Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

the industry is like this in general. you can throw in 'western-developed' for good measure.

Which industry are we discussing here? The review industry? Because then I agree, although the preference for Western development is relatively recent (i.e. last 5 years).

I'm not really sure if I ever see that going away though, especially how GAF votes with a top 10. Not all the time, but in general the time commitment for most multiplayer games (especially if you are picking one as your GOTY) is quite a bit larger then the commitment to finish a story based game. And as such, even a hardcore multiplayer game is relatively likely to only have one or two multiplayer focused games in their top 10 list, and in many cases will also have a few single player games as well. I just see the average gamer being able to finish more single player experiences in an average year, and as such they are going to bulk out the top 10 lists. Multiplayer games are just too all or nothing with a players time to get enough votes to really break up the top lists.

This is rational, but of course you can also do what I did; just not post 10 games.

This then begs the question why someone would want to play single player games in the first place, presuming you also enjoy multiplayer. If you can get more/longer fun out of the same cost, why wouldn't you do that? It seems unnecessarily expensive.

Of course, if you don't like multiplayer at all, then all bets are off. I pity such people, from a purely objective viewpoint; your gaming hobby is much, much more expensive than mine.

 

[AniHawk]

Which industry are we discussing here? The review industry? Because then I agree, although the preference for Western development is relatively recent (i.e. last 5 years).

yeah, that's what i meant. i think bioshock probably started the trend.

 

[MetatronM]

the industry is like this in general. you can throw in 'western-developed' for good measure.

7 of the top 20 are Japanese-developed games, including 2 of the top 5. Considering the general trends in the industry and the widely discussed decline of Japanese game makers, that's some pretty decent representation.

What is more interesting, however, is that only 2 of those Japanese-developed games are on non-Nintendo consoles.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

mass attack also has some awesome extras. the rpg is a nice little mini game, and the shmup would probably be a $0.99 thing elsewhere.

I was genuinely surprised by how great that shump was.

Mass Attack is great, and it provides a little challenge every now and then. Pick both Kirby games up.

Brawlball and Strato Patrol EOS could easily be fleshed out into individual retail experiences and I would happily buy either one. It's amazing the amount of replay value they managed to pack into them even in their current truncated mini-game form.

And did I mention Necrodeus is a fucking awesome enemy design? I was pretty psyched on the whole Skull Gang thing. There's something so old school and awesome about the cast of villains in Mass Attack.

 

[zlatko]

I think it's funny that Marvel vs Capcom 3 basically came out twice this year, and still couldn't win best fighting game of the year.

xD

 

[chickdigger802]

the industry is like this in general. you can throw in 'western-developed' for good measure.

idk... there really haven't been many notable games out from japan recently. All the good ones appear on their respective platform GOTY for the most part (overall GOTY is just a popularity contest, so the niche games would never win).

Nintendo also seems to still score pretty awesome and 3D land has appeared on many GOTY lists.

Maybe when some big games appear this year like RE6 and w/e surprise nintendo got for wii u.... who knows! It all depends on sites as well. GB = lol japan, while 1up seems to care more about japan then western in terms of coverage...

 

[Snuggles]

C'mon, it's at least waist-deep.

I agree that the magic is gone once you really look behind the curtains, but you can't hook me for 80 hours if I can immediately see what's up.

Skyrim would've made a worthy GAF GOTY as well.

Skyrim is frustrating for me, because there is a lot to love about it, but ultimately it's held back by the same problems as Oblivion. The first 30 or so hours were mesmerizing, it's a gorgeous game and the sense of scale is unrivaled, but like you said, once the illusion fades, it loses a lot of it's appeal. I can get over the uninteresting writing, the robotic AI, the lousy combat and all dat, but there are two key things that squander it's potential:

a. the treadmill scaling. I feel like I haven't made any progression what-so-ever in the past 10-15 hours. I've been using the same crappy dwarven claymore and the same crappy elven bow for way too long, but nothing better has come a long since then, and nothing will until I reach a specific level. There is no point in looting dungeons since I KNOW there will be no powerful or rare items in them. I'm stuck with what I have until I cross an invisible line. The enemy scaling is just as problematic, since it kills the excitement of exploration and the satisfaction of progressing from a low level scrub to a high level god.

b. the restrictiveness and the lack of freedom compared to Morrowind (and Daggerfall to a greater degree, I'm sure, but haven't played it). In Morrowind, I could speed up the leveling process by sneaking into a room at Ghostgate, stealing a bunch of glass and ebony items (powerful items existed while you were a low level, whoa!), then teleporting back to Caldera before the guards could get to me, and selling them to Creeper the Scamp and using the gold to pay trainers. You can't do stuff like that in Skyrim. In addition to that, I miss the greater weapon variety (no spears, crossbows, etc) and the fun, experimental spells like levitate and super jumping. Some of these things may "break" the game, but that's what made them so much fun.

It's still a good game, and I'll probably be playing it long after most of the games in my personal top ten, but it bums me out because it could be so much better.

(edit - looks like the conversation has changed, took to long to post this lol)

 

[SykoTech]

I think it's funny that Marvel vs Capcom 3 basically came out twice this year, and still couldn't win best fighting game of the year.

xD

If anything, that's the sole reason why it didn't win. Caused too much salt.

 

[Papercuts]

If anything, that's the sole reason why it didn't win. Caused too much salt.

Luckily adding both games together still doesn't top MK. But yeah, the sheer existence of Ultimate already would have turned people off.

Skyrim is frustrating for me, because there is a lot to love about it, but ultimately it's held back by the same problems as Oblivion. The first 30 or so hours were mesmerizing, it's a gorgeous game and the sense of scale is unrivaled, but like you said, once the illusion fades, it loses a lot of it's appeal. I can get over the uninteresting writing, the robotic AI, the lousy combat and all dat, but there are two key things that squander it's potential:

a. the treadmill scaling. I feel like I haven't made any progression what-so-ever in the past 10-15 hours. I've been using the same crappy dwarven claymore and the same crappy elven bow for way too long, but nothing better has come a long since then, and nothing will until I reach a specific level. There is no point in looting dungeons since I KNOW there will be no powerful or rare items in them. I'm stuck with what I have until I cross an invisible line. The enemy scaling is just as problematic, since it kills the excitement of exploration and the satisfaction of progressing from a low level scrub to a high level god.

b. the restrictiveness and the lack of freedom compared to Morrowind (and Daggerfall to a greater degree, I'm sure, but haven't played it). In Morrowind, I could speed up the leveling process by sneaking into a room at Ghostgate, stealing a bunch of glass and ebony items (powerful items existed while you were a low level, whoa!), then teleporting back to Caldera before the guards could get to me, and selling them and using the gold to pay trainers. You can't do stuff like that in Skyrim. In addition to that, I miss the greater weapon variety (no spears, crossbows, etc) and the fun, experimental spells like levitate and super jumping. Some of these things may "break" the game, but that's what made them so much fun to use.

It's still a good game, and I'll probably be playing it long after most of the games in my personal top ten, but it bums me out because it could be so much better.

(edit - looks like the conversation has changed, took to long to post this lol)

I don't like scaling either, and think it's the biggest issue with Skyrim. The main way to break out of that having the same gear for a long time thing is crafting...but that is also pretty overpowed and makes a giant gap between loot you pick up.

I was fine with your second point. Skyrim doesn't suffer from the same stuff Oblivion did all that much to me, because Obvlivion was REALLY bad in many more key aspects. The scaling was far worse, having every single enemy scale to your level...in Skyrim you were able to get obliterated by many enemies from the start, as they had level ranges within map areas. The way Oblivion did it was absolutly horrible and was enough on its own to nearly ruin the game for me. But then it also had the psychic guards, which was way more restrictive of freedom. I was never able to play the stealthy thief character I wanted in Oblivion, as I got "caught" if I tried to kill someone but didn't do so in a single hit. There was nothing to steal but wooden bowls and spoons, the amount of stuff populating the houses and stores was much better and actually useful in Skyrim.

