Single Player/Multi Player

[Iron Past]

Considering the time of year there are alot of game awards and personal lists being posted everywhere, and looking through them I feel I should bring this to light. While I've felt this way for a while, the emergence of Live and the PSN really bring it to the forefront: the single player and multiplayer of a game are two different games.

I see Left 4 Dead getting Game of the Year a few places, or maybe best shooter. It's not either of those. It's not bad by any means, but there are better choices in both categories. What it is, is Multiplayer GotY or Shooter. Same with Castle Crashers but in reverse. Castle Crashers was not a bad, broken game (though I understand some people ran into a save bug) when it launched. It was a bad, broken (online) multiplayer game. The single player experience suffered tremendous flack for the online aspect not working right.

I don't think devs should put mutliplayer in a game unless they put thought into it, and if they want to focus soley on multiplayer, then don't worry about single player. I think they should be reviewed separately and seen as two altogether different games. Of course, these are just my thoughts, but if you disagree, you're obviously wrong, just like all the GotY lists. ;)

[Libuke]

How is left 4 dead not game of the year to these people if they think it was the game they most enjoyed all year? Why does game of the year have to be single player which is what I gathered from your post.

Many people think Portal was not worthy of game of the year, due too to short or no multiplayer, but I thought it was fantastic and just as worthy as say Bioshock or STALKER (which everyone seemed to forget about by the end of 2007).

[KingGorilla]

I don't get this whole multiplayer and single player need separate spaces, like blacks and whites or men and women. Maybe it is just the PCbut World of Warcraft is a MMO that most people play solo(that I mostly played solo), drop in or out of groups at will. Diablo and Diablo 2 occupies that same space for me. And while multiplayer and online gaming is a more recent novelty on consoles, it is old hat to me. I don't see where the line is. A game is judged on the merits of what is in the completed(often a loosely used term) package. The OP sounds like the mirror image of "Bioshock, (Half-Life) cannot be great games because they don't have multiplayer."

[Variable Gear]

What the OP is referring to is the core gamer's goal to prevent certain games from winning awards because they are too small, or too focused, or too experimental. This is a consistent and off-putting line of thought that goes against the view of many core games that more innovation is needed.

[Iron Past]

The OP sounds like the mirror image of "Bioshock, (Half-Life) cannot be great games because they don't have multiplayer."

How does my OP sound anything like that? I said that the single player and multiplayer aspect of a game should be considered two separate games. They rely on two wholly different experiences and often two wholly different teams creating them, so why not?

I see games in reviews get crapped on because they either have no multiplayer or a crappy multiplayer but a fantastic campaign, which isn't fair since the single player is what I look foward to most. There are also games that have lackluster single player but outstanding multi, and get slammed in reviews as well.

I don't have access to Live, so Left 4 Dead is nowhere near as good for me as everyone else, which means (in my mind) that it isn't this super-awesome GotY game, but a super-awesome GotY multiplayer game (it is not a bad single player game, just not super awesome). Things like is is why I feel the different modes should be seen as two different games.

[Variable Gear]

I don't think that different modes should be seen as two different games, unless they are distributed separately. Additionally, games should not be shat on for having single-player content or multiplayer content exclusively. Reviewers have got to judge each game on its own merits, not what is demanded by the current crop of successful games.

[Iron Past]

Yeah, I should have worded that better. To clarify, for review and accolade purposes, they should be on two scales. While neither realy matters, they are still talking points and affect sales; it kills me that many of the best games this year are underperforming in the sales category. Obviously, they are part of the same game or overall experience, but like I said, rely on two different experiences.

Ah, I'm just blathering anyway.

[Telefrog]

Many people think Portal was not worthy of game of the year, due too to short or no multiplayer, but I thought it was fantastic and just as worthy as say Bioshock or STALKER (which everyone seemed to forget about by the end of 2007).

As "worthy" as STALKER? Oh, fuck no. I liked where STALKER was trying to go, but that game was a buggy mess for most of that year.

[Libuke]

As "worthy" as STALKER? Oh, fuck no. I liked where STALKER was trying to go, but that game was a buggy mess for most of that year.

I never really ran into that many bugs, personally (Magic PC?), but I enjoyed the game a lot and played it a bunch as I was engrossed in it and its world until the very end. I even played through it twice relatively close together as I got a shitty ending the first time. I often can't get myself to play though a game a single player game a second time.

However, I could barely get myself to finish Bioshock, after I finally got to Ryan I lost all my momentum the story was no longer able to hold my interest and I was tried of fighting the same three enemies in the essentially same looking environment, it got bland to me. I haven't played it again to get the second ending and do not ever see myself going back to play it.

