Slashdot Mirror
The Growing Illusion of Single Player Gaming
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."
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.
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.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Hard-core gamers will laugh, but I bought Titanfall for Xbox One thinking 'Hey, cool, what a great looking first-person game." I get home with the disc and find out (a) there is no way to play alone, and (b) I needed an Xbox Gold account to even go online and play with others. Apparently I'm the only one on earth who doesn't like multi-player and has zero interest in playing a game with a bunch of random strangers on the Internet, so for me the game is effectively useless. And what really bugged me was that it was not at all clear on the game packaging that it was mutli-player ONLY and absolutely required Xbox Gold to play. Even reviews I read online didn't make that explicitly clear - I assumed Titanfall would be like Halo or Call of Duty: sure there's mutli-player, but you also get a game to play yourself. Now I see something like Destiny and I fear the same thing happening (and from reading the linked article it sounds like single player is there, but not well thought out). Is the first-person shooter market really so heavily focused on multi-player that those of us with no interest in that feature will eventually be shut out of playing the latest games?
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.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
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.
When I game, it's usually as a form of escapism and distraction - I don't want to play with my friends all the time. Rather, I'm after fun game with a great story. That's why games like Arkham Asylum, Skrim and Deus Ex are brilliant: become immersed in a world, enjoy a story comparable to a movie, and not deal with people for a little while.
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
So I'm not going to even bother RTFA.
multiplayer mode. (Think always-online DRM, and games as services
lolwat
Uh, DRM is not "multiplayer".
Games as services is not "multiplayer".
It's 2014 and we as a society are connected 24/7; time to let the panties untwist about how butthurt you are that you can't play Call of Simtastic Warfightinworld V: New San Post-apocalyptic Petersburg without an Internet connection.
There was a time when the story was key, and good engaging content or story would cause gamers to forgive the lack of eye-candy or bleading-edge utilisation of the latest hardware. Hell, we would even forgive the odd bug or three.
Anybody remember Planescape Torment?
Now it's eye-candy, and technical wizardry, at the expense of content. :"We need some budget to develop content or story."
Developed by drones, for suits. No gaming passion.
I can just see how it goes....
Developer drone
Suit : "No you don't. The graphics are pretty, and there's multiplayer. Let the players talk amongst themselves, while looking at the colours, and the dumn-asses will believe it's content. Save us a packet coming up with original material."
I am hoping that the Indie Games will fill the single player void.
They lack the budget for leading-edge development, but have the passionate people who can provide top class content.
Think back to the NES or Sega game consoles and there was no way to play online, which forced friends to come over to your house to play together... single player side scrollers were more fun when your friends were there to watch you play and wait for their turn to play. There aren't many games where you play solo and get enjoyment... you want human interaction for increased enjoyability. Who the hell plays madden football solo? If you do play solo, do you trash talk yourself? Game developers were always aware of the human factor of playing games... even at the arcade there was a second joystick for the second player (ie. Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, etc.) So I ask you, what do you mean by growing illusion of single player gaming???
Targeted marketing is the real reason behind "multiplayer" in games and they do it so they can collect data on your usage habits while the advertising bubble is still strong.
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?
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.
lucm, indeed.
This article is a good example of how pathetic the idea of a "gaming journalist" really is. Lots of fluff and suggestion of a problem that doesn't really exist in the first place. Single player games have always been popular and continue to do so even with games that have absolutely zero netcode (e.g. Skyrim). Games like those mentioned in the article are clearly focused on multiplayer and the prospective buyer would be aware of this if they're an educated purchaser.
It's only a "growing illusion" if it satisfies the moron writing this article to say it is so.
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.
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.
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.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Try the game called "coding", it has rich scenarios and many levels of gaming.
Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, Civilization, Banner Saga, FTL, GTA V, Skyrim, Fallout (all of them), ALL my iPad games, Stick of Truth, Torchlight, Banish......ETC. Basically, if you pull your gaze away from the "AAA" titles, you'll find a plethora of compelling and fun single player games.
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.
Quake 3 was the first FPS I can recall that went the whole "multiplayer only" route and one of the main reasons I became turned off from the whole Quake series--well, that and the jump pad gave me bad deja vu of ROTT.
