Why do people buy singleplayer games?

...Not to mention, a multiplayer game normally has a subpar campaign.

DeadApeBladder

That's a rather exhaustive statement. Nearly every shooter ever made has a multiplayer mode.

I never rent games or trade them in. I like having all the games I've bought. I think about the games before I buy them, and this gen there are maybe 2 or 3 games out of around 30-35 that i regret buying. I only really play single player... maybe a bit of MP on Mario Kart or SSBB, but MULTIPLAYER IS NOT NECESSARY FOR REPLAY VALUE.

I've played through Super Mario Galaxy 4 times. Metroid Prime Trilogy is 3 incredible games, all of which I can see myself playing again at some point. I've played the MW2 campaign 3 times and haven't done much of the online.

because if your into them then they last longer than most multiplayer games. fallout 3 almost lasted me an entire year just because it was so fun. ME easily was at least 1 1/2-2 months, im still playing prototype. i have dragon age which i wont even touch till im done with prototype. they last alot longer than you would think. and single player games dont havepeople in multiplayer who glitch the grenade launcher to have infinite ammo, or 10 year olds who think your only good by shooting people across the map when the other person cant see them; usually getting a one shot kill in the chest(a sniper rifle) and their usually not something yourusually not going to scream and cry about dying like people do in most multiplayers

When a game is single-player only, it says that quality should've been brought to the table because the devs didn't have to focus on other aspects of the game ie multiplayer. Bioshock, Mass Effect, andBatman Arkham Asylum all were good games.

Some games with short campaigns are that because the devs put more effort into the multiplayer aspect of the game. (COD)

I honestly have to agree, I play single-player games mostly for the story but once it's up I feel almost no compulsion to play it again. Of course there are exceptions when it comes to games like Oblivion and Mass Effect, but otherwise I don't see the point in replaying a game unless it was extraordinarily good. I regret almost all of the single-player (only) game purchases that I've made with the exceptions of Oblivion, Mass Effect, and Fallout 3.

Nowadays I simply rent single-player games (from GameFly or Blockbuster), beat them, and take/send them back without having to pay $60 for a few hours of gameplay.

because if your into them then they last longer than most multiplayer games. fallout 3 almost lasted me an entire year just because it was so fun. ME easily was at least 1 1/2-2 months, im still playing prototype. i have dragon age which i wont even touch till im done with prototype. they last alot longer than you would think. and single player games dont havepeople in multiplayer who glitch the grenade launcher to have infinite ammo, or 10 year olds who think your only good by shooting people across the map when the other person cant see them; usually getting a one shot kill in the chest(a sniper rifle) and their usually not something yourusually not going to scream and cry about dying like people do in most multiplayers

dragonic9100

Seriously? Prototype was some fun but I only got about halfway into the storyline before I just wanted it to be over. Admittedly, I had tons of fun flipping, gliding, jumping, and of course climbing around Manhattan but it eventually lost it's novelty.

No, single player doesn't have those terrible consequences of playing with people online. But single player also lacks the competitive fun of online multiplayer, the cooperation that you can sometime engage in when you're lucky enough to be matched up with decent people, and the thrill of getting a headshot from a few yards away when your opponent is toting a shotgun and you're firing a sniper rifle. Bragging rights are a beautiful thing.

im not guaranteed that ill play enough of a game to beat it within a rental. I generally buy the single player games because I beat them over time...If a game is 15-20 hours long, there is no possible way I play enough in 1 week to complete that game.

is this thread for real...

Pdiddy105

thats what i'm sayin

Did you ever think that maybe it's because we like to play them for more than a week at a time?

A single player game is an easier purchase for me to justfy than a multiplayer-focued game is...

The expression "waste of money" varies once you get into different perceptions.

Maybe to you a single player game is not worth your money, but perhaps to somebody else who enjoys that gameplay expierience, its worth their hard earned cash.

Learn to put yourself in other people's shoes, it will make life easier for you.

When a game is single-player only, it says that quality should've been brought to the table because the devs didn't have to focus on other aspects of the game ie multiplayer. Bioshock, Mass Effect, andBatman Arkham Asylum all were good games.

Some games with short campaigns are that because the devs put more effort into the multiplayer aspect of the game. (COD)

cejay0813

I don't think businesses run like RTSs. It's not like where you only have 1,000 gold in the mine for your peons to gather, so you have to decide whether to focus on ground units or air units. I'd imagine that games have budgets which are determined in part by the sort of features that are going to be developed in the game. Resources are determined in part by the vision for the end product.