With Oblivion, once I realized how the leveling stuff worked(which didn't take long) and saw a lot of the stuff I did with the world AI, the game lost a lot of meaning for me to even play it. The world on top of that was very generic once I got past the graphics. They really improved a shocking amount over IV.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

After a while it becomes apparent that the "feeding" of your exploration habit is Skyrim just tossing you another bag of Doritos or fun pack of M&Ms for the 1000th time. Every now and then it's a fast food meal which makes you think "hey maybe there's more of this stuff" before you find another 20 bags of Nacho Cheesier or Cool Ranch.

Also, whereas the Doritos are scattered around the neighborhood for you to actually stumble across, getting to the fast food meals largely consists of sitting through unnecessarily long drive through lanes, and then once you get to the good stuff, it's over really quickly and all you're left with is an anticlimactic sense of having to go find somewhere appropriate to go deposit your crap.

I do feel it's their best title since Morrowind, if somehow less open feeling. My biggest problem with the game is that it's coming from a developer who seems determined to keep archaic slap-fight combat and horrific bugs trademarks of its series. Honestly, the game works well enough for me, but I'm frequently not very picky if a game manages to catch and hold my interest - and this has for 60+ hours, and enough that it was right in the middle of my list for the year.

 

[TheFightingFish]

This is rational, but of course you can also do what I did; just not post 10 games.

This then begs the question why someone would want to play single player games in the first place, presuming you also enjoy multiplayer. If you can get more/longer fun out of the same cost, why wouldn't you do that? It seems unnecessarily expensive.

Of course, if you don't like multiplayer at all, then all bets are off. I pity such people, from a purely objective viewpoint; your gaming hobby is much, much more expensive than mine.

Speaking personally I enjoy both a bit of multiplayer gaming and a bit of singleplayer gaming. I enjoy both for different reasons and at different times. But due to the time commitment that I mentioned before I'm likely to play one or two multiplayer focused games in a year and probably about eight or so single player games, that's just how I split up my time. Now assuming that I enjoy most of the games that I play I don't think it's wrong of me to have a GOTY list that easily has 5+ times the amount of single player games as opposed to multiplayer games. Yet when I look at my actual time split I'm much closer to 50/50 in terms of single / multi time (note this is not getting into co-op where plenty of what I call "single" time is happening).

Since you asked, as for cost I actually find single / multi to actually be about evenly split as well. To really get full enjoyment out of a multiplayer game I really want to be in there day one learning along with the community which often leads to *gulp* paying full day one price for a game. With single player I don't have this same desire, and as such I never pay full price for single player games. So if I spend say $160 a year on games it's probably a day one multiplayer game or two ($100) and a bunch of older singleplayer games on Steam or in Humble bundles ($60).

 

[GeoramA]

Portal 2 definitely deserves it. Valve at their best is tough to beat.

 

[The Technomancer]

Really great showing this year. I can't wait until I build a better PC so I can check out Deus Ex and Witcher 2

 

[Enco]

A surprisingly brilliant list.

I remember when I first went through DE3. Man that was a jaw dropping experience. For some reason I can't replay it though. Not saying much considering there is no game I've ever replayed.

 

[snoopeasystreet]

Atom Zombie Smasher didn't win?

Vote was rigged.

 

[Amir0x]

I think Dark Souls should be #1 of course, but I'm satisfied that it beat out Skyward Sword and Uncharted 3 and so the list is satisfactory to me. Portal 2 was my second favorite game of the year, so great #1.

 

[Grakl]

Good list, and I don't expect the #1 to have backlash in later years like other GAF GOTYs.

 

[Incendiary]

Good list! Glad to see Portal 2 win over Skyrim, especially glad to see Deus Ex in third place. In fact, six of the top seven were in my top ten (and most likely the only reason Skyward Sword wasn't on there was because I have played it yet) so I'm well in agreement with GAF, even though my order was a tad different. I would've liked to see Bulletstorm crack the top 20, it's my personal underrated gem of the year.

I don't know if it's been mentioned since I haven't had time to peruse the whole thread yet, but I find it funny that in the GOTY thread Skyrim beat Xenoblade by a handy margin, but in the Essential RPG thread Xenoblade topped Skyrim.

 

[ultron87]

Good list, and I don't expect the #1 to have backlash in later years like other GAF GOTYs.

Well if we follow the pattern only even numbered year GOTY winners have significant backlash while odd numbered year winners generally remain positively thought of by the majority.

At least I don't think that people have suddenly started hating Uncharted 2, Mario Galaxy, and Resident Evil 4.

 

[Uriah]

Heh, I got quoted for The Witcher 2. Awesome it made the top 10. Didn't think it would happen. I wish Serious Sam 3 or Red Orchestra 2 were in the top FPS category though.

 

[Kurtofan]

Well if we follow the pattern only even numbered year GOTY winners have significant backlash while odd numbered year winners generally remain positively thought of by the majority.

At least I don't think that people have suddenly started hating Uncharted 2, Mario Galaxy, and Resident Evil 4.

Most people don't hate ME2 either, the "backlash" for this game is really overstated.

 

[KorrZ]

This is rational, but of course you can also do what I did; just not post 10 games.

This then begs the question why someone would want to play single player games in the first place, presuming you also enjoy multiplayer. If you can get more/longer fun out of the same cost, why wouldn't you do that? It seems unnecessarily expensive.

Of course, if you don't like multiplayer at all, then all bets are off. I pity such people, from a purely objective viewpoint; your gaming hobby is much, much more expensive than mine.

Is this post for real? Maybe I'm missing something here but...You pity people who don't like multiplayer, asking why someone would want to play single player in the first place? Just what are you on about? Gaming is a hobby, when people are passionate and dedicated to something they love expense isn't usually a big deal in the equation (unless they actually don't have the money).

I for one find multiplayer to be extremely repetitive and boring for the most part. There are only so many times I can play the same 10 maps, shooting the same weapons and racking up kills, just to do it over again. A single player campaign is at least always going to be a unique experience from the last one you played.

 

[Grakl]

This is rational, but of course you can also do what I did; just not post 10 games.

This then begs the question why someone would want to play single player games in the first place, presuming you also enjoy multiplayer. If you can get more/longer fun out of the same cost, why wouldn't you do that? It seems unnecessarily expensive.

Of course, if you don't like multiplayer at all, then all bets are off. I pity such people, from a purely objective viewpoint; your gaming hobby is much, much more expensive than mine.

Well then, it's fortunate that there is no reason for a objective viewpoint when all of these lists (and generally, opinions) are purely subjective, eh? Should I always read a book to or with other people, as single-player reading isn't efficient enough?

 

[Haunted]

I think Dark Souls should be #1 of course, but I'm satisfied that it beat out Skyward Sword and Uncharted 3 and so the list is satisfactory to me. Portal 2 was my second favorite game of the year, so great #1.

Blighttown framerate means I could never put DS at #1.

Also Lost Izalith.

And a bunch of shit design decisions, again.

 

[Amir0x]

Blighttown framerate means I could never put DS at #1.

the framerate in general almost made me take it off. In fact, that was the only thing i mentioned in the comments.

something like

1. Dark Souls; except for the framerate. f u framerate.

DS is one of the only games ever that was simply SO GOOD that even the framerate couldn't distract enough from those strengths to deny it. The only other game I've ever played whose terrible framerate didn't entirely ruin it was Shadow of the Colossus, and even then I did mark it down significantly for it. I marked DS down for its framerate too, review wise. But even with the mark down, it was my best reviewed game of the year.

The design decisions were masterful almost throughout so I'm not going to touch your opinion there.

 

[Atolm]

No Tactics Ogre mention ;/. But a fine list indeed.

 

[TheFightingFish]

Blighttown framerate means I could never put DS at #1.

Also Lost Izalith.

And a bunch of shit design decisions, again.

The ending really was a slog, which is sad as that game had by far the most enjoyable single player hours that I've ever put into a game up until the end game. I had a post in one of the DS OTs pretty much just asking if I should even bother going on for the last five hours. Luckily a few folks talked me into it and I'm glad that I finished it off. Still actually felt good to sell it back after finishing it up, it seems odd to do that to a game that I loved so much, but I just spent too much time on it to ever see a replay or NG+ in my future with so many other good games to play.

 

[Papercuts]

Blighttown framerate means I could never put DS at #1.

Also Lost Izalith.

And a bunch of shit design decisions, again.

