are multiplayer-only games bad?
Considering how poorly supported they often are, yes.
Sure if the content they have stays interesting for only 5-10hours (battlefront)
But look how popular mmos, counterstrike, mobas and shit are they are not really ''bad''
$60 ones are
>>320503797
A game like tf2? No... Constant support from the developers even years after release, plus tools for modding
A game like Battlefront? Yes, because season passes a d an initial $60 for lack of content from the get go
I don't care about them.
I get to interact with people enough on my job, I don't need that shit in my video games aswell.
Yes.
On top of that, they all play the fucking same anyway. I stopped playing online shooters around the time CoD4 came out. Games should focus on stronger story and single player gameplay. Then we could have some actual innovation and interesting games.
Think of how Last of Us blew up the industry a couple years back and it wasn't even that great. It just had a strong singleplayer. I think more games should do that. It would also allow for lower budgets.
Expensive ones are. You dont expect to pay that kind of price for singlplayer games, why am I expected to pay that much for multiplayer.
Depends on a game to game basis.
Evolve was garbage.
Battlefield 4 was great.
Dota 2 is great.
Battlefront is garbage.
Multiplayer only games are merely time killers. Single player games can be art.
Better than games with filler campaigns
>>320505125
>playing games for "art"
lmao
Not inherently, there are good multiplayer-only games, Battlefront is shit though. I'll take a good game with only multiplayer over a game's multiplayer being bogged down by a shitty campaign added last minute.
>mfw Battlefield 4's 7 level long glitchfest of a campaign
>>320505583
My favorite part is people whining for more campaigns in shooters.
I hope BF5 has no singleplayer at all.
>>320504693
>It just had a strong singleplayer
Um no.
>>320503797
No, but this one is.
Overpriced and no content.
>>320504940
Battlefield hasn't been multiplayer only for like 10 years.
>>320503797
Not always.
Battlefront is bad though.
>>320505253
Spending 90 hours immersed in a game's world, enjoying the artstyle, characters, story, gameplay, atmosphere and music is the best thing ever.
>>320505754
The singleplayer in them doesn't matter.
It's literal filler that nobody should even play unless they wanted the unlocks.
>>320505817
I consider to play for competition, become better and achieve high level play to be miles better than that.
When multiplayer is the focal point of gameplay, things get bogged down and homogenized for the sake of balance.
>>320505754
>battlefield 1942
>single player
i guess it did have bots in full maps, but they were really bad
The problem is they take out the singleplayer and replace it with nothing
And then the multiplayer component for some reason still has less content than they used to
>>320505958
Read my post again.
>>320505841
They still dump money into them for advertising purposes.
Competitive ones almost always are yes. That doesn't mean they can't still be very fun though.
Multiplayer only should be free desu
no
>>320503797
No.
/thread
>>320505969
>for some reason.
Anon, its to sell as DLC later. Publishers are pushing to make 100 USD off all new releases now.
>>320506405
Yes.
/thread
>>320506451
Who knows.
/not me
No. It depends on the amount of content the games have, not whether or not if a game is multiplayer-only
i bought BF and four weeks later it's been shelved. it was fun but over time i've noticed too much imbalance - i have no interest in dealing with aimbots, hacks, any of that bullshit.
never buying an mp only game again.
>>320503797
Generally, they're much better at being multiplayer games than ones that also have a singleplayer component.
>>320506283
>dystopia
MY
FUCKING
CYBERNIGGER
. . . Are people still playing? It's a regular at my monthly LANs, but I never check for online servers.
>>320503797
>are multiplayer-only games bad?
Is BF2 or 1942 bad?
SP was only a tagged one trash with dice games since BF3 anyway so why bother?
Focus on what the games focus is. MP
Sadly they didn't even managed to do that in favor of amazing graphics and sounds but shit gameplay to get teh casuals on board and make a quick buck which failed too
Rainbow six is surprisingly fun
but not $60 fun, I got it for $33 and I think it is worth it
I don't care about multiplayer so yeah
>>320503797
Battlefield 2 and 2142 had no campaign and they were great. So I guess its how much they care which unfortunately wasnt much for battlefront
>>320503797
Multi-player only isn't INHERENTLY bad. You've gotta work harder at keeping the player base up and not splitting them with paid DLC maps, but they can work.
$60 is usually too high for their meagre offerings though. Need a lower barrier of entry to keep new blood willing to try it, without going F2P so it turns into a BRHUEHUE shitshow.
>>320508713
what's a BRHUEHUE shitshow?
>>320503797
Yes. I'd consider them to be bad.
>>320508818
LoL
>>320505754
nobody actually plays it
>>320503797
No, but the are mostly dead. ;)
No.
>>320503797
If they cost more than 30€, yeah, they are.
>>320503797
For FPS? Fuck no. I'd rather them not waste time and resources making a 3 hour campaign that drooling retards can play without issue.
There are very few good FPS campaigns.
>>320509208
>as he posts the deadest multiplayer game alive
>>320511389
>implying
Generally speaking, yes.
The only measuring you can have is how much players are there. No matter about how much you think it's shit or the best thing in the world, a MP game with no players is never a good experience.
