This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

games you like better single player or multiplayer?

#1oiburPosted 2/18/2014 10:00:46 AM
when buying a game do you buy it for the single player campaign or for the multiplayer - Results (119 votes)
single player
80.67% (96 votes)
96
multiplayer
19.33% (23 votes)
23
This poll is now closed.
most of the time i buy my games for the single player campaign. but i always end up playing the multiplayer.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-tBhOJd92E
#2Benjamin_ButtonPosted 2/18/2014 10:02:24 AM
Multiplayer coz one is the loneliest number that you'll ever do
---
http://i.imgur.com/KNzJR.gif
Macbook Pro Retina i7-3840QM @ 2.8GHz | Nvidia 650m 1GB GDDR5 | 16GB DDR3L Ram | 750GB Flash Storage
#3KillerTrufflePosted 2/18/2014 10:19:34 AM
Singleplayer because I'd rather be lonely and just chat with friends, talk to my wife, etc. than deal with the little s***s you find plaguing nearly every online game.

Limited multiplayer with friends I actually know is OK, but I prefer not to deal with all the a******s you find in public games. People hardly play games to have fun any more... they just become jerks. At least my friends know how to play for fun still.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#4SlashmanSGPosted 2/18/2014 10:28:35 AM
Benjamin_Button posted...
Multiplayer coz one is the loneliest number that you'll ever do


Yeah, but two can be as bad as one.

KillerTruffle posted...
Singleplayer because I'd rather be lonely and just chat with friends, talk to my wife, etc. than deal with the little s***s you find plaguing nearly every online game.

Limited multiplayer with friends I actually know is OK, but I prefer not to deal with all the a******s you find in public games. People hardly play games to have fun any more... they just become jerks. At least my friends know how to play for fun still.


All this.
---
Fight Science with Wood
http://gifs.gifbin.com/072010/1280303569_walmart-moonwalk.gif http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8299/0341551001256026444.gif
#5CatToyPosted 2/18/2014 10:29:22 AM
Co-op is ALWAYS welcome for me.
---
pon pon way way way ponpon way pon way pon pon, way way ponponpon way way pon way pon way way.
#6jake-sfPosted 2/18/2014 10:47:09 AM
I'm more of a single player guy. Absolutely love good coop, which are INCREDIBLY rare. I miss the time when games just came with coop almost naturally on PC. God I love the 90s. Just can't find a single friend that wants to play games with bad graphics.

I like multiplayer games in theory, I just don't like the modern implications.

Games are moving more and more toward voice chat being necesssary which is an absolute NO WAY IN HELL. I refuse to ever use voice chat with strangers again. If the game can't work without it then it can **** off.

The problem otherwise is that multiplayer games as a whole are too dumb and too excessively repetitive or "deathmatch" based. See why I loved C&C Renegade.
---
http://sfjake.zxq.net/
#7KillerTrufflePosted 2/18/2014 11:00:03 AM
I will say that if everyone played games the way they're intended, I really would enjoy MP.

Battlefield 2 for instance. It has built-in squad-based communication and the commander function, and actually establishes a real chain of command with solid span of control within the game structure - IF you use the in-game communication system. That's actually quite a bit more like real life. One officer makes battlefield decisions, relays those to squad leaders, who in turn issue orders to their troops. Done correctly, the commander can simply tell a squad leader "take and hold this position," and then leave it to the squad leader how to use his squad to accomplish that. The commander can relay critical information as necessary, but he doesn't have to micromanage.

A team working together like that is an awesome feeling. It's how we operate on the fire department as well. On every single incident, there's a chain of command. It can go from a simple medical call with a single officer running the scene and issuing orders to one or two other personnel, up to a huge multi-agency incident with an incident commander overseeing officers running operations, logistics, planning, safety, and finance/admin. Each of those officers then oversee their own personnel. Under operations, you can have branches, divisions, groups, strike teams and task forces, and on and on down to the last individual firefighter. No single person is in direct command of more than 7 other people. Span of control is 3-7, with 5 being an ideal number. Operations run very smoothly when run this way.

Instead, what you get in Battlefield is every man for himself, making their own decisions playing lone wolf, arguing with others, teamkilling the person that's trying to take "his" jet, and on and on. It's chaos and stupidity. There is zero feeling of accomplishment at the end - just a lot of trolls and hostility.

So yeah... MP online is pretty much worthless.
---
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23
#8kocrachonPosted 2/18/2014 11:21:11 AM
Coop > SP > Random Crap storm of people

If I have a MP game where my clan can work together as a small team, its far better than any game. Its why we love ArmA 3, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, and games like that. Our favorite games Americas Army until they ruined it.

Then if there is non of that, I play SP.
---
Intel i5 4670k at 4.6ghz, ASUS R9 280X DirectCU II, CORSAIR Vengeance 16gb, Samsung Evo 840 250gb SSD.
#9GambitMarkPosted 2/18/2014 11:30:49 AM
Well, depending on what the game offers. For instance, Thief is coming out soon. It doesn't have multiplayer, but I am buying it because I have been a Thief fan since it first came out back in 2000. If the game i like conveniently has multiplayer, then I will take advantage of it.
#10BeerOnTapPosted 2/18/2014 11:38:04 AM
What are some good co op games ? Preferably FPS, ones that can pair you with someone. I don't have any PC gaming friends.