Topic: Single Player or Multiplayer

@Th3solution Oh yeah but I mean, you are missing the capitilisation of PLAYA which makes a huge difference!!!!

@Kidfried Oh I am taken playa that plays single playa games. Some might say that is an irreconcilable dichotomy to which I say, whatevs PLAYA.

@Kidfried @Rudy_Manchego your votes take it too;

Single player 17
Multi player 1

Voting closes tonight. So make your voice heard people.

I enjoy multiplayer now and then, especially local, but the overwhelming majority of what I play is single player and always has been. So single player, easily.

Thanks @mookysam and that was the last vote.

We have an overall winner.

Single player 18
Multiplayer 1

Hopefully I dont forget the bgoat thread which starts in 5 days time!

I'm late on the vote, but I'll chime in anyway for my first post here.

Single player only for me unless a game has some trophies that don't require anything more than 15 minutes or so of playing multiplayer.

I was reminded while playing Cod WW2 last week for the "get 10 kills online" trophy why I hate playing multiplayer. I get into a game and the first thing I hear is some guy with a southern accent and every fifth word out of his mouth is some type of profanity. Trust me, I am FAR from being a prude and swear all the time, but that's just not something I need to hear. I muted him and played for a bit and couldn't wait to finish. The last time I played online, maybe a year ago, some idiot was tossing around the n-word like it was the word "the". Of the maybe 10 times I've done multiplayer in the last decade, I'd say 8 times there was at least one absolute douchebag playing.

I can understand the appeal of multiplayer if you're playing only with friends. Other than that, its popularity is lost on me, but to each their own. I completely suck so I was dying frequently, but even if you're good you can still die quite a bit. I have no interest in waiting in lobbies, respawning all the time, the toxic culture, and the lack of sustained gameplay that occurs.

Now the voting has ended, I can honestly say that Single player has the edge as it can deliver so much variety, depth etc. That being said Multi-player is also vitally important to me too. It allows for a lot of social contact and it doesn't always mean 'competitive' gaming either. Its great to be part of a team, playing together to complete objectives etc - like being part of a 'football' team, working together to beat the opponents, but with gaming, its about completing the objective - whether that's co-operative campaign missions, doing Raids, reaching high rounds in 'Horde' modes etc. Again it doesn't even need to be competitive or objective based - just having fun online with friends/family, having that social interaction etc.

Its funny that as soon as anyone mentions online, they immediately think of playing a game like CoD on their own and putting up with 'kids' and the verbal diarrhoea they spout rather than partying up with friends, having a laugh and enjoying the game socially. They criticise the 'match-making' - being put with 'random' idiots and getting frustrated that they 'lose' and/or carry a 'team' despite not actually being a 'team' - working together and communicating. If they don't like it, play FFA or find some friends to play with!!

As someone with disability, I can't get out to socialise, can't be part of a sports team etc but can play as an 'equal' as my character is not restricted by disability like I am. Therefore online gaming is very important to me. I don't have interest in playing multi-player on my own with a bunch of other 'loners'. Even the MP games I don't like so much are infinitely better with a good bunch of friends, having a laugh and doing something together. Its the same as playing in a sports team - its not just the 'match' but the fun and spirit (sometimes alcoholic after matches).

I wouldn't pick online over SP but as most seem to miss the point of online, I just felt it was necessary to address what that can offer and why its equally as important.

@drk @BAMozzy Both points are completely valid here. I think the big problem with online multiplayer right now on console is its mostly designed around fast paced competition and there is a complete lack of fairplay or spotsmanship. Add in that gamers have no consequence for their actions and the result is a cesspool of hatred and bile.

In sport you have a referee, hes there to make sure the rules are followed and the games dont get out of hand. If we didnt have referees and sportmanship sport would look like what we have with competitive online gaming.

When it comes to cooperative online stuff. Player versus computer online really comes alive and hopefully this is the track gaming starts to follow more and more. The thought of playing yet another deathmatch fps waiting in a lobby....

No thanks.

@themcnoisy I would say that there is the referee as the game generally has very fixed rules and parameters which are not easy to transgress from. You aren't going to get a contentious decision over whether or not someone was offside, playing dangerously to injure an opponent or even unable to report foul and abusive language and, unlike real life, you also have the option to mute. Cheaters are often banned for a time and some gamers are permanently banned too - depending on repeat offences and/or severity of the 'cheat'. Most often have their records reset as well as the ban. Granted its not as immediate as an umpire would be but its more like being caught speeding on a camera and rather than the police dealing with you then and there, a month or so later, you get the fine and points sent to you.

