Too much multiplayer?

[torrefaction]

Multiplayer is now the standard. Some of you may be very happy to admit this; some of you would do so begrudgingly. Whether you like it or not, multiplayer’s not only here to stay, but it’s everywhere. Inherently, this isn’t a problem—until you realize that time is finite, lives are temporary, and gamers have only so many weekends to dedicate to video games.

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/215907/too-much-multiplayer/

Pretty interesting article, and I tend to agree. I don't "stick" to games as much as I used to, and I tend to lean towards single player with the exception of very few games. I'd love to see developers spend that money on deeper mechanics on the whole.

[LongStepMantis]

I'm still primarily a singleplayer gamer. It's one of the biggest reasons why I have become more and more of a retrogamer as time has gone on. I don't dislike MMOs and other multiplayer games, I just prefer either playing in small groups for multiplayer (like LAN games and same-screen multiplayer) or by myself.

I very rarely play any game where the other players aren't in the same room. I've moved away from FPS multiplayer, MMOs, and just about anything else of the like. Give me a JRPG or a singleplayer game from the 8, 16, and 32-bit eras any day.

I realize that I'm being left behind in the gaming world, but I can live with that as long as developers don't forget about people like me entirely.

[pomeroy]

I play a little multiplayer, but I suck so I never stick with it.

[Karmakin]

Cut your multiplayer mode, drop your game to 40 and get it out the door. Then I'll buy it.

[BigJonno]

Repetitiveness in games bores me and multiplayer games, especially competitive shooters, are the pinnacle of that. If a game doesn't have mechanical or narrative progression, I will get bored, simple as that.

I've been playing first person shooters since the days of Doom and they really haven't changed all that much. Your basic deathmatch or CTF has been the same for years. Sure, there are tweaks and changes and gimmicks that come in and out of fashion, but the basic experience is still the same. Some people dig that and it's cool. Plenty of people are still playing Counterstrike and that baffles the hell out of me, but that's their bag. It's just not for me.

Co-op is another matter entirely, but I do have a definite preference for one machine co-op.

[Hotcod]

I do love me some mulitplayer when I'm in the mood but for a lot of games now it's become a problem. Outside of AAA titles it can be very hard to do both good single and good mulitplayer and I'd often rather see games that focus on one or the other. At the moment there is not one multilayer game I'm playing that has any kind of real single player game attached to it. Not saying these games don't pop up, I'll be playing a lot of MP SC2 I think but thats a game with a budget to do both and has from the get go seen them as pretty distinct products.

I think the major point is that if you don't have good multiplayer and offer support and/or mods then it's not going to keep people playing or buying your game. If you don't have the funding and time, then take the money and spend it on making what ever core experience you are after the best you can. For a single player game you could always look at working on some MP during the QA time and boot it out the door as free DLC after the game is out or something.

[torrefaction]

Or, if you want to go that route of using the game as a platform, I wouldn't even mind paid DLC if it was expansive enough. I don't really see anything wrong with that personally if you need the funding to get the game and you have a strong enough premise to sell. You could even have a separate disk with the assets and sell the game as a budget title retail.

I'm not sure I'd mind that at all, if the game was good.

And I love coop too, but that's a different ballgame. If games were going to keep throwing multiplayer out there, I'd much rather it be coop (particularly one machine) than competitive. Again, that depends on the focus of the game. I happily pay for price for Battlefield 2 and that's, at the heart of it (pre-Bad Company), a multiplayer only game. I still haven't played the BC campaign, FWIW.

[johnperkins21]

I'm still primarily a singleplayer gamer. It's one of the biggest reasons why I have become more and more of a retrogamer as time has gone on. I don't dislike MMOs and other multiplayer games, I just prefer either playing in small groups for multiplayer (like LAN games and same-screen multiplayer) or by myself.

I very rarely play any game where the other players aren't in the same room. I've moved away from FPS multiplayer, MMOs, and just about anything else of the like. Give me a JRPG or a singleplayer game from the 8, 16, and 32-bit eras any day.

I realize that I'm being left behind in the gaming world, but I can live with that as long as developers don't forget about people like me entirely.

I'm right there with you. I haven't played an online multiplayer game other than the Uncharted 2 beta in 4 years. I am almost entirely a single player gamer, and do not like the current move to more multiplayer in games.

Some games can do both well, but not many, so I'd much rather them focus on the single player. However, I see the monetary incentive for adding multiplayer games, and have to accept it. I just hope that developers continue to make good single player experiences, and that this recent trend doesn't completely overtake gaming. I would hate to see a day when single player games are a niche market. I doubt it will happen, but the lure to create the next World of Warcraft or Call of Duty is very strong.

[johnperkins21]

Or, if you want to go that route of using the game as a platform, I wouldn't even mind paid DLC if it was expansive enough.

It seems to be working out swimmingly for Harmonix.

[OldJadedGamer]

MP is great and amazing and one of my all time favorite things about this gen. My friends in real life are constantly online and I get to play with them all the time. Also, it exends the life of my games greatly. I paid $60 for COD4 and played it for about 2 years and I got BF:BC2 four months ago and paid $40 bucks and basically play it nightly.

I've gotten my money's worth soooooooo much more with MP games than SP games. While I do enjoy a SP game here and there... sometimes they are just boring and don't last that long for what I pay.

[Savok]

MP is there so they don't have to make proper content, leave that to the playerbase. Too many devs are lazy and use it as a crutch. Takes a properly clever bunch to use MP to enhance rather then replace (like Valve).

[Narradisall]

I'm a Singleplayer or co-op player myself.

Heck, I'm getting SC2 mainly for the SP game (not counting mods)

[Uatu]

Mutliplayer and coop are the future.

[Karak]

Single and system link co-op here. I just have to many local friends and it is just too much fun to all gather at the pad, BBQ, put out the chips and beer for the pals and play RDR for 12 hours straight. And THEN go and win Halo 3.

[Drayven]

It's very rare that I pick up a game that doesn't have multiplayer unless I know it's gonna be a really long one like an RPG.

[menage]

Like the article stated. What I don't get is why even the most mediocre narrative heavy game has to have MP. I mean, they're never going to pull away the COD, Gears or Halo crowd in the end. Only rarely does a game stand it's own ground.

I do not find it that offensive anymore since UC2, which in my book is a lot more fun than the others mentioned above. So there's def. room for MP if it has it's own feel or does it's own thing. And if it's obvious the SP game didn't suffer for it.

I'm curious about the AC2 MP, which could be incredible fail or stroke of genius. But that's just because it's different enough and probably doesnt require godlike headshots skills.

Most MP is just to fucking similar. But some intersting ideas like AC2 or Demon's souls I'm fine with. And Fighters and MMO basically are MP games so they get a free pass.

[CappinCanuck]

Dedicated multiplayer player. I insert SP here and there for special titles but I generally stick to MP-focused titles only.

[fitbabits]

Dedicated multiplayer player. I insert SP here and there for special titles but I generally stick to MP-focused titles only.

You're killing gaming for the rest of us!

[torrefaction]

Like the article stated. What I don't get is why even the most mediocre narrative heavy game has to have MP. I mean, they're never going to pull away the COD, Gears or Halo crowd in the end. Only rarely does a game stand it's own ground.

I do not find it that offensive anymore since UC2, which in my book is a lot more fun than the others mentioned above. So there's def. room for MP if it has it's own feel or does it's own thing. And if it's obvious the SP game didn't suffer for it.

I'm curious about the AC2 MP, which could be incredible fail or stroke of genius. But that's just because it's different enough and probably doesnt require godlike headshots skills.

Most MP is just to fucking similar. But some intersting ideas like AC2 or Demon's souls I'm fine with. And Fighters and MMO basically are MP games so they get a free pass.

This is right where I'm at. I like to see new shit. I don't need to shoot at X person with a Y gun for 400,000th time. I LOVE MP, and online Rogue Spear was probably when I started to identify as a gamer in a larger community, but everything is so stale. Even the dedicated MP player above? OldJadedGamer is basically proving the point.

I paid $60 for COD4 and played it for about 2 years and I got BF:BC2 four months ago and paid $40 bucks and basically play it nightly.

