Poll: Singleplayer or Multiplayer?

[blue]

Mostly single-player, some multi-player. I game as a hobby (it's true, I'm not paid), but for whatever reason, I feel like I'm wasting time when playing online. If I play COD for a couple hours on a Friday night, I feel like my game time was "wasted," if that makes any sense.

Years ago I'd play hundreds of hours of UT or Counter-Strike, but I just don't have the extra time anymore to do that, so when I do game, I want to feel like I accomplish something. The sense of accomplishment comes from beating single-player games. If I look at the past few months, I can say I've completed the single-player in Far Cry 4, Unity, CoD AW, First Light, and Shadow of Mordor. It's more satisfying to me than having several prestige levels in COD.

 

[Andy]

Mostly single-player, some multi-player. I game as a hobby (it's true, I'm not paid), but for whatever reason, I feel like I'm wasting time when playing online. If I play COD for a couple hours on a Friday night, I feel like my game time was "wasted," if that makes any sense.

Years ago I'd play hundreds of hours of UT or Counter-Strike, but I just don't have the extra time anymore to do that, so when I do game, I want to feel like I accomplish something. The sense of accomplishment comes from beating single-player games. If I look at the past few months, I can say I've completed the single-player in Far Cry 4, Unity, CoD AW, First Light, and Shadow of Mordor. It's more satisfying to me than having several prestige levels in COD.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. I do get a feeling of accomplishment in SP games. That's part of what keeps me going -- the sense of accomplishment from completing the next mission, capturing this part of the world, growing in strength, etc. I like to say, "I am highly accomplished in worlds that don't exist."

I don't get the same sense of accomplishment from MP gaming. That's probably because, when the round is over, everything is reset to zero, and you just do the same thing all over again, over and over. You won or lost, and it contributed to your stats, but there's no real sense of accomplishing anything in the world. At least not in the games I've played. I know some online games have a persistent world that your actions (along with millions of others) can affect, and other games have upgrade systems, but, by itself, that doesn't seem like enough to me.

 

[This_Hard_Land]

Mostly single-player, some multi-player. I game as a hobby (it's true, I'm not paid), but for whatever reason, I feel like I'm wasting time when playing online. If I play COD for a couple hours on a Friday night, I feel like my game time was "wasted," if that makes any sense.

Years ago I'd play hundreds of hours of UT or Counter-Strike, but I just don't have the extra time anymore to do that, so when I do game, I want to feel like I accomplish something. The sense of accomplishment comes from beating single-player games. If I look at the past few months, I can say I've completed the single-player in Far Cry 4, Unity, CoD AW, First Light, and Shadow of Mordor. It's more satisfying to me than having several prestige levels in COD.

I'm the absolute opposite.

Accomplishment in single player = Beating a game a company designed to be beaten by the lowest common denominator.
Accomplishment in multi player = Figuring out systems at a faster rate than other human beings.

Pretty much all single player experiences can be "won" by any idiot. Throw that idiot into Dota 2, or StarCraft, or Splinter Cell etc...and he'll get frustrated pretty quickly.

 

[Frozpot]

I'm the absolute opposite.

Accomplishment in single player = Beating a game a company designed to be beaten by the lowest common denominator.
Accomplishment in multi player = Figuring out systems at a faster rate than other human beings.

Pretty much all single player experiences can be "won" by any idiot. Throw that idiot into Dota 2, or StarCraft, or Splinter Cell etc...and he'll get frustrated pretty quickly.

This response doesn't surprise me in the slightest. That you use it as some metric of confirmation bias for inflating your perception of your own intelligence in respect to others, lol.

Having a gaming aptitude is not an indicator of intelligence. I'm sure there are plenty of brilliant people out there who think COD is hard.

I've seen brain-dead morons who love the s*** out of Dota.

Splinter cell is a primarily Single-Player game. So are most Puzzle games.

Completing a game and How you play it are different measurements. Some people may just run and gun, and others (like myself) enjoy the recon and stealth approach in games like Far Cry. There is fun to be had in Story as well as Power fantasy. Existing in another universe. Doing things that you couldn't in real life in context of a world as opposed to an arena.

