The multiplayer elements of games have never held that much interest for me. I’m not always the most social of creatures, so it’s nice to be able just to unwind without having the presence of other players foisted upon me. That’s not to say that I dislike games that feature multiplayer, but for me it’s more of a bonus than a core feature. Even games that are known for their multiplayer, like Call of Duty, appeal to me more on their single player merits.
Of course, things have swung somewhat now. Last generation there were frequent complaints about games having “tacked on” multiplayer, but we’ve now shifted almost entirely the other way, with a lot of people, myself included, missing games that focus on a tight single player experience alongside the multiplayer.
Perhaps a good example to focus in on is Star Wars Battlefront. Despite my desire for single player content in games, Battlefront still appeals to me a lot after spending some time with the beta. Jim takes a similar view, and managed to explain nicely why Battlefront in fact shouldn’t feature single player: It just wouldn’t fit.
“Unless DICE was to go away and completely remould Battlefront,” Jim pointed out, “we’d end up with a string of singleplayer missions that feel like bot matches.” He went on to state that when he looks back on earlier Battlefront games and how poorly their single player elements have aged, he’s actually “glad DICE opted for the standard survival and challenge options, which also allow for local co-op.”
However, the very fact that previous Battlefront games have featured single player elements has left many disappointed that the latest entry doesn’t. Ubisoft have a similar situation on their hands with Rainbow Six: Siege, but as Teflon pointed out, “Neither company has really communicated this well enough to their fans until backed into a corner, generally trying to dodge and avoid the topic rather than simply coming out and saying that this is multiplayer first and foremost.”
Another issue is, of course, the price. My view on this is actually that if a game has enough content, regardless of whether it’s single player or multiplayer, then it’s worth the price. It’s all about how much you’ll get out of it. Dave, however, feels that Battlefront’s price point of “£49.99 on PC via Origin and £54.99 on consoles” means that the game had “better be pretty spectacular in order to warrant this price, but even then it’s hard to justify when there is no single player.”
Interestingly, however, Dave also feels that going single player or multiplayer only is a perfectly valid option for games, as long as the price reflects this. In particular he highlighted Battlefield and Call of Duty as games that “might be better off going multiplayer only.”
Jim agreed on the Battlefield side of Dave’s argument, saying that “Multiplayer has always been the core focus of that series,” but actually feels that Call of Duty’s single player gets a bad rap. Instead he feels that “Treyarch, Infinity Ward, and Sledgehammer clearly put a lot of time into these, drafting in Hollywood actors to help deliver some truly awesome set piece moments,” which I actually agree with him on.
Now it’s time for you to have your say. Do games need a single player component to appeal to you? Or should some games ditch a weak single player to further focus on their multiplayer elements?
KnightLore
I really believe that price is irrevelent, as long as quality of content is good.
Multiplayer fans are surely going to get their money’s worth out of Battlefront.
However, if the devs had invested more manpower and time into a quality single player component too, then they could potentially gain millions more buyers.
It surprises me with the Star Wars franchise that they didn’t go all out.
KnightLore
I really believe that price is irrelevant as long as quality of content is good.
Multiplayer fans are surely going to get their money’s worth out of Battlefront.
However, if the devs had invested more manpower and time into a quality single player component too, then they could potentially gain millions more buyers.
It surprises me with the Star Wars franchise that they didn’t go all out.
MrJimmy
I’m guessing there will be half a dozen new trilogy titles over the coming years..
KnightLore
Sorry for double post peeps. Just wanted to edit a shocking spelling moment!
MrJimmy
It’s interesting that fans of SP believe they get there monies worth from SP only, likewise for a good MP experience, but few here expect both for every title regardless. That’s certainly where I’m at, I tend to buy for one or the other, if both are worthwhile it’s always a bonus
JR.
Not a fan of multiplayer focused games. I used to refuse to even try them but these days I will at least give them a go.
And I do enjoy them for a few hours but then it all starts to feel repetitive. You basically play the same re-skinned game modes year in year out, grinding xp, then start all over again.
As for scrapping the single player campaign from MP games, I find It all a bit sad. I need that introduction to the game world so I can begin to invest in it. Destiny is a great example of this. A cold lifeless shell of a game with potential for greatness, being wasted on the mindless shooter.
Battlefront is slightly different in that I already know so much about the Star Wars universe, so I was able to enjoy it a lot more than any other MP I’ve played in years. It’s still the same old game modes and I would never buy an MP only game but it was more fun than I expected.
The Division however, like Destiny, feels like a waste of a great idea. A game with the potential to blow us all away with a great single player story, is wasted so people can run around shooting everything in sight. Shoot, die, respawn. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat. I don’t get it.
NicholasHeathfield
Does it have a single player campaign?
Does it have offline multiplayer with bots?
If “no” to both questions, I’m not interested.
Does anyone know if Battlefront has bots?
Paranoimia
I’m not bothering with Battlefront or R6 Siege purely because of their lack of single-player campaigns; playing multi-player alone with bots is not sufficient replacement.
I’m not exactly a social gamer anyway, but I don’t mind multi-player co-op with friends… the problem is not all of my friends have the same taste in games, and they’re not always available, so the cross-over is limited, hence I don’t bother.
Besides that, my game time is my “me” time, when I mostly want to get away from other people and lose myself in a fantasy world with a decent story. Being forced to interact with others – especially with some of the utter asshats you get in competitive multiplayer – is just a no-no. If your game is going to force that side of it, I’m not going to buy.
Roll on Just Cause 3 and Uncharted 4.