Poll: Do you prefer single- or multiplayer gaming?

Valve is in the news this week with word that Portal 2 might be the studio’s last "isolated single-player experience." There’s much debate about exactly what that statement means, and even Valve seems unsure about its plans. However, the discussion brings up an interesting question: do you prefer to play single-player campaigns, or would you rather spend your time with multiplayer modes, be they co-operative, adversarial, or team-based? Let us know by voting below or in the middle column on the front page.

In last week’s poll, we asked you to vote on the rawest tech deal of the moment. Nearly a majority (48%) think that a 250GB data cap on a 105Mbps Internet service is worst of the options presented. Trailing far behind with 20% of the vote is the iPhone "bug" that tracks and logs your every movement. 15% are irked by Crysis 2‘s $60 asking price, while 13% think that early P67 adopters are getting screwed. Only 4% feel sufficiently ripped off by the hours they poured into the GlaDOS@home ARG to vote for that option. Perhaps Portal 2 was a sweet enough reward without much of an early release.

Comments closed
    • marvelous
    • 9 years ago

    I can go both ways. Single multi it doesn’t matter. Long as I’m enjoying myself. hahaha

    • clone
    • 9 years ago

    I’m always for great single player, I find online multiplayer to be spoiled by games that allow ppl to behave badly and by the same ppl who just want to behave badly despite them being in the minority the results are far reaching.

    I also find ppl are just are repetitious as AI opponents in video games, many just want to sit back and wait and snipe, I don’t discourage this the results are solid but if everyone sits back and snipes in every game well… what a pointless endeavor that is.

    when the original FarCry came out a few were talking about how much better it would have been if their were “real” opponents instead of AI on the islands to which I responded “are you kidding it would have been an absolutely horrible game with everyone sitting back hiding in the jungle sniping you.”

    1 vs 1000 and all of them sniping…. what an absolutely horrible game that would be.

    for any wondering their was a game that had that component in it called Call of Duty years ago and I remember everyone at work being frustrated because every corner in the “sniper village” you’d get sniped, poke head around corner “bang” dead, poke head around corner “bang” dead.

    literally the worst board ever, leaving the player to sacrifice himself repeatedly in order to find where the snipers were so he could pick them off one at a time then die and pick off another then die and look for another so remember to save in between every sniper kill lest risk rinse and repeating even more.

      • Mr Bill
      • 9 years ago

      Game realism is a problem. At distance, most people would not be able to keep a bead on a spot to snipe it. The game makes trivial what is actually very difficult. A more realistic game might have the scope constantly wandering under high magnification. Perhaps pulsing with heart beat and breathing.

    • SonicSilicon
    • 9 years ago

    Co-op tends to be my favorite. Finding a game that does it well is rather infrequent, though. Some MMOs may hit many features, but the sheer numbers of players and approach to socializing rarely results in a similar feel.

    • pmeysemb
    • 9 years ago

    single player:….

    deserted island, computer (w/power), one game limit —> HOMM3 (not 4 or 5) will do for me….

    nuff said. πŸ™‚

    • deinabog
    • 9 years ago

    I prefer single-player mode. I’ve never cared for multiplayer in games and don’t see the fascination around it.

      • NeXus 6
      • 9 years ago

      For some it’s their ego, for others it’s just a way to kill some time and have a good time. You can usually spot the ego types because when they’re having a bad gaming session, they don’t stick around long.

      • travbrad
      • 9 years ago

      Much like sports it’s the competitiveness that people like. Now they may be competing with completely arbitrary skill-sets (how often does someone need to click really fast or catch a ball in the real world?), but it’s still a competition nonetheless.

      Apart from that it can be great fun to play with friends. I remember when the BF1942 demo came out we spent many hours playing it over the LAN, laughing our asses off. You have to admit playing a boardgame (Monopoly, chess, etc) is more fun with friends than playing against a computer. Some people feel the same way about videogames.

    • ronch
    • 9 years ago

    I’ve always thought I never need real human players to play against when my CPU can do the playing with me. That’s right. My CPU is my best friend.

    • sigher
    • 9 years ago

    I used to love to play MP but at some point the anger at cheaters and griefers and such just started to make me too mad and I had to step away,
    As for SP, the problem there that it’s most often a 1 time deal when it’s a story, and when it’s not then you so soon realize all the predictable things in the programming and it becomes either too easy and/or you get a sort of empty feeling since you become aware it’s so ‘fake’.

      • travbrad
      • 9 years ago

      Most games don’t actually have a lot of cheaters, they are just people living in their parents basement who can play 10 hours a day. I used to be one of those people during middle/high-school with Quake 2 and Counter-Strike, and I was frequently accused of “hacking”.