So, to me STALKER was better then Bioshock.

[Hotcod]

i still don't get why a game can't be game of the year but maybe i just put to much faith in logic.

[Variable Gear]

I don't understand it either...but I have little faith in humanity so... :o

[Iron Past]

i still don't get why a game can't be game of the year but maybe i just put to much faith in logic.

I assume you meant "multiplayer" game, right? Put it this way: awards are someone's or in this case a site's way of offering 'official' kudos to a dev for making a good game, right? That means a good game, not a good game with a qualifier.

Obviously personal choices are another matter, but for this let's assume you are a media outlet. If you offered GTA IV as GotY, it's because it's good game in your opinion, right? If you offered Left 4 Dead as GotY, it's most likey because it's a good game if you're able to play online. That means I can't really enjoy the game as you see it unless I fork over the money for high speed internet and, if I'm playing on a X360, for Live. In my case, I'd have to move. I'm playing through single-player because that's all I can do, and I still have fun, but there is no way I'll ever have the same experience as you; with a single-player game everyone at least has the opportunity for the same experience.

I'm not saying that a multiplayer game can't be GotY, I'm saying that because not everyone has access to that feature of the game there should be a separate category, and it should definately be reviewed separately. But hey, you certainly don't have to agree, it's just my opinion. :)

[Hotcod]

no left4dead is a game, online coop is it's main mode and you may call it a mulit player type of game but before everything else it is still a game. I don't see why beacuse YOU can't play it online and enjoy the best that the game has to offer dose not mean some one else doesn't. You may as well say any game with high end graphics can't be a game of the year beacuse some one might not be able to make it look as good as it was meant to be. Not that looks are everything but let me use that in a better context. If you are giving an award for the best looking game of the year can you only base that award on the lowest level that everyone can play it on? of course not.

It's utterly stupid that a media outlet game of the year awards would not judge the game based on ever aspect that the game CAN have. You can't play l4d coop so for YOU it's not YOUR game of the year. This can not and dose not change the fact for some people who can play the game online it was there game of the year. Your in essence asking a media outlet to cut out a part of the game to cater to you.

Don't get me wrong, i get where your coming from but honestly it just seems a little stupid to me. When reviewing or judging a game you are reviewing or judging what comes in the box. If that means single and muitplayer then you have to take both in to account.

I don't know, your argument taken to extremes means that no game can be game of the year beacuse not every one can play them for not having a xbox or pc or what ever. I don't have a xbox at the moment, i game on my PC, so dose that mean an xbox only game can not be named game of the year over all by the media? can we only have PC, Xbox, mulitplatform, games of the year? then do we have to split THOSE games of the year up in to muiltplayer single player or both? and based on what exactly? l4d has both so do we judge it twice and let it be both the game of the year and not?... This is before we start talking about shooter or rpgs or rts and the like... some people may not like one type of game so it's not right to make any one type of game over all game of the year since we are counting single player and mulitplayer as there own thing. Therefore we should only be giving game of the year for given types of game. Which means we can only give goty awards like the following... the best online coop mulitplatform shooter with zombies is L4D... like i said it just seems silly to me.

edit:
goty list tend to split up games like that already, you have the best game for a given type... you have the best multplayer game.. best xbox game and so on and so forth. It's out of those winners that an over all winner is taken... it's the best game based on everything compared to everything. Which it's value... when you have such a general winner like fallout 3, which is getting goty all over the place... then it's a good bet that your likely to really enjoy it

[Iron Past]

Holy crap, that's alot of text. But how is it that by my saying GotY (and similar categories) should be a two part award does that mean no multiplayer game can be GotY? All I'm saying is there should be two awards. I do often see Best Multiplayer game, so why can't there be Best Single Player game and leave it at that?

As far as your comparison for high end graphics it doesn't hold up. Graphics are a bonus, Left 4 Dead's multiplayer is a main gameplay element. I can enjoy Gears of War 2 without an HDTV just fine; I can't enjoy Left 4 Dead multiplayer without a high speed connection and Live. If there was an awesome game that blew me away but you can only see how good it is if you have surround sound, that game would never win GotY no matter how good, because it relies on an aspect that not everyone has.

By the way, you can check around if you want, but I've also argued that each system should have it's own award categories, or at the very least it's own GotY, but you're looking too deep into it. It doesn't matter anyway since no one's awards are in any way official, but it's something to think about.

[johnperkins21]

Personally, I don't think Left 4 Dead should get game of the year because it's a shitty game, but who am I to begrudge what someone else considers GotY? I understand your point that your lack of multiplayer abilities preclude you from playing L4D the way it was intended, and you can't give it GotY, but the title should go to the game the reviewer enjoyed playing the most during the year, without any qualifiers.

