Not every game needs multiplayer..I notice that the games that do have multiplayer usually have a short SP campaign.

I hate this generation of gaming. So many think multiplayer is the most important thing a game can have.

"Sales = Quality"
It's a joke article. BadJoyStick this drivel.

this trend in the gaming industry is the first sign of the apocalypse

I don't get much out of multiplayer shooters, it's the same sh*t every game.

Something needs to happen, they need to revolutionize it by finding ways to integrate it into the story. Right now every game is like playing Quake 3 or Counter Strike over again.

not every game needs a goddamn multiplayer mode for f*ck sake. i love my single player experiences a hell of a lot more then multiplayer.

the only time i play multi is when im playing coop with friends other than that i really could care less about it. i've had more fun with single player games this generation then multiplayer.

Ratchet & Clank (series)
Infamous
Final Fantasy 13
Uncharted (series)
Mass Effect (series)
God of War 3
Metal Gear Solid 4
Heavy Rain
Crackdown
Batman AA
Assassin's Creed (series)
Heavenly Sword
Mirror's Edge
Valkyria Chronicles (best rpg i've played this gen)
Bioshock 1
Lost Odyssey
Mario Galaxy
Zelda TP
Fire Emblem
LittleBigPlanet
Demon's Souls

now with these games mentioned here it's not to suggest i hate all multiplayer games which i don't like

Killzone 2
Borderlands
Gears of War (mostly for single player though)
Burnout Paradise
MLB The Show
Call of Duty (mostly for single player)
Resistance (series)

guess what i'm saying is you'll get my $60 for a great single player experience over multiplayer any day of the week.

I mean, nobody could possible be this stupid... Right...?

The problem is that developers aren't going to double their resources to have both single and online multiplayer, so one or the other is going to suffer, quality or length wise.

·

of course not ..we don't need multiplayer in every game.

I don't want multi player in heavy rain , nor in final fantasy 13.

there are plenty of genres that don't need multiplayer to survive ...
assasin creed, ICO ( 2 other games that DON'T NEED multiplayer yet are really good and fun to play

Let's give more people access to broadband first. I realize this isn't a problem in Europe or Japan, but in the U.S. and Canada, many people (including myself) are relegated to dial-up. News flash: dial-up sucks, and I'd happily pay for high speed internet.

Hopefully Congress' new broadband bill will do something to help.

Yes this is satirical. It even says so at the end.

That being said, I absolutely HATE this multiplayer trend that has been swarming gaming this generation. Any day of the week I would prefer great single-player experience over a good multiplayer. There are very few multiplayer games that even keep my attention long enough. The most recent being MAG. Even that still gets old to me after a while. Want replayability? Then make a single-player game that's so compelling and filled with so many extras that I want to go back and play it again and again. GOW3 I'll be playing again just to relive that experience and quite frankly just to have fun with it going back and using all those unlockables. The Uncharted series I'll play again and again just because it's a great game and even offers more to go back and try to hunt for all those treasures through the game on additional playthroughs.

This "everything needs multiplayer" mentality is going to be the bane of gaming. Especially the way they're doing multiplayer now. Everything has to be pretty much a shooter multiplayer. It gets old as hell. Want to keep multiplayer relevant? Then developers are going to have to switch it up and offer new experiences. That doesn't just include different perks and whatnot for the same ol' multiplayer shooter. A good example would've been Valkyria Chronicles. That game is one of my favorite of this generation hands-down. Favorite RPG this generation so far. And completely satisfied with it. However, could've taken a good step forward with multiplayer on that. That gameplay just screamed accessibility to multiplayer. Going against a friend on different maps in a strategic battle. As it stands though everything is just the same ol' stuff over and over again. Bioshock 2? Let's tack on a generic shooter multiplayer mode. UC2? Same thing (would've really loved to see some kind of treasure hunt mode or something if they wanted to add online). Not that either of those games are bad. And I wouldn't blame it on the developers necessarily either. Seems all the critics (like mentioned in the article) like to dock games just because they don't have that generic king-of-the-hill multiplayer mode. Take the first Uncharted for example. Critics and gamers alike are always screaming for the same stuff over and over and over again. Thinking everything has to have that same stuff. Then we wonder why we get the same games over and over again.