On a quirky side note, I was one the people who loved playing the RTCW multiplayer beta (Quake 3 engine)--nothing like flamethrower lag even on a T3--and the multiplayer aspect of it really did sell me on the game--although RTCW has a rather nice single player game which is actually a separate standalone game.
So, in a lot of ways it was never that the game required multiplayer. It's that it had to be fun. It's just that a given random game that has multiplayer over the internet has, like you said, a lot of random strangers. If it's a wide enough played game--like Titanfall--then you get a cross-section of gamers and that's a general mess of inconsistency. If it's a tight-knit community of gamers, then that community effectively defines if it's a fun game or not (and then it's a matter of playing a demo version to see what the community is like). But if you have a single player game, you can have a reviewer actually play the game and give you an idea if that alone is fun so you don't have to worry at all that the community might go from good to bad or be flaky at certain hours or whatever.
tl; dr - This is an old problem, and I don't think multiplayer will ever fully supplant the demand for a predictable single player experience that reviews can sell people on. Oh, and play OpenArena. :)
The problem with non-online only games, is that you can't prove that you accomplished anything in it, since it is so much easier to cheat.
Yes, people can cheat in multiplayer games, but there is a sense that there is a limit to how much you can cheat, and you know that those that do cheat risk getting banned.
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).
I'm fine with the move towards group play, but how hard is it to allow friend lists to be generated within a game rather than outsourced to a social network that some of us may not be interested in the participation of (for me, Facebook. ) it may be very hard (I am no developer) I'm just curious.
ALl this talk of multiplayer sounds awfully FPS-centric. Try a card game (Spectromancer) based on Magic-the-Gathering, designed with Richard Garfield, and MTG art assets. No micro-transactions, no further purchases beyond the $20 up-front cost. And if $20 is too much, play single-player-only for free on Kongregate.
A game can last anywheres from 2 mins to 30, with the average of about 5-8mins.
With your wallet. Buying multiplayer games is not mandatory in these enlightened days. Feel free to, as lucm's sailor said it, give it a wide berth.
I used some cheats to get past a bit in KOTOR 2, the save screenshot was forever branded with cheat across it. Almost restarted the game to get rid of it.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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 Wars The Old Republic is a counter to that - 8 huge personal (single player, in a multiplayer world) storylines, one for each basic character class, with minimal and entirely optional multiplayer content until you get to the endgame, at which point it becomes almost totally about multiplayer in a traditional MMO grind-fest for gear. World of Warcraft has a similar setup. Those "theme-park" games are typically a linear exploration of content that the developers have implemented.
At the other end of the scale, the sandbox MMOs (EVE Online, or reaching back in time to the pre-"New Game Enhancements" Star Wars Galaxies, and even titles like Minecraft) can be played alone but are much more entertaining when experienced as part of a group or larger community, because there is typically little or no story-driven content designed for solo play.
Sandbox versus theme-park is not in itself a good/bad argument - I spent an insane amount of time in Star Wars Galaxies and EVE Online, and loved the completely open freedom to "write my own story" they offered. I also enjoy the theme park games and the chance to experience a well-crafted story.
However with the sandbox, the developer does not need to spend as much time creating content as for the theme park, because the sandbox players' creative tendencies will generate more stories than the developer ever could, and those stories will be personal to the player and therefore more compelling. It means that the developer can be lazy if they want to, or free them up to refine other areas without having to devote time and effort to developing content.
The wonderful thing about offline single-player games, is that I don't want to prove anything to anybody but myself. I've never been interested in badges/achievements/awards/trophies for carrying around a garden gnome for the entire game (although I was impressed when I saw someone else do it), maybe I'm just playing for the sake of exploring a virtual world. The accomplishment is the cutscene at the end and knowing that even if I had to drop the difficulty level for a few minutes because some game designer threw an out-of-place jumping puzzle into the middle of a smoothly-flowing game (or more realistically in the case of something like Fallout, a gamebreaking bug!), I got to fix the bug and was able to proceed through the remaining 20 hours of storyline/content at my own pace.
never have, never will. I'm probably saying I'm old, but I mostly enjoy solo campaigns. I grew with Atari, Coleco, Intelevision, Nintendo and so on. Playing a FPS with kids swearing at you it's not my idea of a videogame. I prefer a good solo player campaign anytime.
