Poll: MP or NOT MP

[Bullstomp]

Hi all. Thought I would start a poll based on a conversation I had with some fellow gamers. It was interesting to find out the varying opinions of Multiplayer and the different reasons people had for their way of thinking. If you answer "other" please note your answer in the thread. Thanks!

[Parker]

I'm of the opinion that multiplayer can work in ALL games, it just takes a great developer to make it work in genres that are predominately single player. Games that include a tacked on multiplayer just for the sake of saying they have multiplayer are the reason a lot of people feel the way they do about multiplayer nowadays but then you have other developers who do something great with multiplayer. 

 

 

Parker

[weeztha]

I like mp in most games but Gow having that one mp trophy + requiring a online pass is a joke.

I look forward to playing online with friends either while boosting or just for fun. I'll usually have my headset on and chat with my peeps while trophy hunting. I also think games like payday 1&2 have a fun multiplayer and even after plat I still would hop back on to help my other friends finish misc trophies

[leonado_97]

Not all fps should have Multiplayer (Bioshock), other than that all games can have mp if  it is entretaining, not just create levels for others to play (infamous 2)

[Dragon-Archon]

I personally don't like it, mainly because I tend to lose the connection for some reason. Other than that, some games aren't ment to have a mp. Developers are putting it in some game to generate more sales.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Dragon-Archon

[Redgrave]

I picked "Multiplayer makes sense with some games" since it feels like multiplayer is tacked on with a lot of games now. In the case of Arkham Origins, I get where they were going but I feel multiplayer would have been better off as straight up co-op if they really wanted to add an online feature to it.

[CasaDeBen]

I enjoy games with mp and just sp. But i really enjoy games where they can integrate a coop experience that makes sense to have. I prefer coop to competitive.

[xVolloxx]

I love playing multiplayer but some games are just awful and don't need it like Tomb Raider , i did enjoy God Of War Acension though

[PREDRAG-K]

Most games don't need it, Uncharted, Batman, Tomb Raider, Last of Us, etc. Developers just don't know how to add replay ability so they just tack on multiplayer. Either make the game longer or more difficult or add multiple endings, just don't add useless multiplayer.

[DK_Scuba]

I enjoy co-op or competitive multiplayer with friends offline. I don't play any online multiplayer except the occasional boosting. Playing with friends in the living room is simply, the best.

[Ala-Arska]

Voted "When it makes sense" - option.

Me being a dinosaur in gaming ground, I still think multiplaying outside the living room is witchcraft 

If the game involves a war, a fighting tournament or driving really really fast (like, over 88 mph), then it makes sense to me.

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

Most games don't need it, Uncharted, Batman, Tomb Raider, Last of Us, etc. Developers just don't know how to add replay ability so they just tack on multiplayer. Either make the game longer or more difficult or add multiple endings, just don't add useless multiplayer.

Wait, what? I agree on Tomb Raider, Batman is arguable since the MP they have has real potential provided they sharpen it up a little, but TLoU has some really great multiplayer. Divided on Uncharted's multiplayer when it comes to quality, but it's definitely not tacked on or half baked.

[-Dark Mark-]

I agree that MP only works on some games, but I chose "other" because I disagree that GoW Ascension should have remained SP. I enjoyed GoW online

[McJacs2]

Most games don't need it, Uncharted, Batman, Tomb Raider, Last of Us, etc. Developers just don't know how to add replay ability so they just tack on multiplayer. Either make the game longer or more difficult or add multiple endings, just don't add useless multiplayer.

Uncharted does have excellent multiplayer though, if you are a fan of third person shooters. Although the mass concentration of development isn't there, is does feel more polished than if it was just tacked on.

[Bullstomp]

I agree that MP only works on some games, but I chose "other" because I disagree that GoW Ascension should have remained SP. I enjoyed GoW online

 

Don't get caught up in the examples when you answer, go with the answer you feel is most closely aligned with how you feel. I chose those specific examples because the people I spoke to have very mixed opinions on them, based on the conversations I had earlier today.

[xzero4812]

i think some games CAN work with a MP but most would be excellent with out it as when devs have done in the past it just seems tacked on as a side project instead of full investment of time

[Soadisthebest]

Even if it's shitty it might as well be there.

