Does Every Game Really Need Multiplayer...?

GameBlurb writes, "Konami, braving through the horrible blindness that comes with having dollar signs in your eyes, starts kicking around ideas for a multiplayer Silent Hill. Discouraged, the single player game seeks a nice warm hole to go die in."

[junk3d]

I don't understand why the hell they do this. Dead Space 2 is a good example...the multiplayer was whack.

[TurismoGTR]

Nope.. it just needs some replay value.

[AAACE5]

If they intend to charge $60, they need to have something extra in the package!

[Winter47th]

Most times I never buy games that only have SP. To me the MP is that main attraction as a replay value and all.

[TBM]

HELL NO, not every game needs multiplayer. i'll still take a good-great single player over multi any damn day of the week.

[Kiroe]

The last few Silent Hills have been horrible. They should take the time used to develop multiplayer and put it toward making a good game.

[morganfell]

Exactly right Kiroe. Silent Hill Homecoming had everything we needed. Decent visuals, good story...except the geniuses as Konami decided they couldn't implement a standard control scheme.

There is no way anyone making a Silent Hill title should consider multiplayer if they can't add a simple thing called "Invert Aim" or "Invert Y Axis" to the game.

[Arsenic13]

There is no Silent Hill Multiplayer.

http://helldescent.com/2011...

[liquidxtension]

I would rather see them work on making a better single player experience than wasting time on multiplayer.

[NYC_Gamer]

nope,because it ruins the quality of certain titles.

[Emilio_Estevez]

It needs replay value to be worth $60. So if no multiplayer, it needs to be at least 20 hrs long. GTA is a good example. It wasn't the MP that gave it replay, it was the length and random side things to do.

[Wizziokid]

Does Every Game Really Need Multiplayer...?

no

[tommyth3cat]

It depends on the game, if you've got a solid single player with a bit of replay value through New Game+ or other things you don't need it. Uncharted 2 is a good example, great single player with quite a bit of replay, but does the multiplayer really NEED to be there? I've never played it once; however I do think some games can(if done right and not tacked on) really benefit from coop and/or multiplayer of some kind.

[Lamarthedancer]

To be honest I thought Uncharted 2 didn't need it and I never went on it since I don't play many online games but I gave it a go and it's amazing. Having so much freedom by jumping/climbing and it's great cover system.

I don't agree on the people who say it needs co-op single player though, rather they focus on the co-op missions online.

[Stealth20k]

silient hill multiplayer is a bad rumor and no single player is what gaming is about

[Lamarthedancer]

Nope...

People who want it games like Elder scrolls or Fallout bug me the most.

It might seem cool for like the first week but then people will get bored of it and go back on COD/Halo leaving the people, who buy the two games based on it's amazing single player experience, with a playthrough.

If you want a co-op RPG go buy Fable or Two worlds.

[midgard227]

multiplayer is only neededin FPS's,mmo's racing, platformers, puzzle games, fighting and sports. nothing else.

rpgs, action games and adventure games DO NOT NEED MULTIPLAYER

some games in those genres pull off multiplayer good like demon's souls but others dont need it.

MP games are fun, but MP shud only be where it works. not just crammed in there. to me a great single player is better than a great multiplayer. again depending the genre

[Judas]

No multi in RPG's?

Demon Soul's ("Action" RPG) had a great multiplayer system...

[whydoyouask]

You talking about that system where other people can leave you messages? Yeah...revolutionary...

[fan_of_gaming]

NO!!! there were awesome games before there was online multiplayer, and there can still be awesome games without online mulitplayer!

[k4rma]

MP is a cancer. Its slowly killing games.

Publishers and developers need to stop wasting time, money and resources on it. And focus on making a great standalone game experience, with some longevity.

If they wanna make a standalone MP game instead, then go ahead. But dont try to do everything. Its just brings the entire thing down.

[Kran]

I have a few friends that only plays the multiplayer in games.

Like whut?

I mean, they're paying £40 just to play the multiplayer. Its like people who bought Black Ops just for Zombies. JUST PLAY WORLD AT WAR, or better yet, A ZOMBIE GAME!

[CrimsonEngage]

Yes. Every game needs MP now days. Picture if you will, Homefront without Multilayer. You would be paying $60 for a 5 hour long game.