And you know, I love those games and play them. But how many other games do I play multiplayer? DoW II...which superseded DoW. Some occasional Civ. There's always a king of the genre and then a couple games that I play based on unique ideas (See:Shadowrun, original Saints Row.) I would've MUCH rathered Starbreeze throw dev resources at a longer Darkness campaign than the crappy multiplayer they pushed out.

[TrackZero]

I'm surprised people are against a "mode" at all. Single, multiplayer, whatever. If it's fun then I'll play it, I switch back and forth all the time, mix it up. Sometimes I want a 60 hour single player RPG like Dragon Age, other times I want to take fools out in Transformers Deathmatch and sometimes, just sometimes, I like to load up old point based arcade games with zero narrative and play just for the pure gameplay itself.

[Adam Blue]

That's the thing. I play so many games and so many of them have multiplayer. I cannot just stick to one...that's way too narrow of an approach for me to game. It's also why I have a hard time getting along with people around here.

But like the MW2 DLC people want...people want MP even if it's shit. Just another aspect of mainstream gaming the hardcore have to suffer through for the time being. But it'll change just like everything does since the start of the gaming industry.

[Adam Blue]

I'm surprised people are against a "mode" at all. Single, multiplayer, whatever. If it's fun then I'll play it, I switch back and forth all the time, mix it up. Sometimes I want a 60 hour single player RPG like Dragon Age, other times I want to take fools out in Transformers Deathmatch and sometimes, just sometimes, I like to load up old point based arcade games with zero narrative and play just for the pure gameplay itself.

I think the point is the idea that a dev will create a 'mode' only to satisfy those wanting it or for marketing purposes, when it really only turns out to be bad. That dev time could have been polishing up the intent of development.

I'm all for "modes". But when they suck, this topic comes into play.

[roboninja]

I play a lot of MP, but few different games. Had a run with WoW (and will be back for the expansion), and am hooked on TF2. I find the repetition is exactly what I like about it. However, I am nearly the opposite of OJG, and probably most people who mainly MP: I do not really game with IRL friends. Hell, I don't even tend to do much gaming with CoG'gers. Usually I just jump on a pub server and blast away for an hour or so. The simplicity and straight-forward nature of it calms me.

[National Kato]

I love that games include some sort of multi-player features these days, be it full-fledged online game modes, co-op features, or what-have-you. I have so much fun with them and find them an added value. Multiplayer experiences are one of the biggest draws to gaming for me. The shared experience can be amazing.

However, games that are multiplayer-reliant for enjoyment are going to see less of my gaming dollars as I find that I have less time for these modes - modes I can't stop or break from should my life require my attention. I will always play multiplayer, but I'm no longer single and on my own schedule 100%. I'm transitioning in my family business to a principal role and I'm considering the next big step in my relationship. I just find I have less uninterrupted time sitting in front of games each year.

I quit WoW shortly after Burning Crusade because I'd just moved to Florida from Atlanta and I needed to get out and about to grow a social life. An MMO is a great cushion for leaving all your RL friends in another city, but I cut it from my life because it was too easy to sit inside and have a great time playing. My PC has sat unrepaired for over two years and I still find a backlog of game from my consoles. I simply don't need more gaming in my life, no matter how tempting the title.

Ultimately, I'll still purchase games that are known for their multiplayer component. I'll still play online and enjoy the shared experience. I'll just rent, but buy less, games that have no singleplayer or have a severely lacking singleplayer.

[Savok]

Burning Crusade was terrible anyway.

[JayK47]

I've said this before. Too many games come with MP and have flooded the market with mediocre copy cat gameplay and nobody cares to play it for more than a week after release. Especially on consoles. I'm surprised to hear the almighty Bioshock 2 MP isn't being played. They made such a big deal out of it. Hopefully it is a lesson learned and they stick with SP next time. When will people learn to stop listening to the squeaky wheel? A few big time whiners ask for MP in every game, but it seems apparent to me that the majority is fine with a select few new MP games a year. But hey, if game companies want to spend the time on a game nobody cares about, by all means, waste away.

[CappinCanuck]

You're killing gaming for the rest of us!

Your gaming. Keep your dirty singleplayer out of my multiplayer!


