Ragdollmaster wrote:Multiplayer games inevitably get repetitive and boring.
GingerWarlord wrote:In this thread it seems much like there are two sides battling, but that in it's self is the idiocy of it all. I can appreciate a single-player game VERY much.
Dat_cool_guy205 wrote:I can't speak for anybody else but a free roam styled multiplayer would be amazing. not anything with the side view camera locked like in the multiplayer available now but just a game where you could meet up with a buddy on a massive map and go adventuring online. just an idea.
Ragdollmaster wrote:Multiplayer games inevitably get repetitive and boring. There are a few gems out there (Battlefield Bad Company 2, Team Fortress 2, Counterstrike) that seem timeless, but honestly, most multiplayer games only hook me for maybe a total of 20 to 30 hours of gameplay. Meanwhile, I spent over 100 hours playing Oblivion and Fallout 3- each- and I've replayed a bunch of absolutely spectacular games on singleplayer at least once- more or less every game in the Metal Gear Solid series, Bioshock, Star Wars: Battlefront I & II, SaGa Frontier I & II, Final Fantasy IV, VII, and X, Uncharted 1 & 2, Kingdom Hearts I & II... to suggest that singleplayer holds no replay value is utter bollocks. The overwhelming majority of my time spent playing video games has been with singleplayer titles. Multiplayer is more or less the same shit with some variation- if you're on map X for game mode Y, you're going to by default use strategy Z and do the same crap over and over again. A well-crafted singleplayer campaign holds an enormous amount of variety, narration, and emotional impact that a multiplayer mode will never be able to have. Not to say multiplayer is bad as an addition, but I'd much rather take an extremely well-made singleplayer game than an average singleplayer game with average multiplayer. It doesn't hurt if an already great singleplayer title has a multiplayer mode, or if a game is crafted to be multiplayer only and does a good job of it, but more often than not, I find singleplayer titles more enjoyable and of a much higher quality than multiplayer titles.
tl;dr -> I'll take quality over "lasting appeal" any day. Anyone who wouldn't do the same obviously either hasn't had the pleasure of playing through some utterly fantastic singleplayer titles or just has a ridiculously short attention span, and rapid, repetitive multiplayer games (CALL OF DOOTIE) are the only thing that they can play without getting bored.
deprav wrote:With the new element that is split-screen multiplayer, which wasn't here last time I posted, I can really see LAN multiplayer being an actual thing. CO-OP is already playable as you can add AI to versus maps, thing is, you either need a huge screen (or dual screen, does it work ?).
Also, almost every PVP games (FPS or classic fighting games like SF4) require good reflexes and are playable online with the lag factor. I'm pretty sure the actual combat speed would be playable online with a ping under 90~100 ; and if not, slowing it down by 20 or 30% should do the trick. Mount&Blade : Warband (again) for instance, requires quite a fast reaction time for melee combat and is entirely enjoyable online at competitive level (I've more than 2000h on warband's MP, veri enjoyable indeed).
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests