I usually end up only playing singleplayer because I am terrible at video games and losing all the time is boring and frustrating. If it's not an fps or rts (I am especially terrible at those) I end up checking out the multiplayer but never for long.
Nothing is more glorious than charging into the fray of machinegun fire yelling into your mic [b]"Get up, get up, get into the capzone"[/b] with 40+ players following through the open farm fields.
[sp]Red Orchestra[/sp]
[QUOTE=Numidium;31466661]Coop fucking sucks, because you always have one that's behind, and he drags the better player down inmost games.[/QUOTE]
lol
Co-op isn't meant to compete between co-op players, it is for experiencing singleplayer story together
You sound like one of those 2000 hours in left 4 dead "pros"
Single player is fun, and lets me finish at my own pace, and lets me look around at stuff and explore, see what i can do and stuff. Almost every new game has multiplayer that's just you versus them, and most of the time, it's filled with cocks who fucking gargle their microphone. Honestly the only game that i've played that pulled off Multiplayer Only properly is Warhawk. It has a story if you read its backstory, but otherwise, it's a properly balanced game. No one has an advantage over the other, everyone has exactly the same weapons and vehicles. Every fucking new game doesn't know what balance is.
[QUOTE=qwerty000;31469076]lol
Co-op isn't meant to compete between co-op players, it is for experiencing singleplayer story together
You sound like one of those 2000 hours in left 4 dead "pros"[/QUOTE]
Clearly you have never met my friends
Co-op is normally: who can do the funniest shit and take the piss out of everyone and everything who cares about storyline I just punched a guy so hard he got stuck into a wall lmao!
Multiplayer isn't inherently worse. You could easily say there haven't been any truely great multiplayer games, but that's another discussion. You could definitely say that there's a hell of a lot more to be explored with multiplayer games at least.
Really the problem with multiplayer is other people. You can't rely on other people to be there for you, especially over the internet, including internet/tech based problems. Everything becomes casual and more social, if you wanted to play a multiplayer game seriously, it's not something you can do with random internet friends. You have to be on the same page as the other people.
The Sperg Overmind and his Sperglords infested the thread
I don't like playing multiplayer because I get my ass whooped 90% of the time in competitive MP games, and I don't like playing co-op with people I don't know IRL. Sadly, none of my friends are PC gamers.
[QUOTE=Anteep2;31469412]The Sperg Overmind and his Sperglords infested the thread[/QUOTE]
Those Spergs are better than internet tough guys like you.
[QUOTE=Anteep2;31469412]The Sperg Overmind and his Sperglords infested the thread[/QUOTE]
You could have made a point but I guess that was too singleplayer for you? :P
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;31469558]I don't like playing multiplayer because I get my ass whooped 90% of the time in competitive MP games, and I don't like playing co-op with people I don't know IRL. Sadly, none of my friends are PC gamers.
Those Spergs are better than internet tough guys like you.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you like it spergling
My only problem with multiplayer is that anymore it's overtaking the importance of single player in a lot of dev cycles. Developers put 4 hour campaigns in a game and then say "lol play the multiplayer". Things like story and atmosphere are practically dead anymore.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;31469985]My only problem with multiplayer is that anymore it's overtaking the importance of single player in a lot of dev cycles. Developers put 4 hour campaigns in a game and then say "lol play the multiplayer". Things like story and atmosphere are practically dead anymore.[/QUOTE]
Not like it's a totally new thing. Tribes 2 back in 2001 had a grand total of 5 missions (glorified tutorials, really), as did it's predecessor, Starsiege: Tribes. Quake 3 was effectively online only. Chromehounds (2006) was multiplayer with a glorified tutorial singleplayer
This is a strange article, but I see where it's going.
Some games are single-player oriented, and putting multiplayer is just a waste of time. I'm thinking of Bioshock 2 or Dead Space 2. Just multiplayer that isn't fun, with a single player story that twists and turns and has a bit of adventure.