YES.

Dark Souls started off as my GotY and only became an honorable mention at the end. Blighttown literally makes me feel sick due to the unavoiadable frame rate issues across all platforms, most of the second half of the game is just bad to me, and lost izalith specifically is one of the laziest areas I've seen in a game. Having a one two punch of hashed area full of recycled enemies -> final area which is a straight run through a linear area fighting the same enemy 4 times is not a way to leave a good taste in someone's mouth, along with the 3 second ending. Then on top of this the online was basically broken the entire time I played, for everyone. I'm glad it's getting recognition, because a lot of it is damn good and some of the best gaming I've had in a long time, but From Soft needed to finish the damn game before releasing it.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

If the PC version of Dark Souls does happen, which is looking like a possibility, it will be a perfect game then in my eyes.

 

[chickdigger802]

Most people don't hate ME2 either, the "backlash" for this game is really overstated.

I blame DA2. It removed the cloud over my eyes lol.

Also playing it a second time really opens you up to all the flaws you didn't notice the first time.

I can't imagine people playing this on anything but pc... Cheat Engine allows me to ignore the whole mining thing.

 

[MetatronM]

No Tactics Ogre mention ;/. But a fine list indeed.

They're apparently fixing that.

 

[Haunted]

The ending really was a slog, which is sad as that game had by far the most enjoyable single player hours that I've ever put into a game up until the end game. I had a post in one of the DS OTs pretty much just asking if I should even bother going on for the last five hours. Luckily a few folks talked me into it and I'm glad that I finished it off. Still actually felt good to sell it back after finishing it up, it seems odd to do that to a game that I loved so much, but I just spent too much time on it to ever see a replay or NG+ in my future with so many other good games to play.

Yeah, the ending was a bit of a bummer, the online stuff and the poor explanation of game mechanics were probably my biggest beefs, design wise. There's a couple smaller things (curses, missables, trial and error) which I didn't like, but whatever.

It's also a technical mess, which I believe is where the pretty overwhelming support for a PC version comes from. I'd play through the game with a proper resolution and framerate again, which is just a testament to how much there is to like about the game. I bought the Ueda collection just to play SotC with a good framerate, I'd do it again for this case.

 

[NullPointer]

If the PC version of Dark Souls does happen, which is looking like a possibility, it will be a perfect game then in my eyes.

If they make a PC version I'll definitely pick it up.

Also, looking at the numbers, poor, poor Modern Warfare 3.

And CTRL+F "Space Marine" gets nada but in my heart I can't say I'm surprised. It'll always be special in my book though, even though Exterminatus was lame.

 

[Cydonian__Knight]

Really solid list, Portal 2 definitely deserves its top spot.

 

[Sullichin]

YES.

Dark Souls started off as my GotY and only became an honorable mention at the end. Blighttown literally makes me feel sick due to the unavoiadable frame rate issues across all platforms, most of the second half of the game is just bad to me, and lost izalith specifically is one of the laziest areas I've seen in a game. Having a one two punch of hashed area full of recycled enemies -> final area which is a straight run through a linear area fighting the same enemy 4 times is not a way to leave a good taste in someone's mouth, along with the 3 second ending. Then on top of this the online was basically broken the entire time I played, for everyone. I'm glad it's getting recognition, because a lot of it is damn good and some of the best gaming I've had in a long time, but From Soft needed to finish the damn game before releasing it.

Blighttown framerate sucks and Lost Izalith is the worst part of the game (it's pretty short and I can't complain).. but it's still by far the most fun I've had with a video game this year.. and this generation. it was hard to get online at first but after the patch the online is very active and works fine (except for gravelording). Idk, there's so, so much to this game, I wouldn't call it unfinished. TOG and Dukes aren't bad. I do like the first half of the game more though.

 

[Dresden]

The patch + learning how to bypass Blighttown (which would be a fun zone were it not for the terrible framerate there) and Lost Izalith made Dark Souls so much more enjoyable for me.

Add in some pvp balancing and it'd be game of the generation.

 

[kitzkozan]

Which industry are we discussing here? The review industry? Because then I agree, although the preference for Western development is relatively recent (i.e. last 5 years).



