Why judge games solely by MP quality?

[AdmiralPiett]

Recently seen a trend in reviews and discussion boards across many of the games I play, the vast majority of which are Historical GSGs designed for PRIMARILY single player play with a multiplayer arm on the side, where people are saying the games are bad because the MP content sucks.


For example, people saying Napoleon Total War is a bad game because the MP lobbies are dead

Or saying HOI4 sucks because all the lobbies are closed friend groups playing weekly private games and not just open to anyone

Or saying RDR2 sucks because RDO is full of chinese hackers (same for GTA5)

etc.......


Why do we think this is? Discuss:


Alternative question: must a game have good MP to be considered a good game, no matter how good the SP is?

[crunchyfrog]

Simple - because that's what reviews ARE.

You review a game based on the target audidence you're writing for. You usually want to encompass the key or main demographic of users, unless you specifically say otherwise.

In other words the reason you're seeing those comments is purely because that's a core part of the game what peopl want to know about.

Simple answer - find reviews that line with your tastes. That's how it's always worked.

I used to respond this same thing to some people when I wrote professional reviews and guides for magazines back in the day. Because some people couldn't grasp that what THEY wanted out foa game sometimes didn't match what others wanted.

The reality is that you need to remeber gaming is for EVERYBODY. You might not want or be interested in the fact that many games now have disability or accessibility options, but the reality is that 20% of all gamers have some sort of disability that affects them and DOES apply.

So would you be equally irked by mentioning such things in game reviews?

Think about that.

[BJWyler]

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

The difference is character creation is a 100% required part of an RPG, while a MP is not a 100% required part of a story game or GSG.

Coereced by the free market is still coerced. Again, could you please answer the question: why would business reasons make it make sense for the devs to include MP where previously none existed? What about the market is changing?

Oh contraire, character creation is not 100% required by an RPG, and there are those that certainly do not have it.

And no, it's still not coercion. Plenty of SP games do not have MP features, just like plenty of MP games do not have SP features. Again, those are design decisions that are entirely under the purview of the developers and publishers.

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

Escrito originalmente por adrian5909:

i feel gaming has shifted to multiplayer

mainly PVP

ever wonder why the most popular genre nowadays is the Online PVP First-Person Shooter?

And why do we think that shift has occurred? I'm curious

Already answered:

Escrito originalmente por BJWyler:

Because, ultimately, gaming has always been a social experience. That has only increased as technology has allowed video gaming to become more social over the last 40 years. Plus you have the increase of people being interconnected through various means, including social media. So more and more people are looking for more ways to be social while gaming.

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por BJWyler:

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

The difference is character creation is a 100% required part of an RPG, while a MP is not a 100% required part of a story game or GSG.

Coereced by the free market is still coerced. Again, could you please answer the question: why would business reasons make it make sense for the devs to include MP where previously none existed? What about the market is changing?

Oh contraire, character creation is not 100% required by an RPG, and there are those that certainly do not have it.

And no, it's still not coercion. Plenty of SP games do not have MP features, just like plenty of MP games do not have SP features. Again, those are design decisions that are entirely under the purview of the developers and publishers.

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

And why do we think that shift has occurred? I'm curious

Already answered:

Escrito originalmente por BJWyler:

Because, ultimately, gaming has always been a social experience. That has only increased as technology has allowed video gaming to become more social over the last 40 years. Plus you have the increase of people being interconnected through various means, including social media. So more and more people are looking for more ways to be social while gaming.

Gaming has NOT always been a social experience. That's quite wrong.

It always started out as the antithesis of that. Which is why the whole "spotty bedroom geek" stereotype grew.

It wasn't until online gaming really became a thing that home games were built with this in mind. Arcade games were the only thing that had such features and they were for different reasons.

And more to the point, I don't tend to play multiplayer games. Never really have much, Even MMOs I play solo.

And yet I see no decline in the number of games I can play or buy. Sure the triple A space is ♥♥♥♥♥ but one should never view the whole of gaming as purely them or you're doing it wrong.

The fact is I stil buy about 300 games every year and I don't touch MP. If I can do this then there's not a problem in this regard.

[Start_Running]

Escrito originalmente por BJWyler:

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

The difference is character creation is a 100% required part of an RPG, while a MP is not a 100% required part of a story game or GSG.

Coereced by the free market is still coerced. Again, could you please answer the question: why would business reasons make it make sense for the devs to include MP where previously none existed? What about the market is changing?

Oh contraire, character creation is not 100% required by an RPG, and there are those that certainly do not have it.

And no, it's still not coercion. Plenty of SP games do not have MP features, just like plenty of MP games do not have SP features. Again, those are design decisions that are entirely under the purview of the developers and publishers.

Worth noting there are also games that have multiplayer but do not actually list it as a feature.

[BJWyler]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Gaming has NOT always been a social experience. That's quite wrong.

Oh no no no no no. It is very much correct. Gaming being a social exercise has been an axiom since humankind began to understand the concept of play and Gaming. The earliest games invented were played among groups of people, and many were the early precursors to our sports. Card games and board games have always been Social exercises. Sure, new games were invented that allowed for solo play, but Gaming as a concept has always had a social background - even video gaming. And of course let us not forget about good ole pen and pencil D&D, from which the basement dwelling neckbeard originated.

