Anyone else hate single player games?

[Viking84]

I like both - a good single player story driven game like Far Cry can be great fun. I have also played through Half Life 2 (and episodes) more times than I can count just because I enjoy the story and setting

For multiplayer PvP I prefer games that are solely intended for PvP. I play quite a bit of PUBG which is amazing fun if you team up with 3 friends - a mini adventure for your group that ends within 30 minutes! In games like Elite I prefer PwP, and in general only with people I know... the internet is unfortunately full of 12 year olds (by age or mentality), and being forced to interact with them in any meaningful way is a pain.

 

[BlackSpaceCowboy]

I was under the impression that the majority of players preferred multiplayer games, but I saw a poll where something like 60% of respondents said they prefer single player. I was quite shocked by that. To me single player is extremely boring and shallow. There are a lot of good space games out there, but most are single player and therefore I have no interest in them. No man's sky is one example but I hear they are adding more multiplayer activities, and even PVP, so I will probably give it a second look.

It appears that I am in the minority, but is there anyone else here that just cannot force themselves to play, even a good, game if it's single player only?

I got bored with most multiplayer games years ago. It used to be all that I played but there is a point where team deathmatch gets really really old. And that's the problem, most multiplayer games are some variant of team deathmatch or even worse deathmatch. The other multiplayer games are Warcraft-like MMOs that are huge timesinks.

I still play multiplayer sim racing and now I'm playing Echo Combat (beta) (yes it's teamdeathmatch but it's Zero-G in VR) and Star Trek Bridge Crew.

I do like co-op multiplayer. I wish there was more of that. I loved Rainbow Six coop back in the day.

 

[Demascus]

I generally hate people, single player games will always interest me over multiplayer.

 

[Taimaru]

I prefer single-player games and if I see a trailer for a game which looks awesome, one of the first things I do is to see if it is or has single-player mode. If it doesn't I'm not interested unless the multi-player allows you to have private servers.

I enjoy playing multi-player with friends but I don't really enjoy multi-player with strangers.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

For me single player games are the only real out there.

Not because I dont play Multiplayer but because of how companies today make these titles or "have to do them" in the first place.

Never noticed how pure multiplayer games are basically "lite" games at best? Doom was one of my first multiplayer games I experienced. It was a blast but it did live off its single player component which everybody went through. Multiplayer is simply an empty map which you fill with players who then create content for each other. regarding resources and effort the multiplayer part isnt in any way exceptional or impressive really. The mode uses the exact same mechanics as the single player campaign so the single player campaign is the "real" game and the multiplayer mode is just a secondary game mode.

And this recipe has continued down the road. Titles these days look better and some have rather complex mechanics in place but they are all the same.....take out the players and you have nothing...not even a single player game. I kind of hate that dependency where my entertainment depends fully on the people I end up with. Because most of the time its not your friends you play these games with but total strangers, whole teams of em which the game puts together for you. And the result usually is stressful and frustrating more then enjoyable. Many of the older games which offered both modes or which were sold as single player games PLUS mp mode I bought for the game itself and I was able to enjoy the game either way depending on my current mood.

Multiplayer games these days dont give me a choice anymore. The best these games manage is a PvE variant against braindead AI with next to no content because its the same maps and the same objectives as in the MP mode.

Of course its only my opinion but IMO developers these days cut a lot of work for the same amount of profit. This counts for pretty much every example of this genre. Blizzards Overwatch has great quality and the balance is just right, its an exceptional title in its own right, true success on Blizzards part....no single player game. How many older titles today are unplayable because you are unable to find anybody to play with in the first place? Here you have that great game responsible for some of your great memories but you cannot enjoy it alone because the game doesnt let you. And that is if the game is around at all. Multiplayer games usually are online only which means you have to have an internet connection to play it. I m thinking "great" when its an option I can use but making it a requirement? Not so hot.

Now what happens when the companies take down the server for whatever reason? Play on black hacked servers if you can find any? Like that is secure. Most of the time it means yet another game that is dead meat, not worth the money you put down for it.

I used to buy a game and own it. Be able to fire it up whenever I wanted and could play em how I wanted. That was possible because they were designed and created with the single player in mind which allows me to play it that way. Now the more successful games also offered mp capabilities which was great. Loved many games for the ability to connect with others.

But mp games today dont give me that choice anymore. And they restrict the way I want to play these games as well. For me....multiplayer games are the "lesser" of the two. You save time and effort on AI, on NPCs, on story, on scripts, dont need as many cutscenes etc etc.

