How to enlighten ignorant friends?

[Dave J.]

I was with a good group of friends last night and we were all chatting about how amazing Bioshock and Mass Effect were and how they got game(s) of the year at one point or another. In the middle of the conversation my one friend said "a game without multi-player should not even be considered for game of the year." Most of us were taken back by this comment and when we tried to explain how the games were amazing, he said he didn't want to hear any of it and will never play a game without multi-player (and a game can not be good without it.)

I know this seems sort of trivial and his opinion may never change, but it just seems like a stupid concept to me and wanted to vent this frustration.

It actually kind of makes sense, when we used to play N64 together, i noticed he never had any single player games (Banjo Kazooie, Mario, Zelda, etc.)

[Foub]

Maybe he is just over competitive and needs to play against "real" people instead of a machine?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Who really cares, some gamers can be a stubborn bunch.

Everyone's going to have different criteria they chase after to settle on their GOTY anyway.

If he's not played the games but is judging them, then give him a kick in the ass and make him play. That IS fairly ignorant, especially if criticizing a well received title without playing.

Sometimes if a game is universally graded as poor/dire, you don't really need to play to get the experience.

[Dave J.]

Maybe he is just over competitive and needs to play against "real" people instead of a machine?

Wish this was the case, he just thinks games without multi-player suck. Doesn't matter on how good the game might be, or how amazing the story line/cut scenes/ etc.

ill also say this he does not care about gears of war single player. if it didn't have multi-player, he wouldn't play this either. its insane!

Who really cares, some gamers can be a stubborn bunch.

Everyone's going to have different criteria they chase after to settle on their GOTY anyway.

If he's not played the games but is judging them, then give him a kick in the ass and make him play. That IS fairly ignorant, especially if criticizing a well received title without playing.

Sometimes if a game is universally graded as poor/dire, you don't really need to play to get the experience.

He has NOT played Bioshock or Mass Effect. He says both must have been terrible and boring.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Why have you made an agenda to "enlighten"* this person? Does it really matter? I personally agree - in this day and age, a game without multiplayer is half-baked.

* Enlighten? How arrogant are you? His opinion is as valid as yours. Your use of the word assumes your opinion is superior.

[Sethos]

I don't agree with him saying games without multiplayer sucks, though I do agree they just can't be GOTY due to the lacking lasting appeal.

[Guest]

Multiplayer games can be excelent, I only usually see games with multiplayer as an added bonus though. Good stories that pull you in are the most important to me. The worst pittfall of multiplayer games is, people suck. It's all great until you get some idiot trying to somehow disrupt everything in one way or another.

[Dave J.]

Why have you made an agenda to "enlighten"* this person? Does it really matter? I personally agree - in this day and age, a game without multiplayer is half-baked.

* Enlighten? How arrogant are you? His opinion is as valid as yours. Your use of the word assumes your opinion is superior.

Enlighten meaning (in my thinking) to get him to play and maybe even enjoy a game that doesn't have a multi-player system. Maybe it was the wrong words to use, but whats done is done.

[Shadow Dragon]

If he doesn't want to play the games and still calls them "stupid" then just get more of your friends that agree with you and then just really ridicule him together as a group, if that doesn't break him down, tie him down and give him a thorough beating until he surenders and agrees with you.

Or... you could just tell him to shut up and ignore his comments on the topic.

I like the first choice better.

[Smethead]

I don't agree with him saying games without multiplayer sucks, though I do agree they just can't be GOTY due to the lacking lasting appeal.

True, a single player only game gets boring when you played through it (or in case of Bioshock: while playing through it)

[kazuyette]

Give him a lighter ?

[Rudy]

Im the exact opposite, I hate playing multiplayer games. There's a few exeptions (Mario Kart, Mario Strikers, Mario Party) but overall I prefer single player games

[Doli]

we tried to explain how the games were amazing, he said he didn't want to hear any of it

Then you stop and move on, its not worth it to "enlighten" someone over games. You like your games and he likes his, who cares about awards just play.

[gigapixels Veteran]

He's ignorant because he disagrees with you? I don't think he's right either, but to call him ignorant because he only likes multiplayer games is extremely arrogant if you ask me.

[markwolfe Veteran]

With all the significant world and local issues going on... You jump on whether a game has "multiplayer" as your calling to educate others? :no:

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

He's ignorant because he disagrees with you? I don't think he's right either, but to call him ignorant because he only likes multiplayer games is extremely arrogant if you ask me.

It is a little ignorant if this is true

He has NOT played Bioshock or Mass Effect. He says both must have been terrible and boring.

Coming to a conclusion that two highly regarded games are terrible/boring just due to a lack of multiplayer is a rather daft thing to say.

At least until you actually try the games.

Nothing wrong with people saying they don't want to try SP games if they ONLY play MP. But to go around judging games you've not played based off a concept of "no mp = boring", is ignorant in my books.