On a serious note, I'd be ok with more games having only SP or only MP. It's obvious there are a lot of titles that are focused one way or the other. Scrap the other and take the review score hit.

[Widgetcraft]

I guess I'm the only one here without strong feelings about this. I'll buy a game with a heavy focus on multiplayer (TF2, MMOs), a game with a split of single and multiplayer (RDR, Transformers), or a game with nothing but single-player (Super Mario Galaxy 2). As long as it's well executed, it's all good. If a developer puts out a game with a half-assed multiplayer mode tacked on, odds are good that the single-player stuff is shit too, and would have been shit with or without the multiplayer mode.

I have some friends who game around accomplishment, and hate playing games where other people can't see what they've done. It took me forever to convince a couple of my friends to get Minecraft just because it doesn't have multiplayer right now, so all of the cool shit they build and do only exists for them. That's a problem for them. Same thing with many RPGs and such; they just don't want to deal with that when they could play WoW and get stuff that is more tangible to them because it exists for other people as well. I can totally relate: I know when I found out that in Fable 2 I couldn't bring my character into other people's games, I was extremely disappointed. The game is heavily based around customizing your character, and they had an excellent system in place for you to show it off... but instead they forced you to use a handful of canned characters.

[Farsight]

I have yet to see a game that is excellent as both a SP and MP game. Something always has to give, and one or other always becomes the primary focus, leaving the other as an afterthought.

There's only a handful of games people play in MP after it's been out longer than a month. All the games that aren't Halo/CoD/etc wasted their time on a mode that hardly anyone will ever play.

The problem is that companies are too scared to make MP-only games, and marketing loves to attach a MP tag to SP games. We'd all be better off with a much smaller number of MP games that truly focused on the MP experience, but we're not going to get it.

[cawblen]

I don't think there is too much mutiplayer out there. I think there is too much FORCED multiplayer. Developers attempting to shoehorn MP modes into games that have no right being MP in the first place.

Recent examples are Uncharted 2 and Bioshock 2. Now don't get me wrong, Uncharted 2's MP is surprisingly good but no one who bought the aforementioned titles, bought it for MP. Obviously, this is my opinion and others may not feel the way i do.

I'm primarily a single player kind of person. I do not have time for numerous MP games so i choose carefully in that department and devote all of my MP gaming time to one, maybe two games at a time. I play shooters such as MW2 and BFBC2, and Diablo2LoD, and that's pretty much it for MP for me.

[torrefaction]

I'm genuinely surprised and impressed with all the responses...everyone seems to be in general agreement with a couple reasonable dissenters. I know a lot of the posters in here are pretty divergent when it comes to gaming, so it's kind of good to see a relatively united opinion.

Do single player and do it well, do multiplayer and do it well, or have a HUGE budget and do them both well...but don't waste resources on a throwaway game mode.

[Adam Blue]

I think Capcom did it very well with Lost Planet 2. Fucking excellent game.

[J Arcane]

I'm frankly quite tired of most single player games in certain genres. It's not that I have anything against SP per se, indeed I prefer to solo where I can.

The problem is the games. Most singleplayer games outside of sandbox RPGs and MMOs are dull, linear slogs that I would rather die of a brain aneurysm than bother to play through to their inevitably short ends.

I've basically given up on FPS altogether outside of MP, there just doesn't seem any point in it, I get more enjoyment and unpredictability from bot matches than another glorified Time Crisis. I love FPS games, but I've lost all taste for the boring railroad that is single-player FPS design. Give me a solid MP mode with some good bots and I'll play that for years, but another corridor shooter full of monster closets and trigger spawns? No thanks. Been there, done that.

What I'd like to see is more dynamic games, with more flexible and creative environments. Can you imagine one of these damn WWII shooters where instead of the French countryside being conveniently cordoned off with waist high walls, it actually drops you in the middle of a complete battle, and you are but one cog in the great military machine trying to survive. Imagine a shooter that played like the Dynasty Warriors games, only developed by a team that didn't suck so bad at AI, engine design, combat mechanics, and basically everything else but "wouldn't it be neat if there was this whole battle happening and you could flit about aiding it where needed", which was a really cool idea badly implemented.

