Online multiplayer - is it always necessary?

You probably know where I'm going with this. We're gonna talk about multiplayer in games, and whether or not some companies include them simply for the sake of it. Does it take away from a single player experience in your opinion? Should developers focus more on creating said single player experience instead of a multiplayer mode that might or might not last? Do you think that having a multiplayer mode automatically makes a game better, giving you more reason to purchase said game?

Think of it this way: would an excellent last-gen game without a multiplayer mode be so much better if it had one? Are developers forcing an MP mode simply because it seems like the "in" thing to do in order to make your game more appealing nowadays?

So share your thoughts about this, consider the questions above and tell us what you think. And maybe give some examples of tacked on online modes.

Alright. Discuss, I guess. :wacko:

My personal opinion: single player campaigns are still the selling feature of a game for me. I like being able to sit down and watch a story unfold, complete puzzles and finish missions and generally feel like I've received the $60 or so that I spent on the game to begin with. I'm a solo gamer, for the most part, and multiplayer isn't a huge selling feature for me. However, it's a nice addition once I've finished a game, to go back and play against other players (or with other players). There are lots of games, over previous generations and even current gen games, that do this quite admirably -- the multiplayer in Goldeneye and Perfect Dark (even though it wasn't online, like the topic requests) kept me and my friends entertained for hours. Games like Uncharted 2, Demon Souls, and Halo, for instance, have amazing stories that unfold during single player, but also a great multiplayer aspect for when you've beaten the game three or four times and you still want to enjoy the title.

Where games really fall short, for me, are games like Call of Duty. The single player campaign is just a disgrace, and the only reason anyone buys the games at all is for online multiplayer. To me, this isn't enjoyable in the slightest. I don't want to shell out $60 just to play the exact same game over and over and over again in four minute bursts. It can be fun for a little bit, but it's not a lasting kind of fun like trying to figure out how to get through a tricky spot, or solving a puzzle, or watching an "oh-my-god-plot-twist!" story unfold.

As for games that shouldn't have it... well, I haven't played too many of those. But again, mainly because online multiplayer isn't really my "thing."

I had about three paragraphs of drivel typed out before I decided to change the basis for my stance. So, without further ado...

For developer focus and purchase-worth, it comes down to a question of target audience. Bioshock is a great single player FPS. But the target audience wasn't adrenaline junkies who like to play 8v8 games, get drunk, and yell "BOOM, HEADSHOT!" Call of Duty is a great multiplayer FPS. The single player is what's tacked on. But the target audience isn't army buffs, gun enthusiasts, or shut-ins. It's adrenaline junkies who like to get drunk and yell "BOOM, HEADSHOT!"

In action RPGS, there are plenty of great single player games. Look at the Ys series. It doesn't need multiplayer. But that's a very traditional series with a strong, specific protagonist, and recent trends have been towards more pseudo-MMO style games with a generic-ish protagonist, like the Diablo series. Torchlight was an excellent single player game in the same vein as Diablo. Hell, Runic (the studio behind Torchlight) is the gaming industry equivalent of a supergroup. But their target audience was shared with Diablo, so their game definitely suffered from its lack of multiplayer.

So should developers focus on single player or multiplayer? Whichever their target audience desires. Does multiplayer automatically make a game more worthy of my dollar? No.

Does multiplayer in a game take away from my single player experience? It depends on how it's done. There shouldn't be benefits in the single player mode from doing it with another player. Like, for example, Kirby and the Amazing Mirror. Those blocks where you have to have other Kirbies suck at the same time to get to collectibles, 1ups, food, and such? Annoying. Order of Ecclesia's trading/head-to-head mode? Doesn't bother me at all. That said, with the way some people whore achievements or trophies, I could see people saying that the inclusion of multiplayer detracts from their single player experience.

I don't think it's necessary to say that whether multiplayer would improve excellent last-gen single player games or not is entirely dependent on the specific game. Amnesia would probably be bloody terrible with multiplayer.