All you need for a MP game is a balanced map and a balanced system, thats it. AAA titles today offer a single player campaign which is laughably short for the amount of money you put down and then all the replay value is in MP. This isnt how its used to be. Single player games offered mutliple endings, variations in story depending on how you acted, offered numerous classes which enabled you to experience the game in different ways. All this is mostly gone today. And because the mp game mode is so established today most are copy-n-paste jobs. Different skins and different weapons but the balance is pretty much how they started out. Most RTS games follow Blizzards lead , most shooters lean on previous successful designs. Same old same old in a new dress.

i liked CoD:Infinity war for its campaign. It was just too short, too easy and doesnt have any replayability. Its not a bad game for sure, but its simply too short and doesnt offer enough for the amount of money they are asking for it. Sometimes I wonder where all the money from development goes into? Certainly not story and content. Visuals probably. And then you have all those pixel games which are simply EPIC because they focus on what you can actually do in them and offer your freedom of choice. I m just like the next guy when it comes to graphics. I like em good, a man/woman has standards today you know. But great visuals dont make a great game and multiplayer is nothing then a game MODE for me, not a game in its own right. I dont need extensive cutscenes bordering on ingame movies keeping me at the screen for 20 minutes in one sitting. Thats all money spent that could ve gone into giving me more game instead.

Remember all those great classics from 25-30 years ago? Sure outdated visuals and not really stellar when it comes to complexity but they were great games. Worth every penny. And if I want I can dust em off and play em today if I want. Titles like PUBG or Overwatch.....they will be dead, deserted or discontinued when the "next big hit" lands. Oh they are worth money of course and many are worth buying as well but I cannot stop to wonder how games of old were the "better" ones when it comes to games in general. Multiplayer games are just the lazy quick n dirty version.

We might as well just buy phones, and tablets. I'm quite serious.

 

[MTBFritz]

I generally hate people, single player games will always interest me over multiplayer.

Considering the default reaction from others to their fellow humans in most MP titles I d say you share that attitude with everybody else

No seriously the amount of flaming, trolling and pure vitriol received over ingame chat or game forums has drastically increased over the years. Things were VERY different when Everquest was released. Ultima online was similar to EVE online today when it came to survivability and how people interact with each other but those were exceptions. Most people back then were eager to help out each other, talk and simply enjoy company.

Todays MMOs are but a shadow of those past memories. Now you are a BLEEP camper, , leecher or a bot. The level of mistrust and animosity is extreme compared to those previous times. Laughing about somebody is preferable to laughing with somebody. The tiniest mistakes on your part trigger an extreme reaction where people are more the willing to tell you to off yourself or (if you are lucky) "just delete the game".

We might as well just buy phones, and tablets. I'm quite serious.

An intriguing idea but the problem is that thats exactly what I used my tablet and smartphone for. When my smartphone started to rival my desktops performance capabilities I still only ever had one in order to.....PHONE WITH PEOPLE I know I know....scandalous but thats really all I needed my smartphone for. I dont handle my bank affairs via phone, I dont put my life online and I dont share every single moment of everything I experience with the world. In order to somehow tap into this small computers capabilities I soon started to delve into mobile games. And a lot of them are easy to get into as well, are even FUN at first. But its all an illusion. Most mobile games are F2P which comes with a shared option I learned to HATE with a passion. Time grind and online store transactions. Most mobile games look very flashy or ever let you do a lot of stuff in the beginning. But most soon hit you with a paywall you cannot escape....or ridiculous amounts of online advertisement.

Its pretty much the same as "harassment" for me and I learned to stay away from mobile games because even if I find one that doesnt trigger one of my "fits" they are all designed to lure you into the store where you can pay cent amounts with but the press of a button.

Now I dont have a problem with giving the devs some cash in return for the quality of the game they delivered in the first place. And F2P games sound about perfect because before that it was always a risky purchase. The game you paid full price for could be fun, could be awful you only find out AFTER you buy it. But F2P games today are "designed" to allow you an easy introduction and "hook" you before they present all the P2W options you simply have to use in order to progress. They are all the same, no exceptions and sometimes I think I m the only one having a problem with this.

Mobile games are not games at all. Most are designed as pure MP titles and the rest is but a clever contraption to get your money. As such I usually see them as "temptations" but not really "games" in their own right.

 

[dreamer1986]

I mostly enjoy single player games. Most of them are simply superior in every way to multiplayer games. Look for example at the Elder Scrolls single player games and the MMO Elder Scrolls Online. Its a pretty big difference, with the single player games being a lot more enjoyable, with better content and more complex gameplay.

 

[Oss133]

Single Player ftw.

Co-op, but only with trusted friends.

 

[Iskariot]

I prefer single-player games and if I see a trailer for a game which looks awesome, one of the first things I do is to see if it is or has single-player mode.

Yep I do the same. If a game does not have a decent single player campaign mode, or good bots (like unreal tournament, quake etc.), I simply shove it into a dusty corner of my mind and forget about it. I ignore all articles about it on gaming sites etc. I don't even consider these products as viable games.
That is why I even now know hardly anything about the current online multiplayer hits. I couldn't even tell you their names.