      I’m not saying there are no cheaters out there, but in most games they are pretty rare (or they are so bad that they lose even with cheats). It depends a lot on the type of game too. Cheating in strategy games for example is less common than in FPSs.

        • clone
        • 9 years ago

        I agree but regardless the games are ruined because ppl assume everyone is cheating.

        Unreal 2004 in the beginning was an amazing game then “aimbots” appeared and … well that was the end of it.

        the same goes for ppl behaving badly in games or “grief” players, rarely can you get rid of them for long and all they want to do is ruin it for everyone else…. they are few in number but far reaching in results.

        regarding strategy games cheating or grief players are just as rampant it’s just the tactics that change, I always wondered why Blizzard would allow players to ally and then in the midst of a game go hostile so they could “backstab”.

        literally they catered to bad behavior.

    • jcw122
    • 9 years ago

    I’m probably never going to visit TechReport ever again based on the results of this poll. Pathetic. Team-based multiplayer FOREVER (Hubick hit the nail on the head!)

      • sigher
      • 9 years ago

      At least you realize it’s just the specific crowd and you can’t conclude a global preference from this poll
      .
      But are you on techreport for the gaming? I didn’t think so, so you can stay and just visit for the tech πŸ™‚
      You have to know what’s new and good in computing to select a good MP setup.

      • KoolAidMan
      • 9 years ago

      It is my experience from LAN parties that the people with the most outrageously uber rigs (emphasis on “outrageously”) were almost always the worst at games. The results of this poll do not surprise me one bit.

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      Butthurt detected…..

    • nanoflower
    • 9 years ago

    I’ve always been a single player gamer. Part of it is due to the control of the game and part of it is due to time constraints. The only games where I’ve spent significant time playing multiplayer was with Draken (the dragon flying game) where you played on small maps with magic weapons, and a LOT of time in Diablo 2. The one thing I didn’t like with Diablo 2 (and it’s what keeps me from playing a lot of MP games) was the PvP aspect. If a game is meant to be only Player Vs Player then so be it but in a game where it’s mostly co-operative I hated having someone come in and try to wipe some one out. It eventually turned me off of playing Diablo 2 online.

    The other problem I have with multi-player games is that you are usually playing against people that feel like experts compared to me. I don’t spend hours getting expert at build outs or doing snap shots so I get wiped out quickly when playing online. I was in the Starcraft 2 online beta and found that even with their matchmaking setup I got killed within a couple of minutes every time. Yes, I could get get better at handling rushes or developing my own ability to do the same but at that point it takes the game from fun over to work. That level of fast paced micromanagement just isn’t as enjoyable to me as it is to others.
    .

    • dashbarron
    • 9 years ago

    KOTOR was one of the first games where I felt truly immersed and had a strong feeling that the game warped around my every decision. Love the singe-player escapade.

    • ModernPrimitive
    • 9 years ago

    My boring and brief gaming history: Played single player racing games, a couple of flight sims and a couple of shooters in late 98. Microsoft Sidewinder joystick came with Mechwarrior 3. I was hooked instantly on multiplayer and rarely played single player except for my racing games. Along came the new Wolfenstein and I realized my 56k wouldn’t cut it for future titles. No broadband was available to me either….A few years later and a relocation found me with a shiny new machine, DSL and a copy of Battlefield 2142. Had some decent fun. MW2 came along and my online experience started becoming more grief than fun with the “pwner” generation reaching the servers…. 1 game out of 10 was fun. The other 9 being ruined by the occasional cheater but mostly by bad attitudes, name calling, server lags or boots, lack of servers or players….

    I blame myself some for expecting a different experience than what reality can offer… πŸ™‚

    A couple of years ago i decided it was more fun playing single player again and went back to racing titles and single player mode in the COD series. Lately only my laptop and Fallout New Vegas serves duty for gaming….

    I’m getting old though and my gaming days may be over. Photography, hiking and other things are more appealing these days.

    • Xenolith
    • 9 years ago

    I finished Portal 2. The previous single player campaign I completed… the original Portal. The one before that was Doom 3. So I am mainly a multiplayer guy.

    • DeadOfKnight
    • 9 years ago

    In my opinion, if you can’t at least have a good single player experience then you probably shouldn’t even have a game. Multiplayer is fun and all, but what are you gonna do on those days that you have no internet connection? This is why I’ll always buy my games on GOG before I buy on Steam. And the only reason I buy Steam games is because they frequently have good deals. Honestly I think this is what gives Blizzard such a good rep though. They give the same amount of polish to their single player as well as their multiplayer modes rather than just slapping on the ability to frag other players. They provide all multiplayer play types for their games:

    Co-op: Battle.net Diablo, Warcraft, & Starcraft games vs AI. Questing with friends in WoW could be considered co-op.
    Adversarial: Dueling in Diablo. Duels, Arenas, and battlegrounds in WoW. Any PvP matches in Warcraft or Starcraft.
    Team-Based: Everything except for Diablo multiplayer is team focused, but Diablo III arena is supposed to change that.

