Top
All Channels
80°

Why Games Were Better Without Multiplayer

Not too long ago, most video games didn't have online multiplayer and the ones that did, the multiplayer mode was considered a secondary feature - now it's completely different - is it a good thing? Alex takes a look at this subject for SuperCheats.

Read Full Story >>
supercheats.com
The story is too old to be commented.
98xpresent765d ago (Edited 765d ago )

I completely disagree .

XBLSkull765d ago (Edited 765d ago )

Didn't read the article, but games that are single player, sp/mp, and multiplayer only all have their places.
Games aren't "better without multiplayer". Sounds to me like you have no friends.
Edit: Read the article.
"Game critics have been brainwashed into thinking games need multiplayer as well. Wolfenstein: The New Order was a great game with really fun gameplay and yet many reviewers still knocked it for not having online multiplayer. Since when was 10-plus hours of solid gameplay not worth your forty bucks?"
It is a great game, people may be complaining because Return to Castle Wolfenstein had multiplayer, and it was F'in fantastic.
"DLC is bad for gaming because consumers are getting less game for more money. Some people think DLC means you're getting extra content but that isn't really true. Think of a video game like a pizza. You used to buy a game and get a full eight slice pizza for one price tag. Then developers figured out they could sell you a seven slice pizza and charge extra for that eighth slice. You're not getting additional content; you're paying more money for content you otherwise would have gotten included in the game. Day one DLC is probably the most obvious offender here"
I agree, day 1 DLC is bull****. But there are clearly situations where stuff is being added, and that is okay.
"The first DLC I ever remember having to pay to download were map packs on Halo 2."
Same here. I loved PC gaming where dev teams would just update the game, and give you new stuff for free. Halo 2 was worth paying for new maps for sure, but it really was the end of a great era. Gone now though just gotta move on.
"Games are built specifically around their multiplayer and then the single player is tacked on as an afterthought. This has made games worse"
"Call of Duty isn't the only franchise this has been happening to, either. The main story of Battlefield 4 only takes a little over 5 hours on average to complete. Compare that to Battlefield 1942 which had a 7 to 14 hour campaign. And as most people know, Battlefield 1942 was already all about the multiplayer to begin with!"
Opinion man. Battlefield 1942 was a multiplayer game, with a mediocre-at-best "campaign" mode, essentially multiplayer with bots. Now we have a fantastic multiplayer as always with a pretty awesome single player. Multiplayer is what keeps most people playing the game, and not just buying it and trading it in 3 days later. Some franchises are for sure getting ruined but games now are better than ever for the most part.
"So games that used to have a dozen or more solid hours of gameplay are now only lasting half as long as before."
That is a point of view. The other point of view is games that had a dozen or more solid hours of gameplay now have hundreds, or unlimited hours of gameplay.
BS: I - The story, the characters, and the gameplay were all incredible. There's a reason this game won 42 notable Game of the Year awards. Guess it didn't need multiplayer to compete eh?"
It wasn't. Bioshock Infinite wasn't anything special. First game was awesome. "Now that's a real game?" What does that even mean? A single player only 12-25 hour game constitutes a "real game?" Again this is just proof that their is room for all types of games in the market. Believe me buddy, if you want only a single player experience you can find plenty of content geared towards yourself. You've done nothing to prove "Why games were better without multiplayer"

-Superman-765d ago

MULTIPLAYER DOES NOT RUIN SINGLE-PLAYER!
Uncharted 2 is great example. Remember how everyone complained that multiplayer will ruin Uncharted 2 or The Last of Us single-player? No it did not. In fact it´s great add-on. I play single-play game, finishing with 6-8hr and that´s it. Then i want to play in multiplayer where i spend 60-90% time.

Team Fortress 2, Mario Kart, Call of Duty, Battlefield without multiplayer? BAD BAD BAD!!!

Left 4 Dead, Portal, Uncharted without online co-op multiplayer? BAD BAD BAD !!!!

SIMPLE. MULTIPLAYER DOES NOT RUIN SINGLE-PLAYER GAME EVER!!!

slasaru01765d ago

It does ruin. You have to pay for MP even if you don't use it. It's not fair at all

pedrof93765d ago

@slasaru

If you put in that way, you also pay for in game places that you can't access due invisible walls.

iamnsuperman765d ago

I disagree and I am a person who isn't really into multiplayer. Multiplayer has been a godsend for the single player genre as it had to step up its game to entice consumers over. Storytelling has gotten more important and the quality from some developers has shot up since multilayer went big on consoles. You go back to some of those old games that had no multiplayer and you look at those campaigns. They are longer but they follow a similar formula COD and other FPS still follow today. It is objective based disjointed mission. There is no real story bringing it all together nor is the story any good (in a way the campaigns in COD have more of a story now than they did back then)

MRMagoo123765d ago

The exact same points could be used to counter your whole comment, there are plenty of old games that had amazing single player compared to now. I don't think multiplayer should go away but I don't think it helped anything but the length of time you kept a game for really. From my experience the single player campaigns have shortened to nearly nothing now days so they have more time to put into multiplayer or worse yet they remove the campaign completely ala titanfall and plants vs zombies garden warfare.

I think there needs to be more single player games with all efforts put into just that , no adding Co op or MP, just straight single player.

I also think multiplayer games need refreshing, they don't do much different from every other game if the same genre now. Devs should take more risks and experiment, maybe they could stumble onto something fresh and amazing.

2cents765d ago

What I find is the biggest annoyance is when a game sets itself up for co-op play, expecting gamers to play a certain way to enjoy the story. But more often than not people are paired up with morons who just do what they want and ruin the experience for others.

I'm more of a story guy, I prefer a decent single player story over multi player mayhem any day of the week. But a good co-op would be the holy grail for me.
I do hope Destiny can lead the revolution, I think I will also have to give diablo a try, looks like my co-op dreams could be answered!

Volkama765d ago (Edited 765d ago )

The retail model is the problem, the "games must have multiplayer" is just a symptom of it.

$60 retail games are a cut-throat, high risk endeavour and expectations and budgets all reflect that. Developers are mandated by their publisher to include x hours of content, y features (and in most cases some "revenue tail" to rake in a bit more money beyond the initial purchase), within z budget and timeframe.

Digital distribution will change all of that. We'll see more flexible pricing, and therefore less stringent expectations. We'll see more projects like Child of Light as this generation matures.

700p765d ago

Usually the people who dont like multiplayer are people who dont have friends and are afraid to talk to people.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 765d ago
plut0nash765d ago

I think that mandatory multiplayer is the problem. Multiplayer itself is great when made well.

Artista 765d ago

I'd rather devs develop to their strengths. Is it single-player you do best? If so, stick to that.

Are you tacking multi-player on for the sake of it? Deep down you know your lobbies will be empty in no time. What's the point? lol

MRMagoo123765d ago

Yeh I just hate how now any new game announced always seems to have multiplayer added on whether it's needed or not, especially when the story seems to have suffered because of it. Makes me a sad panda.

KakashiHotake765d ago

I have to disagree with this. While i'll admit some games are better off without Multiplayer like more story driven single player games. However some games thrive off multiplayer and to tell the truth has become more of sport. I used to like the Multiplayer in KillZone 2 more than the single player experience, and that's not the only game I've enjoyed like that. All i'm saying is some games are better with it and some without.

Show all comments (28)
The story is too old to be commented.