Continuing on this reasoning, some games may favor either single or multiplayer, because that's the emphasis a developer wanted in their game. Team Fortress has no single-player not because all the programmers were just too busy working on multiplayer, but because no one intended for it to have a campaign. You basically say this in your second paragraph, though I'm not sure you mean it the same way I do.

I might be wrong about all this, though. I don't work in the gaming industry. Could be every game gets 100 dwarves to work on it, and if you put all 100 of the little guys on singleplayer, instead of splitting them 50/50, you get a good campaign.

Why do people buy multiplayer games? they are extremely repetative? Seriously are you that ridiculously blind? I am going to take your advice and not buy final fantasy 13 but rent it for 2 weeks and pay probably $100 in late fees because it will take that long to finish therefore paying more than the game is actually worth and not actually owning the game.KorruptRaiden

If you want to be nit-picky about what games are "RPGs", then technically ANY game could be an RPG as long as it has a main character and storyline, because you are taking on the ROLE of another person. It's kind of a dumb point to make, since the basic elements that make a traditional RPG so long and a worthwhile purchase by your standards (grinding levels) are nonexistant in many of the games you claimed were RPGs (ACII & Bioshock).

I personally play games almost entirely for the campaign because I don't think it's all that fun to get shot dead by eight year olds who scream "suck on that" into their microphones on the same 5 maps over and over.

Is it wrong that I would rather play the campaign or spec ops mode for MW2 instead of the MP ? I'm getting tired of all these morons encouraging these stupid developers to put all their attention into the MP and just settle on giving us a half-*** SP experience, then It turns out that these same morons are gonna turn around and complain about a games multiplayer as well when they find out that they suck at the game.

If you want to be nit-picky about what games are "RPGs", then technically ANY game could be an RPG as long as it has a main character and storyline, because you are taking on the ROLE of another person. It's kind of a dumb point to make, since the basic elements that make a traditional RPG so long and a worthwhile purchase by your standards (grinding levels) are nonexistant in many of the games you claimed were RPGs (ACII & Bioshock).

LittleEnid

No. RPGs grew out of the tradition of table top roleplaying games. RPGs are games in which you control a character whose physical abilities in the world are defined by numbers, which are readily visible to the player, and which are almost always improvable. This separates RPGs from action games, where your in-game abilities are defined by your hand-eye coordination. A game that has neither of these elements and simply tells a story (usually with puzzles at the gameplay element) is called anadventure game (not a lot of these anymore).

An RPG is not defined as a game where you "play a role." Hell, that's most any game. Is Doom an RPG? I'm taking on the role of the Doomguy. Is Forza an RPG? I'm taking on the role of some professional driver. People get too fixated on genre descriptions, instead ofactually knowing their game history and what sets different kinds of games apart. It's like people who insist that FPS and "TPS" are different genres.

As to the bit about Assassin's Creed and Bioshock, well, those aren't RPGs. Those are action games that have RPG elements to varying degrees. Lots of games mix genres these days, Mass Effect for example.

EDIT:I'll add that my definition isn't the only one. But "An RPG is a game where you play a role," isn't any sort of definition at all.

Why do people buy movies. They generally never last for more than three hours. Everyone I know can finish a movie in a day. Just rent it, watch it and return it. For those of you who are slow, that was a joke.vashkey

There's a difference between movies and video games, the games cost significantly more.

Beside that, what's the point in buying a movie unless you're going to watch it again and again? Shelf filler? And in my eyes it's the same for video games. I don't see a point in buying a game you'll only play once, or even twice--you'd have shelled out $60 for maybe twelve to twenty four hours of entertainment. A price that's not equal to the value of the product. Now, of course I'll buy a game if, after renting it, I plan on replaying it multiple times. For instance, I bought Oblivion back in 2006 and I still occasionally pop it in my Xbox 360 to play it some more. Of course, I also bought Assassin's Creed and although the game was great, I haven't played it since I beat it.

So I guess my point is, I won't spend $60 on a game with virtually no replay value, and replayability is much more easy to spot with multiplayer games than single player.

[QUOTE="LittleEnid"]

If you want to be nit-picky about what games are "RPGs", then technically ANY game could be an RPG as long as it has a main character and storyline, because you are taking on the ROLE of another person. It's kind of a dumb point to make, since the basic elements that make a traditional RPG so long and a worthwhile purchase by your standards (grinding levels) are nonexistant in many of the games you claimed were RPGs (ACII & Bioshock).

Palantas

No. RPGs grew out of the tradition of table top roleplaying games. RPGs are games in which you control a character whose physical abilities in the world are defined by numbers, which are readily visible to the player, and which are almost always improvable. This separates RPGs from action games, where your in-game abilities are defined by your hand-eye coordination. A game that has neither of these elements and simply tells a story (usually with puzzles at the gameplay element) is called anadventure game (not a lot of these anymore).

