• Kerime - December 1, 2012 3:59 p.m.

    Uh Bioshock 2 was a tragedy...I haven't the lightest clue why this article exists. SP is so incredibly important now a days, adding multiplayer just allows the single player to slip from priority one, which is so incredibly important.
  • ObliqueZombie - December 1, 2012 4:14 p.m.

    BioShock 2 was amazing. What was wrong with it?
  • Bloodstorm - December 1, 2012 5:13 p.m.

    Agreed. RPG elements might have been shallower, but the story was overall better than Bioshock, and the 'emotional/moral' decisions of harvesting the Little Sisters was a whole lot more engrossing when they came up to you with a grin and arms stretched out, trusting you like you were their parent, as apposed to the stranger that killed their guardian and drug them out from their cowering in a corner in terror.
  • ObliqueZombie - December 2, 2012 2:10 p.m.

    And Minerva's Den? Jeez, that was just as good if not better than the campaign as a whole!
  • clearlight20 - December 1, 2012 4:21 p.m.

    Single player content has always been important. I generally have no qualms with MP content being tacked on if the SP content feels solid. Crysis 2 felt solid and the fact that MP was tacked on did not bother me. However, I do have a problem with games like Rage that felt like the developers rushed at the end of the story and cause the game to be very anticlimactic. In the case of Rage, cutting MP content out of the equation would have been more beneficial to the game. Also, I despise any sort of game forcing MP (i.e. if a game has SP content that can only be unlocked through MP). Game developers should never try and mesh SP and MP content together unless it is a well developed, optional Co-Op.
  • sweetchiliheat - December 1, 2012 3:50 p.m.

    Personally, I'm not a huge fan of mp. There are a few games I love for mp (Cod, Halo) but I'm a huge fan of co-op/single player. Uncharted, ME3, AC, TF2, L4D[2], Gears, BF3 are all pretty popular mp experiences, but they're not appealing to me. Pretty much all of my favourite games are either sp only or sp/co-op. But that's just me. I know some games with tacked on mp can be pretty fun (Singularity). If anything, I wish they didn't include achievements for mp (especially extremely time consuming ones).
  • tehtimeisnow - December 1, 2012 3:40 p.m.

    if a gane dosent have mutlipleyer then its not werth playeing at all seruiousely cuz single palyer ganes have no repay value and mutliplayer is more worth ur money and we live in 2012 and mutlipleyer shuold b required for every game the make
  • eskimobear - December 1, 2012 3:54 p.m.

    10/10 would read again.
  • xx_CaPTiiN_SpAiiN_zz - December 1, 2012 4:44 p.m.

    well multiplayer is important to a lot of people especially young kids like black ops wouldnt have gotten big without the multiplayer. but i think the singleplayer is important as well and the story can make the game what it is but you have a point about the multiplayer.
  • shawksta - December 1, 2012 8:05 p.m.

    Things like this makes me want to Punch a wall so hard that either there's a hole or my fist bleeds
  • Genericide - December 1, 2012 3:13 p.m.

    The general sentiment I have is something like this: I have nothing against multiplayer modes, and sometimes tacked-on multiplayer can indeed be entertaining. Few people have anything against the multiplayer itself existing. What people have a problem with is the multiplayer interfering with the single player. Whether it be from forcing mulitplayer aspects (like a persistent co-op partner) into the single player, the construction of the multiplayer taking time away that could have been spent on the single player, or the multiplayer not meshing well with the online community. But the biggest thing that worries me when companies like EA make statements like this isn't that developers are choosing to make multiplayer modes. It's that they're being forced to make multiplayer modes, that industry heads are nudging everyone in the direction of multiplayer because of its increased profitability. People fear single player games are being to some extent phased out of the AAA game industry, and obviously that thought makes single player fans worried. Now, multiplayer modes themselves are fine and people certainly over-react in regards to multiplayer announcements, but I don't think all concerns over these statements are completely without merit.
  • Brutalicus - December 1, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    You raise a good point. I do take issue with EA's heavy-handed stance on multiplayer for the most part, and I used to be firmly against including online modes in my single-player games. While I simply haven't had the desire to try out the multiplayer modes for my favorite single-player franchises, I did try Mass Effect 3 co-op out back when that demo dropped on Valentine's Day when I was desperate for more ME. Developing such a feature seems like a huge risk, and I don't think it brought any fans to ME3 who wouldn't have already bought it, at least on day one. I have to wonder if Bioware knew they really had a great combat system before they pulled the trigger on the inclusion of co-op, but the gamble paid off. Plus, as you said, the phenomenal post-launch support for ME3 has been what's kept the multiplayer afloat. I hope that people continue to play the game for a long time, and that the developers can build on their success in the next ME.
  • chipninja - December 1, 2012 4:54 p.m.