This is rational, but of course you can also do what I did; just not post 10 games.

This then begs the question why someone would want to play single player games in the first place, presuming you also enjoy multiplayer. If you can get more/longer fun out of the same cost, why wouldn't you do that? It seems unnecessarily expensive.

Of course, if you don't like multiplayer at all, then all bets are off. I pity such people, from a purely objective viewpoint; your gaming hobby is much, much more expensive than mine.

It's not a question of time imo, but mostly of skill. People who don't really enjoy multiplayer aren't competitive or good enough. This is usually what multiplayer is all about: a competitive environment. It's simply not suited for everyone, especially if you aren't the competitive type to begin with. When you invest time into multiplayer games, you have to fight off the cheap tactics and the bs and there's some tough fight ahead if your opponent is vastly superior in skills.

After a couple of bad experiences, it's obvious enough for most people to simply avoid multiplayer if they feel they suck or don't care to compete. I'm almost 100% sure that the most popular type of multiplayer is co-operative (would also explain why Battlefield and Call of duty are so popular imo, with a mix of rpg like progression and big team so people can somewhat hide their mediocrity) . The worst case scenario being fighting games, which are almost strictly multiplayer in design and usually 1 vs 1. There simply ain't no hiding it, you quickly know if you suck or not and thus it's probably the least popular multiplayer type of game out there.

 

[HiddenSentry]

I don't really disagree with any of this list, so nice job all. Kind of surprised I got quoted (twice!), but thanks for the honor. Looking back over my list a few weeks later, I think the one thing I might have changed would have been to add Bulletstorm somewhere.

 

[randomkid]

This then begs the question why someone would want to play single player games in the first place, presuming you also enjoy multiplayer. If you can get more/longer fun out of the same cost, why wouldn't you do that? It seems unnecessarily expensive.

Of course, if you don't like multiplayer at all, then all bets are off. I pity such people, from a purely objective viewpoint; your gaming hobby is much, much more expensive than mine.

Unfortunately not all of us are perfect robo-citizens like you Opiate, some of us have faulty logic circuits in terms of enjoyment maximization! Also, I can't really play Innocent Sin multiplayer haha.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Since he's being widely misunderstood, I believe Opiate's point is that, for someone who enjoys multiplayer, given the choice between a game which has no multiplayer mode and one which does it makes little sense to buy the game which has no multiplayer. And he's completely right. I love co-op gaming, which is why Dungeon Defender's was a day one purchase but I have yet to play Orcs Must Die.

There are obviously going to be cases where the singleplayer content is sufficiently appealing to drive you to purchase a title either way. I love RPGs, so I buy and play a lot of long singleplayer games. However, I rarely play a singleplayer RPG which wouldn't, in my opinion, be better with co-op. The Witcher series are the only RPGs I can think of right now which wouldn't be hugely improved by multiplayer.

 

[Grakl]

Since he's being widely misunderstood, I believe Opiate's point is that, for someone who enjoys multiplayer, given the choice between a game which has no multiplayer mode and one which does it makes little sense to buy the game which has no multiplayer. And he's completely right. I love co-op gaming, which is why Dungeon Defender's was a day one purchase but I have yet to play Orcs Must Die.

There are obviously going to be cases where the singleplayer content is sufficiently appealing to drive you to purchase a title either way. I love RPGs, so I buy and play a lot of long singleplayer games. However, I rarely play a singleplayer RPG which wouldn't, in my opinion, be better with co-op. The Witcher series are the only RPGs I can think of right now which wouldn't be hugely improved by multiplayer.

An experience is rarely objective, which is what he's basing the discussion on. I'd rather play Ico than Starcraft, even if Starcraft can possible give me more time played. I'd also rather not have Ico changed to have multiplayer.

This also applies to games such as Mother 3 and Half Life 2. It's the subjective experience that matters, and after played a game you base your decisions on how much you enjoyed it. As a result, no, I'd rather not play (some) games with multiplayer.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

I don't think the hour or Lost Izalith (and arguably the hour in the Demon Ruins) negated the constantly surprising forty hours that preceded it, but your mileage may vary.

