Does multiplayer have a place in single-player RPGs?

Mutant Screg

Mutant Screg

Totally not a mutant
CD Projekt Red's announcement of a multiplayer mode for Cyberpunk 2077 would have worried me much more had it not been confirmed to be a post-launch goal. Being post-launch, it shouldn't be a detriment at all to (initial) the development of the core game. But I can't help but wonder how much (if anything) it could potentially add to the experience and whether or not it will be a bad decision down the road. Cyberpunk's allure comes from CDPR's promise of delivering a truly immersive and content-rich world filled with a variety of meaningful quests, characters, choices, etc., and the promise of a multiplayer is honestly a bit of a surprise. But I suppose that is where the gaming industry is moving these days -- games as a service.

What is very concerning is the fact that while CDPR initially stated that "it's a bad idea to do microtransactions after you release a game," they have since completely backtracked and now promise good "value" for whatever microtransactions will be added. Suddenly, we're "far too early" in the game's development to see any real details about their plans. Now, of course you can always just ignore the multiplayer aspect if you're interested in enjoying the base game, but I can't help but wonder just what is in store for those of us to play an RPG for a single-player experience. One example is Rockstar downgrading Red Dead Redemption 2's graphics (allegedly) in order to help the online mode run smoother; however, we know absolutely nothing about how multiplayer is going to work in the game and on what scale, so it's impossible to predict whether or not the devs will have to worry about performance impacts.

The point: We are moving into an age where tacked-on multiplayer money-pigs are becoming the norm, and devs are becoming increasingly okay with delivering a worse single-player experience in order to push microtransaction schemes. In your opinion, is there any circumstance where we can trust a AAA dev team to separate multiplayer from single-player and deliver two excellent experiences without detracting from the core experience?
 
Hey, remember that time when games shoehorned in multiplayer because it was what sold? Now we're at a point where games shoehorn in multiplayer because it sells. Funny how history repeats itself. Only different is that before it was base sales and now it is desperate microtransactions. Either way, a game should either be designed for singleplayer or multiplayer, Focusing on multiplayer can still mean you can have a campaign and all but it is clear where the focus of the game lies and that's fine. But games that are clearly designed from the ground up to be singleplayer games often get tacked on mutliplayer modes that doesn't fit and no one wanted since it dies off after just a few months if not a few weeks.

Could just, yknow, not buy the game if you object to their development and sales practices. I don't see why CP2077 would be any exception to that rule.
 
There were games in the past that were singleplayer games with a multiplayer option, while still being good games.
One of these examples would be Baldur's Gate 2. The game is considered one of the best cRPGs ever and it had a multiplayer option, where you could play the campaign with more people.
Another example is Fallout Tactics, where the multiplayer was actually popular for a while and people would play maps against each other and in teams.
Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 also had multiplayer options that actually enriched the game and gave it longevity (even a few years ago I found people still play multiplayer Neverwinter Nights 2 in persistent worlds created by fans).

There are probably other games but I just woke up so my memory is worse than usual...


The point I'm trying to make is that singleplayer games with multiplayer can still be good as singleplayer. It's all up to the devs how to implement it though...

About microtransactions... I hate anything microtransaction, I don't care if it's optional and just cosmetic... Microtransactions are predatory and shouldn't exist in games where you have to buy it to play it. In free to play games I don't have as much of a problem, but they should still be regulated and have some kind of way to prevent kids or people with addiction problems from spending too much.
 
It's meh. Even in MMOs, I play solo for all of it, it's relatively fine until mid-late grinding rears its head, but by then I'm off to a new game anyway (Runescape, Tibia, Eternal Lands, Star Trek Online, Neverwinter, Albion Online, the like). As long as I can do coherent and logical plot stuff for a while solo, it's whatever.
 
mole-hill.jpeg

Hey look everybody it is Mount Everest.

I'm indifferent. if the MP is just gta online where children scream and fly jet bikes into crap, I'm gonna pass. if it lets a group of friends get together and run jobs for shadow clients on the matrix and is routinely updated with new work. that's fine. if they want to sell crap to people who play MP, whatever.
 
TheGM said:
mole-hill.jpeg

Hey look everybody it is Mount Everest.
Click to expand...

What is your point here, exactly? I am simply making observations based on previous actions from these companies. I'm not saying singleplayer gaming is doomed like some extremists here. Be indifferent if that is your stance, but I am only trying to stir conversation.

Anyway, I don't believe being complacent is motivating developers to make good design choices. Not that I care if someone doesn't care, though. It's just a fact that vocal fans are what push devs to do better.
 
Mutant Screg said:
What is your point here, exactly?
Click to expand...
you serious? pretty self evident.

Literally stated why I'm indifferent, what I wouldn't and would want like to see. guess you missed that part because of the complexity of a image of a mound of dirt.
Mutant Screg said:
It's just a fact that vocal fans are what push devs to do better.
Click to expand...
That is an outright lie. Vocal fans are usually morons and listening to them makes things worse more often than not.
 
Last edited:
Risewild said:
Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 also had multiplayer options that actually enriched the game and gave it longevity.
Click to expand...
So did the original. ;)
___

The only multiplayer games I have had any interest in, have been RTSs.

Years back (but after its hey-day) a friend and I went to the trouble to setup NwN1 for a game, and after about twelve minutes we were bored beyond saving it, and just quit; and never played it again.
 