    I’m not saying this to be a fanboy, I’m just pointing out that this is something that one developer does right and it shows in their game sales. They offer a great multiplayer experience with great free servers which have been supported for nearly 15 years and counting, consistent patching and updating to keep their games balanced and bug-free, as well as customer support for people who may have only spent $10 ten years ago for a copy of Diablo. They also give a single-player for all their games (excepting WoW which is to be expected for an MMO) that has replayability that still stands up to this day, something nearly all other developers need to work on.

      • bfar
      • 9 years ago

      Seriously – why would you build a highly acclaimed and financially successful single player game like portal 2, only to come out two weeks later and say that single player games are not where it’s at? Are Valve on crack? There’s nothing wrong with their current strategy, which is to produce a mix of single/multi player games. Why fix what ain’t broke? I realise that most of their games are multiplayer, but it would seem to me that their single player titles have been just as successful. Why stop now?

      I mostly prefer single games myself, but I genuinely didn’t realise so many people felt the same. This poll ought to give Valve and the other publishers some food for thought. They’ve been telling us what kind of games we want for so long, we’ve actually started believing them. Maybe it’s high time they started listening to their customers? Maybe do some real market research instead of making it all up. They might even make a few quid out of it :~

      Does all this mean that Episode 3 isn’t coming?

    • KoolAidMan
    • 9 years ago

    I’m surprised at how many single player answers there are here. I love a well crafted single player, Portal 2 is probably going to be my favorite game of 2011, absolutely stellar storytelling and gameplay. That said, there is no question that I will continue to devote way more time witnessing countless acts of savagery in the manliest game ever.

    I am talking of course of Starcraft 2 1v1 and 2v2 on the ladder. πŸ™‚

    Quake, CS, Battlefield, and now Starcraft 2, adversarial multiplayer will always have a special place in my heart.

    • matnath1
    • 9 years ago

    Single player lets me enjoy the game at my own pace. Multiplayer annoys the crap out of me as all I seem to do is spend time re-spawning….

    • btb
    • 9 years ago

    Prefer singleplayer.

    Therefore COD:Black Ops was a big dissappointment, because it basically kills all the single player replay value with their ridiciolous cutscenes with flashbacks which you are forced to watch every goddamn time you want to replay a mission. For single player value COD MW2 was much better, you could get straight back to a mission and replay it, no fuss.

    • albundy
    • 9 years ago

    single player rulez! I feel MP’s are like watching the same scene in a movie over and over and over again, with very very very slight changes after each watch, that all eventually become repetitive. SP has a beginning and an ending, so a good story line is where its at. And if your game is good, it may have different paths that lead to different endings, making it a memorable experience cus I highly doubt you will remember fragging douchebaggery123 from last week.

      • plasticplate
      • 9 years ago

      Not completely true. Generic shooters like CoD (One of the crappiest games ever) have a boring MP component which any player with enough experience can be good at. Then there are arena shooters like UT3 and Q3 which require a certain amount of skill to be good at ( Shock comboing people while jumping of ledges and hammerjumps and stuff). These kind of games don’t get old cause they have quality competition. TF2 is just plain fun. No other way to put it.

    • CaptTomato
    • 9 years ago

    Online racing sims make sense, especially in sub based or private servers, that said, I’ve put in many 3-5hr sessions on pub MP with Race07/evo.

    • BenBasson
    • 9 years ago

    I voted single player, as I enjoy the story-telling aspect, and also being in complete control of the gaming experience (i.e. not at the mercy of total dickwads on the Internet).

    However, that said, some online gaming experiences have been as good if not better overall. Tribes 2 and Battlefield 2: Project Reality somehow seemed immune, or at least less susceptible to the kinds of idiots that apparently frequent 90% of Modern Warfare games. I felt like I was actually working with a team of people who were there to play the game, instead of to grief others. Those multiplayer experiences probably top anything a single player game can ever offer, but unfortunately are so rare in the grand scheme of things.

    I’ll just throw this out there: I would pay at least 50% extra for an online game mode that guaranteed I would only play with gamers of a minimum age of 21.

      • mcnabney
      • 9 years ago

      Yep. I love the storytelling as well. And as long as the Internet is full of dickwads, MP will be buggy by default.

