Baxy-Z take a look at some games of recent time and decides whether multiplayer has ruined games as developers focus more on that rather than the single player experience.
Yeah, I really hate the fact that developers have incorporated game modes that allow for unlimited enjoyment of a games core principles. Thereby extending the life exponentially in comparison to single player only experiences. I'd say yeah they ruined it.
How often do you actually play the multiplayer mode of every game you buy though? Most of the time I don't touch it at all, or just play it for about 2-3 days before I get bored and move along to something else. This gen COD4 and BC2 are the only ones to hold me longer than stated, and are the only ones I really care about. I'd be happier if every other dev just focused solely on the single player. I much prefer single player anyways. Sick of Coop and Mulitplayer in games at the moment.
It really grinds my gears when they make online MP trophies needed for games that no one plays online for. There are 15 MP trophies for Bioshock 2 and I can't find one person who plays online. So much for that Platinum. Or Achievements. Not trying to exclude my 360 pals from this madness. Doesn't Gears have an online trophy for 10,000 kills?
people still play gears, u can find a match for gears
Oh nothing on gears, 10,000 is just slot. I was curious. It's mostly games that didn't need MP like bioshock, ghostbusters, etc
omg games like overlord 2 what were they thinking!? I haven't been able to play a single online game! I don't have a clue what that kinda game mode is even like :(
Interesting how things have evolved since the 80s. First we have games that we compete against eachother using the score number, then its all about completing the story, then unlocking things, now trophies. Anything to get to add value to the surface of a game. Sometimes it ends up a bit flawed, like the multiplayer portion of Metroid Prime 2. They tried something new and it sorta flopped, even though it was fun for a bit. There are probably dozens of games you could add to the poor multiplayer list though.
I agree that multiplayer CAN add to the game's enjoyment and extend its life, but only when it is a purposed and serious aspect of the game. Which many aren't. This article is honestly not very good and looks at the wrong games. MW2 and BC2 are games that are based on the multiplayer (despite the author's claims otherwise), and so they have to be engaging and fun to survive. These games fundamentally RELY on the multiplayer aspect, so I agree that these games can not be ruined by online play as they are built purposely for multiplayer aspect. On the other hand, it does very much ruin games that should otherwise be based around the single-player narrative. In these cases, the single player aspect is often relegated to a lower priority in order to accommodate the unnecessary multiplayer component. And as is the case with many things, when the developers try to excel at two things (multiplayer and single player), both end up being mediocre. It's inevitable. Development needs to be focused on one aspect or the other in order to be able to truly succeed. Many single player experiences could have been greatly improved had more focus lie in the narrative rather than unnecessary multiplayer (The Darkness immediately springs to mind). A gimped single player narrative is never any fun, and a tacked-on and poorly thought out online mode is even worse. So, one can say neither that multiplayer is ruining games nor that it is creating better experiences all around. Because it does both. Multiplayer needs to exist within its own purposely built games in order to have any merit (and when they get it right, such as in Unreal Tournament and Battlefield then it is an amazing experience), but attached into an unlikely or unfitting genre or game, one that should be focused on the single player, then multiplayer is nothing but a leech on the game. It really is a multifaceted argument, and I can easily see how both sides of the fence can make some good points.
YES. With the loss of local multi the devs seem to focus too much of their team and time on the multi and less on the single player experience which tends to feel uninspired. What you get is an okay single player with a tacked on multi that isn't going to be played a few months later (unless you are MW2, BC2, or Halo...) Usually a total waste.
I think multiplayer is the future. Any game thats single player is a rental if it even interests me. Multiplayer games are a buy. It's all about longevity. Nothing beats competing vs another human mind.
I know what you mean.. but there are different genres that others are interested in, which work better in a single player environment. Also, casual players may find difficulty if one of their favorite genres were forced into multiplayer or single player.
I agree with you UserThree, multiplayer adds hours of fun to games. I usually never buy games that are single player only, I would either rent of buy them used for cheap on Amazon. Multiplayer adds replay value to a game, but it might be making some singe player experiences shorter.
