Single Player Gaming is a "Gimmick"

[reaper527]

single player isn't a gimmick. a company who's website says "We create games for social networks, web browsers and Apple devices" across the top of their home page should have a better idea of what a gimmick is.

remind me never to buy any games from gogogic, because clearly from the top they know nothing about gaming.

 

[machomuu]

Online Multiplayer has indeed made an impact (mostly in the West), but I do find that this "impact" has not only lessened developers' drives to create engaging Single Player modes and stories, but also lessened the mainstream's interest in Single Player and Stories at all, especially with games like Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 (the current generation iterations of both) having lackluster SP that even the fans of the games don't like, quickly running to the supposedly more engaging multiplayer. It's sad, really, because I love a good story experience, and the fact that attention is being turned away from them is disappointing and, from a retrospective, unforeseeable.

 

[suppow]

Online Multiplayer has indeed made an impact (mostly in the West), but I do find that this "impact" has not only lessened developers' drives to create engaging Single Player modes and stories, but also lessened the mainstream's interest in Single Player and Stories at all, especially with games like Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 (the current generation iterations of both) having lackluster SP that even the fans of the games don't like, quickly running to the supposedly more engaging multiplayer. It's sad, really, because I love a good story experience, and the fact that attention is being turned away from them is disappointing and, from a retrospective, unforeseeable.

also it means that online-multiplayer focused games are rendered useless in the future for retro purposes.
games like Goldeneye 64 you can just set up and play multiplayer, even singleplayer games,
but good luck with "instert online multiplayer game name here" (cant think of any, i probably dont even play any of those)

 

[Rydian]

How would that even work?

Well, IRC is multiplayer Notepad... according to the ancient tales of the 'net.

 

[arogance1]

I only play single player as I'm mainly on the games on my phone or NDS travelling to/from work on the bus.

The gimmick i'd like to see go away is IAP.
I saw Theme Park as an Android download this morning, it was free.
I read the comments and lost of people saying you have to spend $4 before you can build anything, and they expect you to pay around $70 before you can build rollercoasters

 

[Rayder]

I only play single-player games. Couldn't care less about multi-player.

His arguments are invalid.....to me anyway.

 

[TripleSMoon]

I only play single-player games. Couldn't care less about multi-player.

His arguments are invalid.....to me anyway.

I'm sort of the same way, but I actually like local multiplayer. It's online multiplayer I don't care for.

 

[suppow]

damn i was pissed when me and all my friends sat down,
and found out we couldnt play 4Player local multiplayer Left 4 Dead 2.

i know the split screen would be small,
but hey we lived with Goldeneye just fine right?

 

[TripleSMoon]

damn i was pissed when me and all my friends sat down,
and found out we couldnt play 4Player local multiplayer Left 4 Dead 2.

i know the split screen would be small,
but hey we lived with Goldeneye just fine right?

Exactly, especially since TVs have only gotten bigger and bigger since then. I don't know where developers get the idea that it's perfectly fine to withhold a splitscreen version of a feature they already put in the game because THEY think it's not worth it, when tons of customers think it really is worth it.

 

[suppow]

Exactly, especially since TVs have only gotten bigger and bigger since then. I don't know where developers get the idea that it's perfectly fine to withhold a feature because THEY think it's not worth it, when tons of customers think it really is worth it.

exactly, something similar happened when we were going to play Goldeneye Wii,
we could play local 4-player no problem (thank gawd there),
but it felt awfully stale compared to Goldeneye 64 or TWINE 64,
which got me thinking "it must be a bad remake" - (not gonna go into that argument lol)
turns out most of the other features that were missing,
are only available in online multiplayer.

i mean, WTF ACTIVISION?!
fortunately the wii has free online play, but i cant play with my friends in the same room
(isnt that what the wii was about? lol)

we plugged the ol' 64 in, sat down,
played The World Is Not Enough,
and agreed it was better.
:true story:

 

[Mr. Prince]

to be fair I considered demon+dark souls and borderlands more like optional single player; while playing on your own is great in all, if you play with others the gameplay improves significantly. The single player in these would be the same as Diablo since you chose to play alone.

I said "Have", and what I mean by that is that they have really good single player, and they also might have really good multiplayer at the same time.

 

[Vampire Lied]

I only play single-player games. Couldn't care less about multi-player.

His arguments are invalid.....to me anyway.

^^^THIS!!!
Multiplayer is a fun bonus to a game. Single player storyline is what matters. If the storyline is possible to play multiplayer, especially local, that's great. To throw away the single player experience and focus on online multiplayer is the way to NOT get my money. Also, social games blow ass.