I'll admit up front, I don't enjoy multiplayer games. I think another aspect to the single vs multiplayer argument for me is keeping faithful to the story/mood/atmosphere of the game. Say I'm playing a game that's about a group of soldiers, if the other people don't get into the right mindset or 'play the part', then that will completely pull you out of the believability of the situation. At least half decent AI can 'play the part' of a soldier, thereby keeping you in the moment and maintaining a (somewhat) believable situation. Of course terrible AI can also completely take you out of the moment too! I guess like other posters, it's about escapism rather than a social fix for me.
Remember when games had good bots that would make a game feel less empty in solo games?
Remember when they didn't die constantly?
Remember when you just had people blindly follow you, like in RPGs? These days the main character has opened a hole in himself so big they absorbed the others.
What the fuck happened?
Are there that little good AI developers in the industry now that they just ditch bots entirely?
The number of bot-based co-op single player games dropped drastically the last generation onwards for some reason, despite multicore being insanely better for AI. (especially in PS3s case when you unroll)
I can think back to the immense fun I had in things like Timesplitters and hell, even Socom, generation later, where the videogames?!
Fallout is one of the few that actually have reasonably decent gameplay in that regard, even if that floating dick does things wrong so much.
Looks like someone put the Welsh dictionary in to Slashdots CAPTCHA system: jjjxjwo
The only multiplayer that got it right. I think the first mistake his having a microphone. Only give a limited text box to limit spam messages. Give the hosting player all the authority to boot people from the game immediately if they are obnoxious. Provide a very compelling game experience that isn't too frustrating if you lose. Too bad the old days are long gone.
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.
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.
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.
Depends on the game. Lots of games have a lot of "grinding" to stretch out the time it takes to play through the game. This grinding is put in between the fun parts, and sometimes, unless you play 10 hours a day, you're never going to get good enough twitch reflexes to ever get to the next fun part.
Example: I own Gran Turismo 1-2-3 and 4 (the Other OS fiasco happened right about the time GT5 came out). In each version, I got as far as getting a Honda NSX, before putting the game on the shelf. With Gran Turismo 4, I ended up downloading a savegame with almost every car unlocked. Suddenly I could get to all the fun parts, without spending years trying to get through the grinding. I have two savegames, my old one for playing Gran Turismo Mode, and the unlocked one for playing Arcade Mode. The Gran Turismo one hasn't been used since I put the game on the shelf the first time, where as I've probably played Arcade Mode with all cars unlocked as much after getting the save game, as I spent getting to the NSX before.
Some people like the grinding parts and thinks that skipping them would ruin the fun. For me, the grinding is what prevents me from getting to the fun parts of the game. To each his own.
Not particularly impressed when the gnome thing is in a coop game (L4D2), it means that during all game you had a useless player the rest of the team had to kept alive (to be fair the achievement went to the entire team).
My beef with the achievements is that some are stupid and detrimental to the team and a player trying to accomplish them is going to be a big liability (in the same game: Septic Tank, Confederacy of Crunches, Guarding Gnome). And worse than that, it actively encourages people to do stupid things in a regular basis, not just to get the achievement (Septic Tank is earned by throwing a bile jar to the most powerful enemy. That causes a horde to temporarily attack it, then it turns back on the players that now have to fight the tank, plus the horde)
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 appeal to me whatsoever, and my XBox 360 hasn't been connected to a network in a very long time and won't ever be again. The first time I saw ads in the games was the last time the XBox saw the network, because I realized that on-line gaming was to give them even more money.
When microsoft said the XBone needed to always be connected to the internet they lost a potential customer. No way I'll own it now. And, at this point, I've lost track if that's even the case or not, Microsoft has flip-flopped so many times.
Give me a title like Skyrim, or Portal, or even a Tiger Woods golf game. But when the day comes there are no console games which I can play entirely offline, I will no longer own a console. It's as simple as that.
I'm old, I'm slow, and I lack the mad skills to play against other people. That pretty much sucks all the fun out of a video game for me, and I'm not paying extra for the privilege of getting my ass handed to me by a smarmy 10 year old.
They may not be as aware of people who play offline games, and the people who do may not generate the on-going revenue. But I'm betting there's a lot of people who don't play on-line games, and they have no way of knowing just how much those get played.