An RPG is not defined as a game where you "play a role." Hell, that's most any game. Is Doom an RPG? I'm taking on the role of the Doomguy. Is Forza an RPG? I'm taking on the role of some professional driver. People get too fixated on genre descriptions, instead ofactually knowing their game history and what sets different kinds of games apart. It's like people who insist that FPS and "TPS" are different genres.

As to the bit about Assassin's Creed and Bioshock, well, those aren't RPGs. Those are action games that have RPG elements to varying degrees. Lots of games mix genres these days, Mass Effect for example.

Thank you for explaining something I already know. I was pointing out how silly it is to write off any game deemed a worthwhile purchase as an RPG, like the TC was doing.

I get what you were saying now, I think. Read this sentence and tell me this can't be taken a couple different ways:

If you want to be nit-picky about what games are "RPGs", then technically ANY game could be an RPG as long as it has a main character and storyline, because you are taking on the ROLE of another person.

LittleEnid

EDIT: I think.

[QUOTE="vashkey"]Why do people buy movies. They generally never last for more than three hours. Everyone I know can finish a movie in a day. Just rent it, watch it and return it. For those of you who are slow, that was a joke.oUndauntedo

There's a difference between movies and video games, the games cost significantly more.

Beside that, what's the point in buying a movie unless you're going to watch it again and again? Shelf filler? And in my eyes it's the same for video games. I don't see a point in buying a game you'll only play once, or even twice--you'd have shelled out $60 for maybe twelve to twenty four hours of entertainment. A price that's not equal to the value of the product. Now, of course I'll buy a game if, after renting it, I plan on replaying it multiple times. For instance, I bought Oblivion back in 2006 and I still occasionally pop it in my Xbox 360 to play it some more. Of course, I also bought Assassin's Creed and although the game was great, I haven't played it since I beat it.

So I guess my point is, I won't spend $60 on a game with virtually no replay value, and replayability is much more easy to spot with multiplayer games than single player.

[QUOTE="vashkey"]Why do people buy movies. They generally never last for more than three hours. Everyone I know can finish a movie in a day. Just rent it, watch it and return it. For those of you who are slow, that was a joke.oUndauntedo

There's a difference between movies and video games, the games cost significantly more.

Beside that, what's the point in buying a movie unless you're going to watch it again and again? Shelf filler? And in my eyes it's the same for video games. I don't see a point in buying a game you'll only play once, or even twice--you'd have shelled out $60 for maybe twelve to twenty four hours of entertainment. A price that's not equal to the value of the product. Now, of course I'll buy a game if, after renting it, I plan on replaying it multiple times. For instance, I bought Oblivion back in 2006 and I still occasionally pop it in my Xbox 360 to play it some more. Of course, I also bought Assassin's Creed and although the game was great, I haven't played it since I beat it.

So I guess my point is, I won't spend $60 on a game with virtually no replay value, and replayability is much more easy to spot with multiplayer games than single player.

I get what you were saying now, I think. Read this sentence and tell me this can't be taken a couple different ways:

[QUOTE="LittleEnid"]

If you want to be nit-picky about what games are "RPGs", then technically ANY game could be an RPG as long as it has a main character and storyline, because you are taking on the ROLE of another person.

Palantas

EDIT: I think.

That's why we read things in the context of a paragraph instead of individual sentences :S

the 2 main reasons i do are:

1) no xbox live

2) no friends

[QUOTE="oUndauntedo"]

[QUOTE="vashkey"]Why do people buy movies. They generally never last for more than three hours. Everyone I know can finish a movie in a day. Just rent it, watch it and return it. For those of you who are slow, that was a joke.vashkey

There's a difference between movies and video games, the games cost significantly more.

Not per hours of entertainment they don't, generally. A DVD costs about $13 (and I'm basing that on how I just went to Amazon and typed in "The Departed": $13). A movie's about two and a half hours long. That's about $5 per hour. A game cost $60 (new, but they get cheaper, unlike movies). As long as you can get 12 hours of entertainment out of any game you buy, it's a better deal than a movie.

Just rent it, beat it, and return it. I'm getting annoyed reading about people wishing they never bought a certain singleplayer game for $60. And with the lengths of campaigns these days on average, it's not even worth it.