There is consequence for peoples actions - whether they are aware or not. If someone were to report with evidence of foul and abusive action, there is consequence. Sony and MS have the power to ban people from online - breaching terms and conditions that everyone agrees to yet rarely read - point is though, they are rules and regulations to protect gamers of all ages from cheats, foul and abusive language etc and whilst there isn't an 'umpire' watching every online game all the time, there is one that will meet out retrospective justice and therefore there is consequence.

Social gaming can replace the old fashioned board games, emulate the experience of playing a team sport with that camaraderie whether its as competitive as playing in a professional sports team or more similar to having a kick-about in the local park with your mates. Like I said, it also doesn't have to be 'competitive' against other people, but could be like giving a group of friends a 'project' and letting them decide on how best to execute that project, picking the right people for the right role and coming out the other side as a successful team. Knowing that each obstacle will be overcome by working together, knowing that each person has your back and you have theirs. Its a lot more intense than having an AI partner/squad because their is a 'real person' behind that character, a friend/colleague. You can't deny that some of the best laughs you have had in gaming have come from playing with friends. It was the same with couch co-op - there was always something better about coming first in Mario Kart against your friends and family than beating an AI controlled opponent.

As good as say watching a movie can be, it can be better when you share that experience with friends and family. You can go kick a ball in the back garden by yourself too but its nowhere near the fun of kicking a ball around with a bunch of friends - even if its not about keeping score but just having fun with friends - online gaming does that too.

I am not saying every game needs to be online or have some online component but I don't think every game should be totally single player either. I would hate to live in a world where gaming is one or the other - not both. Games have been 'social' and multi-player for longer than Single Player. Pong required 2 to play - games like Donkey Kong, Pac Man etc all had multi-player - although that meant taking it in turns after each death. Arcades were social with friends gathering around to watch and/or take turns, compete against each other in high scores, etc and whilst I do love the Single Player and it will most often be my first concern with games, I also think Online is just as important. It doesn't have to be the 10min CoD match but you can share an entire campaign story with another friend so get the 'same' (if not similar) experience that SP games offer too but playing 'solo' feels a lot more 'hollow' against bots/AI in a lot of games too - missing that camaraderie and fun that playing with a friend or 5 can offer...

This is a separate but related question to online that people may have an opinion on. I heard or read (it may have been on this site but I don’t think so) that the developers of these online games have algorithms to ensure that you are hooked into continuing to play. For example, if you’ve lost a few matches in a row, it assigns you to a favorable match by putting you on a strong team to increase chances of getting a win and therefore a positive experience to keep you playing. And the converse is true, that if you’ve won a few matches in a row, they put you in a situation where you are more likely to lose to keep you from becoming complacent. There are other well researched algorithms they are using to manipulate you into wanting to play “just one more game.”
In a way, the developer is cheating the system, using psychology to get what they want from you (to spend more time in the game). And this all happens in a covert type manner, which is some people’s gripe. The illusion of achievement is the issue.
Anyways, I don’t really have a strong opinion because I don’t play much MP, but was wondering what people thought.

@Th3solution A number of games will have an 'easy' lobby for the first few levels of progression - maybe 1 or 2 skilled players to give something to aspire too but its weighted so that new players are not up against experienced gamers who completely dominate them. Maybe they won't get 20 kills but they may get a few which is better than none. Chances are they also earned enough XP to unlock the next level and some new 'gear' to play with which also helps get them hooked. You can rank up several times a match in the early stages but even a noob can level up in a match and there is always something new to unlock, new reward.

Its that which tends to help players have a positive feeling - the fact that many newcomers think they won't even get a kill and would take ages to get enough XP to get reward. There are some games though that once you get through that 'probationary' start, some 'skill based matchmaking' comes into play. Its always been there but it really depends on how much its prioritised. It also can depend on whether you are playing in a team or as a random 'solo' player. I have noticed that if you are constantly top and a player on the opposite team is constantly top, they are never on the same team - which 'should' happen if its totally random. The players at the bottom will be rotated and or 'rebalanced' so the 'team' is generally matched skill for skill rather than have the best 2/4 on 1 team.