    • no51
    • 9 years ago

    Voted for single player. I’m still burnt out of competetive online fps since those were the type of games I played for almost a decade. Which was TFC to CS/DOD to CS:S/DOD:S/NS to TF2 with a little bit of BF1942/BF2142/BF2 mixed in there. I’m still waiting for RTS’s and flight sims to make a comeback. The things I would do for Homeworld 3.

    • Nikiaf
    • 9 years ago

    I never play the multiplayer component of any of the games I buy, ever. I don’t find them as fun as the single player due at least in part to me not wanting to commit to many hours just getting to a level where i can actually compete with some of the people online. I have better uses for my time thank you very much.

    • Bensam123
    • 9 years ago

    Wow, so many votes for single player… I sorta feel bad because you make us choose between coop, team, and adversarial multiplayer. I’m pretty sure that most of the proponents for single player games have never had a great time play coop with friends.

      • jackaroon
      • 9 years ago

      Well, it was a little disappointing to have to put it out there, but if you’re talking just *games*, well, I have lots of ways to have fun with my friends, but my friends aren’t always there when I want to play games. In fact they are usually, almost literally always, unavailable for gaming. Gaming occupies unscheduled time for most of us. My basic expectations from multiplayer with people who are not my friends is nothing to sing about. I have fun, but its honestly a lot like playing single player while listening to strangers babble on the headphones . . . I like people, including complete strangers, in general, but interacting with them is not why I play computer games. I have socialization in my life, but gaming is not it. I play games to check out, and stop thinking about other people and their goals and feelings.

      Ya know, I actually get so little time with my friends already, when i finally do get to talk to them, I don’t want to get preoccupied with some game, either.

      If I had to chose between only single player videogames and never being able to play videogames with my friends, or being to play videogames only multiplayer (with friends or strangers), I’d go with the former.

    • Rakhmaninov3
    • 9 years ago

    I’ve hardly even played anything but single player. In the adversarial multiplayer games I’ve tried a handful of times (never bought one) I’ve been stomped so fast that I wasn’t willing to put in the amount of practice it would take to get proficient enough to make it fun.

    I have a level 89 single-player Amazon in D2 whom I spent hours building up. She’s probably hidden away on one of the loose hard drives I have floating around the house.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 9 years ago

    In all honesty I love all those forms of play but its the sp quality that determines what I buy. The rest is filler for me. Its a great SP game that has me coming back years later to replay it ya know.

    • hubick
    • 9 years ago

    As a programmer, I find myself far too attuned to how the computer thinks to enjoy single player at all. I can almost see the shortest path algorithms working on the screen, the randomization algorithms, the trigger lines as I walk over them in game, all the silly ways the NPC’s are coded to not instantly nail me right between the eyes before I can even process what’s going on. At least with multiplayer, I know there is someone cursing at their screen somewhere when I make that headshot.

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      No, you don’t, but that is cute that a programmer would think that also.

      • Meadows
      • 9 years ago

      I bet you’re also the bitter little man who posts all those “5 famous movie errors” blogs online and such. Ever enjoy anything?

      • internetsandman
      • 9 years ago

      This is the reason that I prefer playing against real people rather than bots. Real people may be able to cheat, but even when they do it’s that much more satisfying when you put a bullet between their eyes, especially if you can listen to them cursing over the mic at you about it. the AI on the other hand, especially in some SP games, seems like it will spawn enemies right around corners simply to make sure you have a harder time getting around said corner. Some games don’t even inrease difficulty levels with logical or fair increments, some simply increase the number of enemies you face, and increase the amount of health that they have until it almost (almost) feels like you’re fighting a near insurmountable number of Smiths

        • hubick
        • 9 years ago

        Exactly – the resources made available to a computerized opponent are completely arbitrary. It’s a constant or multiplier defined in some source code file somewhere – “Accuracy percentage constant, multiplied by difficulty setting, multiplied by game level” kinda thing. I don’t derive any gratification from beating some completely arbitrary challenge like that. At least when playing humans, our handicaps are inherent to being human, and it takes practice and actual skill to improve those.

          • Arag0n
          • 9 years ago

          That’s the most disappointing point of a single-player game, the machine never learns new tricks and fails to respond to your tricks that the programmer didn’t though at the design time….

      • Rakhmaninov3
      • 9 years ago

      You sound like that guy in The Matrix lol

      • cegras
      • 9 years ago

      I agree. There’s a fine line between having enemies spot you right away or delaying their actions long enough to make it too easy, as well as having them aim perfectly or them being unable to shoot the largest side of the barn. In SP it’s either one or the other, and it becomes laughably easy most of the time. The only challenging FPS situations I’ve ever had were the boss battles in HL2, especially the strider battle.

