From Uncharted to Assassins Creed getting multiplayer, it’s a sure sign of the future. Publishers and Developers alike are thinking multiplayer is what makes a game a buy or pass. If they don’t have it, people won’t buy their games, at least that’s what their minds come too. Their putting less effort into the stories and more time into the online, or just tacking on a multiplayer mode (when they could be polishing/adding more to the game) just to try and get more sales, without understanding that not every game needs multiplayer to sell millions. Just look at Fallout, Assassin’s Creed, Mass Effect, Bioshock and more, they all sold over a million and they are great games without any multiplayer at all.
Could you even imagine games like God of War 3, Heavy Rain, Alan Wake and ect. with a multiplayer component? (If you can, just please stop right there, because games like those don’t need to be ruined with multiplayer)
Don’t get me wrong, I love multiplayer (I put over 22 days on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and was ranked in the top 3,000s), but now I don’t have countless hours to play a ton of games that include multiplayer, because when I play a game with multiplayer I want to stick to it and enjoy it. There are only a couple games a year I’ll buy for the multiplayer aspect, but otherwise I enjoy the rest of my games for the single player and if they ruin the single player of their games, than that just means they don’t get my money.
I don’t want to sit down and play a heartless game, because some publisher/developer thinks multiplayer is the key to the games success. That’s completely not true; there are a lot of gamers out there (including me) who would love to enjoy a game just for the story, not a game with a boring story and an OK/lame multiplayer. Games like that don’t get my hard earned money, its games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted 1 & 2, Dragon Age: Origins, Borderlands, and ect. that get my money.
Games with rich, amazing stories catch my attention and make me read every ounce of news and watch every video (at least until closer to release). They give me what I enjoy; entertainment and that’s why I am a gamer. NOT because of some online mode where I can shoot my friends countless times and gain experience to unlock a new gun or gear (its fun once in a while), but because of the campaign.
That’s why this generation has been the best, because this generation I have had the honor of enjoying so many entertaining and amazing games; like Metal Gear Solid 4, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted 1 & 2, and so many more and soon I’ll be enjoying games like Heavy Rain, Bioshock 2 and God of War 3, but what after that? What’s in store for me? The Last Guardian? Gaming needs more story driven games, not games like Modern Warfare 2 or Borderlands (which was an awesome game, just not the story part of it).
Sometimes, I wish there wasn’t even multiplayer, so developers could focus solely on single player, but still have PSN/XBL so developers could add to and in rich their games more, instead of just making another game.
So, please, if any developers/publisher that my happen to be reading this, don’t just tack on multiplayer if it doesn’t add to the game and make your games more story driven.
Reader Questions: Are you a story or multiplayer type of guy (or girl)? Does adding an online aspect to the game make you want to buy the game more? What story driven games have you enjoyed the most? What is your thought on Assassin’s Creed having multiplayer? What story driven game are you looking forward to the most?
I'm not too big on multiplayer on consoles, I don't know why, perhaps too much work, occasionally I love a MP game such as Resistance 2 co-op, Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, UTIII, Cellfactor and Warhawk and I used to love playing the Unreal Tournament series and Soldier of Fortune 2 on the PC.
I'm not really sure what stops me from enjoying MP on consoles as much; I think it's the new leveling up systems and the way these are linked into the time of the games, I think that these MP games should be an equal playing field like old arena games such as Quake III and UT once had, I still don't think it's fair to have 'perks' or such because somebody has played a game more than me, also, I get annoyed how people are over the moon with a very limited supply of maps.
I would much prefer if the concept of 'multiplayer' was actually taken away and separated from the internet and we just had a lot of splitscreen games again. Recently I've been going back and fourth to Halo 3 on my 360 because quite frankly, the PS3 has a EXTREME lack of splitscreen games. In fact...BOTS. Give bots to play with if a games community is dead.
I think that the importance of multiplayer needs to be turned down a notch, so many times we've had gaming journalists or the developers their selves bigging up the new multiplayer section of the game only for nobody to bother playing it or it being a failed experiment, perhaps that's the problem too, everybody jumps onto the bandwagon of ONE game, nobody really chances anything else whilst on consoles. I'd also like more puzzle games taken online, we only seem to have games where you shoot each other online most the time, surely there's other ways of having competitive online games.
As I said before I don't have the time to level up and earn perks, I just want a game that everyone gets the same, puts up with it and I can run and shoot them in the face as equal as everyone else.
Yes, games do not need multiplayer you're right. But With the way games are being produced now adays, multiplayer is necessary to justify that price tag of 60 dollars.
First off, to answer your questions:
-I'm a Single Player/Story Driven kinda gamer.
-The addition of Multiplayer in a game doesn't make me want to get it more.
-Story driven games I've enjoyed the most: Uncharted series, Metal Gear Solid series, Heavenly Sword, Jak and Daxter series, Fallout 3, ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, Dead Space, God of War series, GTA3, GTA:Vice City, GTA:San Andreas, Assassin's Creed 2 and many others.
-My thoughts on Assassin's Creed getting multiplayer, I DON'T think it's necessary because both games in the series have put up big numbers without it.... on the downside, I think the multiplayer will probably cut into the length of the Single Player component of the next Assassin's Creed... if it's several hours shorter than Assassin's Creed 2 I'd be pretty disappointed.
-Story driven game I'm looking forward too the most... it's a VERY close tie between The Last Guardian and God of War 3.
I agree that every game doesn't need multiplayer, but I have to agree with Hellangelzx though, multiplayer is increasingly becoming necessary to justify the price tag for $60 dollar games for the majority of gamers, however it's not necessary for me in order to buy it though.
Also, it seems like the majority of games that can sell for $60 bucks or near full price and still sell very well despite most being Single Player only are RPG's like Fallout, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect or Sandbox games like Assassin's Creed because the Single Player component offers so many more hours of gameplay than other types of Single Player only games.
"There are only a couple games a year I’ll buy for the multiplayer aspect, but otherwise I enjoy the rest of my games for the single player and if they ruin the single player of their games, than that just means they don’t get my money. "
Yup, Im the same. While I love Warhawk, Halo 3 multiplayer, and (adore) CoD multiplayer, most of the games I buy are for the single player aspect.
No, developers DONT need to add multiplayer for their game to sell, but they do need to have replay value. Look at Batman, the collectibles and the challenge rooms add so much to the replay value. Fallout 3 speaks for itself, and so does Mass Effect...
Games dont need to have multiplayer to sell. They need replay value. Whether its something along the side of challenge rooms (Something I hope GOWIII has), a long story mode, or even having a system like Uncharted 2 or RE5, where the money you collect allows you to play the game much differently, leader boards etc...
Maybe multiplayer is just another bullet point publishers want to have on the back of the box do they force it on the developers, who knows...
The trend of tacking on multiplayer in games has gone far enough. Instead of investing on making a game longer they just tack on multiplayer and its alright a game is short. There are games that are better without multiplayer. Best example is brutal legend the game was so short and the multiplayer isnt anything that people play longer then a week or so. A single player beats a good multiplayer in my book.