The Sinister Design Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!

Poll

Which game type do you prefer?

Singleplayer Campaign
- 3 (42.9%)
Player vs. Player Multiplayer
- 0 (0%)
I like them the same
- 4 (57.1%)

Total Members Voted: 7


Author Topic: Singleplayer vs. Multiplayer  (Read 5338 times)

SmartyPants

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1814
    • View Profile
    • -----
Singleplayer vs. Multiplayer
« on: June 08, 2012, 08:54:14 PM »

So...is there to be any single-player campaign in Telepath Tactics, or is it all multiplayer?
You can play any of the game's battles in hotseat mode against one or more computer AI opponents. As for an actual, full campaign...I'm not sure. Telepath Tactics' focus is on individual matches, and right now that's where I'm focusing my efforts. It's possible that I might add a campaign at some point, but it's not top priority.
After reading this, I started to wonder if people would prefer a multiplayer game over a single player campaign.  While I buy games for the single player campaign, many of friends will buy CoD and Halo and only play the multiplayer.  I am curious about other people's views on "Singleplayer vs. Multiplayer".

SmartyPants

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1814
    • View Profile
    • -----
Singleplayer!
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2012, 08:55:24 PM »

I usually loathe multiplayer games, because I loathe the multiple players who I end up playing.

In multiplayer games, many players exploit game engines and use cheap strategies in a ways AIs would never do.  For example, when I play CoD, I always killed by some camping douche who is safely hiding in a corner.  Campers argue that “camping is a legitimate strategy because you can do the same thing”.  I find that argument moot, because there isn’t anything fun about hiding in one place and shooting anyone who walks by.  Of course, why play a game if you can’t have fun?

I also can’t stand the loudest, most talkative people in multiplayer games have nothing nice or relevant to say.  Most of the voices and messages are a bunch of preteens who think they are cool because they know cuss words.  When I don’t hear the prepubescent trash talkers, there is scummy adult or teen who will berate the 10-year-old trash talkers until they cry.  Basically, the veil of online autonomy makes people unbearable to play with.

I also find most multiplayer games repetitive and kind of pointless. I like to get invested in a story and feel like I'm progressing towards some goal, but in most multiplayer games all you do is try to kill each other for a few minutes for no reason whatsoever and for no significant reward. Then once you're done, you start all over again. That can be fun in small doses, but I lose interest in it very quickly.  I think multiplayer games need to learn a lesson from “Assassin’s Creed: Revelations”, and use a frame story to make the multiplayer matches seem less pointless.

While there are many aspects that I don’t like multiplayer, I do have fun playing with people I know.  As a kid, I really enjoyed playing Super Smash Brothers, because the game seemed more fun when you can playfully punch the guy next to you.   Also, I have more fun playing co-op multiplayer than any other game type.  Co-op has the fun of a single player campaign, but you get to do it while goofing off with your buddies.  The times when PvP multiplayer matches only have people you know can be a lot of fun too.  Making strategies with friends and trash talking without being mean spirited is what makes multiplayer games fun, but that isn’t easy to only play with just your friends.

bugfartboy

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1727
    • View Profile
Re: Singleplayer vs. Multiplayer
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2012, 10:25:24 PM »

While I'm not much a lover of First Person Shooters, I can concur with your statements SmartyPants. I've played CoD and Halo at most once or twice each, however I am a player of the Minecrafts and of SSBM and SSBB. (But you may have likely been aware of both beforehand) I can confidently say that it is more fun to play multiplayer with people you know, rather than foul mouthed (and whiny) children (and adults some of the time) within the Minecraft multiplayer system. And as to SSBB, I never play online due to bad connections thanks to wonderful Nintendo. In summation, I concur with your statements, SmartyPants.

Spoiler
I'm afraid I merely restated your arguement, sir. :/
Logged

ArtDrake

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
Re: Singleplayer vs. Multiplayer
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2012, 12:07:24 AM »

Ja, ja. I play singleplayer games for the most part, and when I play multiplayer games, I find a room or game or server where the people are nice. Exit Path 2 players tend to be pretty polite if you're polite first, and there are a couple of well-moderated Ace of Spades servers I frequent where the most obnoxious chat abusers are kicked.

On the other hand, if there isn't any chat, then the multiplayer provides a good challenge that the AI can't provide, you know?
Logged

Steelfist

  • Guest
Re: Singleplayer vs. Multiplayer
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2012, 11:11:40 AM »

I do agree with the statements previously made; multiplayer has many flaws, and it's too often true that 'Person + Anonymity + Audience = total -  *Ahem* unpleasant character.