Do I think developers tack on multiplayer because it's the "in" thing to do? No, not really. Again, back to target audience. Professional developers know their target audience. They don't throw in multiplayer modes because it might get sales. Honestly, I can't really think of any games off the top of my head where the multiplayer was clearly just tacked on to get a few extra sales. Bioshock 2 was basically made just so there could be a multiplayer Bioshock, but that's not quite the same.

However, if an example were to pop up, I'd say it was likely the publishers rather than the developers who forced such a superfluous multiplayer mode. Publishers are the ones whose pockets are lined by sales, anyway.

TBH, i wish they'd do more for offline co-op.
Fucking drunken video games is good fun, online just turns into a trolling match at my mates place.

Online multiplayer is fine with me as long as it's not just tacked onto a game that really didn't need it (i.e. Bioshock 2, Dead Space 2, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, etc.)

I prefer my single player games, and never touch multiplayer. I hate playing with random people, and nobody I know plays the games I actually like that has multiplayer.

I have to say that single player campaigns and things of that nature are what I look for in a game. Yes, I think some companies just throw multiplayer things into a game just for the sake of throwing them into a game, but that doesn't mean that it can't be fun. It's definitely not always necessary, though.

I think that as long as the campaign was made before a decision to add multiplayer was made, then tacked on multiplayer is fine, since it probably didn't affect campaign development. If that's the case then you just don't have to play it. But if it took away from the campaign and made it worse than it could have been, then that game shouldn't be purchased at all. And for Call of Duty, I've played both MW2 and Black Ops campaign and thought that they were very good, and that the multiplayer and campaign got equal development priority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drageuth

My personal opinion: single player campaigns are still the selling feature of a game for me. I like being able to sit down and watch a story unfold, complete puzzles and finish missions and generally feel like I've received the $60 or so that I spent on the game to begin with. I'm a solo gamer, for the most part, and multiplayer isn't a huge selling feature for me. However, it's a nice addition once I've finished a game, to go back and play against other players (or with other players). There are lots of games, over previous generations and even current gen games, that do this quite admirably -- the multiplayer in Goldeneye and Perfect Dark (even though it wasn't online, like the topic requests) kept me and my friends entertained for hours. Games like Uncharted 2, Demon Souls, and Halo, for instance, have amazing stories that unfold during single player, but also a great multiplayer aspect for when you've beaten the game three or four times and you still want to enjoy the title.

Where games really fall short, for me, are games like Call of Duty. The single player campaign is just a disgrace, and the only reason anyone buys the games at all is for online multiplayer. To me, this isn't enjoyable in the slightest. I don't want to shell out $60 just to play the exact same game over and over and over again in four minute bursts. It can be fun for a little bit, but it's not a lasting kind of fun like trying to figure out how to get through a tricky spot, or solving a puzzle, or watching an "oh-my-god-plot-twist!" story unfold.

As for games that shouldn't have it... well, I haven't played too many of those. But again, mainly because online multiplayer isn't really my "thing."

---

Demon's Souls barely has plot. I like games with a proper single player mode, otherwise I wouldn't be playing so many RPGs :P. I was thoroughly disappointed when I got NFS:HP and found out it there was no offline multiplayer. Racing is fun and all but, beyond finishing the courses, offline multiplayer is what I played the most in the previous Hot Pursuit games.

I would have made a longer post but, I think there are enough of those already :wacko:.

I am not a huge fan of online multiplayer. For me, it seems even more of a commitment then just doing the campaign mode. There area few games that I own with good multiplayer components that I have not tried, even after finishing the single player campaign. For some games, they did right by adding a multiplayer component. Uncharted 2 comes to mind. The single player campaign was still the main focus of the game, but the style of gameplay naturally shifted to a great multiplayer experience. Other games like Killzone 2 were designed around multiplayer with a campaign added on. However, I feel that they at least did a decent job with both components. Then I applaud the developers of Warhawk who stopped producing the single player component when they felt it was good enough and then devoted all resources to multiplayer. I guess I have been rambling. In conclusion, I am not a huge fan playing multiplayer, but I do sometimes enjoy it. It doesn't bother me too much that developers are trying to add it onto certain games, unless that starts to hinder development of the single player campaign.

to be honest i get almost all my games for its multiplayer component and if it has good reviews. but mostly for its muliplayer.

