You hate MP only games but what about SP only?

#121vashtrichamPosted 2/7/2014 8:04:57 AM(edited)
TargettPractice posted...
Somebody said that people played MVC2's single player for 14 years as a rebuttal. LOL


Um alot of people have been, obviously someone is ignorant about the FGC. People are still playing it to this day and played most days for years.
I knew people who were still spending hours in triaining mode almost every day from 2000-2010 since they played in Tournies for years. While Tourny is local MP they still spent years playing in triaining mode and single player when at home.
---
Marvel heroes: Cap and Gambit
#122aszsithPosted 2/7/2014 8:38:29 AM
Plzstopflaming posted...
aszsith posted...
TC - Here's a question for you:

How did you feel about Microsoft's initial plans which required a once daily online checkin? Were you one of the few who supported it, or were you part of the massive crowd of folks that wanted it gone?


Great question. I don't support always online 24/7 systems because I believe there is a equal medium between great single player only games and great multiplayer only games. Now you claims "bad design" and "stupid developer's", but these are big name developers earning a increasing fan base. Developers may make the wrong decision, but you can't tell me you are smarter than any developer in their office.

In my opinion games are directed towards a generation. THIS generation is all about sharing, staying connected, community, social media. Wether you like it or not the facts are there through success of instagram, twitter, etc. So I feel like multiplayer only games are in the RIGHT generation right now to be a huge success.

I'm not downplaying a single player experience, but you can't predict the future to tell me how this generation will handle online only games. You can go by the past, but social media and staying connected was no where near the level at the release of xbox 360 than it is now.


I'm not opposed to the online structure. I'm not against the heavy integration of social features. I'm simply against the requirement that my ability to use my purchase is predicated 100% on the availability of players. This won't be a problem at launch, but if you want to play Titanfall in 2 years, you may find it difficult to find other players at 3am because new games have become more popular.

I actually support the idea of an always online console with a caveat. I think that you should be able to play disc based games without the checkin in the event that the Internet goes out and for those people without the connection. However, while embracing the benefits of an online infrastructure, I still think that your experience shouldn't be limited just because someone else isn't around to play when you want to play.

I look at how NFS Rivals handled things. The game allows you to play in a closed world if you want or the online one, even if there aren't any other players around. That type of system embraces both sides of the coin.
---
ALL games should have a Single Player mode. I can always guarantee I want to play when I turn on my system. I can't guarantee others will at the same time.
#123BDJaycePosted 2/7/2014 11:05:04 AM
Plzstopflaming posted...
BDJayce posted...
SP only can lasst years, I can still pull out my NES and play games on it with no problem whatsoever.

In 20 years, the servers for online games will have closed down not unlike the original Xbox Servers.

It's like buying an MMO.. once that MMO dies then you either go private server or you throw your disc at a tree like a Frisbee for fun.


So question. Who do you think has put more time into their game the world of warcraft player since beta. Or dmc3.

If the WoW servers were shut down today.You know how much play time someone would need to put into dmc3 to match a release wow player? You talk this thing about 20 years and servers being shut down, but who in the end played the game more?


Playing the game more is great. Outstanding. Unbelievable, even!

Being able to play the game any time you want, whenever you want, at any point in the future that you want regardless of how much time you've put in is even better though.
---
GT: JamesBolton0723
#124WartPig_Posted 2/7/2014 11:11:09 AM
BDJayce posted...
Plzstopflaming posted...
BDJayce posted...
SP only can lasst years, I can still pull out my NES and play games on it with no problem whatsoever.

In 20 years, the servers for online games will have closed down not unlike the original Xbox Servers.

It's like buying an MMO.. once that MMO dies then you either go private server or you throw your disc at a tree like a Frisbee for fun.


So question. Who do you think has put more time into their game the world of warcraft player since beta. Or dmc3.

If the WoW servers were shut down today.You know how much play time someone would need to put into dmc3 to match a release wow player? You talk this thing about 20 years and servers being shut down, but who in the end played the game more?


Playing the game more is great. Outstanding. Unbelievable, even!

Being able to play the game any time you want, whenever you want, at any point in the future that you want regardless of how much time you've put in is even better though.


also the other guy compared a single game to one with endless expansions.
ask yourself this. how long would people haved played WoW if it never got an expansion. better to compare the WHOLE DMC series to WoW. and DMC still would win for the simple fact its not reliant on an outside source to work.
---
PSN-WartPigX, XBL-WartPig
"people talking without speaking, people hearing without listening"
#125Plzstopflaming(Topic Creator)Posted 2/7/2014 11:19:16 AM
WartPig_ posted...
BDJayce posted...
Plzstopflaming posted...
BDJayce posted...
SP only can lasst years, I can still pull out my NES and play games on it with no problem whatsoever.

In 20 years, the servers for online games will have closed down not unlike the original Xbox Servers.

It's like buying an MMO.. once that MMO dies then you either go private server or you throw your disc at a tree like a Frisbee for fun.


So question. Who do you think has put more time into their game the world of warcraft player since beta. Or dmc3.

If the WoW servers were shut down today.You know how much play time someone would need to put into dmc3 to match a release wow player? You talk this thing about 20 years and servers being shut down, but who in the end played the game more?


Playing the game more is great. Outstanding. Unbelievable, even!

Being able to play the game any time you want, whenever you want, at any point in the future that you want regardless of how much time you've put in is even better though.


also the other guy compared a single game to one with endless expansions.
ask yourself this. how long would people haved played WoW if it never got an expansion. better to compare the WHOLE DMC series to WoW. and DMC still would win for the simple fact its not reliant on an outside source to work.