[k4rma]

The SP wouldn't have been 4 hours long had it not been for all the time and effort spent on MP. You cannot have your cake and eat it!

[CrimsonEngage]

SP games have no replay value. MP games do. I can have YOUR cake and eat it...

[bozebo]

co-op survival horror would be awesome, but it has to be done right.
Resi 5 didn't count because it isn't survival horror.

The best way to do it would be to design a new scenario specifically designed for co-op play - so it's like the first 3 resi games in some way but free roam over mplay and specifically designed to be completed like that (well, there were multiple characters walking around wern't there?).

Something like that could be done extremely well, could even see the cut-scenes from the other character's perspective etc.

Just shoving in mplay as an extra mode though, in survival horror? No.

[danielle007]

..The past Silent Hills already had re-playability. Multiple endings, and Downpour is going to have more obvious moral choices as well. Don't muck it up with shitty multiplayer, please.

I strongly believe there are some games that are good for multiplayer, and some just aren't.

[Acquiescence]

A franchise so heavily dependent on isolation and psychological scares should focus on harnessing its single player component to the very best it can be and leave the multiplayer to Call Of Duty and all those dudebro first-person shooters.

[DanSolo]

Not all games need Multiplayer and not all types of games should have it.

But if implemented correctly and at no expense to the single player then I do not see a reason why they cannot add in some multiplayer to ensure our money's worth.

Take Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Uncharted 2, Red Dead Redemption.... they are all good single player games that don't NEED multiplayer.... but I was certainly glad that they added it, and more importantly added it well and without taking anything from the main game!

Once I complete a single player game I rarely go back to replay it as I just don't generally have any desire to. Certain games like Elder Scrolls are an exception as I can play as a completely different type of character. I don't think a game like that should have multiplayer unless it ABSOLUTELY is done as an extra and in no way detracts from the game.... if it is done like that then I am more than happy to get some extra value from the money I am parting with.

[k4rma]

There is always an expense to SP. ALWAYS!

Even when two different development houses are working on the separate components. The funding is split between the two rather than put all in on one mode.

[DanSolo]

I know what you are saying, but do you think that AC: Brotherhood, Uncharted 2 and Red Dead would have been any different from a single player point of view if there had been no multiplayer?

I think it is safe to say those games would have been exactly the same.... just minus the multiplayer. Maybe they would just have been released a bit earlier but that is about it.

But I do agree that if games that are predominately a single player game will suffer in any way to add multiplayer then they shouldn't!

[SuperStrokey1123]

Its all in the way its implement in ANY circumstance. Take things like Infamous 2, its not "multiplayer" per say but more along the lines of user generated content. Then consider demon souls and how they did it.

Not every game needs it but given the proper execution any game can benefit from it. There are many many different kinds of MP

[DanSolo]

How can someone disagree with that comment? lol

What he said was a fair and valid point!

[SuperStrokey1123]

Its N4G, its the norm here.

[AntiHeroComplex]

not every game needs one. Original Deus Ex is one example. They added MP later but no1 played it.

[gypsygib]

If there's no MP I only need a 15+ SP that is good enough to replay.

[Rageaholic]

ummm no, look at god of war and uncharted

[gypsygib]

Your right I played GOW3 3 times.

So I guess I only need an awesome SP.

[k4rma]

If it had MP, you probably would have only played it once.

[gypsygib]

@ k4rma:

GOW3 and MP don't mix.

[DanSolo]

Yeah but look at Uncharted 2's multiplayer... it didn't detract from the single player, but it added lot's of bonus play to the people who liked it.

I stopped playing it ages ago but I hear that you can still get a game on it.

It didn't NEED multiplayer... but the way multiplayer was implemented was the correct way!

[Forth]

Nope, adding multilayer is in reality, to a game which wasn't built for one is a sign of laziness, they should use there resources to create a creative experience that can withstand multiple play throughs.

[MilkMan]

Nope

[T3MPL3TON]

"Does Every Game Really Need Multiplayer?"

No.

[Excalibur]

No.

I buy games for 90% SP and 10% MP and hope there is some Co-op in it somewhere.

I'll play the MP piece of a game but they never hold my attention for more than a week.

I would much rather a Dev concentrate on a good SP and not tack MP on just because.