 

[I'm an expert]

I know Deus and Dark are so high on the list because of GAF's "niche" tastes and they deserve to be there..but something irks me about Dark not being #3 and Deus #4. By only a few votes too! Damnit people..this is all your fault.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

An experience is rarely objective, which is what he's basing the discussion on. I'd rather play Ico than Starcraft, even if Starcraft can possible give me more time played. I'd also rather not have Ico changed to have multiplayer.

This also applies to games such as Mother 3 and Half Life 2. It's the subjective experience that matters, and after played a game you base your decisions on how much you enjoyed it. As a result, no, I'd rather not play (some) games with multiplayer.

:lol

That's what my second paragraph was about! I guess the real question is, if you have a choice between two games you know very little about, one of which has multiplayer and the other of which does not, would you be more likely to pick the one with multiplayer?

I buy a lot of games on Steam based on very superficial recommendations and details. In that situation I will always buy the game with multiplayer.

 

[Grakl]

:lol

That's what my second paragraph was about! I guess the real question is, if you have a choice between two games you know very little about, one of which has multiplayer and the other of which does not, would you be more likely to pick the one with multiplayer?

I buy a lot of games on Steam based on very superficial recommendations and details. In that situation I will always buy the game with multiplayer.

I know, I read your second paragraph, haha. The things is, if I ever see an RPG, I truly am more likely to buy it if it's purely single player. This changes depending on the genre, e.g. I generally only buy multiplayer FPS games. I will never know very little about a game before I buy it, though, so I can't really answer that question.

 

[Opiate]

Is this post for real? Maybe I'm missing something here but...You pity people who don't like multiplayer, asking why someone would want to play single player in the first place? Just what are you on about? Gaming is a hobby, when people are passionate and dedicated to something they love expense isn't usually a big deal in the equation (unless they actually don't have the money).

I for one find multiplayer to be extremely repetitive and boring for the most part. There are only so many times I can play the same 10 maps, shooting the same weapons and racking up kills, just to do it over again. A single player campaign is at least always going to be a unique experience from the last one you played.

And I'm saying that's unfortunate for you, because your hobby tends to be significantly more expensive than mine. Taking this to the extreme, imagine the people who are obsessed with cars; that's the sort of hobby one can easily spend 10,000-20,000/annum on. It's the sort of hobby that prevents most people from accruing significant savings throughout their entire life (obviously the extremely rich are exempt from most of these problems).

Do you not feel sorry for them? I do. It's a financially crippling addiction.

Well then, it's fortunate that there is no reason for a objective viewpoint when all of these lists (and generally, opinions) are purely subjective, eh?

There is never a point where objective analysis is inappropriate -- only points where subjective views are. My posts in this thread, for example, are an attempt at objective analysis of the subjective preferences of GAF, and that should be a valuable, interesting addition to the conversation. Do you disagree with my analysis? If so, why? Provide evidence and logic to support your position.

Unfortunately not all of us are perfect robo-citizens like you Opiate, some of us have faulty logic circuits in terms of enjoyment maximization! Also, I can't really play Innocent Sin multiplayer haha.

I've noticed this "Opiate is a robot" meme several times recently, and I'm not sure I follow it. I'm a passionate person; I love my girlfriend, I have many close friends, I'm passionate about my interests (Astrophysics, Neuroscience, Behavioral Economics, Game Theory), I run my own charity, and I try to very hard to be kind and considerate to other people. Can you explain precisely what you mean by this? Because I believe there is strong evidence that I feel things like compassion and love, if you were suggesting their absence.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

opiate there's a tortoise lying on its back in the desert. you're not helping it. why?

 

[Papercuts]

I don't think the hour or Lost Izalith (and arguably the hour in the Demon Ruins) negated the constantly surprising forty hours that preceded it, but your mileage may vary.

Lost Izalith was the biggest offender, but I just didn't like the second half much at all. The library was alright, but the cave sucked to me. Same with tomb of the giants and demon ruins, then LI right after that...I was really pushing myself to not just stop playing.

 

[The Librarian]

opiate there's a tortoise lying on its back in the desert. you're not helping it. why?

:lol

 

[nckillthegrimace]

Playing the same game over and over again seems extremely dull.