      • PenGun
      • 9 years ago

      Come play some Stalker. NPCs headshot you right when they see you. A game designed to humiliate the player. A bit more interested Mr Programmer?

        • Ngazi
        • 9 years ago

        You just haven’t learned to play the game.

          • PenGun
          • 9 years ago

          It’s my toy. I’ve played it forever. If you would like a much tougher Stalker experience I can recommend the NARODNAYA SOLYANKA mod.

          [url<]http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1824863[/url<] On master an expert level Monolith or Duty team will have a sniper with good NV along. He can headshot you in the dead of night from a very long way away. Insta kill. I am careful but sometimes ... I do love this aspect of the game.

            • Meadows
            • 9 years ago

            Have you ever been screened for masochism?

        • Meadows
        • 9 years ago

        I thought I was the only one hating STALKER.

    • ClickClick5
    • 9 years ago

    Single, single, 1000x singleplayer!

    Coop is only fun if you have a buddy who thinks the same. (example, play portal 2 with an idiot. You get nowhere fast.)
    Multiplayer these days is just annoying and filled with cheaters and 13 year olds. AND, the amount of COD clones is also disturbing.

    • donkeycrock
    • 9 years ago

    I am really surprised to see the results of this so far.

    I pretty much only like Co-op games and team games.

    TF2 is by far one of the best games ever made. it has the most replay value.

    But every time a new co-op FPS game comes out, be it 2 person or four person. me and my friends always get them.

    Not so much for single player games.

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<]TF2 is by far one of the best games ever made. it has the most replay value.[/quote<] Great opinion, man. I couldn't stand more than 10-15 minutes of TF2. To date it holds the record for the second fastest Valve software uninstall off my system (L4D2 holds the crown.)

    • RagingDragon
    • 9 years ago

    I generally play computer games when I don’t want to bother dealing with people, and I certainly don’t want to deal with obnoxious dolts when playing. So I prefere single player. Cooperative multi-player games are OK when hanging out with friends, but in that case I’m more interested in the social aspect than the game itself. For the most part if I want to interact with other people, I’d rather do so in the real world than a virtual one.

    For multiplayer I gaming, I prefere non-computer options: tabletop RPG’s and minature games, even board games.

    • FireGryphon
    • 9 years ago

    Hmm, what’s the difference between team based and cooperative multiplayer?

      • Meadows
      • 9 years ago

      Team Deathmatch versus Portal 2.
      Last Man Standing (in teams) versus Capture the Flag.

      Not a fissure between the two, but you can come up with contrasts.

      • khands
      • 9 years ago

      Basically it’s You + People vs. AI instead of You + People vs. People.

    • anotherengineer
    • 9 years ago

    CS:S is life

      • Meadows
      • 9 years ago

      Somebody hasn’t turned 10 yet.

        • Ngazi
        • 9 years ago

        Yea we’re 1.6 for life.

    • PetMiceRnice
    • 9 years ago

    Very interesting, for all of the hoopla made about multiplayer gaming, we can see in the poll (so far) that the single player experience is easily the most popular. I’m amongst that crowd myself. I have tried online gaming but it never fully caught on with me. Even to this day, I still drag out games such as Diablo 2 from time to time to go through the single player experience.

    • Meadows
    • 9 years ago

    Careful people, I got told off just yesterday for preferring a strong single player experience, on the grounds that I must be terrible to play with in multiplayer, or something.

    I did vote for both single-player and adversarial though, since as far as multiplayer goes, you can’t deny that Quake Live is fun. But I definitely don’t go there for the flag capturing and huggly teamwork or anything else that features rainbows and uniponies.

      • paulWTAMU
      • 9 years ago

      I AM terrible (although it took me a wh ile to realize that). Doesn’t mean I don’t like games or that I’m not a valid market segment.

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 9 years ago

    Singleplayer with coop/dm would be my preference. Not a lot of games offer this though. Rage looks like it might satisfy my craving.

    • flip-mode
    • 9 years ago

    Single player.

    I don’t have the time to commit to gaming to get to a point that I can keep up with other players.

    I don’t have any desire to keep up with the mods and the special maps and the patches and whatever to keep current with other online gamers.

    I’m not a member of any clans or teams or groups or tribes or cults or clubs or associations.

    I don’t know anyone in the offline world that games, besides my brother who occasionally games, and gaming with strangers is almost totally unexciting to me.

    I don’t know which server to join – there are 90,000 servers to pick from and they all have crazy names. Where’s the idiot’s guide? Games need to come out with an “auto-pick” server picking feature that looks at your whole setup – maps, patches, mods, connection speed, skill level, game preferences, etc, and just auto-joins you to a server.

