Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by webmednet 534d ago | opinion piece

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. (BioShock: Infinite, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, PS3, Xbox 360)

98xpresent  +   534d ago
I completely disagree .
#1 (Edited 534d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(16) | Report | Reply
XBLSkull  +   533d 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"
#1.1 (Edited 533d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
-Superman-  +   533d ago
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 !!!!

slasaru01  +   533d ago
It does ruin. You have to pay for MP even if you don't use it. It's not fair at all
pedrof93  +   533d ago

If you put in that way, you also pay for in game places that you can't access due invisible walls.
iamnsuperman  +   534d 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)
MRMagoo123  +   533d 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.
2cents  +   533d 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!
Volkama  +   533d 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.
#2.3 (Edited 533d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
700p  +   533d ago
Usually the people who dont like multiplayer are people who dont have friends and are afraid to talk to people.
plut0nash  +   533d ago
I think that mandatory multiplayer is the problem. Multiplayer itself is great when made well.
Artista  +   533d 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
MRMagoo123  +   533d 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.
KakashiHotake  +   533d 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.
elda  +   533d ago
When I buy a game I always play single player campaign & when it's over it's over & on to the next single player game.Never enjoyed online multiplayer exp.Though some games I don't mind single player local co-op for me & a friend to play.For me single player is the way to go,always enjoyed that exp for over 20 yrs now.
user367272  +   533d ago
What is wrong with having both? If game publishers expect me to pay $60 for their game...they better darn sure their game has everything including the kitchen sink in it. The only games that I can justify paying the full price without MP is an epic RPG like Skyrim, Wictcher or a Sandbox game like GTA where there are tons of things to do and explore and have tons of hours before completion. If it is just a standard 10-15 hour action game, then there better be a great MP mode included;otherwise, it is hello Gamefly for a wekend rental...or better yet..just wait a bit for those 75% off Steam sales on my PC.
#7 (Edited 533d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
pornflakes  +   533d ago
Play Diablo 3 in SP and MP... it makes hell WAY MORE fun to play with other ppl.

I dont mean all games. But it seems to make like they could also make The Order with coop mode.

Anyway.. will bloodborne offer coop? In the last video i sa a second player.
DanielGearSolid  +   533d ago
And the whiny blogging continues...
GothamReturns  +   533d ago
i bet he sucks at MP
azazel665  +   533d ago
You'd lose that bet. My k/d in Halo: Reach for example is over 5:1.
GothamReturns  +   533d ago
Whats your w/l ratio? Btw halo reach is a bad example. Too many cheap kills. I have almost. 4:1 and i say its cheap. Its like saying one player is better than you becuase you have a higher rank. That doesnt doesnt anything for me. Btw whats your kd is a skillful game like gears?
azazel665  +   527d ago
Depends on the game mode. In the Anniversary BTB playlist I had 69 wins in 72 games and BTB is the hardest mode to consistently win because there's so many people on each team, one person can only make so much of a difference. Really takes a lot of teamwork.
Games without multiplayer are expensive in the long run. Think about it most single player games only have a shed load of dlc to keep the game alive so you pay £50 for the game and end up spending another £50 on the dlc that only lasts 4 hours of gameplay each and the game itself has 20-30 hours that's just the main missions. So you spend £100 on 50 odd hours of gameplay but if you buy a online game, you get your standard 10-20 hours gameplay and 100+ hours on the online. Yes you get online dlc and single player that can add another 100+ hours
Roccetarius  +   533d ago
It's fairly obvious when MP is tacked onto games, so it's not so hard to pick games to wait for a deal on. Notice how much fluff they've added in Assassin's Creed, in order to extend their games.

Brotherhood and beyond was noticeably shorter, also due to the addition of MP content.
#12 (Edited 533d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
azazel665  +   533d ago
Good point there. I would have mentioned those games in the article but gave up playing AC after the first one with MP lol.
slasaru01  +   533d ago
Whyyyyyyyy do I have to pay for multiplayer in a package, if i never use it? Devs should provide a player with a choice: whether to buy single only or additionally buy and download multiplayer. Of course, with some games it's not possible but mainly it will be a good way to expand the buyers group due to price reduction
#13 (Edited 533d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Saryk  +   533d ago
I don’t know. I would prefer that if there is a multiplayer component, but if I want to play solo (bots) I can. I don’t like multiplayer in PC games because I have seen tons of cheaters get kicked from matches (BF4, COD, etc). So now in my mind I can’t trust people and everyone is a cheater. I do prefer games that has multiplayer, but only if it can have bots and I can make my own server.
GothamReturns  +   533d ago
If you dont like MP, you dont like to compete against other people that could be better than you. No CPU can come close to what another human player can do. How would you say your good in a game but wont compete with other human players to prove that? Take gears for example i love trashing people, that doesnt mean i wont get trashed once in a while but thats the beauty of it. You get rocked then try to out smart your opponent. It makes you adjust. I dont play videogames to relax myself, i play it to compete and win. If i want to play a game to relax myself id play mario.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

PAX South Recap - The Game Bolt Podcast - EP 48

28m ago - In this episode Brett hosts while Grant and Jon share the experience they had at PAX South 2016!... | PC

Looks like Battle Worlds: Kronos is coming to consoles

4h ago - Following an appearance on Amazon, GamesAsylum reports that the Kickstarter funded RTS Battle Wor... | PS4

Gran Turismo SPORT Beta Testing Begins early 2016

Now - Start tracking GTS with's release date alert service and be notified when the GTS beta launches. | Promoted post

Fable Legends - Heroes of Albion: Meet Celeste

4h ago - Lionhead "Time to take a closer look at Fable Legends' light Priestess and resident stargazer... | PC

The Culling, AKA Hunger Games the Game, Gets a Closed Alpha

4h ago - EB: Xaviant has announced that The Culling, its new Hunger Games-like battle royale title, will b... | PC

XCOM 2 Gamer Stats Revealed: Over 50 Million Aliens Defeated

4h ago - XCOM 2 sold over half a million units, but can you guess how many aliens killed or missions finis... | PC