Bottom line: the great single player experience is what has defined all my favorite games this generation (VC, UC, GOW, Demon's Souls, etc). I'll take that single player experience over multiplayer any day.

I hate to say this, going to start some flaming I'm sure, but we have Halo and COD to blame for all this. At least before then, the PC community kept it (multiplayer shooters) under control. Granted GoldenEye made a huge step towards what we have now, at least they did it moderately right though (not trying to dog it either, great game that I had lots of fun with), it at least had it split screen. Split screen being another dying breed as well these days. And people wonder why there are games being made that are online-only. Which is also funny because critics will complain about online-only games as well when they're the first to make it out like online is the most important part, even going so far as to praise the most popular multiplayer games that simply put on a charade of putting in some insanely short campaign mode that's nothing more than a "boot training/tutorial" session.

On the bright side, at least this craze is sticking to the FPS/TPS realm for the most part (with the exception of a a few like Uncharted, GTA, certain racers, etc. Ok there are alot that aren't shooters, just shooters are the ones pushing it). And only few (including non-shooters) do it well enough to entertain me and actually be something more than a generic tack-on.

Oh how I miss the days when I was younger and the single-player was catered to rather than the dumb kids who can't get enough of seeing how many times the same multiplayer shoot 'em up/run'n'gun crap can be recycled. At least we still have some developers that are still dedicated to bringing amazing single-player experiences though.

P.S. I touched on it earlier, but.....split-screen. How about we ignore online multiplayer so much and resurrect this? That's another all but lost art. Even racers are ignoring split-screen. The only decent racing game that has split-screen that I know of is Motorstorm. What happened to the good ol' days of sitting around passing around the controller playing CTR or Mario Kart with friends? Now it seems local multiplayer has gone by the wayside in favor of the more "plug in a mic and sit alone in a dark room" approach with the exception of the obvious sports and fighting games (which can do it with splitscreen). This I blame on the obsession with graphics that all these graphics-whores has brought about. Developers don't want to have to sacrifice graphics in order to split that screen. Sacrificing graphics like that these days are like a death knell. So basically the lesson we're learning this generation is: Make the game as pretty as you can at all costs, then tack on some generic deathmatch/king of the hill multiplayer while also including some poor excuse for a single-player experience and just market the hell out of that game so it sells lots and there you have a certifiable "classic".

"I hate this generation of gaming. So many think multiplayer is the most important thing a game can have.

I hate your generation of gaming. The kind who think multiplayer has no value whatsoever. The kind of person who if they had it their way, every single game would have single player only. So many think that single player is the most important thing a game can have.

Tell me, who are you to say which is better? What makes you sp only gamers think you have a right to tell others that they are playing a lesser quality game or that somehow mp will always be inferior?

A real gamer plays and enjoys both without saying that one is better than the other.

If you're argument against multiplayer is that it is repetitive and doesn't make you think at all, then I could say the same to you about single player games. Only a handful of games these days have decent stories, and the ones that do have decent stories, are on par with a b movie action flick, so I could tell you how mindless sp is in that respect, but I don't because that would be stupid, along with calling someone who loves mp stupid.

It does seem that the attitude of the industry is "everything needs mp", but here on n4g, the attitude is "NOTHING NEEDS MP". I remember you people b*tching like little babies that Uncharted 2 was going to suck because they were going to add multiplayer, yet the game turned out to be one of the highest rated of all time.

the author is a moron... honestly. yeah id love for some devs who dont have the budget to lessen their game just to include multiplayer..
i wonder how long this guy has been playing video games... certainly not very long, because he would have hated pre online systems...