      • Pettytheft
      • 9 years ago

      Hit the nail on the head. I will occasionally fire up WoW but I think MMO’s belong in a different category. Sometimes shortly after a release I’ll play a multiplayer shooter, there tends to be more casual people and noobs around. I can keep up without getting crushed and cursed at. After that things get far too serious and it more or less sucks the fun out of it. I don’t want to practice to play a video game.

      • Bensam123
      • 9 years ago

      I will add to the accessibility bit for a lot of casual gamers, but most are comfortable enough with the game to find a server on their own. SC2 has a pretty decent matchmaking system.

    • PenGun
    • 9 years ago

    Started playing multi player with Doom. Quake was where it took off though. I had a boosted TCP stack running on DOS 6.2 and we were the first real multiplayers. I remember knowing a lot of the people online because there were only a couple of thousand playing at the time. That was immense fun and the start of CTF brought some new stuff to the genre. Went on to Q3 as I did not really like Q2 multiplayer. It was alright but something was missing. Q3 was and is still the standard and I played a lot of multiplayer. Developed a nasty snap shot which is still useful.

    After Q3 came the vast wasteland and I lost interest in multiplayer. Have tried a few times on the newer games but they appear to suck … a lot. Made easy for a good feeling hero player. I do not enjoy that. Q3 is still fun but I’m old.

    Now I just play Stalker. All three games and the amazing mods make a huge world to play in. I have played some Fallout but really it’s so easy it’s just relaxation.

    Stalker with the NARODNAYA SOLYANKA mod utilizing parts from all three games is amazing. It is brutally hard and a whole new Stalker experience. Recommended.

    • odizzido
    • 9 years ago

    The most memorable gaming experiences have been single player games for me. As great as quake1 and EQ1 were, X-Com, final fantasy, and mass effect are games that I look back on with the fondest memories.

    • Kaleid
    • 9 years ago

    SP. Too many people suck.

    • bthylafh
    • 9 years ago

    Strictly single-player for me. I too have spawned, and even before that I usually preferred solo because I’m just not a social gamer.

    I used to do multi occasionally, but even that is denied me because the computer room’s just across the hall from my daughter’s bedroom.

    • thesmileman
    • 9 years ago

    Cooperative multiplayer but in reality it never happens anymore now that I live in the real world with jobs, marriage, overtime, and my friends have this annoying things called “kids”. They really get in the way of everything. I am glad that is not me. So I guess single player it is.

      • KilgoreTrout
      • 9 years ago

      Ditto, except the kids are mine (and they are worth the sacrifice). But I have sworn I will play Portal 2 coop with my brother. Soon.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 9 years ago

    Damn shame that every game that comes out seemingly wants to hit a $60 price point, no matter if it is just SP or SP+crappy MP or crappy SP+MP, etc.

    If these companies would price their games appropriately, using $60 as a max and not as the default, they’d find their games would sell more and they’d make more money. If you launch Dead Space 2 without MP at $40 and save the money of developing a MP and testing it, then I bet they’d have made more money than selling DS2 for $60 at launch with a crappy MP. If you just have to do a MP, too, then why not give us the promise of DLC and episodic content, release a game in piecemeal form online. Give us the option to pay half price for SP or half price for MP. In case someone doesn’t want to play the MP of DS2 or the SP of Call of Duty: Black Ops/MW2.

    Instead, companies stubbornly cling to the old ways because they have no imagination.

      • SPOOFE
      • 9 years ago

      In the mid-90s I remember paying $80 for some games. Factor in inflation and the higher cost of making a game, and $60 ain’t too shabby.

        • travbrad
        • 9 years ago

        I don’t. I remember most games back then being about $30-40. I know I never spent anywhere close to $80. I do remember computers/parts being very expensive, but not games.

          • SPOOFE
          • 9 years ago

          To be fair, I was talking about Final Fantasy 3 on the SNES… in those days, three megs of solid state storage was hardly cheap. πŸ™‚

        • Rakhmaninov3
        • 9 years ago

        I remember brand-new original Nintendo games being $40, a lot of moola for a kid in the late 80s whose age could be expressed with a single digit. Getting a new Nintendo game was a BIG deal, and they were Christmas Morning staples πŸ™‚

        • mcnabney
        • 9 years ago

        Until recently I have never seen a game cost $60+ unless it included a controller or was part of some ‘collectors eddition’.

