Gaygamer Editorial: The State of Multiplayer Games
When looking at some of the hottest titles this year, I can't help but think of a growing trend in the industry that has been worrying me for a while now: an emphasis on multiplayer games. Now I'm not necessarily saying that multiplayer games are bad. I've played more than my fair share of Halo 3 online. But at the same time, I wonder about the cost. I didn't touch the single-player campaign until long after I'd bought it, and afterwards was left with an overwhelming feeling of indifference. Are multiplayer games bringing down the single-player experience? My thoughts after the jump.
Maybe this topic has just been on my mind a lot more recently because of all the hype surrounding Resistance 2 and Gears of War 2, so I feel like that's a good place to start. Now, I haven't played either game yet so this is based purely on what I've read in reviews. What I've read in reviews though almost always is praise for the multiplayer. I keep reading about how great the new modes are in Gears 2 or the amazing 60-player multiplayer in Resistance 2. Whenever the campaign mode in Gears 2 is mentioned, it is mentioned in reference to playing it in co-op, and Resistance 2's co-op campaign completely overshadows any mention of the single-player. And for people that want multiplayer this is all great news. But what happens when the rest of the industry sees all of the positive press that multiplayer and co-op games get?
Here's the real problem: gamers have grown to expect multiplayer from all of their games. I remember seeing criticism of games like Bioshock, Metroid Prime 3, and more recently Fallout 3 for their lack of multiplayer. What purpose would the multiplayer serve? The games derive a large amount of their atmosphere and appeal from the sense of isolation you feel while playing. To add multiplayer would undermine so much of the game's core concept. Does anyone remember Metroid Prime 2 and its multiplayer mode? It was fun, but it did not feel at all like it belonged in a Metroid game.
And so now we see multiplayer shoehorned into games that it probably doesn't belong in. Resident Evil 5 namely. Resident Evil is much like the aforementioned games in that while the atmosphere and sense of dread are helped by the panic of being surrounded by the infected villagers, that sense of panic is only there because you know that there is nobody else to help you. Or at least that's how it was in Resident Evil 4. And since Resident Evil 5 looks to follow in 4's footsteps in almost every way, I am worried about the inclusion of co-op and what it will do the fear factor of the survival horror game. And then what if I were to play the game in single-player? Will Capcom not focus on the second character's AI because of the expectation to play with another person? At that point the second character becomes a hindrance on the game, and raises the question of whether the second character needs to be added at all.
I am not saying that there is anything inherently wrong with multiplayer games. But at the same time, not every game needs to be a multiplayer game. I'm encouraged by seeing games like Fallout 3 and Mirror's Edge that are unapologetically single-player games. At the same time, I'm encouraged by games like Left 4 Dead, which is an unapologetically multiplayer game. More developers need to take a step back from the industry and sales and ask themselves "does multiplayer belong in this game?" Or even ask "does single-player belong in this game?" Both are very different play styles, and don't necessarily belong together. Sometimes it's better to do just one thing, and do it really well, than to try and do too much and have a part of the game seem weaker as a result.
NaviFairy
Posted to Video Games on 7 November 2008
· Comments (10)
Other stuff like this: editorial, multiplayer, single player
I have to be the only person that wished for single player content in Left 4 Dead. Don't get my wrong, it's a fun game if you have friends, but really wish there some form of single player content, even if it came in a significantly reduced state. Like a survival mode holding down one location or something relatively small like that using existing levels.
I'd say the same thing with Warhawk. It's a great game, but needed a little bit of single player content, like a tutorial on how to control the different types of vehicles and basic target practice. Though the demo that came out months after the initial release addressed some of these nit picks.
Very interesting take on this subject and I quite agree. It seems more and more of the gaming community come to expect multiplayer and/or co-op. I also agree it could possibly be a disturbing trend in the long run - hindering amazing games by criticism where it doesn't belong (Fallout 3 or even Fable 2, for that matter). Fable 2 has multiplayer but because it did not meet everyone's expectations, the game is being blasted by the fans.
I will ALWAYS prefer a single player campaign. I actually made the mistake of purchasing 2 games for the PS3 that were mutliplayer ONLY. WTF?!
I don't mind if games have a multiplayer mode or co-op. In fact I enjoy several games online with others, but it damn well better have a single player campaign too - and not one thrown in half-assed at the last minute to appease us who prefer the solo mode.
