19-11-2004 05:52									#1
	single player or multiplayer Get a bigger avatar today!

Which types of games do you prefer? Most games have both options, just vote which form of the game you usually play.

I like multiplayer. In terms of action, it is far superior. Doing battle with other real people is the best way to go. But it seems to me multiplayer games lack any good story.

I like Everquest2, and I'll probably continue to play it (although I may have to get some more RAM first). But I still prefer Neverwinter Nights over EQ2. Even the first campaign (which isn't considered very good) has a better story than most multiplayer games.

Maybe I'm getting old. But story means something to me in games.

I suppose multiplayer could be better. I have been in a few campaigns in NWN where people actually roleplayed. But in games like EQ2 and WOW no one roleplays. It's just an action game, that's all it is.

I also ask this, because some new RPG's have been released with no multiplayer. Such as KOTOR and Morrowind. And most people seem to play TBS games such as civ3 in single player.

	19-11-2004 06:01									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

For now, I prefer single player, since I don't have broadband yet and multiplayer has way too much lag on a dial-up connection.

Sure the AI is stupid, but its no fun when my dial-up connection slows things down to the point of being unplayable either.

	19-11-2004 06:02									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I grew up playing without an Internet connection. That drove me naturally towards SP. Nowadays I don't have the time to really practice a game to be of any worth in a multiplayer game, nor do I have the patience to actually set up one and sit a few hours playing when it suits everyone. I just can't concentrate. I want to fire up a game and have a go at it every time I want to.

I'm going to get NWN and try its MP, though.

	19-11-2004 06:05									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

SP, most people you meet playing MP shooters are complete d1ckheads!

	19-11-2004 06:36									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

As said earlier, I don't have the will to practice to become a valuable MP player anyway.

That's why my favorite genre is the epic single-player RPG.

	19-11-2004 07:05									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Halo 2 Multi, right now

	19-11-2004 07:55									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Every game is much more fun when playing against another human, even when loosing.

	19-11-2004 08:02									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Multi obviously, but not aggressively competitive, thats ghey.

	19-11-2004 08:14									#9
	Suffering from ads?

Multiplayer with the right people.

But I find that AI can often do a better job of acting human than alot of gamers can.

	19-11-2004 08:39									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The Halo2 Covenant AI seems OK, better than most FPS AI anyhow....

And it's not a d1ckhead!

	19-11-2004 14:46									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

MP is by far the best; it has far more potential for longevity and skill. However, it's not without its drawbacks, as it requires a lot of time investment. If you play RTS or FPS you need to play a lot to compete, and MMORPGs need you to play a lot. TBS games require a lot of effort just to set up and continue games.

You get out what you put in, I suppose. If you have the time, MP is the way forward.

	19-11-2004 19:23									#12
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

SP. RL responsibilities make it hard to commit the time to an MP TBS.

If I did play MP, the only game Id really play MP would be Civ2. The AI on Imp2 is quite hard enough for me, im just getting into Moo2, and I never got into SMAC enough. And my reflexes are slow enough the AI gives me a hard enough time on RTS.

	19-11-2004 21:02									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

MP is certainly more competitive, and a great adrenaline rush, but there are just too many drawbacks for me. An MP game can provide an opportunity for some great social interaction, but only if you're playing with people with whom you want to interact. Also, in TBS games, you may have one or two players battling for the win, while the rest of the group is just playing out the game to be polite to the leaders (or, they just disappear and look for a game where they have a chance).

AI will never provide the challenge of a human, but it doesn't complain if I want to quit and start over when the game isn't fun any more. I have little time for gaming, and I play for fun rather than a need to prove myself against the competition. I want to look forward to my gaming sessions, rather than saying, "Oh no, another PBEM turn to play".

	19-11-2004 22:55									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I enjoy playing against real people, but my favorite kinds of computer games its more convenient to play single player. I've played Civilization and SMAC as hotseat, but it's really a hassle. I play the games plenty, but I cannot play well enough to compete. I enjoyed playing Axis and Allies hotseat on the computer. Computer games are good for playing when there's no human opponent available. I play against other people on my PS2, games like Voyager Elite Force and GT, but GT is really not my kind of game.

I guess story isn't really a big deal for me in games, but I loive the story aspects in Star Trek Armada. And another plus for that game is it's plenty easy.

When I was a kid I played against real people on the Atari computer.

It would be nice if there was an inexpensive console that came with a double sided monitor so maybe you could play TBS without having to take turns in the seat, and it would be good for RTS like Star Trek Armada too, and maybe board games where each player has cards or something that the other isn't supposed to see. Does Nintendo do games that use both the TV for everyone to see and controllers with screens for individual players to see things for their eyes only?

	19-11-2004 23:34									#15
	Got spare money?

Single-player for me. I don't have patience for MP games.

But I guess that if you ask this same question on any Warcraft 3 forum they'll say MP, so...

