Toggle sidebar

Single Player Gaming is a "Gimmick"

"Multiplayer" is not limited to FPS games. The entire MMO genre says "hi". In addition, there's mario games and multiplayer versions of arcade-type games. I have fond memories of playing the SNES version of Sunset Riders at a friend's house, and Sonic 2 was the first multiplayer game I played with another person. Fuck, even NES games had (local) multiplayer.

In addition, FPS games aren't limited to CoD/BF clones. Borderlands? Warsow? Half-Life? Portal?
 
Rydian said:
"Multiplayer" is not limited to FPS games. The entire MMO genre says "hi". In addition, there's mario games and multiplayer versions of arcade-type games. I have fond memories of playing the SNES version of Sunset Riders at a friend's house, and Sonic 2 was the first multiplayer game I played with another person. Fuck, even NES games had (local) multiplayer.

In addition, FPS games aren't limited to CoD/BF clones. Borderlands? Warsow? Half-Life? Portal?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I still won't touch a console based FPS due to the lack of mathematical precision when it comes to controlling your character and superior engine specs (graphics, sound, etc..), fps, etc ... I did however comment regarding the mentioning of FPS and did not mean to imply that other genres do not fit a console environment.
 
I feel that there are four main varieties of games in this regard:
  • Games that are most enjoyable in single-player mode, or do not have multi-player at all. (The Legend of Zelda, Portal, etc.)
  • Games that are fun in single-player, but are generally more fun to play with friends. (Mario Kart (in spite of the blue shells), etc.)
  • Games that are mostly about the single-player mode until you beat the main story, then shift focus to multiplayer for some reason. (Pokemon, etc.)
  • Games that are mostly about the multi-player experience. (Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, etc.)
The way I see it, there was a heavy focus on the first two varieties in gaming's early years (arcade machines aside), and that balance has shifted as online gaming became more feasible and popular. Now, some generations of gamers are apparently being raised entirely on the concept of the latter two - especially in regards to online multiplayer, rather than a local gathering. I feel we are becoming more "social" even as we physically separate, and companies of all sorts are attempting to capitalize on that.

With that said: to put it bluntly, I feel that Antonsson's quote is a bunch of bull. Gaming would not have thrived in the United States as it does today, were it not for single player games like Super Mario Bros. and its countless brethren.

My two cents.
 
To me games have to stand on the facilities available to all gamers right out of the box, unless specifically designed for additional facilities, like World of Warcraft, for example. Not everyone has the internet. Take me as a prime example. I don't have a wi-fi signal, I'm online through a 3G dongle on my netbook, which can't even begin to support online gaming. I hate it when games have a single-player mode, but no effort was put into it at all. Halo 3, great example. Even my 7 year old nephew can clear the game in one sitting, on Legendary, with virtually no hassle. The single player was short, uninspired, and just a huge letdown. Primarily because the whole game was focussed on the multiplayer.

I'm not saying multiplayer shouldn't be given that sort of attention, there are plenty of people who love multiplayer. But it shouldn't completely take over single player because at the end of the day, everyone has single player. Not everyone has multiplayer. Black Ops managed to balance both by having a decent story and enough to keep single players occupied for a while. It's not so difficult to strike a reasonable balance. Say the internet goes down, heaven forefend. What would the COD Freaks do with their time?
 
Strife89 said:
I feel that there are four main varieties of games in this regard:
  • Games that are most enjoyable in single-player mode, or do not have multi-player at all. (The Legend of Zelda, Portal, etc.)
  • Games that are fun in single-player, but are generally more fun to play with friends. (Mario Kart (in spite of the blue shells), etc.)
  • Games that are mostly about the single-player mode until you beat the main story, then shift focus to multiplayer for some reason. (Pokemon, etc.)
  • Games that are mostly about the multi-player experience. (Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, etc.)
The way I see it, there was a heavy focus on the first two varieties in gaming's early years (arcade machines aside), and that balance has shifted as online gaming became more feasible and popular. Now, some generations of gamers are apparently being raised entirely on the concept of the latter two - especially in regards to online multiplayer, rather than a local gathering. I feel we are becoming more "social" even as we physically separate, and companies of all sorts are attempting to capitalize on that.


With that said: to put it bluntly, I feel that Antonsson's quote is a bunch of bull. Gaming would not have thrived in the United States as it does today, were it not for single player games like Super Mario Bros. and its countless brethren.

My two cents.
Click to expand...
My problem there is because those single player only games aren't as popular anymore cause devs seem to think that almost every game needs to have some sort of multiplayer otherwise they don't sell. Sure you get those single player games like a new Zelda and almost all JRPGs but they're becoming less popular among the masses cause of the rise of being "social" and connected with everyone through gaming which is sad because its those games that have a good story and overall a better experience.

MMOs are different because they are already designed to be played with others, I mean those games that get a half assed single player just to favour multiplayer and those games that has shit multiplayer shoved into it just because it must be there and ruining the single player because those had to get cut down to make space for the multiplayer content.
 
This guy is a total moron. Gaming was based on single player games. Pacman was singleplayer, Doom was singleplayer, Duke Nukem was singleplayer, and newer games, Uncharted was singleplayer, Dishonored is singleplayer, Assassins Creed is singleplayer, Oh, and what many people say was the best game ever SKYRIM is singleplayer.
There are many singleplayer games that are totally awesome and there are many multiplayer games that are total crap so this guy is talking out of his a$$ and he doesn't have a clue what he's going on about.

