Gamers have become to worried about Multiplayer

Falelorn

Shared on Sun, 03/04/2007 - 23:51

When did gamers become so worried about multiplayer that the single player experience was basically forgotten about? I suspect it was a single game for many people, that one massive multiplayer online role playing game or that one online first person shooter which enthralled the player to the point where single player was not wanted anymore.

This is a shame, utterly and forever more a shame that we no longer like to play with our selves (oh that pun is so true…) and only want to play with others. I know I was like that once, living multiplayer worlds, basically not caring about what new single player games were out, or if I tried them it was just for a while before heading back into Everquest for hours upon hours.

I also know Halo 2 has jaded many people, including people to this site where if a game comes and it made the mistake of offering a multiplayer aspect of its own, unless it is even close to Halo 2 in features it will be destroyed in the minds of so many it wont have a real chance. I for one remember thinking that Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter was not going to be a good multi-player game because it did not have clan support; this was with out even trying it.

Even my own game, I was so worried about a multi-player component I stalled out the development losing several months of work, costing me money as well as a heavy dose of self loathing for doing the one thing I know I should never have done, worry about a multi-player side of things when I know the single player is where I originally wanted the game. I obsessed with the Xbox Live side of things I dropped the single player aspect and ran with multi-player.

I have gone back to doing what I do best, strong story and game design. No multi-player at all, no future support for it in this version, just strong story with a solid game play mechanic.

Bioshock is another game that gave the finger to multi-player and pushed a strong single player experience and it appears to be an amazing experience, I for one can not wait for it. Oblivion gave us a fantastic single player game with out any multi-player and I for one am glad because it shows that even a game with no multi-player support can be successful in the days of Halo 2 and Resistance Fall of Man.

But for now, I keep wondering why is multi-player so important, the answer escapes me because now I realize that if the multi-player side of things is not solid and damn perfect it will be hated anyways. Gamers are a jaded bunch who loves to jump on and beat down any game that is not what they expect. Look at Gears of War, many people hate the MP side of things even though the single player is great. Look at Black, a solid and great FPS but people stayed away because no multi-player.

It is too bad multi-player became so important in the console realm; I bet we would have a stronger line of single player games with out the trash games that give us both.

Comments

CofC's picture
Submitted by CofC on Mon, 03/05/2007 - 00:15
Money, or the false prospect of money will dictate what games we get. I love a good single game expeience, and need it to be invested in online MP play. I think that is one reason I never fully got into the Unreal tournament games.
rockcrawler69's picture
Submitted by rockcrawler69 on Mon, 03/05/2007 - 00:16
Great point. It is so true. People will smash a title before it even exists. Gears, I loath the multi player and LOVE the single. Good stuff. Rock
SirPoonga's picture
Submitted by SirPoonga on Mon, 03/05/2007 - 01:06
I will buy a game for the single player experience, BUT it has to have replay value. That's why multiplayer is important. That insures replay value if multiplayer is done decent. I think if a game can provide both a solid single player and multiplayer game play I will buy it the day it comes out. That a big reason I like sports games. I can just pick one up and play it. I hope multiplayer is good when I get a sports game. Unfortunately not too many sports games have crappy multiplayer. The one problem with sports games is you eventually find the flaw in the AI and you can score at will. I use to have Saint's Row. That had crappy multiplayer but awesome single player. Multiplayer became good once the patch came out but it was too late. After beating single player there wasn't much replay value. I traded it for Dead Rising. Dead Rising is single player only and pretty good. I haven't gone through my first 72 hours yet though. I am saving it for a gaming drought. This next three months will be busy with new games. I had Gears of War, tafter beating single player on all difficulties and it's trade in value still high I got Battlestations. I want replay value in a game. I borrowed Phoenix Wright for the DS. That's an interactive story. Once you get through it there is no reason to play it again. That's probably why puzzle games are played quite a bit. You can just pick it up and play. Buying a game for it's multiplayer capabilities isn't new. I bought Mechwarrior 2 for it's multiplayer (hmmmmm, null modem days). Have you ever played a game and told yourself "This game is awesome, but it is screaming multiplayer." GTA Vice City did that for me. That's why i am liking Crackdown. However, Crackdown's co-op is different. You dont have to work together. I was doing that last night with a co-worker. I was working on my driving skill while he was collecting orbs. I think seemless co-op will be the next fad in games. Gears was awesome. Rainbow Six has a nice co-op that works. It isn;t seemless but you can invite someone and they wll be in th lobby until th next mission. I would like to see a game like Crackdown that is longer and more story based. Also the bosses are doable in single player but encourage co-op play. Kinda like an MMO but keep the open sandbox feel. A good co-op experience has become an almost instant seller for me. I like playing with some of my colege buddies I don't see that often.
SirPoonga's picture
Submitted by SirPoonga on Mon, 03/05/2007 - 01:09
I also wish I could type late at night :)
Devonsangel's picture
Submitted by Devonsangel on Mon, 03/05/2007 - 04:18
Very well put. Since my online experience is limited, I have to rely on the single player. Which is also why I appreciate the reviews from both aspects.
Anonymous's picture
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 03/05/2007 - 06:22
I think a lot of people compare the MP of other games to H2 because of how its set up usually sucks IMO. H2 is over 2 years old so you would think the new 360 games could at least equal the setup Bungie came up with. Oblivion was good but after a while it bored me to tears, sorry I just love MP too much. Crackdown is the only game in a long time I enjoy playing alone. I wish M$ would require other MP games to just copy Bungies setup if they can't do any better than they have been.
mac79's picture
Submitted by mac79 on Mon, 03/05/2007 - 06:37
I'm not that crazy about MP but I do like online co-op for the story mode of games, I wish this would be in every game. Since I'm paying money to be connected to the xbox live service I wish more games would make use of it not just on the MP aspect. For the same reason its important for games to have a solid sp campaign for people who don't give a frak about live.

Join our Universe

Connect with 2o2p