Even if there were Single Player and Multiplayer game of the year awards, someone would pick their favorite of the two and say that was their overall GotY. I think we've reached a point where sites could, and possibly should, add those two categories, but they're under no obligation to do that simply because you can't get broadband where you live. I read a stat today that said only 10% of online users are on dial-up. Why would a site change their award structure to appeal to such a small minority of their readership?

[Iron Past]

I read a stat today that said only 10% of online users are on dial-up. Why would a site change their award structure to appeal to such a small minority of their readership?

Because I'm in that minority dammit! :p

In all seriousness, I don't think it's ever been such a big deal because there has never been an opportunity for online play of this caliber before now (on the console side of things). I sometimes use award lists to browse old games to get, and I'd be pissed if I bought an 'awesome' game that I couldn't play because there was no note of how you were supposed to play it.

The last I heard, MS said there were some 10 million Live accounts. According to VGChartz (I know, not official or anything), there are some 27 million Xbox 360s around the world. That means over half of Xbox 360 owners never even connected the console to Live. Of those, I'd imagine the amount of Gold subscribers is a pretty small percentage. Should a game that only a segment of owners can play be GotY?

I realize that the main argument here is if someone enjoys this game more than any other game, it should be GotY. But if gaming is supposed to be taken seriously, then major journalistic players shouldn't be handing out awards without some kind of criteria. I doubt people would take the NFL seriously if the major networks said Brett Favre was QB of the Year just cause he's a good guy.

It seems no one agrees with me anyway, so I guess I'm wrong, but it's just my opinion.

[Hotcod]

By the way, you can check around if you want, but I've also argued that each system should have it's own award categories, or at the very least it's own GotY, but you're looking too deep into it. It doesn't matter anyway since no one's awards are in any way official, but it's something to think about.

The point of an over all game of the year is that it's an over all game of the year. Almost all game of the year awards already have the sub categories that you seem to be after... What your asking is that out of all those games a media outlet can't say "this is the game we think is the best over all of the year" beacuse not every one might be able to enjoy it at it's best. Like i said i may as well demand that no xbox or ps3 exclusive can be game of the year beacuse i can't put the money out to buy either console at the moment.

Simple fact is most big goty awards will give out best mulitplayer and something along the lines of best single player. They will also give out best rpg, best shooter, best racing game, best sports game, best looking, best written ext ext. Which is fine by you (except you'd want mulitplayer and singleplayer awards for each of those) but some how the journalist suddenly lose there integrity beacuse they take each of those winner at there best and judge them against each other?

Like i said i do get where your coming from and it's in part a sensible place to start. I disagree with you on how you then take off from that point and i think where you end up with it is pointless and silly but i do understand what your trying to get across.

[Iron Past]

Okay, that's cool. Looking back on some of my posts, I didn't do a very good job of making my position clear anyway. I only think GotY should be divided into single/multiplayer, and think that when reviewing a game, they should be be reviewed on separate scales as well.

As it stands now, GotY is nothing but a Critic's Choice, or Editor's Choice award. They could be taken more seriously if there were at least some unofficial criteria for certain awards, but I guess we don't want to go there. I'll be quiet now.

[Hotcod]

But there is criteria for a goty award... it's got to be the best game as judged against the best game in each category. There is no way to make it any more 'meaingful' than that... even if you split it up in to single player of muiltplayer it's still the people at the publication making subjective choice. They of course are trying to be critical and base it on reviews of the game but there is no scale of "right" for this kind of thing. What difference dose it make if the muiltpalyer of an rpg is judged againts the muitlplayer of shooter rather than a muitlplayer rpg againts a single player shooter with muiltplayer aspects? There different enough at there base level that being single or muiltplayer really can't make them that much different for it to be an issue.

I honestly just can't get how splitting them up adds anything or changes the subjective nature of the whole thing. They already have categorise for different things and from that they pick an over all winner... why that is so awful i have no idea.

In reviews i do kind of agree there should be different sections and then an over all score looking at the whole thing. Games should be judged on what they offer and how good those offerings are.

Over all i just think this is all based on you taking a reasonable idea and running to far with it based on your own circumstances. Lots of us agree with you up to the point and after that it feels like you want a system tailored to you and how your set up rather than anything else.

[Iron Past]

Actually, I was just coming in here to say the more I thought about it, the more I agree with you. Game of the Year should be based on the best overall experience, no matter what it is; maybe I just want best multi-player and best single-player awards also. Actually, I'm just an award whore, I love it when there's alot of awards in these things.