 

[Just Another Gamer]

^^^THIS!!!
Multiplayer is a fun bonus to a game. Single player storyline is what matters. If the storyline is possible to play multiplayer, especially local, that's great. To throw away the single player experience and focus on online multiplayer is the way to NOT get my money. Also, social games blow ass.

But usually not many multiplayer games have a dedicated story, I mean have you seen any MMO that has a great story?
Its fortunate that single player games are the ones with the great story.

 

[spotanjo3]

This is Ceo Jonas's opinion. I like to play as single and thats about it. What he say is silly and thats his opinion. Some people liked multi players and some liked to be single player and nothing's wrong with that.. A single player is a gimmick ? He is really stupid and selfish.. Wow. No wonder some human being like him is making me sick, to be honest. Jeez.

 

[alphamule]

I'm sort of the same way, but I actually like local multiplayer. It's online multiplayer I don't care for.

Yeah, and then they take down the server and won't give us a copy of the server, nor provide an offline patch for games that have 'forced online' 1P mode. A LAN patch even, would be tolerable if they hadn't designed it from the very beginning to require an outside server, even on games that work better on a LAN and the server is just a match-making service. Another gripe: Games that won't let you connect to specific people (friends/group list for example) or limit you to one account per IP address. :facepalm:

 

[TripleSMoon]

Yeah, and then they take down the server and won't give us a copy of the server, nor provide an offline patch for games that have 'forced online' 1P mode. A LAN patch even, would be tolerable if they hadn't designed it from the very beginning to require an outside server, even on games that work better on a LAN and the server is just a match-making service. Another gripe: Games that won't let you connect to specific people (friends/group list for example) or limit you to one account per IP address. :facepalm:

And this, my friend, is why I will never be a PC gamer. Ever. As it stands right now on consoles, at the very least they can't take away my single player.

 

[ouch123]

Some experiences can only really be done single player (i.e things which rely heavily on immersion like role-playing or horror) and some experiences can really only be done multiplayer (i.e games involving teamwork or competition). I don't think you can really say anything this broad or general is a "gimmick." It's like saying shoes are a gimmick just because shoes with fish in the heels exist.

 

[T3GZdev]

well games like cod are praised because of multiplayer, without multiplayer idk where those games would be today.
but the we have games like zelda, & metroid that are single player, tho the ds versions of zelda & metroid have multiplayer.
i think games are better off with multiplayer tho. adding multiplayer to a game has no effect on the story.

 

[Strength]

You, see what happens when to much FPS and CODE!.

 

[machomuu]

well games like cod are praised because of multiplayer, without multiplayer idk where those games would be today.
but the we have games like zelda, & metroid that are single player, tho the ds versions of zelda & metroid have multiplayer.
i think games are better off with multiplayer tho. adding multiplayer to a game has no effect on the story.

I disagree, I think the quality of games nowadays has gone down because attention has shifted towards multiplayer. It's rather difficult to drive an immersive and engaging experience when the developer cares more about the "arcade styled" multiplayer than they do the single player. It'd be fine if they put equal emphasis on both, but thanks to the success of games like the recent Call of Duty games and Battlefield 3 (I use these because they are the most popular examples), where the story's are often half-assed afterthoughts rather than engaging experiences (even the fans attest to this), less and less game designers actually care about single player.

The reason I find this to be such a bad thing is first because it seems to shift the view of games as being "art", an idea that was spreading quickly for a while, but now we seem to be regressing. It seems that, as time goes on, all the effort that was and is made to make video games be seen as art is regressing to the early days, when people rarely took games and their messages seriously because, well, they were games. At the time all they cared about was the effects gaming had on the psyche and how much money it could net people to get into the business. More and more people are going into games for the instant gratification rather than the experience, and similarly, more games are created for the purpose of instant gratification than they are for a satisfying experience (or both, really). In recent years things seem to be the same, the only difference being that games, as a whole, are far more well known even to those who don't play them, as they're not nearly as underground as they used to be.

The second reason stems from the fact that it has had such a large impact on the Western market (and the Eastern market, on a lesser scale). I'm fine with multiplayer, and I enjoy it when it's well done, but the real problem is that the emphasis of a strong multiplayer with a weak single player, an idea that has been incredibly popular in practical use, sends ripple effects throughout the industry, showing that one can make a successful game so long as they have a strong multiplayer, even if that game isn't a multiplayer oriented game itself. Though, I'm not so sure if it is simply the developers that are affected by this. I see quite a few core gamers (by "core" I'm referring to those who are the biggest crowd in gaming, in other words, the average teen or young adult male) who actually avoid single player games. More often than not, if I were to ask a core gamer about a game that didn't have guns, multiplayer, or wasn't Skyrim, they'd have no idea what I was talking about. The core gamer is becoming less and less interested in engaging single player modes and stories, which saddens me, honestly.