There's just so many different creative possibilities in the single-player space, but so often they're skipped completely in this desperate need to validate the medium by simply badly aping films, and pumping out repetitive, linear slogfests full of badly acted and badly written cutscenes.

[OldJadedGamer]

The problem is that companies are too scared to make MP-only games, and marketing loves to attach a MP tag to SP games. We'd all be better off with a much smaller number of MP games that truly focused on the MP experience, but we're not going to get it.

Here's the thing, I refuse to pay full price for a MP only game. I feel that if I do and I don't like the online like MAG I'm screwed and there is nothing I can do. But if a game has both SP and MP I can play the SP and just sell it when I'm done.

For instance, I hated BF:BC1 so I only rented BC2 to play through the single player and return it. But after beating the singe player I jumped into MP and had a blast (cause they fixed the broken controls from the first one). While I love the game to death *now* had the game been MP only I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

[johnperkins21]

I have yet to see a game that is excellent as both a SP and MP game. Something always has to give, and one or other always becomes the primary focus, leaving the other as an afterthought.

There's only a handful of games people play in MP after it's been out longer than a month. All the games that aren't Halo/CoD/etc wasted their time on a mode that hardly anyone will ever play.

The problem is that companies are too scared to make MP-only games, and marketing loves to attach a MP tag to SP games. We'd all be better off with a much smaller number of MP games that truly focused on the MP experience, but we're not going to get it.

You must not have played Uncharted 2. Both the single player and multiplayer are excellent.

It's not that anyone is afraid to do multiplayer only games, it's that very few gamers want them. To appeal to the most gamers, a game needs both single player and multiplayer modes, and both need to be good. There's simply a larger audience for single player only games than there is for multiplayer only games, unless they're developed by Blizzard or Valve.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I have yet to see a game that is excellent as both a SP and MP game. Something always has to give, and one or other always becomes the primary focus, leaving the other as an afterthought.

Ha....lo?

Seriously, I'm not even that big a Halo fan, but they're pretty committed to making both the single and multiplayer robust.

[txshurricane]

I had a good answer, but I went totally stupid for even attempting to reply to a topic started by Jim Sterling.

*duuuuuuuh.....*

What? Where am I?

*duuuuuuuh.....*

Oh, crap, there must be a Destructoid user somewhere nearby. Sorry...I have to go.

[TheFlyingOrc]

It's not that anyone is afraid to do multiplayer only games, it's that very few gamers want them. To appeal to the most gamers, a game needs both single player and multiplayer modes, and both need to be good. There's simply a larger audience for single player only games than there is for multiplayer only games, unless they're developed by Blizzard or Valve.

I don't think the analysis gets to the heart of the matter - the problem is that multiplayer-only games have to do GREAT, or they do terrible. Take Left 4 Dead - if it required 4 players, and wasn't a Valve title, it would be hard to find an open game. And because you could never find open games, nobody would buy it, because there are never open games.

At the very least, you need a single player fallback so that your playerbase can actually GROW. I don't think it's because of audience size.

[Farsight]

To appeal to the most gamers, a game needs both single player and multiplayer modes, and both need to be good.

Well, that's the thing. Plenty of games have shown that you don't MP -at all- to generate huge sales numbers, and a number of games have shown that with good MP you don't need good SP to generate sales (eg most shooters). Very, very few games manage to even have MP and SP both reach mediocrity.

Another issue is that when a game has both SP and MP, if the SP is of good length and an enjoyable ride, I'm usually done with the game by the end. Red Dead is a very good game, and seems like it probably has fun MP, but by the time I finished the SP story, I just had little interest in essentially starting a new 'game' on the MP side.

It's funny though that there seems to be agreement that the market won't accept many MP-only games, yet the vast majority of games feel the need to at least add perfunctory MP. It seems to me that the MP market is essentially a genre unto itself, with a large number of MP players moving to and from a very small number of titles (the big MP-focused titles). I suspect that research would show that the vast majority of developers adding MP to their games are completely wasting their time.

[ElektroDragon]

You're killing gaming for the rest of us!

