The Growing Illusion of Single Player Gaming 292
An anonymous reader writes: Multiplayer modes used to be an extra part of most games — an optional addition that the developers could build (or not) as they saw fit. These days, it's different: many games are marketed under the illusion of being single-player, when their focus has shifted to an almost mandatory multiplayer mode. (Think always-online DRM, and games as services.) It's not that this is necessarily bad for gameplay — it's that design patterns are shifting, and if you don't like multiplayer, you're going to have a harder time finding games you do like.
The article's author uses a couple recent major titles as backdrop for the discussion: "With both Diablo III and Destiny, I'm not sure where and how to attribute my enjoyment. Yes, the mechanics of both are sound, but given the resounding emptiness felt when played solo, perhaps the co-op element is compensating. I'd go so far as to argue games can be less mechanically compelling, so long as the multiplayer element is engaging. The thrill of barking orders at friends can, in a way, cover design flaws. I hem and haw on the quality of each game's mechanics because the co-op aspect literally distracted me from engaging with them to some degree."
The article's author uses a couple recent major titles as backdrop for the discussion: "With both Diablo III and Destiny, I'm not sure where and how to attribute my enjoyment. Yes, the mechanics of both are sound, but given the resounding emptiness felt when played solo, perhaps the co-op element is compensating. I'd go so far as to argue games can be less mechanically compelling, so long as the multiplayer element is engaging. The thrill of barking orders at friends can, in a way, cover design flaws. I hem and haw on the quality of each game's mechanics because the co-op aspect literally distracted me from engaging with them to some degree."
Crouching Microtransactions, Hidden DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Many games are being built "multiplayer" these days to force always-on internet connections to your game for various purposes. Microtransactions, invasive analytics and DRM are just the tip of the iceberg.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. I was going to buy Destiny but waited for the initial reviews. and there are a LOT of people pissed off because it's unplayable if you don't have a super fast internet connection.
So that means that playing in the evening when everyone is streaming Netflix and Hulu you cant freaking play the $70 video game because Bungie is too stupid to realize that not everyone has an OC3 to their house.
So I'm passing on it the same way I passed on titanfall. and it sounds like it's turning into a titanf
Re:Crouching Microtransactions, Hidden DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
Overall the video game industry is dying
The industry isn't dying; it's just facing many of the same problems that the movie industry faced in the late '60s through the early '80s.
During the so-called "New Hollywood" period, there was a shift as many commonly-loved genres (westerns, musicals, big epics) started to fall out of favor, with a resultant loss of profitability. The big studios started floundering, especially as the increasingly lost control of the theaters. The independent auteurs took up the slack, and now-famous names like Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg and Lucas made their debuts. Giant epics fell from grace and smaller (and cheaper) movies became more popular. New technologies - often created by the independents, who didn't have the cash to do things the old - and expensive - way, brought new options to moviemakers. Old genres were reinvented and new ones created, reinvigorating the industry, leading to the era of summer blockbusters. Meanwhile, the old studios had to open themselves up to buy-outs from outside investors, and take on new lessons about proper corporate governance.
It is easy to see parallels with the game industry of today. Customers no longer find the popular genres of yesterday quite as fulfilling as they did a few years back and the big developers seem to be having trouble offering new options. Fortunately, the "indie" game developer is reinvigorating the market, and these days there seems to be more excitement about the indie games than big-name titles like Destiny or Call of Duty XXIV. The publishers are also struggling as their traditional means of distribution is changing from retail sales to digital. The indies are also proving it is no longer necessary to spend $100 million on a game, utilizing new technologies like procedural generation to create worlds as grand as those made expensively by hand.
The game industry is not dying, it is just in transition. And like the Hollywood Renaissance of the '80s, I hope the game industry will rebound to bring us bigger and better experiences in the next decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I, for one, am liking the shifting market, on both fronts.
the tip is enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Any experienced sailor will tell you that there is no need to see the hidden part of the iceberg to consider giving it a wide berth.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/ [scientificamerican.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Remember, It used to be arcades that emptied your pockets.
Re: (Score:3)
Does the phrase "Insert coins to continue" sound familiar?