Though yeah, there should be separate sections in reviews for multi- and single-player. So anyway, turns out this thread was pointless, but thanks for playing along! :)

[johnperkins21]

I realize that the main argument here is if someone enjoys this game more than any other game, it should be GotY. But if gaming is supposed to be taken seriously, then major journalistic players shouldn't be handing out awards without some kind of criteria. I doubt people would take the NFL seriously if the major networks said Brett Favre was QB of the Year just cause he's a good guy.

This is a horrible analogy. Peyton Manning won the MVP this year even though he wasn't the most valuable player. The Pro Bowl is a selection of popular players, not players that deserve the honor. Virtually all awards are complete bullshit (with the Grammy's being the absolute worst offenders). I mean, Citizen Kane lost the Best Picture Academy Award to How Green Was My Valley.

I think part of your issue is that you seem to think an award means something is inherently better than the things it beat out in that category. Usually it's simply more popular, and it's always just someone's opinion at the time. There is no quantifiable criteria you can measure to say this game is better than this one overall because it scores higher on the Awesome scale that is 100% agreed on by everyone.

I support your idea that there be an extra category for multiplayer awards, and that it should be noted somewhere why one game was chosen over another to help us gauge whether or not we might agree, or even understand, why the particular game won. However, you can only control the awards you give out. Nothing is stopping you from creating GameOfTheYear.com and handing out your own awards.

[KingGorilla]

Game of the year is just a badge that goes on the re-release of a game at retail, or a jewel on a store-front like Steam or Impulse. And it really needs to be said, these are not the Oscars or SAG awards. Waite for Dice and GDC for the real accolades.

[Johan]

I think the solution is in simply being clear about what you want out of your games, and then carefully researching what they offer before pulling the trigger on a sale.

As an example, every game I buy for the DS has to fit into a few particular "wants" or I don't buy it. I look for ad-hoc multiplayer with one cart, OR I look for old-school single-player RPGs, OR I look for single-player platforming action.

You enjoy single-player? Focus on seeking out games that reward you in that area. :)

[Iron Past]

You enjoy single-player? Focus on seeking out games that reward you in that area. :)

Oh, I try, but sometimes it's hard. I either have to dig through reviews that usually suck, or look through threads on here, which has been tough lately. For some reason, the recent game threads have all been, "This is great!" or "This sucks!" and the good impression posts have disappeared. I might attribute it to there being an influx of so many games people tend to move from one to the other pretty quick, at least I hope so.

[KingGorilla]

I gotta say if you are not an online gamer you made a pretty huge mistake in buying an Xbox.

[Variable Gear]

Game of the year is just a badge that goes on the re-release of a game at retail, or a jewel on a store-front like Steam or Impulse. And it really needs to be said, these are not the Oscars or SAG awards. Waite for Dice and GDC for the real accolades.
I agree. This GOTY shit is garbage.

[jpublic]

I gotta say if you are not an online gamer you made a pretty huge mistake in buying an Xbox.

I beg to differ. I've got a pretty massive collection of games that I get no end of enjoyment out of, and none of them require me to deal with the wretched hive of scum and asshattery that is Live.

[Iron Past]

I gotta say if you are not an online gamer you made a pretty huge mistake in buying an Xbox.

You mean the console with by far the biggest library of games (worth playing) this generation and the highest attach rate ever? Yeah, I'm an idiot. I suppose anyone who doesn't watch movies on Blu-Ray made a mistake picking up a PS3, too.

[Johan]

I gotta say if you are not an online gamer you made a pretty huge mistake in buying an Xbox.

Trolling, trolling, trolling,
Angst and anger rolling,
The post above is trolling,
RAWHIDE!

Great show. :D

[National Kato]

I'm not saying that a multiplayer game can't be GotY, I'm saying that because not everyone has access to that feature of the game there should be a separate category, and it should definately be reviewed separately. But hey, you certainly don't have to agree, it's just my opinion. :)

You're putting way too much importance on what is designated GoTY. For each and every person, it is a distinctly subjective thing. If your GoTY is completely different from what you see on major gaming sites, don't feel bad or left out. It's a meaningless award and something created purely for advertising on GoTY re-releases and sequels.

[National Kato]

Game of the year is just a badge that goes on the re-release of a game at retail, or a jewel on a store-front like Steam or Impulse. And it really needs to be said, these are not the Oscars or SAG awards. Waite for Dice and GDC for the real accolades.

If you think there's much difference between the GoTY awards in videogaming and the Oscars, you're not looking hard enough. Both are meaningless awards used for future promotions. I'm looking at you, Crash.