[closertim]

Love it, as long as it is still active. Hate waiting in lobbies for long periods of time just for the lone gamer to pop up

[Dreakon13]

Most games don't need it, Uncharted, Batman, Tomb Raider, Last of Us, etc. Developers just don't know how to add replay ability so they just tack on multiplayer. Either make the game longer or more difficult or add multiple endings, just don't add useless multiplayer.

I think there's something to be said for artistic integrity. It's easy to sit here and say "just add multiple endings" and "just make the game longer"... but why would a developer do that if the story they've crafted is exactly as they intended? Artificially dragging out a story, hamfisting "choice" and multiple endings into a game that doesn't call for it, adding an annoying boss battle to make the story take a little longer...

Why is that okay... but adding a mode you may or may not use, leaving the single player experience untampered with, is crossing the line?

Edited November 9, 2013 by Dreakon13

[IzunaShisui]

Most trophyhunters will find all Naughty Dog multiplayers to be sucky, simply because all 3 of the games have hard (or timeconsuming) trophies (well, only 2 of them to be honest) 

 

Uncharted 2 has a trophy for getting 10 protectorates, which was hard with randoms, unless you know what most people didn't know:  You can get protectorates every single match, just by carrying the idol yourselves, jumping away when shot at, and killing the attacker...

 

Uncharted 3 has these ridiculously random Treasure related trophies. (Extremely timeconsuming, even when playing hunter)

And The Last of Us has faction related trophies which aren't that hard, but they can glitch (getting kicked out of a match might kill off the whole faction or so...) which requires the player to do everything all over again.

 

Having said that, I loved the Uncharted multiplayers, even while Uncharted 2 was better IMO. 

But multiplayers usually are a big waste of time, I rather play new IP's or new releases to experience something refreshing, it's just that not everyone is rich. And that's where multiplayers are useful, in any game, as long as the developer does it right.

Keep in mind that a big waste of time doesn't equal sucky. 

 

Oh, I played CoD MW, WAW, MW2 and BO1. I also played Killzone 2 and 3, GTA4, Bioshock 2, Uncharted 2, 3, Battlefield 3, Bad Company, Bad company 2.. all had multiplayers and I couldn't dismiss any of them, they do add something to the game (and they are all very different in multiplayers (mostly)). So I can safely say I really enjoy multiplayer, I just like singleplayer and Co-op better

[Starrk_01]

I love multiplayer games; it is fun to meet people through some of the games you play.  Yea you get some of those annoying players, but you have to take the good with the bad.

[D-Tron]

I like Multiplayer.

 

I just hate that feeling I get in some games where I think of it as a pushover feature (Games like Batman: Arkham Origins and Tomb Raider). Since some devs think multiplayer sells games, They add it at the last second. It's just there to be there. If you know what I mean.

[damon8r351]

I generally don't like multiplayer if it's just the usual bullshit like some variation of capture the flag or team deathmatch, like for Tomb Raider or the Assassins Creed series. I'll still do it if I want the platinum, but I'll go through it the one time and then never touch it again. What I do like to see in multiplayer is coop play, like you see in Borderlands. Or multiplayer that has a large free-roam component that allows you to do pretty much whatever you want, and you don't necessarily need another player online. Good example of this would be the multiplayer in Red Dead Redemption or GTA5. I still play RDR's multiplayer occasionally just for fun.

[Rowdi]

I enjoy some mp games. I just don't like the idea of a developer splitting their resources when they should be focusing on one type experience and make it great instead of three mediocre game modes that aren't very good at all. My biggest gripe about mp being added in is when it's an eleventh hour tack on. The only reason it was added was to justify the $60 price tag or support a mp map pack dlc cash grab.

[PREDRAG-K]

I think there's something to be said for artistic integrity. It's easy to sit here and say "just add multiple endings" and "just make the game longer"... but why would a developer do that if the story they've crafted is exactly as they intended? Artificially dragging out a story, hamfisting "choice" and multiple endings into a game that doesn't call for it, adding an annoying boss battle to make the story take a little longer...

Why is that okay... but adding a mode you may or may not use, leaving the single player experience untampered with, is crossing the line?

So making a game longer to tell the story is "artificially dragging" it? But making 3 games to tell the same story is fine? (Uncharted). Instead of making one long, great game, they stretch it into 3 and toss in multiplayer so they can make more money. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens with Last of Us.