This article is just stating the obvious, MW2 is crap.
while MP is fun people wont even play a good SP game like bayonetta, DMC, ninja gaiden, heavenly sword, alan wake, and probably not the amazing looking Vanquish. I have a friend who used to play games with me all the time as a competition to see who could beat it and get the most first but now he only plays games with MP. honestly the only MP i like is fighting games or anything thats offline split screen. and well demon's souls is the exception the online in that is amazing. online MP has only brought lag, glitches, annoying racist people and children causing me to mute everyone. its cool sometimes but nothing is better than playing with a real person beside u. i mean hookin up 3 xboxs to play halo 3 with 3 seperate tvs was awesome
It's not so much ruining games as changing their direction.
i dont like when devs force mp onto single player games..
The focus on mp is, yes
your ruining games
No whiners are ruining gaming
Wtf? Why do YOU only have one bubble, you're actually funny unlike most of the morons here. +bubble, hmmmm intelligent or funny..? I'm gonna go with intelligent to give you that extra confidence boost too.
microsoft charging for online
Multi is fine as long as it doesn't affect the effort the developers put into the campaign and it isn't force fed. I can think of a few games where the multi was tacked on at the last second.
crap double post. just focus on a great SP experience. !!!!
YES. Because nowadays, Multiplayer is seemingly becoming 'the game' people buy the game for and not the actual developed piece with narrative and characters. If you get what I mean. Some do it right, like Uncharted 2. Everyone bought Uncharted 2 to play the further adventures of Nathan Drake then jump onto the MP, then some do it wrong, like Modern Warfare 2 which many people I've talked to didn't even BOTHER playing the actual game, but the what should be counted as a 'bonus' multiplayer and that gets mistaken for 'the game' like Halo 3. I can think of other example too, but if every game becomes online with no events, characters or real story, let alone having an ending (this is where MMO's annoy me), well, I'm probably going to give up gaming, simple as. I'm not reverting back to playing board games with limited pieces and expected to have fun with bare bones, 4 maps and 5 guns. This in my opinion completely erases everything gained and the advancement of games I've seen since playing on my Dad's Amiga. On the other hand, you have the whole Play, Create, Share/user generated content (I'm not just speaking Sony here, games such as Trackmania on PC, Boom Blox and Blastworks on Wii also have this optional stance unlocking more for the editor). In which the game is made by the other people not to end and to choose to interact with, I can agree with those, but those kind of games sacrifice a story for gameplay.
We're asking them for two games for the price of one if we expect both modes to be as deep and polished. Most studios can't afford that, so one mode gets gimped or worst both. But it's our fault as gamers, we ask for that by purchasing more of the games that have both modes.
That's not what I said. What I said is that the MP usually wins over the mostly polished campaign, in short. The MP is a bonus mode. It's not THE GAME.
"That's not what I said. What I said is that the MP usually wins over the mostly polished campaign, in short. The MP is a bonus mode. It's not THE GAME." That's your opinion, not a fact. You shouldn't think that everyone shares or should share your opinion either. To me, both Multiplayer and Single Player are equal. Before Multiplayer, I saw just as many crap games as I did when multiplayer became mainstream. The attitude you and many others have towards multiplayer is just annoying, selfish, and whiny. If devs listened to you then we would not have games like Warhawk, World of Warcraft, the call of duty games (I do wish we never had modern warfare 2 though, but that to me does not count as a cod game), Burnout Paradise, and PLENTY of other shooters and racing games would not exist today. You are not selfish for speaking your opinion that you hate multiplayer, however you ARE selfish for thinking/saying that ALL developers should ONLY focus on single player, or at least focus on it above multiplayer. The games should have SP/MP based on WHAT KIND OF GAME THE DEVELOPER IS MAKING. YOU think that whatever the game type, it should be single player only, which is extremely selfish and self absorbed. Yes, I know the reply you have to that is something along the lines of people who like multiplayer not wanting to buy a game because it doesn't have multiplayer, and I do agree that those people are idiots, however you are the EXACT SAME as them for thinking that no game should have multiplayer. What happened to balance? Can't we wish for both without having to remove one? I respect your choice that you only want a single player game, you should respect my choice for welcoming multiplayer. It is not NEEDED for me to enjoy/buy a game, but it greatly increases my enjoyment of a game (for most games). If you want a good story, then go watch a movie or read a book for christ sakes. Game storytelling has always tended to be extremely mediocre whether you think so or not. I kind of actually feel sorry for you if you have been blown away by a games story or if a game story has ever made you think deeply/philosophically. A real gamer will enjoy BOTH single player and multiplayer and treat them as equal. I don't know what made people think story was an essential factor when it came to gaming. Mario didn't have a story, shadow of the Colossus didn't have a story, LittleBigPlanet didn't have a story, and plenty of other AMAZING games didn't have stories (minimalistic plots do not count as stories). So yes, for some games MP is the game, it's not the bonus mode.