Its difficult to say for definite that they will take players out of a lobby and replace them for better/worse depending on your success. It maybe that after 3 or 4 wins in a row, the other players leave to find a different lobby. Conversely, a team that keeps winning may get bored and try to find a new lobby or play a different mode rather than any interference from the games own algorithms. I have played matches with the same core players over and over again - whether that's a long winning streak or losing streak so it doesn't seem to be like that but I have played matches with more varied gamers - although I have seen the same name placed in my lobby only to quit and get placed back in again. I have had that happen too - get placed in a lobby with a strong 'team', quit to find a new lobby only to be placed back in that same lobby - it seems that often they focus more on match performance than skill of players.

Its become more prevalent in recent years. Games like CoD 4 used a skill based method to try and balance teams but they also dropped all players into the same pool. No 'easy' lobbies for newcomers to give them some 'protection' and false sense of ability - sink or swim and use that to either break you or inspire you to get better.

Competitive (not the general MP) will use algorithms to match teams with similar skilled teams. If you constantly win, you are moved up a division so to speak so that matches are more competitive.

@BAMozzy I can see the value of trying to keep teams balanced and using a progression system or different lobbies to keep noobs from being decimated up front, but I think it’s sort of questionable to actually penalize a successful player for winning a lot, or boost an unsuccessful player for losing a lot, just to make things closer and keep players more engaged.
I’m playing devil’s advocate here — but it’s kind of like the rubber banding in Mario Kart and other racing games where you can be so far ahead but always seem to get caught right at the end by someone who was boosted up to catch you and make the race close. There is an illusion of success (or failure). The integrity of the game is sacrificed in order to maximize player participation and company profit.
And if the outcome of the game is all fixed, what’s the point in playing it right? There is no true accomplishment and it takes the fun out of it. It’s like getting a platinum for My Name is Mayo. Or like being spotted the first 10 points in a game of table tennis. You win, but only because someone was put at such a disadvantage and let you win.

@Th3solution Of course nobody wants to be penalised for being successful or boost someone who isn't but that's generally not the way it works. They won't split up a party because its 'loaded' with good players to make it more balanced but they may try and match make a 'better' player if a space becomes available but not necessarily at the expense of Ping for example. If two people are trying to find a match, they may favour the stronger player for that particular lobby to try and bring more balance to the next match. Its more about trying to pair people up with more similar skill level rather than penalise or boost people.

The purpose is more to provide a balanced experience - putting players of a similar skill set with other similarly skilled players rather than putting 'pro's' with noobs. If you are consistently getting a 2KD for example, they may try to put you in lobbies with 1.5-2.5KD's rather than put you in lobbies full of 0.5 (or lower) KD's. If you are winning a lot, then maybe your KD is increasing so you end up moving up in the category so get more 'higher skilled' players in the matches than you were. Its not totally random but its also not 'generally' the highest focus but if you had 2 people with equal 'ping', they will try to match the player to the best lobby based on their skill so its more balanced for all players. Its not about penalising the good or boosting the bad but trying to make sure they have a more balanced experience rather than being too one sided. Surely that is better? Its kind of like being in a league and the better you do, the higher the league you are in and the better the players you come up against to provide a more balanced and even match. Its not done to penalise or boost but to provide the right level of competition, difficulty and balance.

The protection when you start is there for two reasons, firstly because you have no 'data' to base your skill level on and secondly, it gives them a chance to get used to the game, learn the maps and controls etc without spawning and instantly being killed.

The outcome isn't fixed at all. They have no idea if the team will win or lose, no idea if the match will be close or not but the aim is to try and make the teams balanced with those in the lobby. That's why they tend to keep the best 2 on opposite sides rather than put them together. They may swap the next two around but will often be kept on opposite sides too but will be more random with the lower skilled players rather than put the top 6 on one team up against the bottom 6. This is why you get some players always complaining they have 'idiots' or 'noobs' on their team but its the same for the 'best' player on the opposite team. Its because they can't always put like skilled players together in one lobby without affecting the 'ping'. Its more liberal than 'league' or competitive play where they will be more likely to keep similarly skilled players together. Again its not about penalising good or boosting weak - its about promoting the good to play with better players and relegating the weak to play with weaker players.

