Single Player or Multiplayer?

I prefer single player, all the way.

Why? Well, where should I start?

1. I don't have a particularly large circle of friends. My circle does not really share my interests in Video Games, let alone have the same games that I have. There's little incentive for me to play multiplayer right there.
2. If I played on multiplayer, I would be wandering around areas all alone, or I would have to fight against robots. A number of older games do not have fighting against robots as an option.
3. I play a game and I like a good story. Single player usually has a story. Multiplayer has no story to tell.
4. I've heard a number of stories about unscrupulous, uncouth players in multiplayer games. Why should I associate myself with the likes of them? At least with single player, I don't have to worry about the video game equivalent of Trolls!
5. Single Player has a defined beginning and end, which allows you to disengage yourself from the game and go back to Real Life. Multiplayer has no real beginning or end, which means that you would only stop when you get bored, or if someone has to remove you from the computer by force!

The way I see it, multiplayer just takes up space on my computer. Video game companies should only make single player games. If the players want multiplayer versions of those games, well...that's what Downloadable Content and charging a price for that is for! I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm just saying why I prefer one form of playing a game over the other!

This is amongst the most egotistical, sweeping, blatantly uninformed threads I've seen created on this forum.

For example, points 3 and 5 make me think the OP has never heard of games that let you play co-op in story mode, such as Orcs Must Die 2 or Tales Of Graces F.

And asking for all multiplayer to be made into DLC makes me believe that you think the world revolves around you. It doesn't.

Yeah... I don't like multiplayer all that much, either, but a lot of people do, and asking for it to be removed is just silly.

So many games which are purely multiplayer at least try to tell a story. It doesn't usually work but it's there.

Go and tell Blizzard that World Of Warcraft doesn't have a story.

Go and tell NC Soft that Guild Wars doesn't have a story.

Go and tell Bioware that SWTOR doesn't have a story.

Apparently, I'm the only one who agrees with everything. The multiplayer should not be a priority.

He's not saying that multiplayer should not be a priority.

He's saying that multiplayer should either not exist or be paid DLC.

edited 2nd Sep '12 11:29:40 AM by burnpsy

And even then, whether or not multiplayer is a priority depends entirely on what the game actually is.

Yeah, screw what other people want. They have different tastes, so they should have to pay extra for enjoying the wrong things.

edited 2nd Sep '12 12:46:02 PM by CPFMfan

IMO multiplayer is only a problem when they gut singleplayer for it.

edited 2nd Sep '12 12:50:34 PM by Zendervai

Yeah, one can argue that some games didn't need to have a multiplayer component like Bio Shock 2 or Dead Space 2 but to abolish it wholesale? Or turn it into a premium that has to be paid extra for? Whether one prefers singleplayer or multiplayer in their games, there's no right to tell videogame companies to just concentrate on just one thing. It's rather backwards thinking.

OP, how about Pokemon games? Or Call Of Duty? Or any MMO in existence?

Yup, should not have multiplayer.

... You realize this all depends on the what kind of game it is, right? Fighting games revolve around multiplayer! Without it, the genre would go kaput!

I generally prefer multiplayer. It's more fun playing with friends.

edited 3rd Sep '12 1:16:40 AM by Marioguy128

"I don't like multiplayer, therefore nobody else should be allowed to like multiplayer unless they pay extra."

Really?

edited 14th Sep '12 4:51:53 AM by Eldrake

Either way for me.