Coldzboy

That's why we read things in the context of a paragraph instead of individual sentences :S

LittleEnid

Okay, there's a condescending comment. Did I insult you somehow in all this? Your entire post can be taken different ways. Let's take a look:

If you want to be nit-picky about what games are "RPGs", then technically ANY game could be an RPG as long as it has a main character and storyline, because you are taking on the ROLE of another person. It's kind of a dumb point to make, since the basic elements that make a traditional RPG so long and a worthwhile purchase by your standards (grinding levels) are nonexistant in many of the games you claimed were RPGs (ACII & Bioshock).

LittleEnid

The opening statement of your post says that any game can be RPG as long as you take the role of another person. This is kind of a silly thing to say, however, I see it with some regularity here. I don't know you, so I have no reason to believe you don't think this way.

Next, are you saying it's a dumb point to make because it's a dumb point, or because it's dumb to make the point, since in your mind it's obvious? Or was this not even in reference to your first statement, but in response to whoever you were replying to? Again, this can be taken different ways.

Then you go on to say, "The basic elements that make a traditional RPGs so long and worthwhile, by your standards: Grinding levels..." The "by your standards" sounded argumentative, and indicated to me that you did not agree with the above statment. That is, you did not agree that grinding levels (which necessarily involves stats) is part of traditional RPGs, that is makes them worthwile, or both.

I don't know to whom you're replying, since you didn't quote anyone. It's not the original post, and it's no one on page four, so I have no context for your post. I don't know you, as you haven't posted that much here, so I have no way of knowing what you do and do not know about games. Your post was sufficiently vague that I determined you had a mistaken definition in your gaming terminology, and wrote an informative post in reply. Don't write ambiguous posts and then criticize peoples' reading skills then they don't figure you out.

[QUOTE="LittleEnid"]

That's why we read things in the context of a paragraph instead of individual sentences :S

Palantas

Okay, there's a condescending comment. Did I insult you somehow in all this? Your entire post can be taken different ways. Let's take a look:

If you want to be nit-picky about what games are "RPGs", then technically ANY game could be an RPG as long as it has a main character and storyline, because you are taking on the ROLE of another person. It's kind of a dumb point to make, since the basic elements that make a traditional RPG so long and a worthwhile purchase by your standards (grinding levels) are nonexistant in many of the games you claimed were RPGs (ACII & Bioshock).

LittleEnid

The opening statement of your post says that any game can be RPG as long as you take the role of another person. This is kind of a silly thing to say, however, I see it with some regularity here. I don't know you, so I have no reason to believe you don't think this way.

Next, are you saying it's a dumb point to make because it's a dumb point, or because it's dumb to make the point, since in your mind it's obvious? Or was this not even in reference to your first statement, but in response to whoever you were replying to? Again, this can be taken different ways.

Then you go on to say, "The basic elements that make a traditional RPGs so long and worthwhile, by your standards: Grinding levels..." The "by your standards" sounded argumentative, and indicated to me that you did not agree with the above statment. That is, you did not agree that grinding levels (which necessarily involves stats) is part of traditional RPGs, that is makes them worthwile, or both.

I don't know to whom you're replying, since you didn't quote anyone. It's not the original post, and it's no one on page four, so I have no context for your post. I don't know you, as you haven't posted that much here, so I have no way of knowing what you do and do not know about games. Your post was sufficiently vague that I determined you had a mistaken definition in your gaming terminology, and wrote an informative post in reply. Don't write ambiguous posts and then criticize peoples' reading skills then they don't figure you out.

I apologize for assuming you've read the entire thread where the TC replied multiple times that he thought single-player games like ACII and Bioshock were excluded from his argument because they were "RPGs", starting on the first page. I didn't feel like thumbing through 4 pages again to quote something that was repeated and argued throughout the thread; I'll keep that in mind next time.

Notice how every game you guys have spoken about have been RPGs...

Coldzboy

I'm not offended, but you more or less started with the pretentiousness. I was pointing out that at some level, all games could be defined as RPGs by the TC's standards, either by having a similar element as a traditional RPG (character customization, leveling, etc), or just by definition alone, as a "role-playing game".

I buy single-player games with depth, or with 10 hours of play with replay value and superb quality. So Halo 3 I absolutely despise deathmatches online, but I absolutely love single-player.

And when a game like GTA has about 100 hours worth of play-through to complete 100%, it's worth it. Oh yeah, and when my internet isn't working it's nice to have a half-decent game to play ;)

is this thread for real...

Pdiddy105

Why do people buy movies. They generally never last for more than three hours. Everyone I know can finish a movie in a day. Just rent it, watch it and return it. For those of you who are slow, that was a joke.vashkey

reading your post it seems to me that you're a young gamer so please don't assume that everyone is going to like wat you do. i for one like every type of game and please don't rent ganes and actually help the industry but that just imo

Why do people buy movies. They generally never last for more than three hours. Everyone I know can finish a movie in a day. Just rent it, watch it and return it. For those of you who are slow, that was a joke.vashkey

OH! I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE

I apologize for assuming you've read the entire thread where the TC replied multiple times...