Until the multiplayer community grows up and matures (never gonna happen)... I'll keep playing my games by myself.
I certainly prefer single player games. Maybe it's generational, having grown up on single player PC games. I can play and enjoy multiplayer, but only when I'm playing with a friend sitting on the couch next to me. Online is so remote and impersonal and tends to be too immature.
I'm not a big online/multi guy either and I too get a little aggravated that developers are slighting the single player experience for the online. The time when it really bothers me though? When games that you can play just fine on your own include achievements/trophies that you can only earn in online multiplayer ("Castle Crashers," I'm looking at you). I don't even have my 360 connected to the internet most of the time so this becomes a huge pain in the ass very quickly.
Online can be fun, but I prefer it when played with friends and co-workers, people I know and trust.
I was playing Resistance 2 yesterday and was not only frustrated at my unknown teammates' inability to play properly, but also their immaturity. I thought I had gotten away from the Halo Kids when I bought my PS3, but sadly, such is not the case.
What the game developers don't understand is that there are those of us out here who enjoy the 30-40 hour long campaign single player. The rich storylines, the interesting characters, the deep immersion, all seem to be lost on today's gaming scene. In general, I think the gaming market as a whole is moving away from single player in the hopes that players will pay incrementally to continue playing their favorite games online, whether it be with DLC or expansion packs. While expansion packs for single player are common, there's not as much of a draw to them. If I don't want to play the Shivering Isles and my friends do, then I won't get it, but if my guild is going to get Wrath of the Lich King, then I kind of have to.
The simple fact of the matter is that the core demographic the majority of action game makers are going for, the 16-24 market, doesn't want storyline. For the most part, it's full of A.D.D.'d up sugar-zombies who don't want to read or learn or think, they just want to point at a target and pull a trigger. Maybe I'm a little cynical when it comes to games, but having worked in the retail end of the gaming business for 2 and a half years now, it has become rather apparent.
"The simple fact of the matter is that the core demographic the majority of action game makers are going for, the 16-24 market, doesn't want storyline. For the most part, it's full of A.D.D.'d up sugar-zombies who don't want to read or learn or think, they just want to point at a target and pull a trigger."
BINGO. Unfortunately, those of us with more disposable income are left in the dust.
I've met alot of my friends online and even my boyfriend, but I can understand the other side too. Before I played my first online game, I loved single player games, I still do, but I love the experience you can have with random people(sometimes not so much, I'm looking at you halo 3 kids) online. I'm all for online and/or multiplayer support as long as they don't sacrifice the single player experience because of it, and I think Metroid prime 2 might have.
As a person who doesn't like multi player games except if the other people are in the room with me, I loathe the direction games are taking. I have only just recently hooked my 360 up to my dsl to get MM9, Braid & some things for Oblivion & Bioshock. I then unhooked it after I was done. I have occasionally thought of FF11 & WoW & the like but don't think I'll ever get them.
Hey guys...I saw a video on this site and wanted to check it out. I noticed a post about how multiplayer games are bringing down single player experience. My opinion is infact opposite. I don't think the single player experience is hindered by the multiplayer games. Really its just two styles of play. Single player games are fun but the AI on most games is predictable. Multiplayer games have a different feel because its a human being on the other end...not some artificial intelligence, you cant really predict what the other guy is going to do but also can be frusturating. They both have there ups and downs. What I notice is happening with the games is that the Dev's that design the game are making them more for multiplayer use and that the game plot and creativity is not really emphasized in single user campaign. I think Gears of war for the xbox360 and maybe Halo 1 or 2 were the last really good games. Now with the multiplayer games, they are all becoming the same. Multiplayers are starting to sell out as well. I find myself more interested in other aspects of the game (FMV, Realistic Graphics...etc.) then the actual game itself. And that multiplayer is becoming more about socializing, than about the game
Good article. I was starting to think I'm too left behind in my reluctance to fully embrace MMO-what-have-yous.
Though having play-time with others is fun, it doesn't have to be that way all the time in all the games. Plus being in a different time-zone altogether means that sometimes it's really inconvenient to have teamed up (referring to MMORPGs) with someone who by chance is just waking up, when I am getting ready to bed.
It scares me sometimes how much socialising on-line is celebrated. I mean, it's temptingly easier to befriend someone on-line sometimes, sure you'll meet a nice person or two, but I'd rather actually go out and meet people.