Are Multiplayer Features Ruining Games?

A question I've been asking myself lately after the many disappointments of this year. With 2014 almost at a close with only one more month to spare I got thinking back to all the big disappointments of the year, now at first I just assumed like many others believed that these recent disappointments were either because the game was hyped too much where the game wouldn't reach our expectations or it was the developers fault for making a let down of a game.

However looking back over the year I noticed something odd, something which every major "let down" had in common, they were all online centric games whether it was games with a huge focus on multiplayer or games which were multiplayer only. Now it might seem exaggerated as you could think of many games which were fairly decent on it's own but I'm talking about the "big guns" the triple A games which are major franchises, things which are supposed to start something new as a new IP or continue a franchise to the next level as a sequel.

When developers add multiplayer to their games they always have to divide time between creating online features and creating the main game unless the main game is supposed to be built up around co-op like Borderlands and Left 4 Dead for example. Time, money and resources are spilt between single player (the base of the game) and it's online side. Now when a game is built up for online play like Left 4 Dead, Borderlands, Dead Island, Payday 2, Magicka, Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light for example, they usually end up pretty decent because that is usually the main feature for those games, getting your buddies together and having a good time online. They set out with co-op/multiplayer in mind, they build up the game around that and market it as it is, what they don't do is create a single player game, get up to the 3rd or 4th game and tacked those features onto it like what we are seeing with many games today.

Take a minute though and imagine what some of the games released just this year could of been like without a focus on multiplayer features, could they are done more to the game if it was single player? I think there is a strong possibility that despite the hype created over the games which many link to the disappointment, that they could of actually been better then they were if they didn't waste their time on online features.

Lets take a look at some of the biggest examples from this year. This may include a lot of "maybe" and "what if" scenarios where I have no proof to back myself up but the point of this is to let people (you guys) explore the possibilities and to draw your own conclusions. With things like this we'll never know so all we can do is speculate.

WatchDogs - The big focus for this game was the "connectivity" gamers would have with each other and also the hacking gameplay you could do with your friend. The "social" theme or the main game was trying to become a major feature for the game with it's online play.

Without the online side of things this game could of focused more of the variety of missions that were lacking within the single player. Time after time we came across either a "potential victim" which had the exact same problem as so many others before them or side missions which felt roughly the same. It's also good to note that this game was delayed for a while, now I'm not saying it would of been done, maybe the reason it was delayed was because of Assassins Creed Black Flags releasing at the same time but with the final product we got I didn't see any major improvements or new features which could of made up for the delay. Did they focus more on the online which lets face it people most likely didn't use that much or did they spend that time finishing that off instead of creating better single player content?

TitanFall - A Standard online only game with different modes which had no single player.

The thing I found funny with this game is that you have a game like Call of Duty which comes out every year and it's online mode is always the big focus yet it still includes a single player despite how short it usually is. Now with what I've heard, people might of rather wanted them to create better online features so maybe it could of done with a little delay but my point still stands on this one, another online centric game was a major let down in the eyes of many.

Destiny - Single player, co-op and competitive multiplayer, Bungie bit off more then they could chew with this one which resulted in all three gameplay features feeling lacklustre.

Destiny is something which could of been fantastic, this is a game which was made by the developers of the highly popular and legendary Halo franchise so obviously when the game was announced many people had high hopes for this one. The problem with the game though like I said above is that Bungie have tried to aim at all three audiences single player games with it's "huge" Sci-Fi story, co-op gamers who want to go into battle with a friend and even a competitive online for gamers to get "sucked into" to prolong the games replay value...however in the end each major feature seems very bare and lacklustre. The single player is short and feels like there isn't enough to do in the maps, not to mention the story being pretty average for the guys who created the entire Universe of bloody Halo. The co-op seems average and doesn't really offer you anything new over what's already out there, some games which can do it better and finally competitive multiplayer which comes off pretty unbalanced, boring and feels like not much time has been put into it, like it was just thrown in there at the last minute.

I honestly think deep down that if Destiny focused on being a single player game things could of been a lot different. This game is supportingly being supported for 10 years right? So why not add co-op or competitive multiplayer later as either DLC or free updates, it's not like you can shape the single player with updates and DLC, you can add story missions sure but the structure of the game is there to stay. Maybe the impressions they gave out about Destiny being a game where you can explore huge maps full of life across the solar system would of came to be, a game where the story would take us around the ruined Earth showing us the many desolate locations to the cold, lifeless "planet" (still is too many) of Pluto. Even if they managed to add Earth (with many locations), the Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter's moons and then did the rest later as Story DLC at least it would of been more then what we got now. Then you have better vehicles, better abilities, more classes, more customization, characters which could of been better developer (COUGH COUGH Ghost). In the end if they picked one feature and stuck to it then added the others later I'm sure Destiny could of been better then what it is now.