Never been a fan of multiplayer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm dating myself here, but multiplayer games are still newfangled and weird to me, and I don't know if that will ever change.
When I used to play games, I played to get away from social interaction and enjoy myself in isolation. It was a kind of recuperation. A world of gaming in which you have to face social interaction once again as part of gameplay was unattractive enough to me that I stopped playing games altogether. These days I mainly do crossword puzzles and read e-books for the respite that I used to get from gaming.
Re:Never been a fan of multiplayer. (Score:5, Funny)
Dating yourself is definitely single-player.
Re:Never been a fan of multiplayer. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always enjoyed single player games as a sort of kinetic puzzle. Even if the action involves racing away from the cops or jumping across platforms, a single player game rewards the ability to learn patterns and find weaknesses in the enemies and rules of a closed system. It's both relaxing and rewarding to master the mechanics of the game.
Multiplayer, on the other hand, is a spastic experience which seems to be dominated by obsessive players with endless time to practice. The reward for the average player is not mastery, but rather learning to die a little less often.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I did have first-person shooters in mind, since that's the type of game I always seem to encounter others playing. I've only had a couple of opportunities to play co-op multiplayer games, and those were far more enjoyable.
Re: (Score:2)
Eve Online might be to your liking ... YMMV
Re:Never been a fan of multiplayer. (Score:5, Funny)
One enjoys EVE Online if and only if he/she also enjoys spreadsheets.
Really, it is Excel with double-clicking to move around!
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, it's the most brutal online game in existence -- one where scamming and causing other players misery is not discouraged, but is actually a valid in-game career-path.
Re:Never been a fan of multiplayer. (Score:4, Insightful)
Multiplayer, on the other hand, is a spastic experience which seems to be dominated by obsessive players with endless time to practice. The reward for the average player is not mastery, but rather learning to die a little less often.
Well said. Multiplayer games are nice for teenagers who have too much time on their hands and can master the game completely (I remember how good I was at some games on my grey box Nintendo (the NES)). But since I fill my time with other stuff now, I end up losing horribly in every multiplayer game against some kid who most likely laughs at me on the other end of the fibre optic cable. It kinda ruins the experience.
Sure, some games create multiple leagues, thus enabling me to play against other n00bs in the loser league. But that is not exactly a rewarding feeling.
Symmetric gameplay is all we get now (Score:2)
I find many games where the AI is just too dumb for it to be fun. Overall, it's not smart, and it works for a casual player, but for hardcore games, it's just too dumb.
I agree. The thing is, I'm not a 19 year old student any more. I don't want to be a hardcore gamer today. I don't have time to learn FPS maps well enough to navigate them with my eyes closed and still lob a grenade/rocket everywhere the respawn/power-up/camper is likely to be. I can't sustain multiple keyboard/mouse actions per second over a half-hour RTS game. I have no interest in playing against an arena where 1 in 3 opponents is a bot that never misses, nor installing so much mandatory crapware to preve
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine if you would soccer, you had a team who played the games that were scheduled and showed up to practice.
Then you, show up once and awhile to practice, and play the odd game.
Except in reality for every player that plays regularly and shows up to practice daily, there are 10 players that drop in once in a while. Lets say the local league has 110 players in it. 10 guys that are obsessive about showing up, and 100 that drop in once a week or so to a game or practice.
Which pool is the "average" player? Is it the 100? or the 10? I'd say common sense is going to put the average a lot nearer the mean ability of the 100 than of the 10.
At any given match, 15 people will show up from the
Re:Never been a fan of multiplayer. (Score:5, Interesting)
My first online multiplayer game was Diablo. I have avoided every online multiplayer RPG since, and generally avoid multiplayer "experiences".
Multiplayer video games are a cesspool of the worst elements of society. You have to be relatively well-off to afford everything you need to play. In fact, the more well-off you are, the more time you have to spend in the game, the more likely you're going to be an asshole.
You're anonymous. You're being competitive. You are (mostly) rewarded for being a complete asshole (loot, loot, precious loot! loot the newb corpse!)