it's not MP that is ruining games, it's the notion that you take a great SP game and tack on a lackluster MP that is ruining games. it is almost as if developers think if there isnt a MP experience with their games it's a failure. not at all. keep SP games SP games.
i just want to know how many times and in how many games can players run around like rats in a maze shooting each other before they get effing sick of it? it's the same effing deathmatches over and over and over. i'm guessing there must be alot of new gamers out there, all the rest must have commited suicide back in the horribly boring, pre-xbl days of gaming. those poor brave souls, suffering through a replay of a game just because it was good and not needing a PEW PEW PEW mode to get them to pick it up again. how quaint and ignorant of people back then. /s...obviously
You just summed up how this trend of MP games annoy me perfectly. It's okay for a short burst, yeah, online FPSes can be fun. But then you have people that think it's the actual packaged game and seriously, they must be really, really easily amused to be playing in the same areas with the same guns for that long.
Metal Gear Solid 4 and Goldeneye 64 is perfect examples on games that have a perfect single-player experience and "only" fun online experiences. Sorry Goldeneye 64 is not online, but you know what I mean :) or maybe not...I`m just drunk right now and have ordered a flight ticket to Tokyo with my girlfriend, and were so excited. I`ve been there once and is was fantastic. So...well...night sleep now....zzzzz
nothing is going to save linear story driven single player games that don't even try to vary game play (by simple things like changing spawn points and using random objectives). Scripted games are play once and forget as good as junk food.
MP is good when its not MW2...thats the biggest mess and yet millions still play it.
i like to play all my games fully, i would play uncharted 2, and geow2 for sp and multiplayer. mp only enhances the game i play, i do have friends who only play mp, and they miss out on some good sp games(god of war 3)
...but they don't do enough to ensure that most multiplayer games don't mature into run and gun affairs. Where is all the team play, support, etc. Where are all the good clan systems and squad balancing. I get sick of most of a team sniping or everyone being a medic.
online was not required goldeneye perfect dark
No. It's saving them.
Yes it is. i hardly ever play a game online mostly due to the fact people are complete idiots. i want to enjoy my games, not get harassed and insulted my 12 yr old kids. Give me a good single player RPG over another dime a dozen FPS clone. Oblivion>Call of Duty ANY DAY!
Online Is It Ruining Games , yes, yes, yes, if its not a shooter.
Yeah, the online component of say... Demon's souls really RUINED it. Or made an already great game incredible. Your choice.
seriously, you must be messed in the head if you think Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 are better then Mass Effect, Oblivion or Fallout 3
is increasing longevity but decreasing the quality of the game. but every now and then comes a game where both both longevity and quality qualify like uncharted 2
sometimes yes, especially with the greedy companies ala Activision. Resistance1&2, Killzone 2,even Gears of War1&2 have stories that are well developed and then you have games like MW2, wer the story was just tacked on.
But I tend to enjoy the single player campaign over the multi-player mode in a game anytime. Imo I have always looked at the multi-player aspect(if there is any) as an addition/supplement to the core of the game(which is the single player aspect of the game)in question. Because the single player aspect of a game has mostly always been the core of games in general since video games ever came to the market and for good reason, and it always should be because what if one day a multi-player only game stops being hosted on servers thus rendering the game useless, this would not be the case if the game was dominantly single player focused. The difference would be that people could still play the "said" single player focused game long after it is no longer supported or commercially available and this would not be the case with a "said" multi-player focused game. And besides to me multi-player is a novelty that wears thin fast, and once you have played one multi-player focused game you have basically played them all as it seems to me. There are so many benefits that single player focused games have over multi-player focused games that I really don't feel like naming them all but for example a game like silent hill would easily be forgotten by now if it was a multi-player focused game, but THANK GOD that it was a single player focused game and is easily one of the best single layer games out there. In short, single player focused games provide a more richer, satisfying, entertaining, and much longer lasting appeal than multi-player focused games could ever achieve.