    • travbrad
    • 9 years ago

    I don’t really prefer one over the other. I play them for completely different reasons. I like multiplayer for Civ5/L4D2/BFBC2/etc, but on the other hand I also like STALKER (single-player), Fallout, or Flight Simulator X. I would have to say I spend more time playing multi-player, but that doesn’t necessarily make it “better”. The only problem with single-player games is they are often way too easy these days (for example Dead Space final boss, where I didn’t even have to use a health kit on hard mode).

    I do find myself willing to buy more multi-player games though, because it’s hard to justify $50-60 for a game that’s only 6-8 hours long (as enjoyable as that 6-8 hours may be). Looking at steam I have played L4D2 424 hours, so I think that $50 was well worth it.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 9 years ago

      Games should have 20 hours of single player gameplay minimum, imo.

    • ShadowTiger
    • 9 years ago

    I like single player because most multiplayer is not well done.

    I hate team based multiplayer since usually teams are unbalanced and its a landslide. I feel uncomfortable in many FPS games because people take it too seriously and are often immature. Coop games are usually thrown together poorly, and I don’t have anyone to play them with in most cases.

    I have had a few good experiences, but overall unimpressed.

    • jalex3
    • 9 years ago

    i vote team, but its 50/50 with sp

    • Krogoth
    • 9 years ago

    I like provolone cheese.

    • mslowe7187
    • 9 years ago

    this is almost an impossible question to answer!! it depends on the genre/game as to which type of game mode i prefer! On one hand, I often find single player experiences like mass effect, assassin’s creed, heavy rain, and dead space extremely enjoyable and fulfilling. But I do love competitive multiplayer (mostly shooters) as well: Halo, Battlefield, CoD, etc. When playing competitive multiplayer I usually prefer team-based and co-op multiplayer (firefight in Reach is a blast IMO) as opposed to adversarial multiplayer. If I had to pick, I would probably say single player because the single player games that I enjoy leave me the happiest and most satisfied after playing. Multiplayer games are fun, but oftentimes I step away from them frustrated or angry. I voted for single player

    • Pasdepardon
    • 9 years ago

    Turn-based multiplayer, play by email, duo-coop(?) playing… and board games.
    I voted single-player, but I seriously enjoy all of the above.
    Being at one location with friends, or duo/trio online, that’s how I like multiplayer gaming.

    • BobbinThreadbare
    • 9 years ago

    I voted co-op. I really like the social interaction with friends, but not necessarily the competitive aspect of adversarial play.

    Not enough games really do a good job with co-op though, the level design seems to lag behind single player.

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 9 years ago

    Missing option: “It’s alllll good.”

    • blorbic5
    • 9 years ago

    Where does Super Mario Brothers Wii fit it? It’s both a single player game and a multiplayer relationship wrecker.

    • Cova
    • 9 years ago

    I put my vote it under “Co-op multiplayer”, but wanted to make it clear that LOCAL multiplayer co-op is what I’m after – not LAN or internet-based. Typically that means split-screen gaming on the 360 (left-4-dead split-screen has been my recent choice), and only having 1/2 the screen is just fine when you’re playing on a 58″ rear-projection. Though there are many other (often “party”) games where you’re all sharing the entire screen instead of splitting it eg. top-down adventure games, or music-games. If considering ‘net-based co-op multiplayer – I’d rather play single-player.

    I remember when I was a kid we had our 8-bit NES, and me and my brothers and I would spend a LOT of time down in the basement in front of that thing. Now it won’t be much longer till my son is old enough to start playing, and he’ll have a sister to share with real-soon-now too. But where have all the games for them to play together gone? I don’t want to buy a second screen/console just so my kids can play a game together.

      • blorbic5
      • 9 years ago

      Super Mario Brothers Wii

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 9 years ago

      My one disappointment with my PS3 has been a severe lack of single screen multiplayer. There are sports games and fighting games, and that’s it.

    • jensend
    • 9 years ago

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with multiplayer per se, but I think in a lot of cases a focus on multiplayer is a kind of cheap way to excuse an inability to come up with a good plot and a compelling game world- “we had nothing interesting to say so we’re leaving it up to the people you meet online to make things interesting”. Almost all of my very favorite games, from Zelda 64 to Psychonauts, Braid, and Machinarium, have been games with carefully designed worlds, plots, and scripting; it’s no coincidence that these are all single-player only.

    • JMccovery
    • 9 years ago

    I’m mostly into single-player games, but if I don’t have to worry about idiots, then multiplayer works for me, most of the time. There’s just something going around in a game you’ve finished with cheat codes…

    • cegras
    • 9 years ago

    When I buy a game it’s mostly based upon the multiplayer; that’s how I judge the value of the game versus the price. However, I surprisingly enjoyed the SC2 singleplayer … and I’m waiting for the next installment of the campaign.