At least before voice chat you could close the text box or put it out of your mind. Now, if I decided to partake, I'd have to deal with 8-year-olds telling me how they fucked my mother in the ass and how she moaned (when they don't have to tell me, I could hear it just fine).
Fuck multiplayer. Other people are too shitty to play with.
Re:Never been a fan of multiplayer. (Score:5, Informative)
Multiplayer can be and often is what you describe. But it depends on the community.
Some of the best online gaming experiences can be found on private servers (for those games that have them). Since anyone with moderate knowledge and resources can run a private server, there are many of them. A server's community tends to reflect the values of the owner, so just browse GTOP100 or other similar sites and look for well-policed friendly ones.
Most private servers have a very high GM to player ratio compared to official servers. On a friendly private server, the 8-year-old you describe that tells people he fucked their mother in the ass will get banned before his first day is over. It will have clear Terms of Use that outlines what is acceptable behavior and what's not, and how to report abuse to GM. The good ones actually care about your gaming experience and will take griefing seriously.
Also look for one with an active forum. Since the PS community tends to be small, you'll get to know most of the active players after a while. Browsing the forum will give you the flavor of the community.
Re:Never been a fan of multiplayer. (Score:4, Insightful)
Spectromancer not FPS (Score:3)
A game can last anywheres from 2 mins to 30, with the average of about 5-8mins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indie to the rescue! It's now on its last legs as development stopped a while back, but Altitude (altitudegame.com) is great multiplayer game that I read about on Slashdot and have been playing since 2009. The micro-transactions part of the game didn't work well, so the authors dropped it. If you just want to shoot at other players and not read about it, the in-game chat can be switched off, players can be muted and you can just avoid going to the forum pages on their website (which is separate from the gam
Re: (Score:2)
Your characterisation of the multi-player experience is rather slanted. I've played quite a few games online as part of a competitive team against other teams (UT, Quake, Tribes2), or as part of cooperative team against the game (WoW raiding). I view these as positive social experiences.
Multiplayer gaming doesn't have to be about jumping into some public server with a bunch of random strangers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My first online multiplayer game was Diablo. I have avoided every online multiplayer RPG since, and generally avoid multiplayer "experiences".
Multiplayer video games are a cesspool of the worst elements of society. You have to be relatively well-off to afford everything you need to play. In fact, the more well-off you are, the more time you have to spend in the game, the more likely you're going to be an asshole.
You're anonymous. You're being competitive. You are (mostly) rewarded for being a complete asshole (loot, loot, precious loot! loot the newb corpse!)
At least before voice chat you could close the text box or put it out of your mind. Now, if I decided to partake, I'd have to deal with 8-year-olds telling me how they fucked my mother in the ass and how she moaned (when they don't have to tell me, I could hear it just fine).
Fuck multiplayer. Other people are too shitty to play with.
I play online multiplayer with a brother. It's how we hang out across the country from each other. We'll go into a COD match and show those punk kids what's up. We go in a private party though so that we don't have to hear their inane chatter. But you can mute annoying or abusive players.
Re: (Score:3)
Diablo 3 is basically single player now. Other players don't really affect your game in any way, all the good drops are stupidly account bound.
That doesn't apply to the console versions which don't have bind on account and never had the auction house. Not only that, but it has:
1. Gifts: Whenever you get a legendary or set item there's a chance a gift for one of the people in your friends list comes along with it. It looks like a little wrapped present. Send it along and when they open it they get a legendary.
2. Nemesis: If you die to a regular non-elite monster, there's a chance that it will become a Nemesis and level up. You will know it h
Re:Never been a fan of multiplayer. (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe I'm dating myself here, but multiplayer games are still newfangled and weird to me, and I don't know if that will ever change.
When I used to play games, I played to get away from social interaction and enjoy myself in isolation. It was a kind of recuperation. A world of gaming in which you have to face social interaction once again as part of gameplay was unattractive enough to me that I stopped playing games altogether. These days I mainly do crossword puzzles and read e-books for the respite that I used to get from gaming.