I put my entire life savings on a bet that wow from release to now has more player hours than the entire dmc franchise across all platforms and by a WIDE margin
#126BDJaycePosted 2/7/2014 11:31:39 AM
Plzstopflaming posted...
WartPig_ posted...
BDJayce posted...
Plzstopflaming posted...
BDJayce posted...
SP only can lasst years, I can still pull out my NES and play games on it with no problem whatsoever.

In 20 years, the servers for online games will have closed down not unlike the original Xbox Servers.

It's like buying an MMO.. once that MMO dies then you either go private server or you throw your disc at a tree like a Frisbee for fun.


So question. Who do you think has put more time into their game the world of warcraft player since beta. Or dmc3.

If the WoW servers were shut down today.You know how much play time someone would need to put into dmc3 to match a release wow player? You talk this thing about 20 years and servers being shut down, but who in the end played the game more?


Playing the game more is great. Outstanding. Unbelievable, even!

Being able to play the game any time you want, whenever you want, at any point in the future that you want regardless of how much time you've put in is even better though.


also the other guy compared a single game to one with endless expansions.
ask yourself this. how long would people haved played WoW if it never got an expansion. better to compare the WHOLE DMC series to WoW. and DMC still would win for the simple fact its not reliant on an outside source to work.


I put my entire life savings on a bet that wow from release to now has more player hours than the entire dmc franchise across all platforms and by a WIDE margin


You.. I.. why does conversing with you feel like putting spikes to my brain?

I don't care how many hours someone invests into a game or how many hours can be invested into the game.

The fact remains that even if Xbox shuts down all the servers and Xbox Live is cancelled tomorrow I can still pull out Dragon Age or Fable or Fallout and play to my hearts content. I wouldn't be able to do that with Titanfall or Defiance. Once the servers shut down you have yourself a $60 Frisbee with slightly impressive designs on it unless you digitally downloaded it then you're simply screwed.

Plus i've always cared more about story and substance over leaderboards, raids, and kill/death ratios.
---
GT: JamesBolton0723
#127Plzstopflaming(Topic Creator)Posted 2/7/2014 11:38:11 AM
The fact is this. If I put 200 hours into a game I have played the game more than someone who put 30 hours in. So to match the time I spent I you would have to continue playing. So even if the servers of a game are shut down I essentially got more value out of that game. The ONLY advantage I feel a single payer game has is if the servers do get shut down you miss out if you didn't originally own the game where it is different for a SP.

And my question is when you beat dmc and moved to another game its still a Frisbee til you pick it up again. The constant replay value of a multiplayer only means I'm CONSTANTLY playing that game getting more value than you are. There is much more incentive to continue playing a online only game vs a single player game
#128aszsithPosted 2/7/2014 4:43:44 PM
Plzstopflaming posted...
The fact is this. If I put 200 hours into a game I have played the game more than someone who put 30 hours in. So to match the time I spent I you would have to continue playing. So even if the servers of a game are shut down I essentially got more value out of that game. The ONLY advantage I feel a single payer game has is if the servers do get shut down you miss out if you didn't originally own the game where it is different for a SP.

And my question is when you beat dmc and moved to another game its still a Frisbee til you pick it up again. The constant replay value of a multiplayer only means I'm CONSTANTLY playing that game getting more value than you are. There is much more incentive to continue playing a online only game vs a single player game


You are still missing the point though. This has nothing to do how many hours you put into a game. It is about the ability to play it when you want to.

It isn't that there is fun to be had with multiplayer. It is that a game designed for MULTIPLAYER ONLY is completely worthless once the serves go down. It becomes UNPLAYABLE. It also requires someone else to play with

A game that has SINGLE PLAYER ONLY can always be played by the person who purchased it whenever they wish with no additional criteria to be filled.

At this point, you just don't want to concede to logic no matter how many ways your argument is refuted by nearly every person who posts a response.

I implore you, please do as your name requests. PLZSTOPFLAMING!
---
ALL games should have a Single Player mode. I can always guarantee I want to play when I turn on my system. I can't guarantee others will at the same time.
#129ThePaleRiderpPosted 2/7/2014 5:05:27 PM
aszsith posted...
Plzstopflaming posted...
The fact is this. If I put 200 hours into a game I have played the game more than someone who put 30 hours in. So to match the time I spent I you would have to continue playing. So even if the servers of a game are shut down I essentially got more value out of that game. The ONLY advantage I feel a single payer game has is if the servers do get shut down you miss out if you didn't originally own the game where it is different for a SP.

And my question is when you beat dmc and moved to another game its still a Frisbee til you pick it up again. The constant replay value of a multiplayer only means I'm CONSTANTLY playing that game getting more value than you are. There is much more incentive to continue playing a online only game vs a single player game


You are still missing the point though. This has nothing to do how many hours you put into a game. It is about the ability to play it when you want to.

It isn't that there is fun to be had with multiplayer. It is that a game designed for MULTIPLAYER ONLY is completely worthless once the serves go down. It becomes UNPLAYABLE. It also requires someone else to play with

A game that has SINGLE PLAYER ONLY can always be played by the person who purchased it whenever they wish with no additional criteria to be filled.

At this point, you just don't want to concede to logic no matter how many ways your argument is refuted by nearly every person who posts a response.

I implore you, please do as your name requests. PLZSTOPFLAMING!


Lol. I still can go back and enjoy my SNES games. Ahhh the good old days where developers had to be more creative with their games since there was no online. Games definitely had more replay value. Online can boost or diminish a game depending on how it's used. But a multiplayer only game had a finite life span if there are no add ons or expansions.
---
Everyone's so busy arguing over the problem instead of creating a solution.