MUD released in the late 70's. Wizardry allowed for up to 6 players to adventure together. One of my favorite classics - Utopia, was created to allow two people to play and compete against one another. Need I even mention Pong? As you said yourself, the classic Arcade was certainly a social place that involved social gaming elements.

So yes, while there are more than plenty of opportunities to play games by oneself, which I prefer, even I can understand that gaming has always been a social endeavor at its core. Even when it means exchanging stories of adventures in the dungeons with my friends, or discussing my favorite games with people all across the world in an Internet forum.

[AdmiralPiett]

Escrito originalmente por BJWyler:

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

The difference is character creation is a 100% required part of an RPG, while a MP is not a 100% required part of a story game or GSG.

Coereced by the free market is still coerced. Again, could you please answer the question: why would business reasons make it make sense for the devs to include MP where previously none existed? What about the market is changing?

Oh contraire, character creation is not 100% required by an RPG, and there are those that certainly do not have it.

And no, it's still not coercion. Plenty of SP games do not have MP features, just like plenty of MP games do not have SP features. Again, those are design decisions that are entirely under the purview of the developers and publishers.

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

And why do we think that shift has occurred? I'm curious

Already answered:

Escrito originalmente por BJWyler:

Because, ultimately, gaming has always been a social experience. That has only increased as technology has allowed video gaming to become more social over the last 40 years. Plus you have the increase of people being interconnected through various means, including social media. So more and more people are looking for more ways to be social while gaming.

If gaming has "always" been a social experience, then that can't be why it's changing NOW

[AdmiralPiett]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Simple - because that's what reviews ARE.

You review a game based on the target audidence you're writing for. You usually want to encompass the key or main demographic of users, unless you specifically say otherwise.

In other words the reason you're seeing those comments is purely because that's a core part of the game what peopl want to know about.

Simple answer - find reviews that line with your tastes. That's how it's always worked.

I used to respond this same thing to some people when I wrote professional reviews and guides for magazines back in the day. Because some people couldn't grasp that what THEY wanted out foa game sometimes didn't match what others wanted.

The reality is that you need to remeber gaming is for EVERYBODY. You might not want or be interested in the fact that many games now have disability or accessibility options, but the reality is that 20% of all gamers have some sort of disability that affects them and DOES apply.

So would you be equally irked by mentioning such things in game reviews?

Think about that.

Another non-answer.

Do you have any insight on WHY there are MORE gamers demanded MP features than ever before?

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Simple - because that's what reviews ARE.

You review a game based on the target audidence you're writing for. You usually want to encompass the key or main demographic of users, unless you specifically say otherwise.

In other words the reason you're seeing those comments is purely because that's a core part of the game what peopl want to know about.

Simple answer - find reviews that line with your tastes. That's how it's always worked.

I used to respond this same thing to some people when I wrote professional reviews and guides for magazines back in the day. Because some people couldn't grasp that what THEY wanted out foa game sometimes didn't match what others wanted.

The reality is that you need to remeber gaming is for EVERYBODY. You might not want or be interested in the fact that many games now have disability or accessibility options, but the reality is that 20% of all gamers have some sort of disability that affects them and DOES apply.

So would you be equally irked by mentioning such things in game reviews?

Think about that.

Another non-answer.

Do you have any insight on WHY there are MORE gamers demanded MP features than ever before?

How is that a non-answer? It's been widely shown. You mean you don't LIKE the answer?

Do I have any insight on why there are more gamers demanding MP features?

No, quite simply because that's not been demonstrated that is the case. That's an assertion you'll need to prove.

Because it doesn't depends on a majority or anything. All that matters is this question "are there enough to warrant the development of such".

And the fact that they do sell since MP took off in the last couple of decades, then that's self evident.

So rather tell me what on earth you mean and demonstrate why my answer is not acceptable.

[AdmiralPiett]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

Another non-answer.

Do you have any insight on WHY there are MORE gamers demanded MP features than ever before?

How is that a non-answer? It's been widely shown. You mean you don't LIKE the answer?

Do I have any insight on why there are more gamers demanding MP features?

No, quite simply because that's not been demonstrated that is the case. That's an assertion you'll need to prove.

Because it doesn't depends on a majority or anything. All that matters is this question "are there enough to warrant the development of such".

And the fact that they do sell since MP took off in the last couple of decades, then that's self evident.

So rather tell me what on earth you mean and demonstrate why my answer is not acceptable.

You're just restating the premise, not actually giving any insight why it's happening

You say MP took off in the last couple of decades, that supports the premise, my question is

W H Y

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

How is that a non-answer? It's been widely shown. You mean you don't LIKE the answer?

Do I have any insight on why there are more gamers demanding MP features?

No, quite simply because that's not been demonstrated that is the case. That's an assertion you'll need to prove.

Because it doesn't depends on a majority or anything. All that matters is this question "are there enough to warrant the development of such".

And the fact that they do sell since MP took off in the last couple of decades, then that's self evident.

So rather tell me what on earth you mean and demonstrate why my answer is not acceptable.