    Well here's the thing. Developing the multiplayer like that really isn't the risky thing. The big developers don't like to take risks... and currently the vast majority of games are heavily focused on MP. Do games like Call of Duty, Black Ops, or Battlefield have SP campaigns? Sure. Short 8-10 hour (at most) campaigns. Why does everyone get them in the first place? To shoot friends online. With every huge success the big companies take a look and say, "What can we create like that?" Why? Because they know that even if one player isn't really interested, they still like to play games with their friends so it's a pretty safe bet that as long as they do a decent marketing campaign they'll make money. The real problem here is that the "fire and forget" explanation really doesn't suit the situation. Single player games require updates, and get content added to them all the time. In fact, those old enough remember a lot of single player games back in the day that featured full expansions with countless hours of play added to the original game. Games with too much focus on multiplayer however, end up being the exact same recycled garbage being released as a new game in an attempt to milk every last cent out of the fan base. While "tacked on" multiplayer may not directly lead to the downfall of single player gaming, it does lead to it indirectly. When developers are convinced that the addition of multiplayer is what will save their product, it won't take long before they come to the conclusion that the single player aspect costs too much to develop properly, and then treat the stories as the tacked on portion of a multiplayer game. Unfortunately I don't think this is going to change any time soon. The gaming industry follows what Hollywood is doing almost to a T. Given that Hollywood has come out and stated they are only interested in creating sequels and remakes... well it doesn't take much to connect the dots. While I don't see AAA single player games disappearing entirely, I would expect to see a lot less in the near future when developers come out making statements like these. If you're looking for innovative and new single player games start taking more of a look into indie titles. These guys are really the only people who have the courage to do things differently lately.
  • Brutalicus - December 2, 2012 8:21 p.m.

    You're definitely right about many big titles being opposite - with the single player campaign being the "tacked-on" bit. I can't get into those games usually because a) the campaigns are terribad and b) the multiplayer is 99% focused on competitive game modes, where my nearly two decades of gaming experience counts for nothing and I am shit on repeatedly by anyone who can memorize a map. On the same topic, I couldn't get into Guild Wars 2 because the PvE felt tacked-on and secondary to the competitive PvP (sure, this is the entire point of the GW series, guess I should have realized). Also, I think the publishers are the risk-adverse business that Hollywood has been for a while, not the developers per se. In ME3's case I don't think the inclusion of multiplayer hindered development of the campaign since they were handled by two specialized Bioware studios. I do, however, think that the single-player game suffered at the hands of EA's tried-and-true franchise treatment. If we were voting, ME3 would be my favorite game since, well, ME2. It could have surpassed even ME2 if the right people had had more say in the game's development, though.
  • Eternalenki - December 1, 2012 2:12 p.m.

    I don't tend to ostracize a game for it's multiplayer, but the real fear in adding a multiplayer mode is three fold. Firstly, there's the fear that the MP is going to become the greater focus of the game, leaving the single player as an afterthought. Not to jump on any bandwagons, but that influence for that is the short, generic, mildly repetitive SP campaigns from recent Call of Duty titles. Secondly is the fear that the online multiplayer is going to shut down within a small timeframe following the release of the game, making it obsolete unless you can find four guys that want to play with you routinely. Thirdly, it's the players that play. A lot of players that are part of the player base of online multiplayer games, shooters mostly(though that could account to the excess of shooters in the market), tend to be very immature and poor sports. I'm not saying all, but some. Those are the major reasons I get concerned about when multiplayer modes are announced for games, but I never toss a game in the trash over it.
  • Meleedragon27 - December 1, 2012 2:07 p.m.