Well you're not alone, when I was much younger I enjoyed competitive FPS's, multiplayer, LAN's, and all that. But as I've gotten older I enjoy single player games more so than anything else because as you put it, it's a form of recuperation and you can decide "how" you want to enjoy yourself.
But as a point, there were articles back in hmm 2004 or 2005ish declaring the "end of single player" as well. Strangely enough, single player games are still going strong. And when developers shovel multiplayer into single player content many don't like it. One of the better examples of this would be Mass Effect 3, where they attempted to shove you into MP so you could get the best possible ending. It didn't take long before it was patched out, and the amount required reduced. I expect that the new Dragon Age game will suffer the same fate if they try to shovel something in that "makes it a requirement for a good ending."
Re: (Score:3)
Agree 100%. Maybe we're both old-timers (I am not even 35? *SIGH*), but I too play games to escape. I really dislike multiplayer games. I especially despise multiplayer first person shooters - the genre that has literally been the same rehash year after year for over a decade. Personally I prefer third person games because it lets me actually SEE my character and interact in a much better way than any FPS game.
Meanwhile, multiplayer games and FPS games are all most people in my circle care about so it is ha
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe I'm dating myself here
Not like anyone else will...
Sorry, couldn't resist ;) Classic line from Dilbert
Re: (Score:3)
My big issue with multiplayer is just the inability to hit pause or save. It feels like the game is in charge of me instead of the other way around.
Got Burned by Titanfall (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Got Burned by Titanfall (Score:5, Interesting)
Not all FPSs are going this path, but there is this "Call of duty audience" that consists in all those guys playing call of duty online that is like some sort of goose that lays golden eggs that they're chasing, and they do those games assuming that you're one of em.
Anyway, stop playing heavily marketed FPSs if you want a good single player experience.
Re: (Score:3)
Not all FPSs are going this path, but there is this "Call of duty audience" that consists in all those guys playing call of duty online that is like some sort of goose that lays golden eggs that they're chasing, and they do those games assuming that you're one of em.
Anyway, stop playing heavily marketed FPSs if you want a good single player experience.
Good example. Well mixed example really. Yes CoD is a multiplayer game, but I actually really enjoyed the single player. I actually still really enjoy trying to master the individual missions, and it had an ok story.
It's no Half-life, and yes everyone plays it online, but it actually had IMO a solid single player component and provided just the right senseless hack and slash that I needed after a day of work.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all FPSs are going this path, but there is this "Call of duty audience" that consists in all those guys playing call of duty online that is like some sort of goose that lays golden eggs that they're chasing, and they do those games assuming that you're one of em.
Anyway, stop playing heavily marketed FPSs if you want a good single player experience.
I love playing certain versions of COD online (GHosts was terrible). I have Titanfall and the game sucks. You can't dress the multiplayer up on that thing enough to make me play it. I just wanted to play the damned campaign through without having to be with random strangers. I stopped playing it, and will never play it again.
Re:Got Burned by Titanfall (Score:4, Insightful)
If you start to see diminishing returns on your sales of Multiplayer-Only games, then that is the problem. It's not that the market is collapsing. It's not that you didn't sign all those famous voice actors. It's that you insisted on a multiplayer-only experience. Not everyone has a low-latency high-speed internet connection, and with ISPs throttling netflix, in the future they may start throttling your games as well. In other words: Don't be stupid.
Re: Got Burned by Titanfall (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand why anyone would play an online game, especially on a console.
The very idea of having to pay a monthly subscription to play the game is problematic to me. With XBox Live, they basically ask you to pay to have the right to use your Internet connection.
Re: Got Burned by Titanfall (Score:5, Insightful)
With XBox Live, they basically ask you to pay to have the right to use their service
FTFY. Doesn't sound quite so despicable when you put it like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why anyone would play an online game, especially on a console.
The very idea of having to pay a monthly subscription to play the game is problematic to me.
Because until recently in the PlayStation eco-system, you didn't have to. And you still don't for certain games.
PS2 games never had an online fee, except for the two MMO's.
PS3/Vita games didn't and still don't require PS+ for online play, The 3 PS3 MMO's "could" have additional fees but two of them were F2P.