You're just restating the premise, not actually giving any insight why it's happening

You say MP took off in the last couple of decades, that supports the premise, my question is

W H Y

I don't care why, as that wasn't my answer. I never addressed that and that's not how these forums work.

You don't get to state how people answer.

Conversations work like this - you post a thread and people are allowed to discuss AROUND the subject.

[AdmiralPiett]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

You're just restating the premise, not actually giving any insight why it's happening

You say MP took off in the last couple of decades, that supports the premise, my question is

W H Y

I don't care why, as that wasn't my answer. I never addressed that and that's not how these forums work.

You don't get to state how people answer.

Conversations work like this - you post a thread and people are allowed to discuss AROUND the subject.

Ok cool for you but then that means you're just not going to answer my question?

How helpful.....

I don't get to determine how or what you answer, but i do get to ask for an actually applicable answer at a minimum

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

I don't care why, as that wasn't my answer. I never addressed that and that's not how these forums work.

You don't get to state how people answer.

Conversations work like this - you post a thread and people are allowed to discuss AROUND the subject.

Ok cool for you but then that means you're just not going to answer my question?

How helpful.....

I don't get to determine how or what you answer, but i do get to ask for an actually applicable answer at a minimum

No again, that's not how discussions work.

My answer was within the remit of the subject and I was pointing out how your claim was wrong.

That's the wrong. The fact is as per the analogy I gave, you don't get to assert that something should stop just because YOU don't like it or don't want it.

So I repreat disabled facilities exist in games though you likely won't have anything to do with them and yet 20% of all gamers are disabled.

The fact remains that whether you like it or not, these games or modes existing if you don't like them, don't play them.

[AdmiralPiett]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

Ok cool for you but then that means you're just not going to answer my question?

How helpful.....

I don't get to determine how or what you answer, but i do get to ask for an actually applicable answer at a minimum

No again, that's not how discussions work.

My answer was within the remit of the subject and I was pointing out how your claim was wrong.

That's the wrong. The fact is as per the analogy I gave, you don't get to assert that something should stop just because YOU don't like it or don't want it.

So I repreat disabled facilities exist in games though you likely won't have anything to do with them and yet 20% of all gamers are disabled.

The fact remains that whether you like it or not, these games or modes existing if you don't like them, don't play them.

Again, I'm not really saying it should stop.

I AM JUST ASKING WHY THE RATE AT WHICH IT IS HAPPENING IS INCREASING

[crunchyfrog]

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

No again, that's not how discussions work.

My answer was within the remit of the subject and I was pointing out how your claim was wrong.

That's the wrong. The fact is as per the analogy I gave, you don't get to assert that something should stop just because YOU don't like it or don't want it.

So I repreat disabled facilities exist in games though you likely won't have anything to do with them and yet 20% of all gamers are disabled.

The fact remains that whether you like it or not, these games or modes existing if you don't like them, don't play them.

Again, I'm not really saying it should stop.

I AM JUST ASKING WHY THE RATE AT WHICH IT IS HAPPENING IS INCREASING

Generally speaking, I don't see any real evidence for this.

I think you might be talking about games like live service games, rather than multiplayer games in general. Because MP games haven't increased but live service has.

And the reason is dead simple for those which you'd know from reading any gaming industry history - it's trend chasing and the get rich quick attitude of the triple A space.

Remember back in the 2000s when WOW went gangbusters? Triple A decided that EVERY new game had to be an MMO. That flopped of course because people generally only stick on one game and leave it at that.

Then they deicded mobile gaming was the next big thing and EVERYTHING had to be a mobile game. Same thing happened - they flooded the market and it didn't work.

Same with Call of Duty - every game had to be like Call of Duty, Same happened.

They've always trend chased and they don't learn because this is greedy capitalism to a tee.

If you really want to learn how the gaming industry works and a bit of gaming history there's a really good book I'm fond of called "The Ultimate history of video games" by Steven L Kent.

[AdmiralPiett]

Escrito originalmente por crunchyfrog:

Escrito originalmente por AdmiralPiett:

Again, I'm not really saying it should stop.

I AM JUST ASKING WHY THE RATE AT WHICH IT IS HAPPENING IS INCREASING

Generally speaking, I don't see any real evidence for this.

I think you might be talking about games like live service games, rather than multiplayer games in general. Because MP games haven't increased but live service has.

And the reason is dead simple for those which you'd know from reading any gaming industry history - it's trend chasing and the get rich quick attitude of the triple A space.

Remember back in the 2000s when WOW went gangbusters? Triple A decided that EVERY new game had to be an MMO. That flopped of course because people generally only stick on one game and leave it at that.

Then they deicded mobile gaming was the next big thing and EVERYTHING had to be a mobile game. Same thing happened - they flooded the market and it didn't work.

Same with Call of Duty - every game had to be like Call of Duty, Same happened.

They've always trend chased and they don't learn because this is greedy capitalism to a tee.

If you really want to learn how the gaming industry works and a bit of gaming history there's a really good book I'm fond of called "The Ultimate history of video games" by Steven L Kent.

So would you say the current trend is adding MP content to SP strategy and story games?