 

[Backer42]

Yep I do the same. If a game does not have a decent single player campaign mode, or good bots (like unreal tournament, quake etc.), I simply shove it into a dusty corner of my mind and forget about it. I ignore all articles about it on gaming sites etc. I don't even consider these products as viable games.

Most modern multi player titles have single player tacked on as an afterthought with the amount of content you got for free with a shareware demo in the past. Only that you are now meant to pay 60-70 bucks for that. Titanfall 2 is a prime example (and its multi player is almost dead now, of course).

 

[EUS]

I prefer SP games. My library is full of them.
In fact the only MP game I currently enjoy is CS : S
I bought E : D because it was possible to play solo, however I'll play any mode I feel like that particular evening.

 

[lysan]

I prefer SP games. My library is full of them.
In fact the only MP game I currently enjoy is CS : S
I bought E : D because it was possible to play solo, however I'll play any mode I feel like that particular evening.

Only MP games I got are Arma, dayz, dcs, il2, ED and GTA however I can also play these games in SP mode

 

[Zmidponk]

There are good multiplayer games.
There are bad multiplayer games.
There are good single-player games.
There are bad single-player games.

I hate bad games, I like good ones. Single-player or multiplayer isn't really any kind of deciding factor in that. It is interesting to note, though, that any time you see a list of 'the best games of all time', or something like that, it tends to be dominated by games that are primarily or only single-player.

 

[Old Duck]

There are good multiplayer games.
There are bad multiplayer games.
There are good single-player games.
There are bad single-player games.

I would add that one variable to multiplayer games is the players, and I'm not sure even the best programmers can compensate for toxic players. "Ice wall, coming up! In your face teammate, thus aiding the other team - hahaha!!!!" Thanks Mei, thanks...

My experience is that even great multiplayer games are slowly becoming a toxic hellstew (I walked away from Overwatch because of this), thus my renewed interest in single-player games. Perhaps that's why Battle Royal is so popular lately, since at least there you go in knowing that everyone in the game is out to ruin your day.

 

[marx]

My experience is that even great multiplayer games are slowly becoming a toxic hellstew (I walked away from Overwatch because of this), thus my renewed interest in single-player games. Perhaps that's why Battle Royal is so popular lately, since at least there you go in knowing that everyone in the game is out to ruin your day.

There's that, and also that you don't really want to speak to your enemies, as you'll be giving away your position then. So basically, there is an immediate consequence to trash-talking: getting shot at.

Since you mentioned Overwatch: they added an endorsement system recently, I went back and found things much improved. Granted, I didn't try playing competitive again (yet), but just by rewarding good behaviour and making it easier to find like-minded folks via an LFG tool, you can improve things. And then elitist players will only play with each other.

Personally, there's one thing I like multiplayer games for: the challenge. Sadly, many SP games don't really offer much in that regard, although I'm not always looking for that. But when I do, it's nice to know that there are some pretty good choices there.

 

[Old Duck]

Since you mentioned Overwatch: they added an endorsement system recently, I went back and found things much improved. Granted, I didn't try playing competitive again (yet), but just by rewarding good behaviour and making it easier to find like-minded folks via an LFG tool, you can improve things. And then elitist players will only play with each other..

That's encouraging - I'll give it another go! Overwatch is one of my favorite PvP games when teams are even and teammates are pulling their own weight. I don't expect players to be league quality, but I do get tired of ice wall in the face from my own Mei, etc.

 

[Necronaught]

Gaming has gone so mainstream that in the Quake Champions discussions, on Steam, there have been multiple controller support threads. Yes we have fallen further than that. Back in the day the average gamer was on their N64 and PS1, which left the geeks in the online world.

It was new and exciting. The ability to play with people from all over the world didn't get old. Then the average consumer mind started to discover all the free stuff that PC's can appropriate. Plus DayZ got a lot of console peasants involved in our scene. Thus what was kinda toxic on some servers became the norm.

 

[Frank]

London based MUD? Hosted at Imperial College by any chance? In the early 90s?

A month late getting back to you <blush>

With a great answer.... I don't know.

The MUD I was playing was called "Avalon"

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Why should i hate a game mode?

If anything i hate poorly designed games.

- Games with poorly designed multiplayer support when aimed at multiplay
- Games with a crappy single player campaign only there to promote the multiplayer part of the game
- Games that only focus on looking good and let gameplay suffer

 

[Demascus]

That's encouraging - I'll give it another go! Overwatch is one of my favorite PvP games when teams are even and teammates are pulling their own weight. I don't expect players to be league quality, but I do get tired of ice wall in the face from my own Mei, etc.

After playing Overwatch for the better part of 2 years I can conclude that Overwatch is Team Fortress 2 for idiots. Unreasonably huge hitboxes, dumbed down game play/abilities and Mei is cancer.

It is however fun...dumb fun..... But a fun arcade shooter.