    While I understand why developers put in multiplayer (usually because the publishers demand it as a means of getting consumers to hold onto their games for longer and curb used game sales), I still can't bring myself to embrace it. Many demand an online connection to play (which may or may not cost extra, demending on your system of choice) where many of the people you're playing with are generally unpleasant to deal with, and even if you can play locally, the game still demands you go out and get some gamer friends to enjoy it with. The requisites feel so arbitrary and rarely feels worth it that I have a hard time viewing multiplayer and co-op with anything other than utter contempt. I don't need friends to enjoy a good movie, TV show, or book, so why am I being forced to do that for video games? C'mon, Coop; was Resident Evil 5 really improved by the forced co-op partner? Is Borderlands really any fun if you're playing alone? Are you really happy with CoD cramming the campaign mode down to something that can beaten in 5 hours (if even that) because the devs decided they want to pool all of their resources into a multiplayer that's full of the most unpleasant people to ever obtain an XBox Live Gold subscription? This forcing of multiplayer (multiplayer that, mind you, will likely have empty lobbies and be dead in a few years, tops) only tells me that the industry is only interested in short-term successes nowadays. No one's gonna remember these games in a decade or two and no one's gonna go back to them because what "greatness" they had died out long ago. The single-player is what's gonna last, and if a game doesn't have that or if it has a severely compromised one, it's not gonna be worth jack in the long run.
  • Redeater - December 1, 2012 2:14 p.m.

    Well what about Epic Mickey: The Power of Two......oh wait.....never mind.
  • xx_CaPTiiN_SpAiiN_zz - December 1, 2012 4:42 p.m.

    not enough furry in that game for him lol...
  • Meleedragon27 - December 1, 2012 9:31 p.m.

    Whatever. At least I don't bring up irrelevant issues from other sites like some internet tough guy. And for what? To defend some date rapist who condones puppy-diddling? This idiotic internet tough guy attitude, combined with your terrible grasp of the English language, is why I can't look at you as anything other than a troll account. Seriously, if the guy I've attacked has a problem with me, he can bring it up with me himself; he doesn't need some dunce like you white-knighting him and I'm sure he'd agree with me on that.
  • Redeater - December 1, 2012 2:02 p.m.

    As for the thing about gamers being ecstatic over no MP in Bioshock Infinite...... Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't information surfaced revealing B:I's huge delay was because they COULDN'T get the MP right and decided to scrap it altogether? Putting a giant picture of B:I in the article and trying to defend tacked on MP when this is most likely the cause of a lot of the delay is kind of canceling any point you are trying to make. (Wow, sorry Coop I seem to be super cranky today. I think I need to relax with some of the insanely happy people on Miiverse.)
  • GR HollanderCooper - December 1, 2012 3:59 p.m.

    The Infinite delay because of MP thing was a rumor, they never actually confirmed that was the case. They were thinking about adding MP, and there was a delay, but causation/causality or whatever.
  • Bloodstorm - December 1, 2012 2 p.m.

    "And he's right; single-player "fire-and-forget" games generally don't have that much replay value, and it’s hard to justify keeping a game after you complete the campaign" I've never understood this sentiment. Whatever happened to the days when people just kept their games? I mean, I may never play some of the games sitting on my game shelf again, but I'd rather them sit there and collect dust than not having them if/when I suddenly feel like playing one again. Anyways, the problem with tacked on multiplayer is that it does tend to come at the cost of the single player campaign. You used Dead Space 2 as an example, and you know what, the single player campaign might have been good, but it surely wasn't better than the first Dead Space. Whether that had to do with the multiplayer component, that would all be speculation, but the game was shorter, turned into a corridor shooter, and lacked any interesting boss fights, which I was surprised I actually missed from Dead Space. A lot of single player franchises with newly tacked on multiplayer seem to suffer much from the same problems, as their multiplayer components get 'better' their single player portions scale back. It's usually all about resources, and multiplayer takes away development resources. Some franchises have been successful with added multiplayer by having a separate, but closely related studio working on it without pulling away from the single player team, but more often than not, one or the other does suffer, and for me at least, I want a single player narrative I can enjoy and discuss, that will stick with me fondly in memory, than I do another competitive multiplayer experience to just come and go as soon as the next multiplayer juggernaut comes out. I can get behind co-op modes, but they best be done right and spectacularly well, otherwise I'm going to blame the faults of the game on needlessly tacked on multiplayer.

Showing 81-100 of 105 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.