I'll agree that online multiplayer is an important component for games these days...but not every game needs online playable content to do well. And personally, while I like online multiplayer, I usually view it as a nice add-on to the single player campaign. I never even venture online until I finish the story. But that's just me.
You missed the keyword immersed. Movies can offer us great stories, but games offer a much more immersive experience than any movie could. And even if they could, it would be over in 90-120 minutes. Judging by the sales of some single-player only games, millions of people. Agreed. A great online mode can make a game better, and I don't think anyone could argue against the importance it has in some games today. But it is just something that adds to game, not defines it IMO. I finished Resistance, and since I really enjoyed the SP campaign, I played it a little bit online (and got pwned). I played COD4, didn't care for it, so I didn't bother to play it online. FWIW, I don't think all online modes are created equal. I don't think an MMORPG and an online component to a shooter are exactly comparable for example.
So you like playing the computer on Madden or the computer at Street Fighter? Also it seems that people who don't like online multiplayer usually quit cause the other player's skill level intimidates them.
Ditto. I've never got into the popular online deathmatch/capture the flag type games. I play sports games against my friends in person on the same system. That's all I need.
I can't really speak for him, but perhaps he does like the option of playing it online, but it doesn't make or break the game for him. Or at least that is how I feel. Of course, given that these genres are pretty much all about competing, an online mode has a much larger effect. Playing SF online or offline isn't that much different. However, there is a big difference between playing something like MGS4 online vs offline (one involves experiencing an epic story while the other involves testing your skills against others). Well, in my case with Resistance, I didn't try it online until more than a year after it was released, when only the most hardcore people were still playing it for the most part. I played Warhawk for a pretty good while when it was released. Probably would have played it more if I didn't get busy with school... not to mention if my ISP didn't start capping my bandwidth. Of course, even though I had a lot of fun with Warhawk, it didn't really stand out as something that special to me. In fact, the multiplayer just made me sad that the single-player got axed since it could have been pretty awesome.
the online factor which Sony fked up with PS2 was the whole reason why I bought an Xbox. people move, they have different jobs lives. online is the only place they can conveniently play against each other. people are competitive and the arcade is gone. so the best competition is online. you have things you never had in the arcade like rankings. fighting games take time to develop skill, and its no use to test it against a computer cause humans are different. its like playing poker or chess except with 6 buttons.
The point is that you're still trying to compete against another player, AI controlled or not. Of course, they're not exactly the same, but compared to other games (like the example I gave with MGS4), you pretty much have the same goal in mind whether you're playing online or offline.
the point is conveniently finding people to play with. unless you plan someone to come over or you come over to their place at the time that's convenient for you. what if you want to play with many different people? for a fighting game, its one -on-one so if you want to play more challengers what do you do? and they have to know how to play that game and want to play that game at the same time there's absolutely a HUGE ADVANTAGE for online as far as convenience.
dude, playing against the computer is NEVER the same as playing as a human. plus its no fun. maybe you enjoy it, but I like to talk smack to humans not my TV.
Well it depends right? <br> Some games, such as Metroid, MGS, Zelda, Devil May Cry, Mass Effect, etc... are meant to be great single player games. That's what people buy them for, to get a great story and campaign mode. <br> Others, which would already be multiplayer games back in the olden days, such as Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Age of Empires, COD4, Gears of War, etc... Now thrive with the addition of online play. I mean come on, playing online with like 8-16 people is so much more entertaining than split-screen. <br> So aside from stating the obvious, I gotta say both types of games are great. However, the one key difference is this: While a great single player campaign is unmatched, you can only play it so many times. On the other hand, online games such as COD4 and especially as Tinman has prove, Street Fighter can be played for years on end without losing their appeal. Online play, while it may get repetitive, is always unique.
COD4 is a great example. I think nobody cares about the one player campaign, though I liked it. the reason for it selling so well is that online component. which opens up to many different games, domination, deathmatch, etc etc. that's an infinite amount of scenarios, it'll always be different. Games that require competition last forever, unless you are crazy you aren't going to play Final Fantasy 1 over and over and over again.