Assassins Creed Unity - Another biggie in this list. Despite being a yearly franchise Assassin Creed games have usually been pretty solid one way or another but all of a sudden for being one of the most ambitious AC games they've hyped up since Assassin Creed 3 the game took a surprise turn for the worst. Now what does this game have which other Assassin Creed games haven't done? If you said co-op then you absolutely right, pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself.

For me this game represents how co-op is not such an easy thing to add in a single player game, now I know this game has had multiplayer in the past but with it's basic modes and maps the developers would of never had to worry with structuring the single player game differently for co-op since competitive multiplayer is separate from the main game. Despite having a long time to develop it seems that with Ubisoft having to build up the single player map differently as they would have to think of work around for "up to 4 plays" it changed dramatically and it was something brand new for them. Fact is all those resources, time, man power, blood, sweat, tears could of been focused on creating a game with less bugs, no frame rate problems, create a better well structured story and think up better stealth mechanics for the franchise. Instead of any of that they decided to waste it on a feature not many people really wanted for an Assassins Creed game, I mean hell not many people gave a crap about the multiplayer imagine how better those games could of been.

I feel like Assassins Creed Unity is such a prime example for those crying out for Co-op in my favourite games Elder Scrolls and Fallout. Can you honestly imagine what co-op would do to those games after Ubisoft couldn't do it right with theirs, now obviously your fine to debate which studio you think is better but the fact is Bethesda can't even do a single player game without many bugs, however since the games are so fun we usually forgive them, it's like Bethesda's "thing" many gamers know them by. So in the end can you really imagine co-op bugs on top of single player ones, then you have the fact the story would need to be structured around co-op missions for up to 2-4 friends which would make single player gamers playing feel a little off put by the new mission structures. Seriously guys it's really not worth it and I think Assassins Creed Unity proves that.

I'd like to bring up another game aswell, something which isn't as bad and is something I've been enjoying lately, Far Cry 4. The problem with Far Cry 4 is that it's basically Far Cry 3 reskinned with small improvements here and there and like all major developers they've implemented "co-op" in the single player as a way to make the game appear new and fresh, just like Ubisoft did with Unity. Now I can't really say much would of changed without it, hell there was a small co-op campaign separate for Far Cry 3 but the fact this game has competitive multiplayer and co-op while the majority of the features in the game feel like they are ripped straight from Far Cry 3 angers me a little. Yes having the glider earlier is awesome, that they include (ONLY) one flying vehicle the Buzzer and how I can hijack an enemy car but there is so many other things this game could of had, some which are so obvious that it pains me to think of this as the 4th game as it's really 3.5. However the point still stands who knows what could of changed without multiplayer.

I think it's become apparent now why you see me in the comments calling out multiplayer or co-op. If games are built up around it I don't have a problem but games like Assassins Creed, Far Cry, Resident Evil, Dead Space, Alone in the Dark, Watch Dogs, Mass Effect simply don't need them in the core game. I still believe even something like Grand Theft Auto V could do without the online in the core game, if they want to do DLC after the game releases fair enough but I'm pretty sure some of those new features in the remastered could of been included in last gens versions if they didn't bother with GTA Online which was broken at launch.

Another good example of a game which could of held onto these features is Portal 2. Valve said in an interview once that they had to cut a portion of the single player script because they needed to make way for the co-op story, yet after the game releases Valve makes a brand new and FREE co-op campaign, so lets think about this logically wouldn't it of been easier, ESPECIALLY for someone like Valve who doesn't need to include those features to "boost" sales for more money, to just complete the single player game, make it longer, add in challenges and the like they added in the first game then do the co-op campaign as DLC. It's much easier to do a separate co-op campaign then to try and wiggle in story DLC, Assassins Creed II did this and not many people played those new sequences because people had finished the game and were done with it.

In conclusion I firmly believe multiplayer features are ruining most games today and are taking away precious resources, time and money away from making the core game the best single player experience we'll remember down the line. I'm not saying it's impossible to focus on all three, some games have done this but I think developers need to realise not everyone can do this. If they really want to add those features then just do it as DLC later down the line, it's why I proudly support what Avalanche studios are doing with Just Cause 3, they are making the core game the best they possibly can and in the end they said multilayer could come later down the line maybe as DLC. That is the type of practice we should be supporting because in the end everyone wins, single player games get the best game they can while despite waiting a little longer co-op or competitive multiplayer fans will get to experience that as DLC, but hey, it's not like you wouldn't touch the single player right? So it's not that bad of a wait is it.

I personally feel gamers need to help preserve the solo games we have left as single player games and I hope you think the same way too.