Must CO-OP players with actually competent players are usually stupid easy. Even left 4 dead expert was retardly easy once my and my parther got the hang of it. So by that point, randoms are the way to go IMO. Plus, its fun!

Single player, always good.
Co-op, great with friends.
Multiplayer, hit or miss.

In the perfect world, both teams would be equal.
However, good close matches seem to be getting rarer for me.
I'm either on a team that's absolutely steam-rolling or on a team of scrubs being steam-rolled.
If "gg" is typed sincerely (which I doubt), it's probably directed towards myself and a few other people that know what they're doing. Medics healing people, Pyros extinguishing burning teammates and Spies actually doing their damn job.

Though the games that are close with a large degree of communication make up for it, somehow.

But onto the co-op(?) oriented question, it really doesn't matter.
Both people involved are doing it for fun. If one of them wants to get better, they'll get better.
If the two are friends of any sort, and it isn't being televised for master critics to see, it really won't be an issue. I've never seen competition like that arise, but it might between two random people.

I used to like current gen multiplayer until last year when I realised it's not worth investing my time in these days, mainly because you go buy the game and finish it's singleplayer and after 2-3 months of playing mutliplayer it dies down and then when the new COD or BF comes out or anything that's got hyped multiplayer the game you are currently playing multiplayer with suddenly becomes a ghost town and becomes unplayable and even then with a few select people it still loses it's once good charm.

This is why it makes me sad how I can't play much Fall of Cybertron multiplayer seeing as how it's rare to get a full team deathmatch or conquest because people are currently playing the latest FPS mutliplayer.

That and investing in today's multiplayer's feels like short term vacations from one to the next and I don't like short term multiplayer's.

Oh and I dislike games that have more content tacked onto multiplayer than singeplayer for the above reasons along with diminishing value for money.

Well... They're 2 different situations and types of game (Excluding the tacked on single player campaigns *Cough*CoD*Cough* or tacked on multi-player *Cough*Bioshock 2*Cough*)

A single player game can be great for a person in many ways, it bends to their schedule (Don't need to wait for X number of other people to want to play at the same exact time to have it work) it can be taken at any pace and level of skill (Within reason) some single player games offer incentives to replay (NG+, harder difficulties, challenges, achievements etc) or allow for modding to increase the length of the game (I've got hundreds of hours in games like Fallout 3, Fallout: NV and Skyrim for example)

A single player game can and generally does contain at least one good story (Some games have multiple based off choices for example Mass Effect 1/2/3) which can often be done in multiple ways via skill builds (RPG's) or via equipment used (Farcry 2, most RPG's)

A downside to single player games is they can often become stale after a period of time (Though a longer period of time will generally invigorate them)

Whereas multi-player games are for those time when you want to play with other people (Either friends or random people) it's normally competitive (Occasionally get some co-operative multi-player games that promote teamplay) and also usually very active.

Little to no of it is scripted meaning every time you play you get a different game, you can make friends and hone your skills and feel a sense of achievement that you can compete with other good players.

The downside to these games is that you're at the complete mercy of matchmaking on who you play with (Unless you run with only friends) which can reward you with amazing games or complete pricks/hackers either allowing you to have the best games of your life or leave you wanting to end someone's life...

These game types are not mutually exclusive, you can have both multi-player and single player games in your library and thoroughly enjoy both types (I myself play 2 MMO's, Dota 2 and various single player games actively, I used to play even more multi-player games, but unfortunately when a community gets so bad that if you actually aim in an FPS you get perma-banned for hacking then it's time to leave (TF2... *Sigh* I had some good times))

Though I wish that companies focused on one aspect to be honest, no more of this "Tack on a new game mode in 5 mins to try and increase sales" crap which infuriates me...

multiplayer is fun because you are playing against humans not AI :)

multiplayer is fun because you are playing against humans not AI :)

^This. Although it only counts for competitive multiplayer games. Games in which you play against others.
Coop games have the typical problems pointed out by the OP. They offer a unique experience though.

NOBODY can tell me that they didn't experience stupid AI behavior already.

As for singleplayer games. The AI is either dumb or scripted* which limits the replay value.

*With very few exceptions.

I'm not a fan of either Competitive or Cooperative Multiplayer...

In Competitive Multiplayer I'm usually being killed off by some douchebag who has way to much time on their hands before I even have a chance to fire a shot or figure out why the game is fun.

In Cooperative Multiplayer I have a LOT of trouble getting a group of people together to play a videogame... and with random people you get the same problem as above. Usually when I can get 4 or 5 of my friends together we're likely doing something other than playing videogames.

I dunno, I started playing videogames when Story Based Videogames and JRPG's were the kings of the hill and I've sort of built my entire cadre of gaming tastes around that as I generally enjoy narrative and character more than good gameplay. It's why I polish off the Mass Effects, Walking Deads, Uncharteds, Max Payne 3's as soon as I can but have trouble finishing narratively "weak" games like Torchlight 2 and Farcry 3 and why I've barely been able to touch Dark Souls.

Now generally I don't "hate" multiplayer but certain developers have been going out of their way to ruin what could be perfectly good Single Player Games by having forced co-op. Games like F3AR, Resident Evil 5, Neverwinter Nights (the game that first made me hate Co-op), Borderlands and Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3. All games made shitty by basically hamstringing the single player game through Co-op inclusion.