<br> exactly, even the best rpg's lose their luster after a a few times through... And, if I am correct, rpg's do have some of the best story lines around <br> Not knocking on anything or whatever, just saying...
And yet, one of the reasons why I have been hesitant to buy COD4 is because of its incredibly short single player experience. And all those people who talk s**t online is one thing that annoys me about online play. Just shut up and play. Will agree that multiplayer can add to a shelf life for a game...they key word is add...I probably won't buy it if that's all it has. Cause on the flipside, what happens when people stop playing it online or the servers get shut down. Then you have a paper weight. That's what has happened with my copy of Battlefield 2. Will disagree, partly, concerning split screen multiplayer. For me, personally, I have more fun getting together with my friends at someone's house and playing split screen or lan games. Obviously it's impossible to do that all the time, which is where online multiplayer comes in...and while I have spent countless hours playing Halo online, what I miss most is the marathon ctf games with my friends. I just do not like the fact that game companies are steering away from split screen. Is it really that hard to include both options, with an in-depth single player experience?
I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing AI vs human, or how important online play is in terms of conveniently finding people to play against. I don't disagree with anything you said regarding those things. My point was that when you play something like SF, you're trying to compete against another player (this player possibly being AI controlled and not an actual person). That's more or less the point of SF. You're not playing it to experience the incredible story of how Ryu saved the world from Bison (or whatever). This is what separates something like SF from something like MGS4. If playing MGS4 online meant I got to experience an even better version of what I experienced in the single-player, then it would definitely be much more important to me. I somewhat disagree. Or at least I think a game with a great SP campaign is much more "timeless" than a game with a great MP campaign. For example, if somebody had never played COD4 online, would you recommend it to them in 5 years? You might not even be able to play it online in 5 years, but even if you could, chances are that many other games would have surpassed it by that point (including newer COD games). On the other hand, if they hadn't played Mass Effect, MGS, etc., I'd definitely recommend it and despite how long it has been from their release dates, they could still get a lot of enjoyment out of it. SF is enjoyable throughout the years due to its gameplay, not due to any sort of multiplayer components IMO. If playing offline is your thing, you'd still be enjoying it today. Of course, playing against others helps, I'll admit that. SF is more like the exception rather than the rule though. It is much more difficult to improve upon its formula compared to other games in other genres. If COD5 online was exactly like COD4 except it offered more maps, more modes, more players online, etc., people wouldn't even bother playing COD4 I think. I think this is more or less the case for a lot of shooters and games in other genres (how many people still play Madden 2004 online?).
re-play value. I think it is intentional that they make so many of these games where you spend a couple weeks beating it then its a coaster. Then they put out a bunch of sequels that the only real difference is levels. Like was said, SF2 can be played forever but to have fun with Splinter Cell you have to by the next one, and the next one, and the next one...It sucks but it seems games w/o re-play value are much more profitable than the ones with re-play value. I'm not a beast in fighting games so the online thing isn't as big a deal but games with multiplayer always have the best re-play value and i'm just not into buying something that is worthless in a month anymore.
I don't play fighter games at all. If I did then multi-player would be important, but not as important as just playing against friends who use the other controller on the same system and are sitting in the same room with me. I only play sports games with people in the same room and don't play them online at all. I'm not against it but I don't really care. The games I do like such as Oblivion, or GTA is all about a good story and single player games. Mass Effect, Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, are my favorite games I've played lately. Needless to say the single player game, story, graphics and all of that is far more important in those games than anything such as online play. Gears of war was fun too, but I most enjoyed co-op mode with someone sitting in the same room with me and the two of us going after the bad guys in that one.
Madden is a money making scheme you know this. it would be easier to just have updated rosters for people who don't want to buy the newest versions.
<br> Right, but this might be even true even more so with great single player games. Although GTAIV was a great game, I haven't touched it since I beat it. IMO, generally, great single player games do turn into paperweights much sooner than a great online game. <br> Having said that though, I think the initial experience is well worth it for a great single player game.