There are also challenges in timing and reflexes in SP games that you don't typically get in multi-player games. Platformers, melee combat games where you are fighting and countering multiple enemies at a time.

I get that you enjoy and prefer the mastery in direct competition that MP games provide, and that's cool. It's why people play sports, chess, etc; but don't kid yourself into thinking that preference in multi-player somehow re-enforces your intellectual acumen.

 

[blue]

I'm the absolute opposite.

Accomplishment in single player = Beating a game a company designed to be beaten by the lowest common denominator.
Accomplishment in multi player = Figuring out systems at a faster rate than other human beings.

Pretty much all single player experiences can be "won" by any idiot. Throw that idiot into Dota 2, or StarCraft, or Splinter Cell etc...and he'll get frustrated pretty quickly.

It's true. I'm a complete idiot. That's why I don't play multi-player all that often.

 

[This_Hard_Land]

This response doesn't surprise me in the slightest. That you use it as some metric of confirmation bias for inflating your perception of your own intelligence in respect to others, lol.

Having a gaming aptitude is not an indicator of intelligence. I'm sure there are plenty of brilliant people out there who think COD is hard.

I've seen brain-dead morons who love the s*** out of Dota.

Splinter cell is a primarily Single-Player game. So are most Puzzle games.

Completing a game and How you play it are different measurements. Some people may just run and gun, and others (like myself) enjoy the recon and stealth approach in games like Far Cry. There is fun to be had in Story as well as Power fantasy. Existing in another universe. Doing things that you couldn't in real life in context of a world as opposed to an arena.

There are also challenges in timing and reflexes in SP games that you don't typically get in multi-player games. Platformers, melee combat games where you are fighting and countering multiple enemies at a time.

I get that you enjoy and prefer the mastery in direct competition that MP games provide, and that's cool. It's why people play sports, chess, etc; but don't kid yourself into thinking that preference in multi-player somehow re-enforces your intellectual acumen.

Sigh...where is my foil?

 

[Andy]

This response doesn't surprise me in the slightest. That you use it as some metric of confirmation bias for inflating your perception of your own intelligence in respect to others, lol.

Having a gaming aptitude is not an indicator of intelligence. I'm sure there are plenty of brilliant people out there who think COD is hard.

I've seen brain-dead morons who love the s*** out of Dota.

Splinter cell is a primarily Single-Player game. So are most Puzzle games.

Completing a game and How you play it are different measurements. Some people may just run and gun, and others (like myself) enjoy the recon and stealth approach in games like Far Cry. There is fun to be had in Story as well as Power fantasy. Existing in another universe. Doing things that you couldn't in real life in context of a world as opposed to an arena.

There are also challenges in timing and reflexes in SP games that you don't typically get in multi-player games. Platformers, melee combat games where you are fighting and countering multiple enemies at a time.

I get that you enjoy and prefer the mastery in direct competition that MP games provide, and that's cool. It's why people play sports, chess, etc; but don't kid yourself into thinking that preference in multi-player somehow re-enforces your intellectual acumen.

In my experience, being skilled in competitive multiplayer gaming mostly boils down to two factors: 1) hand-eye coordination (aka twitch reflex), and 2) time spent playing the game and learning the maps. I don't think either of those correlate with intelligence, unless we're talking about a narrow sort of kinesthetic intelligence. I'm sure there are thousands of 14 year olds who can whip my ass in CoD. I'm also pretty sure that I'm smarter than most of them. There's no relation between skill in online shooters and general intelligence. I would almost assume an inverse relationship to at least social forms of intelligence, from the players I've encountered.

I don't think SP games are any different. I'm not aware of any study that has shown that gamers are, on average, more intelligent than the average person.

I would also add that SP games have different difficulty levels, so that if someone finds them too easy, they can just increase the difficulty so that they get the level of challenge they prefer.

Sigh...where is my foil?

On your head.

 

[Frozpot]

In my experience, being skilled in competitive multiplayer gaming mostly boils down to two factors: 1) hand-eye coordination (aka twitch reflex), and 2) time spent playing the game and learning the maps. I don't think either of those correlate with intelligence, unless we're talking about a narrow sort of kinesthetic intelligence. I'm sure there are thousands of 14 year olds who can whip my ass in CoD. I'm also pretty sure that I'm smarter than most of them. There's no relation between skill in online shooters and general intelligence. I would almost assume an inverse relationship to at least social forms of intelligence, from the players I've encountered.