In my opinion companies add online multiplayer on everything so they will have a broader market for their product,trying to please bothsingle player and multiplayer gamers.
Personally i never touch the online multiplayer since my crappy internet connection can't support it + playing with random strangers
from the other side of the globe doesn't appeal to me.

The only thing I care for when it comes to multiplayer is how I get there. I do not want to go on a private server that will be discontinued after 3 years from a game's release (think Madden and the like). The majority of us don't know how to code and if we aren't able to play older games online, we are basically left to buy new games that are still active.

The Call Of Duty games went down the crapper after number 2 (in terms of single player). If you notice though, the multiplayer aspect wasn't as good back then.

For those of us who has been playing games for more than 20 years online multiplayer modes are not necessary. Sometimes it's a good addition but some others it's irrelevant, many examples have been already mentioned for both cases.

Particularly, I agree with Jase, more couch multiplayer modes are needed, sometimes it's better than online ones, if the servers get closed you can still play coop modes just fine.

i hate playing online. between no one helping eachother for achievments (seriously some people do need help with them and exprienced players just ruin it like cod and halo reach), and all the bloody trash talk i avoid it whenever possible wich is why i only go for jrpg's. i havnt seen one that has multiplayer online in it. and what they really need to do is have multiplayer on the same screen again instead of hoooking up 2 xbox's to 2 different tv's then what good is having friends over? talk about draining the bill!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drag

Where games really fall short, for me, are games like Call of Duty. The single player campaign is just a disgrace, and the only reason anyone buys the games at all is for online multiplayer. To me, this isn't enjoyable in the slightest. I don't want to shell out $60 just to play the exact same game over and over and over again in four minute bursts. It can be fun for a little bit, but it's not a lasting kind of fun like trying to figure out how to get through a tricky spot, or solving a puzzle, or watching an "oh-my-god-plot-twist!" story unfold.

---

And the problem is shit like this sells so well so this is what companies will continue to put out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by colamisu

So should developers focus on single player or multiplayer? Whichever their target audience desires. Does multiplayer automatically make a game more worthy of my dollar? No.

---

qft

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jase

TBH, i wish they'd do more for offline co-op.

---

Omg yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killa

to be honest i get almost all my games for its multiplayer component and if it has good reviews. but mostly for its muliplayer.

---

Oh dear, the big companies must love you.

As far as multiplayer goes, I vastly prefer the single player experience. I see multiplayer as a way to take what you have and add something really nice to it. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way. Sometimes the multiplayer gets more attention than the single player, resulting in 4 hour single player experiences. Other times the multiplayer becomes pretty intrusive to the single player experience, such as with Resident Evil 5 vs RE4.

I don't think the multiplayer is really a bad thing, just keep it away from the single player. Some people have the right idea by getting one team to handle the single player campaign, and then getting someone else to tackle the multiplayer. That way no time/effort is taken away from the single player, but you still get a decent multiplayer aspect out of it too.

It can certainly be a very positive thing. Uncharted 2's multiplayer is the definition of tacked on. The maps are largely cut down versions of single player areas, the weapons are the same, the skill progression is basic, and there's barely anything truly "new" about it. Does that stop it from being fun? Hell no. I probably spent more time with it than I did the single player modes thanks to certain people around here. In the case of something like Resident Evil 5, it made an otherwise pretty average game extremely entertaining to have someone to drag through the single player campaign (although a large part of the averageness I blame on the multiplayer focus, but that's another story).

In summary, multiplayer is a good thing but I don't usually get behind basing a game solely around multiplayer and I really want a solid and lengthy single player mode. Single player is the food, multiplayer is the sauce that makes it better.

