The lights are on
In this morning’s Reader Discussion, we asked if you typically play single-player or multiplayer modes first. The answers were very informative, and we'd like to share some with you.
I always play single player first. It's like a build up to finally starting multiplayer. I'm interested in the story and then multiplayer is like meeting up with people who enjoy the game as well. - robtw007
I'm a campaign junkie. The single player campaign is the main force behind my video game purchases. It's not that I don't enjoy online multiplayer, I guess I'm just from the old school when the single player reigned supreme. - vertigobleak
I usually try out multiplayer so that I don't have to go through the tutorial...then I play the single player after failing miserably. - Spartacus
I rarely play single player. I have more fun with my friends. - randyschmitt
Depends on the game really. In a game like Mass Effect 3 or Red Dead Redemption I play the single player campaign first but in Battlefield 3 I went straight to multi-player and did, maybe, three levels of the single player game before I got bored and went back to MP. - Jeff Kaos
Looking at the comments, many of our readers start off with the single-player before diving into the online conflict. Some like to tune up their skills, and others want to be sure to avoid spoilers from online opponents. With that in mind, we turn to our second question of the day.
This generation saw a monumental shift in how we approach multiplayer gaming. Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Assassin’s Creed are among the franchises that implemented a progression system tied to abilities and weapons. On the other side, Halo, Gears of War, and most fighting and sports games kept access even across players.
Do you think that one way is better? If so, which do you prefer?
Email the author Mike Futter, or follow on Google+, Twitter, and Game Informer.
Personally, I feel as though a progression system is important in multiplayer, as it gives me something to work for. Although, some games, like Counter-Strike or Team Fortress 2, don't need it because they're just so fun already.
Progression is important- as long as it remains semi-balanced.
Yes, as long as the progression system doesn't cripple low level players too much. Its annoying playing a game like GTA Online where higher leveled players have such a huge advantage over low level players.
I rarely play multiplayer if there isn't some kind of progression system. I just get bored very quickly playing the same games over and over again if I don't have anything to work towards.
A progression system is the only thing that keeps me going really. If I was playing a game with no progression system I would get extremely bored, extremely fast.
Has to have progression
I think so. The progression system gets people to stay longer and makes it feel like I'm being rewarded for my time as well as getting people to have some fun trying to achieve a certain goal in the game, like getting that first/next prestige.
Part of the reason why I'm going with KZ: Shadow Fall this year is because of it's lack of a progression system. I don't mind progression in multiplayer, but I need a little change of pace.
Personally, I feel more invested in games I have to work for. It's not a deal breaker, though. I've spent countless hours playing Battlefield 3's multiplayer, still primarily use the starting M16A3. It's more of an issue where it creates vast barriers and gaps between new and experienced players based solely on unlocks.
I'm fine with progression systems as long as they keep them balanced like in Battlefield, but perks are the scourge of video game fun. Perks completely ruined Assassin's Creed multiplayer, and they're the main reason I hate COD. Why should somebody be able to turn invisible and kill stab me faster in AC simply because they played the game longer? It completely ruins the experience. I've always preferred the level playing fields of Halo (the Bungie Halos) because it keeps the game interesting and nobody is more powerful because of extra playtime.
As long as it's still balanced, a progression system is always welcome to me. That's why I used to love Cod multiplayer so much, when it was one of the first series to do it.
As long as it's done right and doesn't give higher-level players advantages that make newer players incapable of ever being on the same level, a progression system is awesome. The new unlocks I get as I rank up are as much a part of the game as the gameplay itself; without them I would get bored far too quickly and not play nearly as much.