Then you've got the flipside. If TF2 had a single-player, it would be bad. It just would. If you're unlucky enough to come across bots in multiplayer, you know what I mean. Same for L4D2. It CAN be played in SP, but why would you want to?
[QUOTE=Saber15;31470052]Not like it's a totally new thing. Tribes 2 back in 2001 had a grand total of 5 missions (glorified tutorials, really), as did it's predecessor, Starsiege: Tribes. Quake 3 was effectively online only. Chromehounds (2006) was multiplayer with a glorified tutorial singleplayer[/QUOTE]
But it wasn't extremely common, especially in the console world. Games then were longer and more interesting. Now anyone can slam together a shitty campaign the majority of the target audience won't play and add some repetitive multiplayer and it'll still sell like hotcakes.
[QUOTE=Espio;31467550]I couldn't agree more, would oblivion be a better or worse game with 2,000 other people doing the same quests as you? would the portal 2 single player be better if your best buddy was there pushing you along? Would you laugh at the same jokes or choose the same options knowing other people can see you?
Sure multiplayer oriented games will never be better than single player stuff just because bots are never quite as good as actual players but playing with friends will never be as immersive as playing by yourself, you might not even catch the whole story just due to mucking about [/QUOTE]
Because there can't be singleplayer and multiplayer games, and all multiplayer games are 2000 players deathmatch, right?
Oblivion would be better if it also had a 2 player coop mode.
[img]http://media.steampowered.com/apps/tf2/grordborts/grord_soldier_1.jpg[/img]
The first thing I thought of while reading the part about MMOs.
[quote]multiplayer gaming falls too easily into the hands of the unwashed, and it becomes the grubby equivalent of teenagers comparing ringtones on a crowded train.[/quote]
And this is not being snobbish to John Walker.
I believe Myst always had the best single-player game. And that's not even in FPS or RPG genre.
And in saying that, I'm talking about Myst, Riven, Myst 3: Exile, and Myst: Revelation. The fifth one was horrible.
[QUOTE=thisispain;31466111]what a hilariously stupid premise.
even his tongue-in-cheek comments don't disguise how strange of a thing that really is to say[/QUOTE]
He's completely right when he points out how most single-player games are just dumbed-down, bot-based versions of the MP, now
Ten years ago it was the other way around — multiplayer was much more condensed and refined
[editline]1st August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dj-J3;31466771]Maybe if you tried working with your coop mate instead of running ahead and ignoring him.
To be honest, you sound like one of those people who tries to finish as fast as possible by running ahead ignoring most of the things happening.[/QUOTE]
oh god, that.
my nephew always skips all the cutscenes and dialogues in SP as fast as he can
then he complains when he doesn't understand what to do
I hardly ever player single player games, and will not purchase a game if it doesn't have multi player. I just feel lonely in single player games.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;31470124]But it wasn't extremely common, especially in the console world. Games then were longer and more interesting. Now anyone can slam together a shitty campaign the majority of the target audience won't play and add some repetitive multiplayer and it'll still sell like hotcakes.[/QUOTE]
That's more of a measure of cost cutting. Halo still has 8 hour campaigns. Bad Company has a fairly long campaign, from what I've heard of it.
Activision makes 3 hour long campaigns that look like Michael Bay movies because they know nobody plays them, and they crap out another game every year so they don't both with singleplayer. They don't outright remove it because people might see that and think "hey they removed a feature!"; it's more obvious than their method of re-releasing old maps with fancy new-ish graphics.
Multiplayer is for competitive play as well as social play.
Single player is more controlled and on a rail.
I prefer multiplayer
"If I wanted a story I would read a book or watch a movie" is a dumb thing to say
Then why don't you go play sports if you want to compete with other people
[editline]1st August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Folgergeist;31473674]Multiplayer is for competitive play as well as social play.
Single player is more controlled and on a rail.
I prefer multiplayer[/QUOTE]
So putting a bunch of people in a room and telling them to shoot each other isn't controlled?
[QUOTE=Jund;31474201]So putting a bunch of people in a room and telling them to shoot each other isn't controlled?[/QUOTE]
What
[QUOTE=Memobot;31470063]This is a strange article, but I see where it's going.