	19-11-2004 23:37									#16
	Support Apolyton

SP here, I don't have time for MP other than PBEMs.

	20-11-2004 18:37									#17
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I play MP more when I really find a good game I like(Wesnoth, Quake1, EQ, etc) but I eventually seem to reach a skill peak where either something is holding me back(internet connection too slow, pc too slow, etc) or I get good enough there is barely any challenge left. EQ was the exception, I quit that because leveling is not fun. I can always have fun with single player, even games I have mastered.

	20-11-2004 18:47									#18
	Tired of ads?

I'd never buy a MP-only game. The MP only games I have are free. I certainly prefer SP by far. RTS games are an exception as the AI is usually too easy, so I'd play MP there, too. If the AI is competent, though, I'll happily stick with my SP.

	20-11-2004 18:58									#19
	Got spare money?

I mostly play Single Player, because mostly I play just tycoon games where there's no Multi Player option. I do play a few RTS games, where you can play MP, but I don't play it because it lags when playing online, and I don't have any friends who wants to play such games over LAN...
I do play a little game of different FPS games from time to time, which I then do MP, but it's not so often because my friends mostly just plays CS or Battlefield. I hate CS, and Battlefield doesn't run well on my computer, for some unknown reason...

	20-11-2004 19:14									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I prefer MP, but as needs must its more often SP.

	21-11-2004 00:13									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Adagio I mostly play Single Player, because mostly I play just tycoon games where there's no Multi Player option. I do play a few RTS games, where you can play MP, but I don't play it because it lags when playing online, and I don't have any friends who wants to play such games over LAN...

You have broadband. There is absolutely no reason for any RTS game to be too laggy to play (anything under 100ms ping is fine, and you should get around 40).

	21-11-2004 01:07									#22
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

But for some reason it doesn't... or at least not last time I checked... I can play fps games online though
But I'm not that interested anyway, since I prefer to play against people I know, not just random people I just happen to bump into in the lobby...
And since I'm behind NAT, it's a hell to set up my connection so I can play games like Civ3

	21-11-2004 01:11									#23
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Battlefield Vietnam multiplayer

	21-11-2004 02:51									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Anyone familiar with Battlefield Vietnam or Battlefield 1942?

	21-11-2004 04:52									#25
	Increase Your PM Length

I have played Battlefield: Vietnam on my brother's computer when I was over at his house. Pretty cool game. Not something I would buy, but I played it for several hours at his house.

	21-11-2004 05:17									#26
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Adagio But for some reason it doesn't... or at least not last time I checked... I can play fps games online though But I'm not that interested anyway, since I prefer to play against people I know, not just random people I just happen to bump into in the lobby... And since I'm behind NAT, it's a hell to set up my connection so I can play games like Civ3

Shouldn't be. A few easy clicks and you are done with all good routers.

	21-11-2004 05:43									#27
	Remove this text

Multiplayer for sure BUT only if I am playing with people that I know are cool. I hate joining a game of anything and finding it filled with jackasses.

Multiplayer with friends would be the best.

	21-11-2004 05:55									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Depends on the game, really. And it also depends on if you know anybody playing. It's always nice to be able to brag to people you actually know in real life, or even Apoylton.

	21-11-2004 09:43									#29
	Support Apolyton

Whether I prefer MP or SP depends mostly on the genre.

RTS: MP is what gives RTS games their longlivity, also with good netcode an RTS can be playable with anywhere up to 400 ping. A very good thing about RTS games is they often support replays which are enjoyable to watch, when I'm bored of MP I can watch replays that then inspire me to play more MP.

FPS: I rarely enjoy FPS MP for any prolonged period, with the exception of CS which I was playing on a university LAN. Generally I prefer a nice long SP (like Halflife) which I play through 2 or 3 times, then I forget about the game. For me, FPS games just don't have that much longlivity. A good ping and good reactions are nessecary for MP enjoyment in most FPS games, and anyway, it's all just shooting, and that gets dull after a while.

TBS: In my opinion TBS MP is much too tedious, it's more fun just to play RTS for the MP fix. OTOH a good TBS like SMAC has plenty of SP longlivity. There are exceptions, for example Stars! had/has very nice MP. It's not impossible for TBS games to have good MP, they just havn't been developed....

Sim/Tycoon games: The very point of these games is to build stuff (big stuff, cool stuff, tricky stuff, expensive stuff) rather than competition. If they do have MP, they generally aren't enhanced much by it, but it can be entertaining.

I suppose I play SP and MP about equally, so my vote went with the banana, ofcourse.

	21-11-2004 11:22									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Multi is teh rules!!!!!1!!!111
Sungle can be great, but ultimately it is just an entertaining tutorial for multi player. Multi can go on forever, becasue ther are som many more people to play with on the the different maps, and different modes. Multi provides much more hours of gameplay, and is overall more fun.