Please come and vote.

While shopping at you local game store, you see a game that greatly interestly you and promises hour

  • A. Buy the game because you love a good, quality single-player experience.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • B. Shop around seeing if there a game that is almost as good, but with multiplayer support, though

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • C. Put the game back, and hope part 2 has multiplayer support.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D. Buy a purely multiplayer game instead.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • E. Put the game back secure in the fact that any game cannot be worth it's while without multipla

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .

Users who are viewing this thread

"As for the lack of MP not ruining the game - yes, for the gamers which don't care for the MP it is true. But for sales - and this means for developpers and distributors - yes, it does ruins the game. At least 50% (probably more) from the gamers will not buy a game if it doesn't offer good MP. Except for very few SP only games with great SP. Unfortunately M&B is very very away from such games with great SP and I doubt it will achieve such status in the near future. "

Now, after reading this horribly misguided post by someone, who shall remain unnamed, I'd love to do a poll.

Also please do not turn this thread into something like the previous one.
 
I don't know what's wrong with Single Player games. 95% of the games I ever played have been Single Player, I've only bought one Multiplayer game in my life (one of the first, pre-Everquest) and I didn't like it.

All my favorite games are Single Player. If they have a Multiplayer option as well then that just adds to the game.
 
Where is the "go home, and do some research about it, and possible see if there is a demo, so I can see what I'll get by buying the game, and then comparing the possible enjoyment vs. money spent" choice?


That's what I would do, and after playing the demo, I bought the game, and I am happy I did.
 
Single player all the way for me. If it's got multiplayer as well, that's cool, but to me that's second fiddle.

BTW, Half-Life 2 does have a multiplayer component.
 
If the game was good I'd buy it of course. There are still quite a few games that are made and that are ONLY single player.

Multiplayer is IMO getting way overrated by kiddie gamers.
 
Worbah actually has a point. In many games, multiplayer (or at least public servers) suck because of the morons playing in them. Private servers are another thing of course.

But yeah, I'd try the demo first too. If there ain't no demo, I'd search for reviews, and decide whether I buy the game or not. Price matters too, but the best games are usually cheap. (Like M&B :razz: )
 
lol @ poll results.

multiplayer kiddos always ruin the immersion for me, so i stick to only buying singleplayer games like gothic, and port royale :smile:
 
If it's a PC game, I couldn't care less about multiplayer. However, if console games are included here, only one of my 20 or so console games have no multiplayer.
 
Well, most heavily multiplayer based games cater to a much younger audience. Hence why most of them have a terrible community due to immaturity which completely ruins the online experience (battlefield 2, runescape, halflife, and unreal tournament to name a few). However, i do find that multiplayer games that require a monthly fee to have a much more mature communty. I was just shocked when i played Eve Online and on my second day an admin came up to me in the game, welcomed me, showed me around, and helped me figure out what to do!

Another factor that causes the community to degrade to a boiling ces pool hate and flaming is when the game requires large amounts of skill on the players' part. People often feel the need to defend their pride, and thus the words "pwned" and "n00b" were created for that purpose... So, let me just restate the reasons i think M&B should remain SP (or if it were MP, it should be co-op ONLY). 1. It requires large amounts of personal player skill. 2. No monthly fee 3. Games would be hosted and moderated by the players (most likely). Which all mean that the game, and the communty would deteriorate beyond recognition. I could easily see these forums resembling those of runescape or blizzard within a few short months after the MP release.

Also, i'd like to add that IMO SP games are just far more memorable. Again, IMO most of the MP games are actually "fads". Good SP games never really get old, are unique, can never really be replaced, and you'll almost always come back to them after a while. MP games on the other hand are largely just "upgrades" of older versions. New one comes out, and the old one is now obsolete and has nothing to offer. People went ape **** over bond for N64, then perfect dark came out and bond was soon forgotten, then came halo(cheap ripoff of UT) which saw the end of all else...etc etc. Same goes for most MP pc games as well. Sorry for making this such a long post, just had alot of opinions to share.
 
I guess I think a multiplayer battle system, like arena battles would be a fun thing, but making it a fully multiplayer game would be bad.
 
Lot of games I got actually have a multiplayer mode but I rarely ever try them. Yes, it can be fun... but it's so much trouble, finding the right, balanced player and it usually require a lot of time and frustration to just have a decent chance of surviving against kids who play that 14hours/day.

Multiplayer only games are another matter, though. But the only one I ever really loved, personally, is a text based rpg(www.rauvyon.com). Not the sort of game your typical L33T 13 years old kid play :smile:
 
Back
Top Bottom