I don't think SP games are any different. I'm not aware of any study that has shown that gamers are, on average, more intelligent than the average person.

I would also add that SP games have different difficulty levels, so that if someone finds them too easy, they can just increase the difficulty so that they get the level of challenge they prefer.

Certainly.

On your head.

Lol, I think he may be referring to this-

a person or thing that contrasts with and so emphasizes and enhances the qualities of another.
"the earthy taste of grilled vegetables is a perfect foil for the tart bite of creamy goat cheese"
synonyms:contrast, complement, antithesis, relief
"Abbott was the perfect foil to Costello"


I do pop up in response to him often, so it does have a kind of relevence-


I'm the grilled veggies

 

[Andy]

Lol, I think he may be referring to this-

Yeah, I knew what he meant. I was just making a funny.

 

[D-V-ANT]

Does multi player cover co-op? If so then that's mostly what I go for. I have to interest in call of duty or battlefield shooter types any more though.

 

[Andy]

Does multi player cover co-op?

Yeah. They are two very different experiences, but for the purposes of the poll, MP would include co-op.

 

[Frozpot]

Does multi player cover co-op? If so then that's mostly what I go for. I have to interest in call of duty or battlefield shooter types any more though.

Personally, I see Co-op as an extension of Single player. You are not in opposition and game-play centers on the external game world and it's influences on you for play. Typically, you are doing everything the player you would if alone (aside from coordinating actions). You experience the game in a similar manner, and for similar reasons.

 

[This_Hard_Land]

Yeah. They are two very different experiences, but for the purposes of the poll, MP would include co-op.

With all honesty, in my mind, co op games should be counted as single player. What a shock right?

The fence, IMO, should divide players overcoming AI vs. players overcoming each other.

 

[Andy]

With all honesty, in my mind, co op games should be counted as single player. What a shock right?

The fence, IMO, should divide players overcoming AI vs. players overcoming each other.

That would be a different poll. I'm not asking whether people prefer to battle AI or real people, but whether they usually game solo or with others.

 

[This_Hard_Land]

Yeah, I knew what he meant. I was just making a funny.

The affront you directed at me was taken exactly as you intended.

That would be a different poll. I'm not asking whether people prefer to battle AI or real people, but whether they usually game solo or with others.

Understood.

I would be curious to see if you polled 100 gamers and asked them this question if they would answer it using a PvP mindset or a "gaming with others" mindset.

 

[Andy]

Personally, I see Co-op as an extension of Single player. You are not in opposition and game-play centers on the external game world and it's influences on you for play. Typically, you are doing everything the player you would if alone (aside from coordinating actions). You experience the game in a similar manner, and for similar reasons.

Part of me agrees, part of me disagrees, and part of me just wants to eat dinner.

Agreement -- I have played co-op games where it essentially feels like I'm playing a SP game, with teammates who might as well be AI, because there's very little interaction or coordination.

Disagreement -- two reasons: 1) it can't be an extension of SP if it breaks the definition of what a single player game is -- it must be in a new, different category, and 2) yes, the goal is the same (e.g., defeat the enemy), but the experience is not as similar as you're saying, especially in a good co-op game, where people are coordinating and communicating. Think of L4D, for instance. Played with a bunch of buddies, who are talking and coordinating, that is a very different experience than playing alone with AI teammates.

 

[Andy]

I would be curious to see if you polled 100 gamers and asked them this question if they would answer it using a PvP mindset or a "gaming with others" mindset.

You're certainly welcome to create your own poll, if you're curious about it. It's an interesting question. I wish we had more polls here. I like polls.

 

[This_Hard_Land]

You're certainly welcome to create your own poll, if you're curious about it. It's an interesting question. I wish we had more polls here. I like polls.

Agree 100%.

