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
NO its not. Offline use will ALWAYS be important. Unless you get ISPs to offer 5 sigma SLAs to home consumers as a standard part of service, offline modes will remain important.
Good-bye
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 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."
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.
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).
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.
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.
Lots of places don't have stable enough connections to rely on for always-on gaming.
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.
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.
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.