PS4 games DO require PS+ for online play, unless it's one of the following:
1. an MMO
2. a F2P title like Warframe.
3. A non-synchronous game, an example being a chess game where you can send turns a la pl
Re: (Score:3)
There are still plenty of single player-only or single player-mainly games being released. Two recent examples are Wolfenstein the New Order and Metro Redux.
Re: (Score:2)
There are still plenty of single player-only or single player-mainly games being released. Two recent examples are Wolfenstein the New Order and Metro Redux.
Except Wolfenstein was extremely bland and generic with a stupid story and retarded characters. And while the Metro games are pretty good Redux is just a HD lick of paint. I get what you're saying that there are single player games but even the dedicated single player only game doesn't guarantee a good single player game.
Titanfall promised a great campaign (Score:2)
I know Half-Life wasn’t the first shooter to tell a story completely through the eyes of the player, but it stands out to me as the first very successful attempt. Since then, the FPS genre has been doing a balancing act of telling a compelling narrative without sacrificing gameplay. Some games have been more successful than others, but the formula is starting to get a little stale. What makes Titanfall’s campaign mode unique is that we’re giving players the production value of a finely crafted cinematic experience they’re used to from current-gen shooters, but within the framework of competitive multiplayer. We’ve designed the game in such a way that the narrative never obfuscates the goals or objectives, but only gives them more impetus.
We’re telling a story through a first person perspective in ways that are both traditional to single player campaigns and very new for multiplayer at least for first-person shooters. Without going into too much boring detail about client/server logistics, asynchronous scripting, and other buzzwords, I can tell you that from the end user experience it feels both familiar and groundbreaking at the same time.
Titanfall will most definitely have an ending. It’s not a story if it doesn’t have an ending, but there are multiple sides to that story. It’s told from both the Militia and IMC perspectives, and to fully grasp Titanfall’s campaign, you’ll need to play it from both sides. And as with any good story, we’ve hopefully peppered it with enough detail and nuance that you’ll notice something new every time you replay it.
I was severely disappointed too.
http://www.xb1.co.uk/interviews-2/titanfall-will-most-definitely-have-an-ending-its-not-a-story-if-it-doesnt-have-an-ending-says-respawn/
Re:Got Burned by Titanfall (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes those requirement descriptions can be vague, especially for those who might not be familiar with the Playstation or Xbox eco-systems.
For example Defiance on the PS3 says "Network Players 2 - Unlimited" and "Broadband Required" but someone unfamiliar with PS2/PS3/Ps4 back-of-the-box terminology might not realize that means it's an online only game. A game with offline AND online would say something like "Number of players 1 -2 (Online 2-4)"
cool (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as Developers don't want my money, they can keep on designing Multiplayer only games!
I think I'll load up Moo2 again. Or X-com.
Re:cool (Score:5, Insightful)
I too have a massive library of oldies from GOG.com, a huge Steam library, and a large Steam wishlist just waiting for the right sale to pickup, I can outwait this trend since I literally have more content available than I can possibly consume pre-retirement.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Been playing Starcraft and Brood War again. I'd love to see Command and Conquer get reissued to work on newer platforms (nothing like a tank rush at Plaid Speed :D ).
[John]
Multiplayer & Solo, the right mix... (Score:3)
Personally, I like single player games. I find that multi-player games today tends to have two major flaws. The first is that it's hard finding players who are at or near the same level that you are, unless you are playing with a bunch of friends or a clan/group. In most cases there is too much of a divide in skill level. The second is that most multiplayer games require too many players to be on the same team to complete quests, etc. I really enjoyed the days of Quake CTF clans because most teams were limited to 6 players per team. It was much easier to co-ordinate and get to know the other team members.
In my opinion the best single player game that blended a bit of online multi-player is Dark Souls II. There were places in the game where other players could "invade" and cause a battle with you on one side and the monsters/invader on the other. The game also allowed you to summon other players to help you out in difficult spots and during boss levels. In my mind, it was a good mix of solo play with some dynamic online play.
As for Destiny, I haven't tried it yet. I'll probably get into it when my brother-in-law or Nephews get into it. That way we could play it together.