So, for the gaming companies ... ignore the offline, single player market at your peril.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Along the same line (and from the same company) are the Mass-Effect series.
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 mode? 10 hrs max ???
I guess it's time to start working on my multi-player Solitaire game.
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.
spend time with other people, I wouldn't be playing video games.
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 prevent this on my computer that something outside the game breaks.
For symmetric competitive games, things like arena-based FPS or RTS genres, the "single player" has been going up against bots on PCs since at least the days of Quake 3 Arena, which was around the turn of the century. The big RTSes of that era often had some sort of contrived plot and a series of preplanned missions, but the replay value as a single player was all in open gaming against bots. In each case, playing against real people on-line was always the natural successor; this is not a new thing.
But there used to be asymmetric games as well, where the storyline and gameworld made for a much more compelling experience that could feel more like being in an interactive movie than playing round 17 of laser tag. Classics like the Baldur's Gate series or the original Deus Ex come immediately to mind. They avoided the boredom of facing what you called "pattern AIs" by having actual progression through the game, so the situations and capabilities you'd face would be changing. You can't really do this in a multiplayer gameworld when everyone wants to start with everything and the game only ships with 2 maps. (*97 more maps are available as DLC. Payment required.)
AIs have improved since those days anyway, but the biggest problem for single-player gaming is that the industry has so completely given up on games that require actual progression and development that fighting AIs on the same handful of maps is all the replay value they've got.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Destiny I just won't play because of the online requirement, and lack of content.
If the games description mentions multiplayer in the first sentence.. I dont buy the game.
Simple as that.
I just assume that its all the game does, and fuck that, multiplayer sucks.
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/
Twinstiq, game news
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 versus mine. Because that too is recreation and I'm under no illusions I'll ever be any good.
So, if you need to measure yourself against people who have 12 hours a day to play that game, by all means, go ahead. But for many of us, that's the last thing we care about in video games. In fact, that's exactly why we don't play on-line games.
Not all of us care about competition. For some of us, the play is the rewarding part, no matter how good or bad we are at it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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 the market which doesn't play those titles.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
"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 (some of whom are actually trolls), lazy asses who expect you to carry them, clueless weiners who don't understand the fight and can't be troubled to learn...
Too bad for me I actually enjoy the game, except for the parts where the "multiplayer" part ruins the rest.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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 wish i could turn them off so i do not see them.
I also think to much is put into multiplayerism bits.
But eh, such is.
+----------------- | What is the question!
I use Steam. No problem with their type of DRM and online requirements for me to useir single-player games.
However, I refuse to play in co-op, because the other players are inevitably foul-mouthed 15-year-olds that can squash me like a bug, or stab me in the back.
It's fun for them, but not for me. I'm 52, and love gaming, but not in a co-op world. I have spent a LOT of money on gaming. Much more than said 15-year-olds.
If all the new games force co-op, then I really am done gaming.
Pity.
I know your types.
The game doesn't make you feel like you're super best so you don't want to play. It's fine if an AI kills you, but if a player does, your ego is too sensitive for it.
I love multiplayer FOR the challenge. AI are repetitive, predictable, and just a small puzzle once beaten doesn't change. I lose, I win, I laugh, I cry, I rage, they rage, it's all good.
Players on the other hand, although some you definitely mute, will come up with new strategies and tactics, making the game a challenge.
Stop being a care bear and crying because you are not the best at something.
Play it for the challenge, not the ego stroking.
I would stay there are still plenty that prefer single player over multiplayer. Being multiplayer dose not cover up bad game play, it is just fun playing with friends, even when the game is not good.
Who cares about always on DRM, people are always on-line anyway. In D3 nothing really changes between single or mulitplayer other then talking to people. If you make a game where it is only multiplayer, you are dooming your game as soon as fans stop playing the game. There are a few games on steam that look fun, but for being multiplayer only and no one plays the game, so no point in buying the game since you can't play it.
Someone is playing the wrong games then. I haven't touched vapid crap like Destiny.
I know, isp's(pricing, throttling, caps, shitty speeds,) and u.s government(nsa agency) are ruining the internet experience. But, having single and multiplayer options in a game extends the gameplay value. The best thing about multiplayer is you play with and against other players and not some bot with limited AI. I like both worlds.