But, done right, multiplayer can add longevity, challenge and entertainment to a game. I don't believe that single player should be neglected like it tends to currently be, but multiplayer isn't something to be shunned.

Dealing with (or rather, ignoring) obnoxious people is just a price you pay, I suppose.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 01:05:48 PM by SteelFist »
Logged

Tastidian

  • Guest
Re: Singleplayer!
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2012, 06:44:06 PM »

I usually loathe multiplayer games, because I loathe the multiple players who I end up playing.

In multiplayer games, many players exploit game engines and use cheap strategies in a ways AIs would never do.  For example, when I play CoD, I always killed by some camping douche who is safely hiding in a corner.  Campers argue that ďcamping is a legitimate strategy because you can do the same thingĒ.  I find that argument moot, because there isnít anything fun about hiding in one place and shooting anyone who walks by.  Of course, why play a game if you canít have fun?

I also canít stand the loudest, most talkative people in multiplayer games have nothing nice or relevant to say.  Most of the voices and messages are a bunch of preteens who think they are cool because they know cuss words.  When I donít hear the prepubescent trash talkers, there is scummy adult or teen who will berate the 10-year-old trash talkers until they cry.  Basically, the veil of online autonomy makes people unbearable to play with.

I also find most multiplayer games repetitive and kind of pointless. I like to get invested in a story and feel like I'm progressing towards some goal, but in most multiplayer games all you do is try to kill each other for a few minutes for no reason whatsoever and for no significant reward. Then once you're done, you start all over again. That can be fun in small doses, but I lose interest in it very quickly.  I think multiplayer games need to learn a lesson from ďAssassinís Creed: RevelationsĒ, and use a frame story to make the multiplayer matches seem less pointless.

While there are many aspects that I donít like multiplayer, I do have fun playing with people I know.  As a kid, I really enjoyed playing Super Smash Brothers, because the game seemed more fun when you can playfully punch the guy next to you.   Also, I have more fun playing co-op multiplayer than any other game type.  Co-op has the fun of a single player campaign, but you get to do it while goofing off with your buddies.  The times when PvP multiplayer matches only have people you know can be a lot of fun too.  Making strategies with friends and trash talking without being mean spirited is what makes multiplayer games fun, but that isnít easy to only play with just your friends.

This is an argument I just love, allow me to add my opinion. Camping is tactical in the real world and some get a rush off of it don't be so close minded. "No offense and don't let that affect your possible response." And I don't mind the idiot camper one who camps and stays in the same position allows me to have the advantage of the initiative (took me 7 tries to spell initiative) and allow me to screw them of their spot. And no spot is invincible otherwise it will be patched because it can only be a glitch, a hack, or outlawed because its an ingame cheat. Also remember its Call of Duty a very linear game in comparison to the real world. I'll admit I do love the campaign just because of the awesome story.

Sadly
Quote
I also canít stand the loudest, most talkative people in multiplayer games have nothing nice or relevant to say.  Most of the voices and messages are a bunch of preteens who think they are cool because they know cuss words.  When I donít hear the prepubescent trash talkers, there is scummy adult or teen who will berate the 10-year-old trash talkers until they cry.  Basically, the veil of online autonomy makes people unbearable to play with.
all that is true and it is very real. The internet has really not much of a mean to establish shall we say peace. But you have obviously had the miserey of only finding low quality servers if no one in game have nothing better to do but that. Furthermore the very purpose of the mute button is being unfulfilled if you know what i'm saying. But think about it there is a lot of bad in the world but never overlook the lots of good.

Quote
I also find most multiplayer games repetitive and kind of pointless. I like to get invested in a story and feel like I'm progressing towards some goal, but in most multiplayer games all you do is try to kill each other for a few minutes for no reason whatsoever and for no significant reward. Then once you're done, you start all over again. That can be fun in small doses, but I lose interest in it very quickly.  I think multiplayer games need to learn a lesson from ďAssassinís Creed: RevelationsĒ, and use a frame story to make the multiplayer matches seem less pointless.
Multiplayer games of such repetitiveness is designed and tailored to those of such taste and I say good show the fact something has such re-playability. For example some lose interest in such large arguments we are conversing but I certainly have an interest in such dealings. And multiplayer games should learn from L4D and Saints Row The Third.