So true... so very true. I personally am thrilled to see new single player only retail games that aren't cheap movie tie-ins, and I buy them whenever possible.

Multiplayer has its place in many games, but it should never be the focus of development effort. ESPECIALLY when the MP is supported by company servers like EA and can go poof at any time, leaving you with nothing but a stripped down, half assed SP mode.

[Vigil80]

I like to see a few focused multiplayer titles, as I often like to immerse myself in it when I can, and be a "modern warfare player" or a "battlefield player" for a month or two. But every game absolutely doesn't need a multiplayer mode. I agree with the consensus, for the most part.

I think developers need to pick one or the other and focus on it, because that's how people play. Battlefield or Call of Duty, for example, don't have extensive singleplayer. I've known many people who never even started the campaigns in those games. The games are multiplayer giants, however. Meanwhile, Singularity has a fun, atmospheric story mode, and I'll probably never even enter the multiplayer menu.

Co-op is a slightly different animal, but it still needs to either be a focus, or be left alone. Bad co-op is almost more frustrating than simply doing without. (I'm looking at you, PC Borderlands.)

[RandoM51]

I'd love to see developers spend that money on deeper mechanics on the whole.

Rest easy in the knowledge that the developers wouldn't spend that money on deeper mechanics if they dropped multiplayer. They'd spend it on pay DLC.

Considering the pretty much across the board push to make games more accessible, the last thing you can expect to see is deeper mechanics. Shallow sells, complex does not. The Sims are in, sims are out.

Think about where the money---with the exception of the MMORPG genre---has shifted. Console gaming has dwarfed PC gaming and handheld/phone gaming is poised to dwarf console gaming. The masses have spoken, they don't want deep, rich, complex gaming experiences, they want lightweight fare in bite-sized portions.

In that market the only people making deep, rich, complex gaming experiences are those who want to do just that in spite of the money and I think they'd be doing that regardless of how popular multiplayer has become.

[Savok]

And yet, Stardock.

[RandoM51]

You missed my edit. :p

Oh, and as far as my personal preference goes I'll take good MP any day over good/great SP. Good MP is something I can enjoy for months. SP is something I can only enjoy for hours, regardless of how good it is.

Fragging a human player is infinitely more rewarding than compstomping can ever be.

[Savok]

Sins sold like half a million pretty quickly, with most of that being direct sales from their own DD platform, I think someone made money hats.

[OldJadedGamer]

Ha....lo?

Seriously, I'm not even that big a Halo fan, but they're pretty committed to making both the single and multiplayer robust.

I played all three Halo's (not counting expansion packs) and beat the single player on Legendary each time and couldn't tell you anything about the single player at all... but I can probably draw maps of the MP from memory alone.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I played all three Halo's (not counting expansion packs) and beat the single player on Legendary each time and couldn't tell you anything about the single player at all... but I can probably draw maps of the MP from memory alone.

Well, that's just fine, but that doesn't mean they didn't put a high level of priority on it - especially Halo 1, where the multiplayer WAS NOT that robust.

[BigJonno]

Rest easy in the knowledge that the developers wouldn't spend that money on deeper mechanics if they dropped multiplayer. They'd spend it on pay DLC.

Considering the pretty much across the board push to make games more accessible, the last thing you can expect to see is deeper mechanics. Shallow sells, complex does not. The Sims are in, sims are out.

Think about where the money---with the exception of the MMORPG genre---has shifted. Console gaming has dwarfed PC gaming and handheld/phone gaming is poised to dwarf console gaming. The masses have spoken, they don't want deep, rich, complex gaming experiences, they want lightweight fare in bite-sized portions.

In that market the only people making deep, rich, complex gaming experiences are those who want to do just that in spite of the money and I think they'd be doing that regardless of how popular multiplayer has become.

I know where you're coming from, but I don't completely agree. It's possible for games to be accessible and deep and people pick up on that, especially in the long term. Nintendo are probably the masters of this; the Mario, Pokemon and Zelda franchises have plenty of examples of accessible games with great depth. There are plenty of imitators that look pretty similar on the surface, but lack the quality content of Nintendo's output.

