Single-Player Only: Story ++
Multi-Player Only: Experience++
Combination SP/MP: Moderate of both.

My personal philosophy is to design a rich SP experience, then find a way to add a multi-player version to it. I''d rather be telling a story that adds the option of MANY people getting together and immersing themselves in, than simply painting some lousy background story and trying to invite mod-makers to create based on some half-done idea in my head.

- It''s a life''s work
-
:Image Hosting @ $5/3 Months
:30Gig/month bandwidth Reseller Plan @ $40/3 Month
Generic WebHost: The Cheapest Hosting Around!
-ryan@lecherousjester.com

Multiplayer-only games run the risk of having an uninviting learning curve. Whenever I play multiplayer Halo, with people who are really good at it, I don''t enjoy the experience. With single player, there''s room for a player to gradually mature with the gameplay and see his skills develop.

actually i think multiplayer should a neceesity if not a requirement

quote: Original post by juanpaco
Have any of you ever played America's Army? That game is fantastically well done, and it doesn't have a single player mode. Well, there's the training parts that are single player, but if you've played the game, you know what I mean. Just a thought.

Well, for 3 million dollars of tax payers money it's better be!

As for the original question. It really depends what you want. Don't make a multiplayer counterpart just because you feel obligated to. If you do so, the multiplayer should compliment the single player experience riding the best features of SP. If you're making an online-only game. It's a good idea to at least make SP training missions available. With multiplayer games you usually don't need a deep SP campaign, just necessary training missions and quick tale. If you decide to make a MP extension for your SP game, be innovative. Forget the tired old DM and CTF modes. At least name them something else. I've played so many seemingly good SP games with disappointing "me-too" multiplayer experience that doesn't build on the SP experience whatsoever. Make a different MP gameplay mode, something that would compliment the SP. And I think that MP should be a requirement, people want more bang for the buck. Good multiplayer mode doesn't only extend the life of the franchise but also builds a solid fanbase. Anybody played Max Payne? That game is screaming for a multiplayer mode. I'm baffled at its developers for such short sightedness. Unfortunately, many publishers are only interested in a quick buck rather than building a solid relationship with its customers. Hence, some great games don't get the much needed multiplayer mode. Sad stuff.


[edited by - MOVSW on December 10, 2003 10:36:28 AM]

There''s a mod for UT called U4ET (Unreal Forever Tournament), that has a fun little class system. There are maybe a dozen, featuring wizards, soldiers, grenadiers, kensai (kensai : samurai :: paladin : knight), cybersomethings, and all kinds of other wild things. A huge variety of weapons (the kensai''s katana is the best, though) and slightly different gameplay abilities (dragonmen can fly for short periods, kensai can run faster and jump higher) make for a very entertaining experience. It''s silly, but fun. It even has a levelling system for the wizard, with choices to make that will customize your spellbook and alignment. Neato.

If yours will be anything like that, then I think the single player mode would be best designed as a sort of training ground in which to learn the strengths and weaknesses of your character. U4ET didn''t really have that, but it did have a gigantic map with every weapon in it, usually near a "shooting gallery" that allowed you to try it out. Sniper rifles were next to a 500 yard room with dummy enemies at the end to kill. Levitating objects and fly-by-wire missiles were in a roof filled with multi-level platforms and obstacles to navigate. That sort of thing would be neat if you had varied classes. Have a "course" for the knight, one for the barbarian, one for the wizard, one for the archer, etc. So that people could get a feel for their character before going PvP.

I agree that story lines are much better in single player games, but the overall interactive experience is infinitely beter in multi player games. But overall I think it''s a matter of taste.

I would argue that if you don''t have both, you will be losing a percentage of sales. For example: right now I''m at the bottom of a crummy 33k dialup. I haven''t played multiplayer for several years now (aside from MUDs), and wouldn''t buy a game if it didn''t have single player.

On the other hand, about ten years ago I worked in an office where we put in twelve hour days, but took breaks to do multi-player FPS games. I had zero time for single player games, so didn''t buy any those years.

Also, some times you''re just not in the mood for multi player games. If I start playing just before dinner, I *know* I will need to pause for half an hour or so, so it''s a better time to break out a single player game.

The SSFPS project that I''m designing right now attempts to combine my love of a strong Single-Player game, while Multi-Player elements don''t sacrifice the overall story and/or feeling of ''universe''.

- It''s a life''s work
-
:Image Hosting @ $5/3 Months
:30Gig/month bandwidth Reseller Plan @ $40/3 Month
Generic WebHost: The Cheapest Hosting Around!
-ryan@lecherousjester.com

Singleplayer is certainly NOT a must!

Urban Terror, Natural Selection, hell Planetscape for crud sakes!

If your game is all about intense online action, thats all you need. Of course, its nice to cater to people who prefer to stay single player (or to start there at least), but definately not neccesary.

I do propose that you have some way of letting newbies practice without ruining online games. Non-Clan servers for multiplayer games can get clogged with newbs, making everyone else''s time less fun.

a nice little divergence of views.

i would definitely have to include a "training ground", area for practice, as the actual interface for melee combat is pretty intricate, this would of course include a couple of ''bots'' to hack on.

but my thinking is that the only real obstacle to being able to produce a "AA" quality game is the content creation factor that a single player, campaign mode requires.

If i can launch the game as a multiplayer only, with 4 or 5 maps and a decent editor, it begins to become something i can actual get out there.( In the next 10-12 months )

im dodging not just the creation of an advanced AI system, but also the content creation for each level, and assloads of play-testing required to fine tune them and make them fun. Not to mention all the story work, cutscenes etc.

nice convo guys.

Dredd
________________________________________

"To die with your sword still in its sheath is most regrettable" -- Miyomoto Musashi

Just because you''re going multiplayer only doesn''t mean you can get out of doing proper level design. If anything, you need to test more to make sure your maps are good - there''s no longer a story or AI scripts or even tweaked enemy distributions to distract the player from weaknesses in your level design.

For a purely multiplayer based game, the single-player experience should reflect the multiplayer - something like Quake III for instance with it''s single-player deathmatching.

On the other hand, I would definitely expect some sort of single-player training or practise mode at the very least (I''m still sore about the lack of single-player in Zelda: 4 Swords)