    • plasticplate
    • 9 years ago

    Im really surprised. I thought MP would score more than that indicated above. I play most games for the MP component(UT3, BFBC2, TF2..). I play the occasional SP if it is any good, but mostly buy games based on the merits of its MP. I didnt expect so many people having SP as the most important aspect of the game..

      • CaptTomato
      • 9 years ago

      Shows how out of touch game developers are…..

    • Sargent Duck
    • 9 years ago

    I was heavily heavily into multiplay back in the CS1.6 days. Now I only buy games to play single player. I have 1 friend that we play CnC3/SCII once a month for a few hours and that’s it.

    • dpaus
    • 9 years ago

    You missed an option: “I don’t play no steenkin’ games!”

      • codedivine
      • 9 years ago

      And cheese.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 9 years ago

      More like “I enjoy telling people that I don’t own any games”

        • DancinJack
        • 9 years ago

        and that he posted this from his HP WebOS device.

        • dpaus
        • 9 years ago

        Actually, if I could find a good air-combat sim, especially one that would work well with Eyefinity, I’d be willing to play it (finding time is another matter). But I got really fed up with endless variations on first-person shooters, embedded mini-movies, and fun-sapping ‘campaigns’ years ago. It just stopped being fun.

          • bthylafh
          • 9 years ago

          A new A-10 study sim just came out. It’s on Steam for $60:

          [url<]http://store.steampowered.com/app/61010/?snr=1_7_suggest__13[/url<] Looks pretty hardcore, but IIRC you can tone it down.

            • dpaus
            • 9 years ago

            Thanks; I may just try that…

          • travbrad
          • 9 years ago

          IL2 Cliffs of Dover was looking very promising, but unfortunately it’s plagued with some very serious bugs/glitches, and poor/inconsistent performance. It was almost a “must buy” for me until I read some reviews/user comments.

            • dpaus
            • 9 years ago

            Damn… Battle of Britain is one of my fav ‘scenarios’ and I’d love to have a current, state-of-the-art sim for it. Let’s hope that the issues get fully fixed by May 24th

      • Kaleid
      • 9 years ago

      Well then it is like asking an atheist what religion do you practice?

        • Meadows
        • 9 years ago

        A long time ago, they literally asked that of my (atheist) father during a census. They told him that doesn’t seem to be an available option. He said “hand me a pen for a moment and I’ll put it there”.

        I can easily imagine people getting upset over these things, just like him, but TR’s poll is about goddamn videogames, so get your priorities in order.

          • indeego
          • 9 years ago

          National Census? I thought they simply asked race/ethnicity… And they certainly would list a blank line, since there are thousands of religions/offsets.

            • Meadows
            • 9 years ago

            No idea, maybe the form was faulty, or maybe the agent was a dick.

    • Silus
    • 9 years ago

    Single player and if I do play multiplayer, I prefer team based multiplayer.

    • TurtlePerson2
    • 9 years ago

    I prefer single-player, but there’s only a handful of decent single-player games that are released each year. I play a lot more competitive multiplayer than single-player.

      • GFC
      • 9 years ago

      StarCraft. That’s it.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 9 years ago

        Same here. SC2 is the only multiplayer gaming I do anymore.

      • Biggins
      • 9 years ago

      I like being able to pause a game if you get interrupted (phone call, bathroom, something good is on TV, etc). I’ve been playing a lot of Arma 2 in single-player. I download a lot of user created missions and campaigns, sometimes completing them multiple times with different weapons and tactics. I played BF: Bad Company 2 in multi-player but it got old after I unlocked all the weapons and accessories.

        • moshpit
        • 9 years ago

        Ditto the beloved “Pause”.

    • ew
    • 9 years ago

    Multiplayer just has too much of a time demand and/or risk of playing with people you’d normally never associate with. My current lifestyle (9 month old son) demands that when I game I be able to sit down and start playing without any delays and that I be able to quit or pause any time I need to.

    That said most of my best gaming experiences have been multiplayer with my close friends.

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 years ago

      tell me about it! with 2 kids, and most of my friends breeding, game time with them simply doesn’t happen. it’s pretty much single player open.

      • cheddarlump
      • 9 years ago

      Yup, me too. Wife + 2 kids = no more WoW…

      Well, I can still play, but spending my few precious free minutes every week grinding for levels != fun.

      I still like the occasional lan party, or FPS melee though, but being able to start/stop when the honey-do list comes up is important..

      • jpostel
      • 9 years ago

      Family trumps gaming. My small bit of comedy is that my kids like to watch me play starcraft 2. The problem is when the small ones want to play too.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This