There are plenty of complex, shallow games out there too. A lot of beardy PC sims and strategy games fall into this category; once you get to grips with the complexity, you realise the game is dull, repetitive and a bit naff.

The problem is that accessible and deep is hard to pull off, so you usually end up with crap. I reckon that's the root of the PC/console divide. PC games usually go for depth first. If they're crap, they end up shallow and complex, if they're good, they get the depth, but they're still complicated and if they're really great that end up with depth and accessibility. Console games tend to go for accessible first, so the crap/good/great scale for console games ends up as shallow but complex, accessible but shallow, accessible and deep.

With the market constantly broadening, more and more developers are going for accessible and ending up with shallow. The really good ones will nail accessibility and depth and the consumers will be drawn to these games, even if they can't articulate why like we could.

[Vigil80]

I reject the use of The Sims as an example of a much maligned "casual" game. If you think it's shallow, try building a decent lot. :p

[Widgetcraft]

Multiplayer has its place in many games, but it should never be the focus of development effort.

I'm not even sure if video games would exist without multiplayer, FYI. The earliest mainstream game was Pong, and from what I understand of Pac-man, it's arcade culture was very much built around a multiplayer-like environment of trying to one-up the other guy. Many people don't play singleplayer games, at all.

Hell, what would a fighting game be like if multiplayer were never the focus of development? It's just a silly statement to make.

[ElektroDragon]

Hell, what would a fighting game be like if multiplayer were never the focus of development? It's just a silly statement to make.

Yes, well, I do that a lot. Be kind. I'm also functioning on very little sleep. Early morning meetings suck.

[Farsight]

Rest easy in the knowledge that the developers wouldn't spend that money on deeper mechanics if they dropped multiplayer. They'd spend it on pay DLC.

I've worked on three games with heavy MP focus and two SP titles that ended up with tacked-on MP, and that's simply not true. The resources would go to whatever feature(s) got bumped for the MP. And DLC by its nature never has to be bumped off the list, since it has a delayed deadline.

Considering the pretty much across the board push to make games more accessible, the last thing you can expect to see is deeper mechanics.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

The problem is that accessible and deep is hard to pull off, so you usually end up with crap.

Now this is true. I believe this problem is at the heart of the stagnation of the Japanese video game industry in recent years. They have never shown much interest in accessibility, whether their games are shallow or complex. Personally, I no longer put up with games with features only explained in the manual, or gameplay elements that feel like I'm constantly working to overcome flaws in the design of the game.

On the other side you have a game like Civilization, which has never abandoned its core of extremely deep gameplay, but has made leaps and bounds towards being a more accessible title, and the result has been good sales numbers and a final product that is more fun to play for everyone, even those of us who would have put up with some inaccessibility.

But I guess that's another topic... to wrap it back around, I'll add that when you look at a game that has essentially two separate sub-games for SP and MP/Co-op with different rulesets and mechanics in each, I'd say you're looking at a game with a flawed design that should've picked one or the other.

[torrefaction]

I never buy the DLC argument, EVER. I worked in software and there's a long list of things that go on, but "funded" projects undergo a different type of pipeline usually, and odds are, on a different team. It doesn't "cost" a company to create DLC, that's a revenue generator. What matters are core features and the priority in which they are implemented. This is probably a set size team of dev and qa, with a bit of crunch time flexibility with outsourced devs and qa engineers. That stuff is a static cost. They estimate a project with a certain budget...DLC type projects won't be integrated into that except for the ABILITY to provide DLC, and perhaps an initial module to test their ability to deliver said module...although honestly that's probably part of the DLC team's workload.

[Bone]

Typically I like to have a single dedicated multiplayer game to play for a year or more. I can trace most of my multiplayer gaming from 1996 on as follows (in order, IIRC): Duke Nukem, then Marathon, then Quake (1 through 3), then Counter-Strike, then Battlefield (1942, then Desert Combat, then Vietnam, back to Desert Combat, BF2), COD4, TF2.

I played other games but these were the only real addictions. For that reason I think certain games are best designed for multi from the ground up, and game companies shouldn't bother tacking on multi when they are trying to design a great single player experience. Win me over with single or multiplayer, don't try to do both and fail.