@BAMozzy Okay, well, not being a multiplayer-type of gamer, I’ll have to take your word for it that the matchmaking systems are more about creating fair competition and less about manipulating the system for the purpose of stringing along players.
What about other in-game mechanics? Do you find in your online play that during a match or series of matches that certain games are handicapping your progress or efficacy? For example, after you get on a roll of kills that you’re being increasingly required to land more shots to make a kill than your opponents? Or that you seem to respawn in a more inconvenient location, like further from the action or further from a special weapon or ammo? Or vice versa, when you’re having a rough day or playing a game your not very good at, do you find yourself fortunate enough to respawn next to a power up, etc? Can you objectively say the game is not trying to ‘help you out’ a little to keep you from rage quitting?
(Honestly, I don’t play enough MP to say this happens for sure so I’m really not trolling, it’s a genuine curiosity of mine, and this is what I had heard that games do this)

@Th3solution Personally I don't find any handicapping (like taking an extra shot to kill if I am on a roll) or 'lucky' breaks when I am having a run of poor success. Certainly not in he games I play. Most online shooters are so predictable and consistent. By that I mean the way the games play, the time it takes to kill, the respawn system etc is predictable. A person's health (say 100) is always the same and the bullet damage at set ranges always results in the 'same' results - a gun doing 40 damage will always take 3 hits to kill and its so consistent whether you are having a good day or not. If I am having a bad day, its easy to blame the game - that lag spike just when you should have got the final kill, the poor spawn because you took a few seconds to realise where you spawned and wasn't properly ready to start but if you look at it objectively - rather than reacting negatively because of your own bad aim, or lack of awareness, the game isn't really at fault its the player - its like a bad workman blaming his tools instead of blaming their own ability. If you are having a 'bad day', its not the games fault but often its the game that gets the blame as people rarely blame themselves.

Games like Battlefield don't actually have a respawn algorithm and let you pick your own spawn but a bad player will blame his team mate for being in the wrong position when they spawn on him and die rather than themselves for not paying enough attention on that players position and situation before spawning on them. The reason games like CoD are 'eSport' games is because they are so consistent and predictable. A Pro player will know exactly how long to hold a trigger down to ensure they get the kill at whatever range, they know where they are likely to respawn and where the enemy is most likely to respawn too. That consistency isn't 'just' in the competitive side - its in the whole game. The spawn points are ALL known and the algorithm is consistent too.

I can honestly say that the MP games I play are not weighted to give bad players a chance and good players a handicap. Its more likely that you will find things like that in F2P games where they want to keep you playing to spend money. The games I play all have very fixed rules - so much so you can look them up and know exactly how the game will play, how long it takes to kill with each weapon and at the various ranges. The maps all have 'spawn points' to where you will always spawn into. Small maps though can change dynamics very quickly so the most 'suitable' spawn when its calculated can be a 'bad spawn' when you eventually do spawn in but its not as if you spawn in front of an enemy who has been camping behind that spawn point all game.

Its very different from Rubber Banding or always getting the rubbish power-ups in Mario Kart when winning and only getting the decent ones if you are losing.

@BAMozzy Thanks for your insight, man. I thought it was an interesting topic. And as most conspiracy theory type of things are, usually it’s fun to talk about even if there is not any validity to the claim. 😄 Part of the reason I don’t like to play online MP is that because I am lousy at them it’s easy to blame the game for being out to get me. I’d rather just say the game is not fair and just quit and go back to the SP campaign. It’s a convenient excuse and it helps me sleep at night 😉

@Th3solution There is the flip side of course in that it challenges you to get better. Unlike SP where you can lower the difficulty and play 'just' for the story, online will put you up against more experience gamers. Unlike SP too, you get a more diverse skill set and more random encounters than they could programme into a game.

As I said though, online is so much more than just competitive MP but even that can be a lot more fun with friends

@Th3solution youve brought up a very valid point. I have been put off online multiplayer as Ive played against cheats on PC years ago (I didnt know at the time) and you cant trust gaming companies to do right by us especially with the crap going down in Destiny land and Activisions infamous patent for loot boxes. Bam plays more often than me online so I trust that the system on console at least isnt broken yet. On Rocket League I was absolutely being teamed with awful teammates for ages and it wasnt completely random as I was being teamed with the same people 3 or 4 games in a row when 100k plus were online. I came to the conclusion I was in an invisible sub group of players.