Some games are single-player oriented, and putting multiplayer is just a waste of time. I'm thinking of Bioshock 2 or Dead Space 2. Just multiplayer that isn't fun, with a single player story that twists and turns and has a bit of adventure.
Then you've got the flipside. If TF2 had a single-player, it would be bad. It just would. If you're unlucky enough to come across bots in multiplayer, you know what I mean. Same for L4D2. It CAN be played in SP, but why would you want to?[/QUOTE]
I imagine a singleplayer version of tf2 wouldn't be just multiplayer with bots
Think like half life 2 but you have to infiltrate a headquarters as a character, using different characters for different missions.
[editline]2nd August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=john_frohman;31470374]Because there can't be singleplayer and multiplayer games, and all multiplayer games are 2000 players deathmatch, right?
Oblivion would be better if it also had a 2 player coop mode.[/QUOTE]
I'd find it pretty damn difficult to become my own character with a friend around, fable 2 apparently had a story but I don't know any of it due to playing it on co-op.
Let's take a look at F.3.A.R. a game that can no longer be played on singleplayer due to the devs wanting it to be co-op, the game's now far too difficult without the aid of a friend to become people, and the actual gameplay is pretty boring, maybe that's just because the devs didn't want it to be fun or at least a little scary like it's predecessors, perhaps this single player game became a wholly worse game due to the addition of co-op
[editline]2nd August 2011[/editline]
Also yes, most popular multiplayer games are in fact deathmatch between a load of people
There are [U]some[/U] that are about other things like helping each other but almost all co-op games are built to be like single player games but without as much immersion and/or story and the others are just built to screw around with your friends.
I feel incredibly cheated when a game is built around a tiny single player mode then the rest of the game is a deathmatch mode, I wouldn't read a book if it consisted of 10 pages then told me to go and hang out with other people because they just couldn't come up with anything else.
[editline]2nd August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Folgergeist;31473674]Multiplayer is for competitive play as well as social play.
Single player is more controlled and on a rail.
I prefer multiplayer[/QUOTE]
The only way single player is on a rail is that you're expected to eventually turn the page, there are some pretty bad games (DNF, CoD) that are literally on rails but even in multiplayer there's only 3 outcomes (Win, lose, draw)
[QUOTE=Espio;31476095]
Let's take a look at F.3.A.R. a game that can no longer be played on singleplayer due to the devs wanting it to be co-op, the game's now far too difficult without the aid of a friend to become people, and the actual gameplay is pretty boring, maybe that's just because the devs didn't want it to be fun or at least a little scary like it's predecessors, perhaps this single player game became a wholly worse game due to the addition of co-op[/QUOTE] I think the problem with that is that they mixed the single player and co-op together in a way which just doesn't work. I think that if you want a great co-op experience, they have to be seperated. Take a look at Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, or Portal 2, those were the first 2 games to come to mind that had amazing single player, and co-op experiences, and they weren't a part of the single player campaign (Their stories did mix together however, but it worked fine).
[QUOTE=Espio;31476095]even in multiplayer there's only 3 outcomes (Win, lose, draw)[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the point is that all participants are humans, and could try anything that comes to their minds to win, when bots are only capable of weak AI moves that never surprise you.
I think it's been well known for awhile now that singleplayer has been getting the lesser share of focus for multiplayer in a lot of cases.
I don't think it's something you can really uproot in the industry though. All of our games are trying to focus on some feel of social connection. Even singleplayer games have achievements you can show off to friends on Xbox/PSN/Steam that encourage the social aspect of gaming. It's just what people want.
I like MP games because anything can happen at any time, and every round is different because there are real people playing. However, I still get bored of playing the same maps over and over again and I prefer a carefully crafted experience with a good story and consistent gameplay most of the time. Not Rail Shooters like CoD but replayable, compelling experiences.
To be honest, I have played cp_dustbowl for nearly 4 years and not once regretted a round spent on that map.
I could spend all of my life in cp_dustbowl.
All of it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