Multiplayer has way to much emphasis when it comes to games particularly shooters. And games across all platforms are hit with this less and less single player or offline co-op/multiplayer experiences are put into games and are often dumbed down.
is ruining gaming. i think developer/publisher apathy is ruining gaming. there are very few developers out there taking chances, trying new things, pushing the current technology as far as they think it can go. it's pretty much just, "Hey kids, you can SHOOT EACH OTHER ONLINE!!" i've sunk over 40 hours into Red Dead Redemption single player. i have yet to play the online portion. i'm actually thinking of restarting the single player, because it was just so enjoyable (the characters, the story, etc). i've replayed Uncharted 2 and God of War 3 at least 4 or 5 times. same thing with inFAMOUS. i've barely touched the MP of Uncharted 2 (although i do love the co-op). games like Resistance 2, Killzone 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, etc, i've invested more time in single player than multi-player. i love the co-op in Resistance 2, but i played the single player more. i have no problem with multi-player when it suits the game, and when it doesn't affect the single player campaign. but when you have games like Modern Warfare 2 getting away with 5 hour single player campaigns, because they use the MP as a crutch, THAT'S a big problem for me. i honestly don't mind spending money on a 10 hour single player campaign with no MP attached (like God of War 3), because the quality is so high. but i DO have a problem with paying $60 for a 5 hour campaign with multi-player that was decidedly less than the previous installment. too many gamers and gaming media outlets are willing to give developers like Infinity Ward a pass because of a previous success. i understand and appreciate pedigree in game devs, but when their current work is so far below their previous work, they should be CALLED ON IT. it's the only way they will learn and grow as a developer. Circle Jerking them isn't going to make things better. look at Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, and Naughty Dog. there's no doubt that Uncharted: DF was a great game, but it most certainly could have been improved in some areas (game design variety, length, story, etc), and Naughty Dog took those criticisms to heart and made a sequel so far beyond the original that it's a little absurd. developers like Infinity Ward, Bioware, Valve, Bethesda, NEVER get called out on their shit like all of the Sony devs do. Dragon Age is a buggy mess most of the time (crashes, freezes, mission glitches). Fallout 3 is a buggy mess most of the time (crashes, freezes, mission glitches), and yet those complaints are NEVER brought to light until many months after the fact, and then the devs are lacksidasical in addressing them. which is a shame, because the games themselves are GREAT...when they are actually working. i think multi-player is getting stale because nobody is injecting it with any real freshness. and the few games that do TRY to do something different (like MAG, and it's 250 player, tactical game play), get downplayed or dismissed for some reason or another. multi-player has a lot more potential for some awesome stuff than what we've been given the past 5 years. it's just going to take a developer to say, "hey, we are going to do it THIS way, because it sounds cool to us, and just might work." until then, we're going to get the umpteenth "variation" of CTF or TDM shoehorned into every franchise publishers can work it into.
I wish that you could take a multiplayer game like MW2 and make it to have bots instead of actually people to play against. Keep all the ranking up and xp, that way you could make it play off line and you wouldn't have to worry about cheaters and lag
Thats the reason i love Perfect Dark!
Not to mention Timesplitters...god i hope number 4 gets made.
The only beef I have with multiplayer is that many developers have sacrificed the single player experience and have focused on cheap multiplayer gimmicks to add length to games. Too bad some of these games have been some of the highest profile games of this generation.
Because of the need for co-op in Lost Planet 2, I'm not buying that game!
Developers are spending too much on multiplayer maps...... They should include full story & complete the single player, then move on Multiplayer...... In a consumer point if view ---> WHY SHOULD I PAY A GAME TO PLAY WITH OTHERS ????
I believe multiplayer is not needed in everything. Like co-op in Resident Evil 5. Horror games in general should not have co-op if its made with the intention of scaring the shit out of you.
Multiplayer is the now and the future.why are so many people playing online? it,s not because of the single player only games. online multiplayer is the standard and gives games longevity.don,t forget is was halo 2 that made online multiplayer popular for consoles and the rest followed along.if multiplayer ruined gaming,then why is it so popular?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.