Quote
While there are many aspects that I donít like multiplayer, I do have fun playing with people I know.  As a kid, I really enjoyed playing Super Smash Brothers, because the game seemed more fun when you can playfully punch the guy next to you.   Also, I have more fun playing co-op multiplayer than any other game type.  Co-op has the fun of a single player campaign, but you get to do it while goofing off with your buddies.  The times when PvP multiplayer matches only have people you know can be a lot of fun too.  Making strategies with friends and trash talking without being mean spirited is what makes multiplayer games fun, but that isnít easy to only play with just your friends.
At least you found a goodie. And I must say Co-op to me is better. But like foods and drinks we have a massive variety why waste all your time on one kind.

I love arguments but not in a hostile one.

Logged

SmartyPants

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1814
    • View Profile
    • -----
Singleplayer!
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2012, 07:57:27 AM »

To be clear, "camping" isn't the reason I prefer singleplayer over multiplayer.  I only used camping as an example of a cheap strategy, because I thought it would be one everyone is familiar with.  My main point is that cheap strategies are often effective, yet boring.  This means that the player can only win with boring methods.

Dullahan argues that camping is like the real world tactic of ambushing, so it is acceptiable in realistic first-person shooters games. I disagree.  No matter how realistic a game is, a game is still a game.  Since realism isn't always fun, all games have unrealistic elements to insure the player has fun.   For example, I can't think of any games that have a realistic approach to death or series injuries.  Unlike the real world, games allow the dead to respawn or go back to the last checkpoint.  Game characters also have unrealistic healing abilities where bullet wounds are healed by either hiding behind a wall for a short time or by using a random first aid kit.  I find the realism of camping/ambushing to be outside the spirit of playing a "game", because the realism of camping takes enjoyability out of the game.  Unlike real players, AI enemies will not use cheap, indefensible strategies that take the fun out of the game.

Multiplayer games of such repetitiveness is designed and tailored to those of such taste and I say good show the fact something has such re-playability.
One of the main purposes of this topic is I wanted to see how many prefer the "repetitiveness" and "re-playability" of multiplayer games over the plot-driven variety of a singleplayer campaign.

I hate to admit this, but another reason that I don't like multiplayer is that I hate to lose.  For me, it easier to retry at singleplayer than it is to lose in a multiplayer match.  It is frustrating to get my ass handed to me repeatedly by veteran players who I can never one-up.  Sometimes I am relieved to play whiny preteens, because they are easier to beat than the people who play everyday for at least 10 hours.

ArtDrake

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
Re: Singleplayer vs. Multiplayer
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2012, 09:54:42 PM »

Project Zomboid tries to have a somewhat realistic approach to death and serious injury -- injury causes horrible status effects that only go away when they are healed, one bleeds out and dies if too seriously injured, and death is permanent. Realism is fun.
Logged

Tastidian

  • Guest
Re: Singleplayer vs. Multiplayer
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2012, 11:37:42 PM »

Quote
Dullahan argues that camping is like the real world tactic of ambushing, so it is acceptiable in realistic first-person shooters games. I disagree.  No matter how realistic a game is, a game is still a game.  Since realism isn't always fun, all games have unrealistic elements to insure the player has fun.   For example, I can't think of any games that have a realistic approach to death or series injuries.  Unlike the real world, games allow the dead to respawn or go back to the last checkpoint.  Game characters also have unrealistic healing abilities where bullet wounds are healed by either hiding behind a wall for a short time or by using a random first aid kit.  I find the realism of camping/ambushing to be outside the spirit of playing a "game", because the realism of camping takes enjoyability out of the game.  Unlike real players, AI enemies will not use cheap, indefensible strategies that take the fun out of the game.
Point taken. I do prefer a game either oriented of crazy unrealism or a good mix of both or totally real you know what I love almost all games. But I wonder a game is made for entertainment can we build a game to satisfy us all. And I wonder what is stopping us from using the cheap tactics to beat our AI opponents. Its like adding a money cheat and expect no one to use it.

Oh and in my opinion losing does suck I don't care how much you can learn from losses its better to just have won. Its like saying its better to have lost a major military battle then not winning the fight in the first place.

With this being the case Red Orchestra is a pretty good realistic game. You bleed out unless you bandage yourself and there are just minor flesh wounds but they make it a little more difficult. Funny thing is it too can satisfy everyone all the "hardcore gamers" want it harder and the casual gamers much easier.
Logged