But one thing I will add: Co-op. More games need to do this. I am rather tired of seeing games that would lend themselves well to a co-op campaign or an "altered version of the single player mode with an extra character" opting out of it. Worse still when it has a co-op mode but it's local co-op only. Usually I prefer it when my multiplayer has me siding with other people, instead of fighting against them. Not that I dislike competitive modes, it's just that I tend to like co-op more and feel it's a bit neglected. And, if anything, I want to see some more originality on the multiplayer besides "fuck it, stick in deathmatch and capture the flag and we'll call it a day". Which I think co-op allows some interesting room for, as there's room for stories and some different co-operative gaming mechanics that go beyond "shoot guys in the face" and "take their nice thing to this spot".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cola

Bioshock 2 was basically made just so there could be a multiplayer Bioshock, but that's not quite the same.

---

Yet the single player feels far from "tacked on" as it's several times the length of the average FPS campaign and features entirely different loadouts/mechanics from the multiplayer.

I'd say it was basically made to earn money moreso than to add multiplayer to the existing game. Not that it makes Bioshock 2 any better (or worse) than it is.

In any case, I'd consider it a case of multiplayer done well. The single player didn't feel like it was neglected at all, it simply suffered from retreading stuff that really didn't need a retread. Yeah, they could've done something more interesting than they did, but I don't feel like the multiplayer is what's to blame. It's more of a case of the really interesting characters all being dead and the great writers having left to work on Infinite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gare

Think of it this way: would an excellent last-gen game without a multiplayer mode be so much better if it had one?

---

Would MGS2 be a better game if it had MGS3's online modes or allowed someone to walk in Snake's shoes whilst you played Raiden?

Would Shadow of the Colossus be better if after clearing the game there were a series of bigger 2 player colossi that required you to stab in multiple places/take multiple paths at the same time?

Would DMC3 be better if the multiplayer was permanent and well structured instead of an easter egg?

Can Mercenaries or GTA San Andreas possibly be improved by adding another person to the mix?

Is the world truly ready for a 2 player version of Viewtiful Joe?

...

I'm not really seeing the problem here. :wacko:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shardnax

Demon's Souls barely has plot.

---

It has a lot of plot. It just doesn't force it on you the way most games do. The plot is told through environment, flavor text, and item descriptions.

You know, that Shadow of Colossus one actually sounds kind of fun. Just saying. :P

I think the way that the gamer mindset has evolved over the years, for some companies multiplayer is a necessity. I'll use the old tired example of Call of Duty. Today, most people buy Call of Duty not for its single player campaign, but for its multiplayer one. I could say the same thing for the more recent Halo games, as well. Now, what if a Call of Duty game was made where there was no multiplayer, only a single player campaign? I'm not saying no one would buy it, because there are plenty of people who would buy it, but I know for a fact that there would be people who would instantly decide not to buy it just because of its lack of multiplayer. Less people buying it means less money for the companies who create these games, and as we all know, some of these big companies like Activision are out for as much money as they can get. So, I think in a way it's necessary in the minds of the big companies like Activision, because if they don't put it in, it means less money.

On the flip side, for some games the multiplayer is hardly a necessity. As has already been stated, Uncharted 2's multiplayer is completely unnecessary. Dead Space 2 didn't really gain anything from having multiplayer (although I think it's fun, it was definitely not necessary). Some games simply don't need multiplayer at all to be considered a good game or to sell.

That's just what I think, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raype

But one thing I will add: Co-op. More games need to do this. I am rather tired of seeing games that would lend themselves well to a co-op campaign or an "altered version of the single player mode with an extra character" opting out of it. Worse still when it has a co-op mode but it's local co-op only. Usually I prefer it when my multiplayer has me siding with other people, instead of fighting against them. Not that I dislike competitive modes, it's just that I tend to like co-op more and feel it's a bit neglected. And, if anything, I want to see some more originality on the multiplayer besides "fuck it, stick in deathmatch and capture the flag and we'll call it a day". Which I think co-op allows some interesting room for, as there's room for stories and some different co-operative gaming mechanics that go beyond "shoot guys in the face" and "take their nice thing to this spot".

---

This bit reminded me of the surprisingly pleasant co-op experience of Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, which I played through with my brother. Some of the puzzles where you had to rely on each other were pretty neat and while the game isn't a 10/10 masterpiece, I had loads of fun with it. I mostly mention it because, hilariously enough, it's a game where the single player mode is the one that feels tacked on. :wacko:

And although I've only seen Portal 2's MP campaign via LP videos, it seems like it's doing the same thing, which I can only approve of. The co-op campaign is almost like a separate game if I'm not mistaken.