I really don't care much about graphics these days anyway, they all(xbox 360 -> one, ps3 ->ps4) look damn awesome anyway, I'm more interested about the gameplay and the longevity of it. For crying out loud I still play mame, 8 - 64 bit console emulators, dolphin, pcsx, pcsx2 games.
I did it in a lab with people I could see and after we got done frag'n each other we'd go out for beer and cheese steaks during my college days. Today not so much because control isn't with me as much as it used to be because of centralized servers for DRM and micro-transactions.
Diablo was literally always a multiplayer game, so it's a terrible example. So is Destiny. It's not a game pretending to be single player, it's a game intended to be played online only. The fact that they put in single player is an attempt to appease the 5 people in the world who still refuse to be social. In the case of Diablo, it was definitely less fun single player. It's entire appeal (Not D3) was to grab 3 friends and LAN that shit, because it was fun.
So, to get into the guts of Destiny, it really requires you to play with others. What sucks about this is that most of those people are my coworkers and family (random screaming teens are not an option for me). Kinda makes it hard to play hookey from work when my activities are splashed all over the feed!
The only multiplayer game, if you can even call it that, I've even remotely enjoyed in the modern era was Journey. If you were online at times another random player would show up in your game. No voice chat, and no real way to communicate with them other then little musical sounds your characters could make. You didn't have to travel with them and there was nothing essential to progress about working with the other player; they were just another random traveler that showed up to accompany you on an otherwise solitary journey. Maintaining close contact with another player could cause your powers to recover more quickly iirc.
It was a neat addition to an interesting little game, but that was from an indie studio, not a hyped, big budget FPS. It was a great experience when compared with learning new racial slurs from children with too much time on their hands that is a normal multiplayer environment.
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.
But without some well-known studios, where are developers going to earn their experience and "pay their dues," to to speak, so that they can start a competent indie studio?
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.
Then your game's matchmaking is poorly designed. Tetris DS, at least, used to use something similar to Elo rating to separate the casuals from the hardcores.
Games like Kingdoms of Amalur come out but then sht happens.
You could always plug two to four gamepads and a TV into your gaming box and play multiplayer in person. Offline multiplayer usually has a pause function, so long as your group can agree on when to use it respectfully.
I've literally never had a problem finding single player games. Sure, most if not all of them have a multiplayer component but its entirely optional.
System Shock 1 and 2, Deus Ex 1, 2, crappy 3 and even The Fall, Every ninja gaiden, Every elder scrolls, every fallout, BioShock 1, 2, infinite, every Devil May Cry, every Resident Evil including the multiplayer ones (not ORC so much), Fatal Frame, Silent Hill, Amnesia, Outlast, Sunless Sea, Waking Mars, Oddworld, KoA, Brutal Legend, Assassin's Creed.....
I literally have so many primarily single player games out of my 1000 games that I can't even name them all without sitting down and grabbing my Raptr profile and making a spreadsheet. Dating from the 80s to 2014. So, bullshit.
Some people like team sports some people like individual sports and some people do a bit of both. I prefer individual sports and surprisingly I also like single player games.
Are you kidding? That's absolute bullshit. The only games where you can cheat and still get achievements are made by Bethesda (on PC anyway). Other than that no there's no official recognition but cheating is far less common than you think in most PC games. Most of them, outside of Sims and city builders, give you no reason to cheat.
The only thing I don't like about the illusion is I have been stuck playing as a Goomba for a long time, and I'm getting tired of just walking slowly in one direction and trying to avoid being stomped on. I want to buy a shell and be able to get jumped on and slide around but it takes a long time to save up that kind of coin. The more advanced players just fireball me and I go bankrupt with healthcare. My boss just burns me as well.
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.
This.
I play X3 Terran Conflict on occasion. I also use Cycrow's cheat script because, well because I like the game but dont want to spend umpteen thousand hours flying cargo around. People who complete missions like the Hub without cheating must have the patience of a saint and no life (and no doubt they're out there). I find 95% of the game fun, I like flying around, exploring, combat but hate the repetition and grinding.
Also, if you've got a big monitor, you can get a mod that lets you play the TC missions in AP so you get the bigger and more eye friendly interface.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.