Online multiplayer - is it always necessary?

[Gare]

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.

[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."

[Colamisu]

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.

[Jase]

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.

[Inferno.]

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.)

[Aeolus Aeneas]

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.

[Marche100]

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.

[unnoticedninja]

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.

[Slacker Magician]

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 . 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 .

[Josh]

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.

[killa4000]

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

[Baumshlager]

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.

[Mr. Nemo]

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.

[Cookie Monster]

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.

[garrendesares]

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!