However the topic poster could've toned down the extremity of his first post :laugh:

[gigapixels Veteran]

Let me put it this way: if you've played many other single-player games and simply found them boring for the very fact that they didn't contain multiplayer, wouldn't you come to a logical conclusion that there must be a trend and you simply don't like non-multiplayer games? He's allowed that conclusion without being accused of being ignorant.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Let me put it this way: if you've played many other single-player games and simply found them boring for the very fact that they didn't contain multiplayer, wouldn't you come to a logical conclusion that there must be a trend and you simply don't like non-multiplayer games? He's allowed that conclusion without being accused of being ignorant.

The initial post was talking about the concept of GOTY awards.

Game of the Year awards get awarded on many merits - Not accepting that and coming to the conclusion "no mp = boring/terrible", and that these games can't be GOTY is still a little ignorant IMO.

"a game without multi-player should not even be considered for game of the year."

I'd say that is a silly thing to say, regardless of your stance on SP/MP enjoyability. I mean, to you personally you might say I can only have a MP game GOTY, but to say SP games should never be considered end of? :/

You have to consider story script/graphics/art direction/sound/game play/production values/replayability/fun factor/etc all going towards games getting GOTY awards.

But hey, I'll leave my 2 cents on the table and that's that I guess :p

[gigapixels Veteran]

That's his opinion though. He does not like non-multiplayer games and thinks they're boring. He's perfectly entitled to that. It's not ignorant in any way, shape or form.

Calling him ignorant is the same as calling somebody ignorant who doesn't like any platformer games and thinks they're all boring. If he/she has always found platformer games boring, he/she can come to the logical conclusion that they all are.

And with respect to GOTY awards, would you expect games that you find boring to get GOTY awards? He's only extrapolating his opinion to the topic of GOTY awards, which is what we all do.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

That's his opinion though. He does not like non-multiplayer games and thinks they're boring. He's perfectly entitled to that. It's not ignorant in any way, shape or form.

Calling him ignorant is the same as calling somebody ignorant who doesn't like any platformer games and thinks they're all boring. If he/she has always found platformer games boring, he/she can come to the logical conclusion that they all are.

It's not the part about him not liking them that's ignorant to me, that it isn't.

It's the remark about a critically acclaimed game "is not allowed to be GOTY" just due to a lack of multiplayer that is. Any critically acclaimed game can be entitled to become GOTY, personally however you may not like it being there, but that's a different scenario.

If a game has a metacritic rating of 98 and is applauded by nearly every gamer, how should it not be considered for GOTY just because it has no multiplayer? :/

He can like whatever games he wants.

when we tried to explain how the games were amazing, he said he didn't want to hear any of it and will never play a game without multi-player (and a game can not be good without it.)

Even that rings as ignorant to me personally.

I don't like puzzle games all that much, but I can still give credit were due and appreciate a good puzzle game (on the merits of how it scores/how people react to it), without having to say just because I don't like them, none of them can be good for people who do.

To me it seems like the guy in post 1 was saying "no one should like any game without MP", as opposed to just keeping it on a personal level. Which is why I sparked the discussion of ignorance. I may be wrong in interpreting what the initial poster means, in which case, I would retract my most of my comments, as calling someone ignorant for having different tastes is stupid.

Edited October 13, 2008 by Audioboxer

[Guest]

The ignorant aspect is him not just saying.. "ok, sure, I can see your point of view but that doesn't appeal to me".

Even Dave J. said he could see where his friend is coming from in his first post...

[_bobcat_ Veteran]

Obviously your friend's comment is dumb. He thinks that because he doesn't like non multiplayer, they can't possibly ever be good and on one could ever really like them... I can see why that's ignorant and somewhat egotistical.

Ask him if he thinks you are lying when you say you enjoy single players, or if he thinks you don't know what makes for a good game.

A game is good when it entertains and is fun to play as far as I'm concerned. If enough people enjoy a game, it would be deserving of all the awards in the world. One single person disliking a game is no reason that it shouldn't get an award. Ask him why he thinks that his opinion alone should count over and above everyone else's. Why is he special?

If that ^ doesn't make him see sense as far as the awards thing goes, you could go one further and remind him he is not the centre of the universe, but it probably wouldn't make much difference. Right now he probably realises he's being dumb but is too stubborn to back down.

If he still spouts the same sillyness, just write him off as irredeemable, drop the issue and carry on enjoying your games. He doesn't exactly have any real influence does he? It doesn't really matter if you ever get him to play single players, it's his life.

I have no intention of ever chucking myself out of a plane to skydive no matter how much fun I might be missing out on - it doesn't appeal to me - and I wouldn't appreciate anyone trying to convince me otherwise. It would be nice to get your friend to be more respectful of other people's opinions, but show him the same :)

[Kami-]

He's ignorant because he disagrees with you? I don't think he's right either, but to call him ignorant because he only likes multiplayer games is extremely arrogant if you ask me.

I agree with this comment.

[solardog]

enlightenment is in the eye of the beholder

[soniqstylz]

Why have you made an agenda to "enlighten"* this person? Does it really matter? I personally agree - in this day and age, a game without multiplayer is half-baked.

Why should multiplayer be tacked on even if it doesn't fit the game itself? How would you add multiplayer to a game like Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Mass Effect, Oblivion, etc., and not have it end up like Metal Gear Online?