 

[TeKPhaN]

Personally, I see Co-op as an extension of Single player. You are not in opposition and game-play centers on the external game world and it's influences on you for play. Typically, you are doing everything the player you would if alone (aside from coordinating actions). You experience the game in a similar manner, and for similar reasons.

Its a extension but a extension that bridges the 2 together.
More on the MP side.

 

[Andy]

There are games where you are trying to accomplish some objective solo, and others where you are working with teammates to accomplish the objective -- maybe they are AI teammates, and maybe they are real people. We call the version with real people "co-op," but games with AI teammates can sometimes feel like a cooperative adventure. I'm thinking of Dragon Age Inquisition, for instance, where I felt more connected to my AI teammates than I do to most random online co-op players.

 

[Gwyn / Razor]

My two cents is I prefer single player games but it boils down to why you game. I want to relax and enjoy myself because I don't get to play games as much as I used to unfortunately. MP is about competition and I understand that line of thinking but that's not my focus.

With that said, I still really enjoy playing Horde on Gears 3. But like what others have said I consider that co-op mode an extension of SP.

Lastly I do try to purchase and support games who have a primary focus on SP because I believe it is a dying breed. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Joon]

time wise its really about half and half for me.

biggest difference is i play through a variety of SP games where with MP it's usually the same 2-4

 

[lowdru2k]

Do not play much single player anymore. When I do its mostly Minecraft. I'll pop in Skyrim and have some other SP games I have yet to finish and play from time to time. When I do get a chance to play it is mostly XBox Live. Call of Duty and Battlefield.

 

[TOPDAWG]

All about the SP to me. I don't have the time or do a care to spend a long time on a game to get good at it. So if I go to play some MP I just get my ass handed to me pretty bad.

 

[Two Pennys Worth]

I probably spend most of my time playing mp. Don't get me wrong, I love single player games too, it's just that eith work and family I don't get to see my friends nearly as often as I'd like so gaming for me is as much a social thing as a hobbby to me.
That's not to say I want MP tacked onto most games, I only usually play a handful of mp games like Bf, Halo, GTA online but I have to admit, it's starting to loose the lustre it once held for me.
That's why I'm so excited for VR, I want those wow moments like when I first stated playing online with friends.

 

[TDbank24]

All about the SP to me. I don't have the time or do a care to spend a long time on a game to get good at it. So if I go to play some MP I just get my ass handed to me pretty bad.

I wonder how many people who don't like multiplayer don't like it just because they suck at it. Then they put all their single player games on easy mode. I'm not knocking anyone but the Call of Duty hate is suspect. People claim it's so easy and such a bad game but i think the real story is they're just bad at it. It's hilarious to me.

 

[Lnin0]

I don't care but I wish games would pick sides. Either be a single player game, be a coop game or be a multiplayer game. Stop trying to be everything to everybody because the end result is mediocrity for all. Devote yourself to a path and do one thing f***ing amazing.

 

[sharkboy1200]

I don't care but I wish games would pick sides. Either be a single player game, be a coop game or be a multiplayer game. Stop trying to be everything to everybody because the end result is mediocrity for all. Devote yourself to a path and do one thing f***ing amazing.

I agree. Not to say the third option can't produce good to great results, but a majority of the devs out there don't have the resources nor the staff to create that type of environment. I like that games with a multiplayer focus are releasing as just a multiplayer game, as opposed to releasing a sub par single player experience. Vice versa as well, but that's always been an option. My only wish is that more devs who concentrate on MP would include more ai in their game so that players can really practice, but also sometimes just play the game without a competition if you will. I hate having to get back into a MP game I haven't touched in a while and then getting my ass handed to me because I forgot some kind of intricacy involved.

 

[ZombiesRUCrazy]

I'll go with half and half.

I usually go through cycles of sp and mp gaming.

 

[The Living Tribunal]

Single player mainly.
Give me a solid Elder Scrolls/Fallout/Mass Effect/etc single player only game and I could care less about multiplayer.

That said, I do enjoy a nice round of BF4 when I just want to blow stuff up and run over people. However, I think blue summed it up nicely.
I tend to find more rewarding experiences in single player games. I don't care about leveling up my guy to unlock more gear in multiplayer games, or being ultra competitive online.
That is just me though.