I understand playing an online game with some friends. That can be fun. But I much prefer to play on my own. It's pretty much like what Jim said in his video on the matter of solo video gaming. I occasionally will like to play a match or two in an online shooter with other people, but I get much more enjoyment out of getting engrossed in the game world and actually enjoying the world and the story without having to worry about "IPWNDURMOM323" jumping up and down, teabagging random NPC's and whining about me taking too long doing something*.

multiplayer is fun because you are playing against humans not AI :)

This is probably the only other reason I would play multiplayer with other people. Some games have such horrid AI that playing with others is a better alternative.

*Yes, that is an huge generalization. I know that.

I like co-op games but I hate it when a game is obviously designed with co-op in mind, but it's not the "main" campaign mode, like what I've seen of Dead Space 3 or Transformers, because then you have these tagalong AI guys or objectives that would obviously be more interesting if you were coordinating with someone else.

I used to be competitive multiplayer gamer, grew up on Quake, but I've definitely shifted over to co-op. They're great games if you can find somebody you enjoy playing with. Its generally best to avoid progression co-op games, like say Borderlands, because there's always a big disaprity when that happens. An example of something that wouldn't drag somebody down is Halo. They all have a co-op campaign, and the recent additions have Firefight mode. There's at the most a skill disparity, but that would probably exist regardless of what game was played.

As for competitive multiplayer, I generally don't enjoy it in most games because of the type of players you come across. In most major releases there's players who want to sit in a corner and press a button on a controller to win instantly, like that means something, and thats across multiple genres. Basically the only competitive multiplayer game I still enjoy is either one with asymmetrical teams, ie Left 4 Dead or Aliens vs Predator, or just Mechwarrior.

Playing multiplayer isn't fun if you're not from the US, because you're always going to have a horrible connection and annoying lag. Half the time it seems to be who has the best internet speeds and connects well with the host than any actual skill. If I do any multiplayer, it's through playing in parties with people I know.

As for co-op, I really enjoy it, as long as I've played through the story on my own first. You'll never have the proper experience when you have some other random guy (or even a friend) running about completely ruining immersion, be it by talking over the NPCs, jumping about mentally, going straight to the objective because they've played it 50 times already and they can't be bothered waiting for the new person. It's always fun, though, if you've already played through the story alone and if it's with people you know, because then it no longer matters.

I think it really depends on the situation of the game. By situation, I mean the mood you're in.

Cooperative multiplayer sucks in my opinion. The only person I will even play those types of games are with my brother, and even we will get to the point of wanting to kill each other. Games like Army of Two and parts of the Splinter Cell games are the things that come to mind.

Competitive multiplayer really depends on the internet connection, skill, and even the courtesy of the other players in your match. Call of Duty at times can be a pain because most guys are huge trash talkers and just love to slam each other. They love to call each other blankity-blank and your mother is such and such. Mostly childish things. A game I prefer to play competitively online is Battlefield 3. When you get some friends who are willing to work with you and make the game fun then the game has more value than running around like a "super-soldier".

Last but not least, single player on games are, in my opinion, the best thing that could happen to gaming. It's sad that games these days seem to focus on the multi-player more than the single player campaigns. Having a game that seems to focus on a story and gameplay that really brings you into the feelings that the main character has a certain charm to it. Games like Skyrim (of course I would pick that one, first thing that came to mine), the single player of Splinter Cell, Bioshock, and even a classic Pokemon. These games are games that can and will capture you and make you remember them for all time.

Sounds like youre talking purely about co-op multiplayer in your example. I Actually wish we had more games with co-op in them. I first started liking co-op back in the days of descent when one of us would make a crazy hard level and then we would have a LAN party and try to get through it together.

Dungeonland is a new co-op game that I quite enjoy when Im not fighting connecon issues

I also remember days as a kid when my brother and I would play co-op Double dragon

Recently one of the best co-op games Ive played is Artemis which is a starship bridge simulator. That things amazing for LAN parties

For me, its never about outdoing the other guy. I just want to do my best and not be a hinderance to the team effort but when youre new to a game, thats going to happen till you learn the game and theres not much you can do about it. Its just the nature of the beast. Have you considered that you may be looking at it from the wrong angle?

Well I have gone off co-op games for a while I think. Random games going "lol we have co-op now for no reason" makes me not want to bother entirely. I'd rather go through Halo 4, Borderlands 2, fucking Dead Space 3 (why did that have to have co-op again?) alone because let's face it, trying to get into a story is difficult with even one friend talking in your ear nevermind 3 people + very loud dubstep.

It's exactly like someone trying to talk to you while you're watching TV. Shut UP man, I can't hear it! Though it's even worse since you can miss story points by having a friend teabagging in circles while some cool story thing happens behind you.

Never co-op with randomers. I don't even understand why people would try to.

By the way, it is co-op not coop. As in a chicken coop. Nooblords, all of you.

Competitive multiplayer-wise i'm playing BlazBlue, UMVC3 and League of Legends exclusively. I'm either losing every game with Makoto (don't care because Makoto is too much fun,) winning with my super annoying Morrigan (Shell Kick haterzzzz) or carrying games with the almighty J4.


Seriously. The ults. The ULTS. It counters fucking Olaf. OLAF. His Ghost + Bromacia towards our carry gets denied so hard. I don't need to CC you friend, just sit in this circle for 3.5 seconds until you die :)

Everyone bans bruisers now but everyone leaves J4 open... Nobody gets how awesome he is. Full tank Jarvan is stupid. I only had a Warmogs and Sunfire Cape and I locked 4 people in my ult under their second tower in an irrational hunch that it would work. We killed all four of them and I got out on a quarter health.

"I'm going back in by the way"

"Wait, you didn't DIE?!"

"Yeah, i'm J4"

"Living when you dive 4 people should be against the rules"

Duo queue ranked is fucking funny.


Reply to Thread

This thread is locked