Look at Call Of Duty. Multiplayer is the same 4 maps for the last, I dont know 10 years? I cant tell the difference between COD MW1, 2, 3 so wtf?
FPS Multiplayer games are based around a map and there are usually 8 maps at most and games run from 5 mins to 30 mins or whatever. So a multiplayer game can last 5 mins... a Singleplayer game usually takes at least 1 day to a month to games like Skyrim a few months or longer.

So for the value of games it looks like you get a lot more for your money if you play singleplayer games. 5 mins for multiplayer against 1 day for singleplayer.
 
Seriously, I can't believe someone would be so banal as to suggest that single player as a whole is a gimmick.

The only reason it could even be construed now that it is is by the same kind of people who play Call of Duty multiplayer and nothing else. And that's because Infinity Ward and Treyarch have fallen so hard and so deep that the masterpiece they made with Call of Duty 4's campaign could never be replicated again. Assassin's Creed is also another example where if anything, multiplayer was shoehorned in to a franchise that honestly did not need it. Nobody that I know ever mentions a peep of the AC multiplayer.

And let's not forget... if not for Super Mario Bros. on the NES, which is primarily a single-player game by nature, there would be NO game industry to speak of. If anything, we'd all be incredibly bored or still talking about mainframes and shit. Multimedia in PC's wouldn't have happened nearly as fast as it did, and we certainly wouldn't have as nice in terms of phones for that matter, either.

This guy clearly does not understand what the hell he's on about.
 
Blaze163 said:
To me games have to stand on the facilities available to all gamers right out of the box, unless specifically designed for additional facilities, like World of Warcraft, for example. Not everyone has the internet. Take me as a prime example. I don't have a wi-fi signal, I'm online through a 3G dongle on my netbook, which can't even begin to support online gaming. I hate it when games have a single-player mode, but no effort was put into it at all. Halo 3, great example. Even my 7 year old nephew can clear the game in one sitting, on Legendary, with virtually no hassle. The single player was short, uninspired, and just a huge letdown. Primarily because the whole game was focussed on the multiplayer.

I'm not saying multiplayer shouldn't be given that sort of attention, there are plenty of people who love multiplayer. But it shouldn't completely take over single player because at the end of the day, everyone has single player. Not everyone has multiplayer. Black Ops managed to balance both by having a decent story and enough to keep single players occupied for a while. It's not so difficult to strike a reasonable balance. Say the internet goes down, heaven forefend. What would the COD Freaks do with their time?
Click to expand...

I share similar feelings. I live alone, and currently have no Internet access at all at home - the only reason I was even able to participate in the Mario Kart 7 tournament was because I was able to piggyback on my work's Wi-Fi in time for round 1. A game *absolutely must* have a decent single-player experience, or I just won't play it.

Gaming companies in general seem to be assuming that most gamers have broadband Internet access. My Xbox 360 alerts me EVERY DAMN TIME I SIGN IN that it cannot connect to Xbox Live. (Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit will gladly inform me again, to boot.) The dashboard feels very sparse, and functionality is noticeably crippled (seriously, Microsoft? I can't even edit my profile info offline?). Overall, it feels like the interface, and even some of the games, is rubbing my lack of Internet access in my face.

I can't vouch for Sony and the PS3 side of things, but I can for Nintendo - they and their developers seem to be much friendlier toward those without Internet access. Even the 3DS, by design, outright assumes that the user will not always be able to get online, and takes a middle ground - it assumes that the user will likely carry it with them to an urban area with many public Wi-Fi hotspots (my hometown is not such a place, but it's getting there). It embraces gamer interaction without shoving it down one's throat. (Notice how advertisements for the Mario Kart 7 show three people in the same room racing two other people across the world. It's a mix of local and Internet options. And in my opinion, Mario Kart 7 is a damn fun game solo, too, provided you can bite the Bullet Bills and Spiny Shells.)
 
Yes, yes... Games like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid are gimmicks...

What is this guy smoking?:dry:
 
Strife89 said:
I can't vouch for Sony and the PS3 side of things, but I can for Nintendo - they and their developers seem to be much friendlier toward those without Internet access. Even the 3DS, by design, outright assumes that the user will not always be able to get online, and takes a middle ground - it assumes that the user will likely carry it with them to an urban area with many public Wi-Fi hotspots (my hometown is not such a place, but it's getting there). It embraces gamer interaction without shoving it down one's throat. (Notice how advertisements for the Mario Kart 7 show three people in the same room racing two other people across the world. It's a mix of local and Internet options. And in my opinion, Mario Kart 7 is a damn fun game solo, too, provided you can bite the Bullet Bills and Spiny Shells.)
Click to expand...
Actually Sony with its PS3, Vita and PSP are quite single player friendly cause it doesn't really force you to be on PSN or anything everytime you start the console up and most of the games are singleplayer anyway with only a few multiplayer games. From what you said it seems Microsoft is the least single player friendly out of everyone.

JFTS said:
Yes, yes... Games like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid are gimmicks...

What is this guy smoking?:dry:
Click to expand...
Probably too much multiplayer games.
 

Site & Scene News

Go to forum More news

Popular threads in this forum