Re: (Score:2)
Escapism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it did. It was poor and nowhere near as good as for example Morrowind, but it was stil there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering Shimmering Isles for Oblivion, that very well may be true.
Cheese for everyone!
You probably noticed that when you run into Sheogorath in Skyrim, he has a plethora of cheese at the table he is sitting at. He also implies he's the hero of Oblivion, IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it does.
But you know the really great thing about Skyrim? You can pretty much ignore the story and just wander about on your own and play it how you like.
You're not constrained by a linear story, you can go anywhere at anytime, and you can do things however you like. There's no set sequence to it.
The world is huge and immersive, and you can go pretty much anywhere you like. Every now and then you decide to advance one of the story lines. Or not. You can play for 30 minutes, or y
Re: (Score:2)
Skyrim had a story?
It was that thing that happened til the first dragon turned up then they kind of left it by the wayside knowing you'd go kill them all anyway.
ugh (Score:2)
I have not played Destiny yet, but come on man Diablo III is freaking Diablo, its a clicky dungeon crawl, all clicky dungeon crawls are almost identical aside from the story, quality cut scenes, and how much loot n crap are in them
and yet you are acting surprised?
Cheaters, griefers, trolls, and children (Score:5, Insightful)
are bad enough, then being at the mercy of everyone's internet connection is not fun or entertaining in my opinion. Then there is over loaded servers, unexpected maintenance, server crashes all weekend long, and the ultimate end of the servers being shut down. Or at least that was it was like a couple of years ago, when I switched over to casual games to get my fix.
Myst and Riven (Score:5, Insightful)
Those were games designed only for single player, where you relished your loneliness. Beautiful visuals, sound effects and music, intriguing/infuriating puzzles. GOG have them DRM free.
I say single player, but the wife and I played them together.
I got Riven working via wine on my MythBox with a Wii controller so I could play it on my 42 inch plasma with 5.1 sound. Awesome experience.
More restrictive (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, if you don't know how to make an AI then your only choice is only multiplayer. However, I find that multiplayer games tend to have less depth then single-player games. This may not be a problem for first person shooters, but even RTS games have to be simpler when you can't pause (though simpler is not necessarily bad). On the other hand, nobody likes waiting for the other player to take their turn on a game where you aren't pressed for time. MMOs usually have a decent system where you can play alone or with a group at whatever difficulty you choose, but someone seems to have made a rule that all MMOs must be a perpetual grind. Oh, and they also eat more into your real-world social life, as you might notice if you try to interact with someone playing an online game.
Of course, the real reasons developers love multiplayer are pretty obvious. They can have a developer owned server, which guarantees them DRM and also they can kill off the game when it's time to make people buy the sequels. They can sell DLC, or suck micropayments out of people. But you can tell when they're doing it for the community when they allow you to run a server and don't have micropayements.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you don't know how to make an AI then your only choice is only multiplayer.
Look at any major game development and there will be a sea of people working on graphics, cut scenes, animation. And there will be the one guy in the corner who codes the AI. I want games that are the opposite. I have no problem with the original Sim City, Civilization, etc. graphics but after a couple of years of serious AI development to teach the computer how to play a good game, like the old days when people used to code chess and go programs. I know, not going to happen.
thrills (Score:4, Insightful)
The thrill of barking orders at friends can, in a way, cover design flaws.
Different people get thrills in different ways, I guess.
For me the problem is finding a big enough group of friends who are willing to invest in a game AND all will be around to play at the same time. It's enough of a logistical problem that I avoid even making the effort.
No trouble finding single player games.... (Score:5, Informative)
I HATE multiplayer (Score:5, Insightful)
I detest multi-player -- precisely because I hate it when "friends" give me orders when playing a game. Worse, some strangers try to do it. I just never took to that and I really resent it when somone tells me: "do this. Cover that. Kill that." It reduces my enjoyment by 75% at least. There are actually some people who are great "yellers" when they're just on TeamSpeak or one of those but they couldn't do that face-to-face.