LittleEnid

Nope, I didn't read every post in the four pages you didn't feel like thumbing through. I'll go take a look now.

Dum dum dum...

The RPG argument started at the end of page one and was concluded in the middle of page two. You came in on page four, twelve hours later, in a space of time in which I'd made a couple posts in the topic (and many more on the forum). There was no waysomeone should have been expected to know you were referencing something in the middle of the thread, a couple pages back, which was nothing more than a brief, forgettable exchange.

If you had in fact entertained unusual genre definitions, my first post to you would have opened up room for exchange or debate. This...

That's why we read things in the context of a paragraph instead of individual sentences :S

LittleEnid

...is not informative. What's especially ironic about that statement is we recently established reading your entire paragraph doesn't help either. Anyway, bottom line: If you're not replying to the original post or talking to a guy a few posts away, use some quotes.

I don't have internet at my place, so I don't play online multiplayer.

I don't have internet at my place, so I don't play online multiplayer.

MathMattS

I'll assume you are posting from school/work ?

[QUOTE="MathMattS"]

I don't have internet at my place, so I don't play online multiplayer.

DranzarTypeF

I'll assume you are posting from school/work ?

:lol: Not sure why I found this so amusing. Hehe.

did you read the part about it being a joke?

I honestly have to agree, I play single-player games mostly for the story but once it's up I feel almost no compulsion to play it again. Of course there are exceptions when it comes to games like Oblivion and Mass Effect, but otherwise I don't see the point in replaying a game unless it was extraordinarily good. I regret almost all of the single-player (only) game purchases that I've made with the exceptions of Oblivion, Mass Effect, and Fallout 3.

Nowadays I simply rent single-player games (from GameFly or Blockbuster), beat them, and take/send them back without having to pay $60 for a few hours of gameplay.

[QUOTE="dragonic9100"]

because if your into them then they last longer than most multiplayer games. fallout 3 almost lasted me an entire year just because it was so fun. ME easily was at least 1 1/2-2 months, im still playing prototype. i have dragon age which i wont even touch till im done with prototype. they last alot longer than you would think. and single player games dont havepeople in multiplayer who glitch the grenade launcher to have infinite ammo, or 10 year olds who think your only good by shooting people across the map when the other person cant see them; usually getting a one shot kill in the chest(a sniper rifle) and their usually not something yourusually not going to scream and cry about dying like people do in most multiplayers

oUndauntedo

Seriously? Prototype was some fun but I only got about halfway into the storyline before I just wanted it to be over. Admittedly, I had tons of fun flipping, gliding, jumping, and of course climbing around Manhattan but it eventually lost it's novelty.

No, single player doesn't have those terrible consequences of playing with people online. But single player also lacks the competitive fun of online multiplayer, the cooperation that you can sometime engage in when you're lucky enough to be matched up with decent people, and the thrill of getting a headshot from a few yards away when your opponent is toting a shotgun and you're firing a sniper rifle. Bragging rights are a beautiful thing.

well i didnt get prototype as soon as it came out, but i have done well over 10+ playthroughs. i dont get bored with repetition as long as its spanned out over a long enough time and as for the decent people in multiplayer, i would have to be VERY lucky to find one of these people, the COD series is all campers, snipers, 10 year olds, andkids who yell into their mic every time they die, Halo is just people BR bombing and sniper rifles, i dont own a ps3 so i cant speak for killzone or resistance, but i assume because they are big titles they attract similar people.

Because singleplayer games are fun. Some people can't play games for over fourty-hours a week. Who wants to rush through a long game in a week? I want to do everything that I want in a game without worrying about returning it.

Because there is such a thing as other peoplenot sharingyour opinion.

Well, when I buy my games for $60 I want to get as much as I can out of the game- both singleplayer and multiplayer.

I remember a day when everone bought singleplayer games because online MP did not exist. Why would you not even consider buying a sp game when their are great titles like ME1+2,AC2, fallout 3,fable 2 (3) and so many more

I remember a day when everone bought singleplayer games because online MP did not exist. Why would you not even consider buying a sp game when their are great titles like ME1+2,AC2, fallout 3,fable 2 (3) and so many more

Dawq902

is this a joke thread.

Joke thread?

Single player > Multiplayer...... they are perfect for when those annoying glitchy and stupid online matches get so old you need something good.