Games with no solo/mutliplayer?

[Matth121]

What do you guys think about games with either no multiplayer or no solo version?

I personally don't like games with just a "co-op", I like versus multiplayer on most games without it it's pretty boring.

 

[The Unlosing Ranger]

I think those games are fine. For solo games, I would rather see them focus on making a good single player game than wasting resources shoehorning a crappy MP mode into the game. Similarly, I prefer MP-focused games to emphasised on making a good, balanced, fun MP game instead of wasting resources with a lame campaign like CoD.

 

[Ciel]

Eh, I guess it depends on the game--obviously. Multiplayer is not really necessary in most games, but I do love co-op.

 

[jbeavis100]

I don't buy games that only have multiplayer. The game servers will eventually shut down and I don't feel that's worth my time.. It needs to have single player..

 

[Haze]

To me, single-player (campaign) always comes first. I'm not a big fan of tacked on multiplayer (example: Batman: Arkham Origins, Assassin's Creed, etc.)

 

[Oberon]

I don't buy games that only have multiplayer. The game servers will eventually shut down and I don't feel that's worth my time.. It needs to have single player..

I think I only bought one
BF1943. Was PSN only download and quite cheap so worth it for the MP alone,which is all it had.

 

[Derri]

I've only bought one Multiplayer only game, this was MAG and it was okay to play I guess but it did get a little boring after awhile.

 

[The Unlosing Ranger]

I don't buy games that only have multiplayer. The game servers will eventually shut down and I don't feel that's worth my time.. It needs to have single player..

Yeah, a fair amount of people tend to ignore MP-only games because of that, unless there's no server and it's all Peer-to-Peer... but then people complain about the lack of dedicated servers because it causes horrendous lag at times.

I think this is why so many MP-only games seem to go the Free-to-Play direction lately. I kind of love how Team Fortress 2 did it before going F2P, though. Players can set up their own servers, so there's no issue if Valve themselves have no servers (there were a couple of them, compared to the hundreds of player-run ones).

 

[Derri]

Yeah, a fair amount of people tend to ignore MP-only games because of that, unless there's no server and it's all Peer-to-Peer... but then people complain about the lack of dedicated servers because it causes horrendous lag at times.

I think this is why so many MP-only games seem to go the Free-to-Play direction lately. I kind of love how Team Fortress 2 did it before going F2P, though. Players can set up their own servers, so there's no issue if Valve themselves have no servers (there were a couple of them, compared to the hundreds of player-run ones).

Well games like Titanfall are going against this.

My argument is like what the devs said for Titanfall. Why should we bother with a SP campaign when we intend the longevity of a game to be Multiplayer focused. I mean if you're building a MP focused game, why bother with a SP?

 

[gamerteabwoi]

I would say that it definitely depends on the type of game but I will also tell you that I think that too many times these days that the gaming companies are putting more effort into creating the multiplayer modes then just focusing on giving us a good game. Sure multilayer is a good selling point for the game but if you want to get more money just give us a good game that we can really enjoy as video gamers. I feel that this is what has been happening to COD lately, I just think that they are putting to much focus into creating mulitplayer modes then giving us a video game that we can really enjoy.

 

[The Unlosing Ranger]

Well games like Titanfall are going against this.

My argument is like what the devs said for Titanfall. Why should we bother with a SP campaign when we intend the longevity of a game to be Multiplayer focused. I mean if you're building a MP focused game, why bother with a SP?

Titanfall is a good example, though I have heard that there is not enough content to justify the price. Sounds like it ended up being lacking.

It might have been even worse if they had used up resources on a pointless campaign, tho...

 

[Derri]

Titanfall is a good example, though I have heard that there is not enough content to justify the price. Sounds like it ended up being lacking.

It might have been even worse if they had used up resources on a pointless campaign, tho...

I've heard the same argument.

I think with it being a MP only game they've focused on balance more so than anything else. I've watched several interviews and videos on the subject as even though I've never played Titanfall, I've kind of falling for it. I think in total their are 10 primary weapons, a handful of secondary weapons and 3 or 4 titan weapons that only the titans can hold as well as player weapons to take down titans and surprisingly the entire MP is balanced from a statistical and use point of view.

The devs said they wanted a quality game where each weapon felt unique and played a role in the game and they've done that successfully and people who came into Titanfall not comparing it to CoD actually have agreed with this point. I believe its the CoD people who like to have 40 guns with little differences that ultimately didn't feel the longevity of the game. I think the entire price battle is subjective as to how you view the game. Sadly once you've prestiged or generated as its known in game a few times it can seem a little lacking. Many have asked for more titans as you only have three and those are all balanced and when the community wanted to know if they'd add more they said its all about creating a balanced and fun game without adding a titan for the sake of it.

So I do believe that MP only games can be worth full price and shouldn't have to put a SP campaign in just for the sake of it. As for the argument of the servers....well MAG is a good example, in the end the servers had too low a player count to actually continue to function well. The game was launched in 2010 and the servers went off in 2014. So that's over four years, that a long time for any game.

 

[Haymansafc]

As I've been someone who has been exclusively a single player for close to ten years now, multiplayer games and the likes simply don't bother me. I have almost no interest in these options on any game I buy. Single player/campaign games always come first to me. It's the main part of the game. Anything more should be more of a 'bonus' than something to actually focus mainly on.

So what does annoy me, relating to this subject? Games which rip-off the single players like myself with something you can complete in a matter of a few hours, and concentrate more or less solely on multiplayer options. Not everyone has dozens of friends and not everyone has absolute top of the range (and unlimited bandwidth) internet... Almost all of my best gaming adventures have always come from playing on my own.

 

[Ridge]

If a game sounds/looks good I'll play it. Doesn't matter to me if it is exclusively singleplayer or multiplayer...

 

[Strykstar]

There's nothing wrong with games having only a single-player component, not every genre needs multiplayer.
I don't like it when games are only multiplayer though, like Titanfall for example, I should be able to enjoy the games I bought ever if I don't have an internet connection at the time.