I miss the days of playing Metal Gear Online right after the release of MGS4. To me, that is a very innovative online multiplayer game. It was definitely tacked on, and I hated having to have a Konami ID and such to play. But it was by far, the most enjoyable online experience for me. It was pure strategy in a lot of ways. You actually had to take it slow instead of running through the middle of the map guns blazing.

multiplayer is perfectly fine with me. as long as it doesnt take away from what the designers wanted. for example. resident evil 5. beautiful. the co op online. i loved it. the other online factors about it. also loved it. the actual game. fantastic, loved it. i find it great when the game doesnt release online until after the game has been out for a month or so. mgs4 and re5 both did just that and the game and online asect of them are great. i try to buy games both ways when i want a game. ill buy games that are pretty much made for the online, but have a solid story. also, ill buy games that are made for story and not online, but have a solid online aspect. for example: i bought mgs4 for the game not the online. i didnt even know it had online for the longest time. and to counter that i bought mag for the online. because i enjoy playing online, but i enjoy a good story too.

It depends on the game. I don't have anything against multiplayer in particular. Though I'm more of a solo gamer. If it's done right, multiplayer can be great fun. Twisted Metal 2 for example is fun single player as well as multiplayer. The 16/32bit era had many good multiplayer games. The DKC games for example have different options for multiplayer. You can either two competitive multiplayer or cooperative multiplayer in the DKC series. It was well balanced. As for todays, I usually play single player, so I have no need for Xbox Live Gold. Though it has its benefits. Anyways for the most part, I think multiplayer was good back then, now its so-so.

I Normally buy games for the Single Player unless its a Pure Multiplayer (Say Team Fortress 2) or more made for Online Co-op (Left 4 Dead)

Some games these days feel like the Single Player is an after thought and the multiplayer is the main feature (see COD MW2 or COD BO) and I think thats a backwards way of putting it

Just my 2 cent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raype

It has a lot of plot. It just doesn't force it on you the way most games do. The plot is told through environment, flavor text, and item descriptions.

---

The kind of plot you have to seek out to find, isn't really plot. Even considering it plot, it's of minimal interest.

It's probably been said already, but I feel that gmaes should be able to stand on single player alone with multiplayer being a secondary feature.

Because if you can't fully enjoy a game with out internet connectivity than something is wrong.

Honestly, I've come to expect shitty single player in place of multiplayer in most FPS games now. For games such as Battlefield, this is expected, and exactly what people buy the game for. But for other games, I was really interested in the single player and instead got a 5 hour run and gun with no imagination, and a mediocre multiplayer that had tons of emphasis. Sometimes I just want a singleplayer campaign, to sort of show me the imagination of the devs, and walk me through a bit of a storyline, and hell, I'll admit it, for the lowered difficulty. The AI for the most part won't abuse the game's engine, and it's usually slanted in your favor, and just less stressful/frustrating to play. Lately I find myself enjoying the single player more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

I miss the days of playing Metal Gear Online right after the release of MGS4. To me, that is a very innovative online multiplayer game. It was definitely tacked on, and I hated having to have a Konami ID and such to play. But it was by far, the most enjoyable online experience for me. It was pure strategy in a lot of ways. You actually had to take it slow instead of running through the middle of the map guns blazing.

---

Agreed. But today MGO is so different. I tried playing again a couple of months ago (after a 1 year absence) and it was brutal. People are just too good at it nowadays. I'm not going back again. >__>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crusher

Agreed. But today MGO is so different. I tried playing again a couple of months ago (after a 1 year absence) and it was brutal. People are just too good at it nowadays. I'm not going back again. >__>

---

And I thought you was brutal the first time we played the beta together :O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cookie Monster

And I thought you was brutal the first time we played the beta together :O

---

Then nothing can prepare you for what MGO is today! :wacko: We should set up an EP-only game someday! Would be loads of fun! :O