I'm not saying it isn't fun for everyone nor that anyone should never try it. Just that **I** don't like doing it and I never buy a game for the multi-player experience. Solo is the way to go for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I found that succeeding at a hard challenge in a good team, with a good leader and everyo
Re:I HATE multiplayer (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen brother!
It is especially bad in MMORPGs. Worst abuse I ever heard was by guild leaders towards other members during raids. It seems being put in some virtual position of authority just brings out the worst in people.
Vote (Score:2)
Multiplayer approximates to lack of content? (Score:2)
Granted there are outliers with my argument - MMOs have "content" in them, and they are a pretty good definition for the current logical extent of multiplayer gaming. But in many cases, the current design trend seems to be to have huge open worlds where the majority of space is filled with nothing or procedurally generated content (thinking of Diablo III), where the goal of that content seems to be just to add hours to the time it takes you to get through the story portions of the game.
Bioware/EA's MMO Star
Single Player Games Abound (Score:2)
There are plenty of single player games out there. All this fussing is unnecessary.
Also, a lot of comments overly exaggerate the multiplayer's negative experience. I understand that there are a lot of douchebags out there but just because you've run into one of them doesn't mean that everyone who enjoys multiplayer games is going give you a world of grief.
Interesting, Maybe they should embrace that (Score:3)
Instead of them writing AI engines to drive NPC battles, have the NPCs be human. You cannot talk or interact with the "protagonist", but you can shoot at him. Maybe by playing NPC long enough, you unlock the game and then You can play the protagonist.
And nothing of value was lost... (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the number of things competing for my eyeballs and dollars these days (tv, movies, games, books, work, children) I have no qualms about 'missing out' on multiplayer-only games.
The times I actually get to sit down and play a game for an hour are few and far between. I play games to get AWAY from people, not socialise and interact with them in a virtual world. I _hate_ multiplayer.
If game developers don't want my money, then that's fine by me.
They'll lose an audience ... (Score:2)
They may not care, because the on-going gouging for multi-player is probably quite lucrative.
But I will not play any form of on-line or multi-player game, unless it all happens in the same room. I want to be able to pick up a game when I have time to kill, and play for a while ... be that an hour or several hours.
Multi-player games have no appea
Solitaire (Score:2)
I guess it's time to start working on my multi-player Solitaire game.
In the past unreal tournament 1 and other TBS game (Score:2)
In the past unreal tournament 1 and other TBS games where cool and had none of this DCL BS.
unreal tournament 1 was cool had lot's of mods, dedicated servers as well (free) I liked to play on the low ping ones.
Peer Marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
Peer Marketing is why so many titles are multiplayer these days. At some point some marking jerk probably noticed, "Hey! When we make solo games, we have to depend on traditional marking techniques which is what we spend most of any game development. We get WAY more marketing out of making a game multiplayer, and then rather than selling one copy, we sell one copy and 5 other copies to all their friends so they can play together. Considering that most people have various circles of friends, this free marking technique is almost limitless!"
This is why. It is also why I got MW2 and MW3, Blackops, Blackops 2, etc... because once one of your friend buys it, if you want to continue to play with them, you all need to go out and upgrade. To put it in real terms, a solo game might make 80$, but a multiplayer will make say 400% that if you have 3 friends that also buy it. Then add whatever friends they have in a snowball effect. Most industries would love someway to sell 20% more of whatever let alone several thousand percent. This is also why to a limited extent why X million go out and buy it day 1, as otherwise you are left out. It also makes sure of continual growth, as any friends that didn't get it right away will have to buy it thereafter. Not to mention the pluses of multiplayer subscription services, the ability to advertise online, etc... continual downloadable content (map packs you need to buy to play with your friends, etc...)... Frankly given the economic of it all it is surprising that any company even bothers to make solo games anymore.
Satre was an embittered multiplayer game player (Score:2)
"Hell is other people."
My current game addiction is WoW. It's explicitly multiplayer, although you can pretend ("the illusion of single-player") that you're playing by yourself for a lot of the play. Until someone ganks you, or starts spamming inane bullshit in the yell channel, or you have to go into a pick-up raid to accomplish something (damn legendary cloak quests).