Mr Fish said:
Hey, remember that time when games shoehorned in multiplayer because it was what sold? Now we're at a point where games shoehorn in multiplayer because it sells. Funny how history repeats itself. Only different is that before it was base sales and now it is desperate microtransactions. Either way, a game should either be designed for singleplayer or multiplayer, Focusing on multiplayer can still mean you can have a campaign and all but it is clear where the focus of the game lies and that's fine. But games that are clearly designed from the ground up to be singleplayer games often get tacked on mutliplayer modes that doesn't fit and no one wanted since it dies off after just a few months if not a few weeks.

Could just, yknow, not buy the game if you object to their development and sales practices. I don't see why CP2077 would be any exception to that rule.
Click to expand...
Doing both doesn't mean that either has to suffer. It's just that more time and care is spent on one side rather than the other. Sure, CoD campaigns aren't anything to write home about because they all are selling you a multiplayer game. Both can be well done, it's a matter of doing it well. I've played a good bit of games that had singleplayer and multiplayer that were fun.

Issues I have with multiplayer games are the strong monetization schemes, the epsorts push, and aping CoD's custom loadouts too much. Not every multiplayer game needs to be an esport either. Why can't some just be fun without trying to introduce such a competitive leaning.
 
TheGM said:
you serious? pretty self evident.

Literally stated why I'm indifferent, what I wouldn't and would want like to see. guess you missed that part because of the complexity of a image of a mound of dirt.
Click to expand...
Allow me to state this clearly for you: I understood your point, I just disagree with it. I'm not attempting to start a riot over muh video games. I am only using developer actions from the PAST in order to predict how the tactics they currently use to shoehorn multiplayer may evolve. It isn't like I'm saying the entire industry is doomed. I get the feeling that you just get off on hostility and find comfort in the fact that it probably isn't anything personal. Just the way you are.

And developers look for fan input all of the time. I don't know what is pushing you to deny this. The results obviously don't always result in a better game, but suggestions are often taken and applied in hopes to do better by the fans. Intent and execution are different.
 
Mutant Screg said:
In your opinion, is there any circumstance where we can trust a AAA dev team to separate multiplayer from single-player and deliver two excellent experiences without detracting from the core experience?
Click to expand...

As a post-launch feature perhaps. There's no guarantees, of course. Without seeing actual "time-spent" metrics we can't really determine how "post-launch" something is. To use CP2077 as an example, they could be developing multiplayer pre-launch at the cost of single-player features. It's pretty nebulous.
 
Mutant Screg said:
Allow me to state this clearly for you: I understood your point
Click to expand...
......then why'd you ask?
Mutant Screg said:
I get the feeling that you just get off on hostility
Click to expand...
My carefree attitude and facetious remarks apparently have to ability to offend people on the spectrum. Some call it a super power, others a curse.
Mutant Screg said:
And developers look for fan input all of the time. I don't know what is pushing you to deny this. The results obviously don't always result in a better game, but suggestions are often taken and applied in hopes to do better by the fans. Intent and execution are different.
Click to expand...
I never said the devs will or won't listen to fans. I alluded to the fact that the most vocal of fans are idiots who don't know what they want.

I like how I made a joke about making mountains out of mole hills and you turned my post into Olympus Mons because I said if Cyberpunk had MP I wouldn't like if it was just GTA online. people can't make this crap up.
 
There is being facetious and there is being a self-righteous jerk. I'm sorry if you're still confused about the difference. Later dude, and good luck to those around you. I'm sure they know what I mean.
 
Multiplayer dosen't belong in a single-player RPG, because it felt unnecessary to the nature and quality of RPGs that are made as narrative driven, yet immersive experiences.
Sure, EA added a multiplayer function to Mass Effect 3, but that is a sign when one of your most beloved series is going down in the shitter. However, this is CDPROJEKTRED were talking about here, so they might pulled it off, yet we're not sure here if they would succeed or not. Only time will tell, my friends, only time will tell.
Speaking of time, WHEN THE HELL WILL FROMSOFTWARE DROP A GAMEPLAY TRAILER FOR ELDEN RING?! I know it's been announced back in E3 2019, but GODDAMNIT, THEY HAD THREE CHANCES AT GAMESCOM, TOKYO GAMES SHOW, AND THEGAMEAWARDS, YET NONE TALKED ABOUT ELDEN RING SO WHEN MIYAZAKI?! FUCKING WHEN?!?!?!
With that aside, only time will tell. Any thoughts?
 
Personally, I don't mind having some unrelated MP stuff to play with a friend. When they start damaging the campaign just to fit a few MTX in, that's where I'm lost. For example; I don't mind DA: Inquisition's MP. I think the MP is just what I need when a buddy and I are looking for something to do (if Destiny or ESO aren't entertaining us). The MP isn't predatory, and the main quest is still a fun experience.

Dark Souls is another example of a fantastic MP in a singleplayer game.

However, I don't think Cyberpunk 2077 is going to handle MP well. This is a studio that hasn't done this type of MP before, if at all. From benefits from having experimented back in Demon's Souls. Bioware has had some experience with MP. CDPR? Not that I've heard of. And multiplayer in SPRPGs tends to be... frustrating to work with the first time around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top