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
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!
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
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.
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 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.
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.
Why do you have to go to external sources to find information on a games requirements? It should be clearly stated on the box.
I'm in the Navy. I have long stretches (sometimes months in length) where the only internet access I have is on government owned computers sharing a relatively low bandwidth connection with 300 other people. My in-laws live in an area where there is no option besides dialup or cellular. Not everyone is connected 24/7, but I guess we don't have any place to complain about not being able to play modern single-player games.
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).
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.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.