In that latter case, you run into the worst of people, all in a little 10-player or 25-player microcosm. Narcissistic douchbags, trolls (som
Maybe I'm just odd. (Score:2)
I do not like multi player games much.
However. I love mmorpgs.
SWG was great. the best even. I could even have lived with the changes but the chanegs enrofec multi player. No more could you ger buffed and go out and play on your own.
For me the thing about mmorpgs is not the multiplayer its just the having real people around that is cool.
Yes I do like the occasional team up. But I hate for it to be fopreced.
Am mostyly playing swtor right now. However the foreced need mroe than 1 player parts are annoying. I w
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Summary is ridiculous. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn that must suck. I heard it said that life in the millitary is 95% boredom and 5% sheer terror.
Do you have the ability to have a local LAN going? There must still be some games out there that you can play with your buddies on the ship.
Re:Summary is ridiculous. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of places don't have stable enough connections to rely on for always-on gaming.
Fallout 3+ (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. It is why I enjoy the Fallout universe. Even if parts of the story are frankly lame, the fact I can wander around and find better 'mini stories' and interesting characters makes it worth while. I have finished the game a number of times trying different approaches: piling on individual attributes/skills at the beginning (get to max at agile or intelligence etc, and at small arms or sneak or melee weapons as fast as possible etc), being good, being bad, being neutral, etc. I'm looking forward to the next release.
If they ever do go online, I would prefer being able to be the lone wanderer if I still wish. And as far as the PC/console game, I'd rather not have to always be online. That one thing has been the major reason I don't game very much any more.
Mass-Effect series (Score:2)
But space-sci-fi instead of post-apocalypse.
Playing New Vegas at this moment, BTW.
What I love about these games is that you get 60-70 hrs of gameplay (still way short of my 260 hrs of Skyrim). Even GTA V felt way short with about 45 hrs (although I loved that game as well).
Plus, these games can be picked up for under 10$ on Ebay for the PS3.
Borderlands is next on my list.
What's the gameplay time to beat a FPS in single player mo
Re: (Score:3)
I definitely agree with this. Building a good game requires really good ideas (the game mechanics) and really great content (artwork and writing). These days, it seems to be common to sell a shell of a game and relying on multi-player to make it worth playing. Of course, to sound savvy, you just say you "crowd-sourced" it.
Many indie games have carved out a good niche for themselves by capitalizing on exceptionally creative game mechanics, which is definitely a great thing to see.
Re:Online only gives the illusion of accomplishmen (Score:5, Insightful)
But in a truly single-player game, you are only cheating yourself, so you are probably just reducing your own fun and value.
If you want to cheat to "accomplish" things, then I don't really see the problem. It is just a different way of "playing" the game (albeit probably a less interesting one).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And to whom, exactly, do I need to prove anything?
I play video games to relax, unwind, and kill a few hours. It's recreation. I'ts diversion. It's play.
I neither crave nor care about how other people feel about my success (or suck) at video games.
If I want any of those things, I'll play a round of golf with my friends. And, even then, I don't care about their score ve
Re: (Score:2)
Then maybe this isn't directed at you. No need to defend yourself, but it is still true for a lot of people, even if they don't want to admit it. All I'm saying is that online only has an attraction to people, as it is a safeguard against cheating.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL ... as with anything else, one person's "feature" is another person's PITA.
Which is why I think TFA is kinda pointless ... for the poster, solo play feels empty. For those of us who don't like multiplayer, it seems like a waste of time.
Group A will never convince Group B they're missing anything of value, because the groups value different things.
I know I'm shocked.
Of course, if game publishers lose the plot and forget that not everybody does want multiplayer play, they'll basically lose the segment of
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that as a developer you're screwed either way.
If you require login via a common platform (facebook, google+, etc), people will whine about yet another service that has access to their facebook.
OTOH, if you don't have access via a common platform, you make it more difficult for people to find each other in game, and people will whine that even though it's multiplayer, it's impossible to find your friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Even back in the Atari days, most of the real fun I had was multiplayer. Air/Sea Combat, MULE, etc. Of course back then you also had kids swearing at you, but it's more fun when they're sitting a few feet away.