Death of Single Player?

[Eedo Baba]

In the past ten or so years, gaming has been going through some changes that I don't like. Publishers and developers are forgoing a lengthy and well made single player game, to make a mostly multiplayer based game instead. These changes I'll admit are still only beginning. We still have some great single player games out there. But the changes in publishers recognition of multiplayer as being more profitable are turning the tables. Games like Call of Duty show that lots of people will shell out 60 dollars yearly for a repackaged game built around online multiplayer. This disturbs me.

I don't enjoy online multiplayer in general. I like to play through an engaging storyline and be immersed in a world that feels real, and feel that I fill an important place in this world through my role as the main character.

Now, if this online multiplayer movement wasn't affecting single player games, then I would be fine. They'd play what they do and I'd play what I do. But it's not.

Publishers choose to fund multiplayer based games because they're faster and cheaper to make, and they reel in different consumers who are willing to pay for a repackaged game yearly. A great single player game is less likely to be funded when pitted against a multiplayer game, in the eyes of a publisher executive.

Think about it. When, since around Half Life 2, have we seen a single player only game with such a lengthy campaign, which not only kept the gameplay going, but kept it engaging and evolving as the player progressed?

 

As I said, this movement disturbs me. Even Valve has said that they probably won't release a solely single player game again. I'm starting to fear for the state of my favorite type of game.

[doom44]

Singleplayer FTW!

[The Scoutman]

I dont see no change,i mean,they are perfecting the multiplayer system and implementing it on almost every game,but as long THERE IS A SINGLE PLAYER MODE i wont get mad at the multiplayer system

[ProHypster]

I dont see no change,i mean,they are perfecting the multiplayer system and implementing it on almost every game,but as long THERE IS A SINGLE PLAYER MODE i wont get mad at the multiplayer system

 

If you can call the "Missions, killing russian bots" a decent Single player mode in Call of Duty..... well no, it's not, imo. It's more like an arcade game except it is much "better" graphics although much worse gameplay. Arcade games belong to Duke, Doom, Blood, those are excellently made with appropriate graphics, humour, secrets, music and lots of enemies. Don't try to make an arcade game into a serious, real-life situation single player with one type of smart enemy and modern graphics, it looks wrong.

 

I believe that what is happening is that the single player campaign is being replaced by single player missions which are easier to make, although the big minority big companies do concentrate on multiplayer now, (mainly because EA releases 50 % of games and consists of 3000 programmers and no story maker ) . I've noticed there is two changes in the single player concentrating companies nowadays, it is either becoming 3rd view (WHICH IMO HAS AN UNREALISTIC FEEL TO IT AND A LOT OF THESE ALSO CONCENTRATE ON SOME CHECKPOINT/MISSIONARY MOVEMENT INSTEAD OF AN ACTUAL SINGLE PLAYER, SO PLEASE STOP DOING THIS COMPANIES!) or role-playing which just cannot replace a decent single player with campaigns (By this I mean Fallout, and even the character building parts of Stalker, just aren't nearly as good as half-life 1 even, I don't care about the skills I've chosen and the building of the character, I mean wth, I don't want to play life from the beggining, where the hell is the adventure, all I do is roam around a city most of the time, there is no suspense either, just countless hours wasted). I still haven't played Doom 3 to the end but that's the last game I've played which is decent single player along with Stalker and both got under rated by Call of Duty series/Halo as these two are under rating other games even now.

 

So I'm either waiting for Id interactive and Valve or I'm playing my classic arcade games as I played hl1 over 50 times (for real) and I'm tired of the same story, and I just can't play that engine anymore as I saw some pretty bad flaw which is you can just jjump on the enemy and it will not respond (ruined my gameplay). Maybe I'll replay Half-life 2 for the 4th time again, replay addons and mods for Hl1, wait for other mods Hl2, and Hl1, Finish Doom3. But I do not have time for games anyways so I'm not too bothered right now. I will not play any other roleplaying or 3rd view bullshit, I do not have the time nor the interest.

 

EDIT: About the missions gameplay, I'm not talking about Battlefield Single player, those are "battlefield" style and concentrate on tactics and don't need any story, they are pretty fun.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[ProHypster]

Also, it could have something to with the players nowadays, a great game will require some input from the player. For example not everyone can get into the civilization series, it requires one to be interested in the topic and be smart and understand the game fully and willing to learn about the strategy. Maybe most people nowadays are too lazy and just want to kill people in a game already .....

I mean before 2000 most PC gamers were adults, now on the average it's 12 year olds.

It's the popularization of the computer that could've changed, we could be experiencing mainstream multiplayer take over of classical gaming.

 

Almost feel like this belongs to my Pop Culture and it's effects thread.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Honestly, WHAT shift to multiplayer? Almost every game I've played lately has had its focus on the single player. Portal 2, Bulletstorm, Need For Speed Hot Pursuit, all of them I've played have I played mostly single player. Maybe I'm just not into CoD, WoW or other multiplayer titles enough to speak for the mainstream but honestly, I don't feel any shift at all. Single player games are still as important as ever.

[Axeldeath]

"I mean before 2000 most PC gamers were adults, now on the average it's 12 year olds."

 

Lolno, average age of a gamer is 30, consoles and PC's

[ProHypster]

"I mean before 2000 most PC gamers were adults, now on the average it's 12 year olds."

 

Lolno, average age of a gamer is 30, consoles and PC's

 

 

Form an article about social gaming:

 

If you think that those silly social games like Farmville and Mafia Wars are full of teenagers, you're only half right. The average player of social games is actually younger than previously believed, according to a new study, but a little older than teenage: 29 in the US and 27 in the EU. That's an interesting conclusion, especially since the average gamer is actually a little older than that (s/he was 30 a few years ago and has been getting steadily older since then), and most people believe that social gamers on Facebook tend to skew even older.

 

This survey by GamesIndustry.com, however, goes against that grain, and claims that while there are more females playing these games than males, they tend to be younger than expected. Peter Warman of that site says that the reason for this is that most such surveys don't poll any lower than age 18: "It is therefore not at all surprising that their average age is extraordinarily high ... Data from kids and teens is vital and should always be taken into account."

 

If these surveys aren't representing anyone below age 18, then it's possible gamers, especially those playing social games on Facebook and elsewhere, are even younger than anyone's guessed previously.

[ProHypster]

My point of that post was that studies are inaccurate as hell, how many teens/tweens/children do you expect to find and actually care about this poll on the internet for example:

 

A new study by research firm NPD has found that the average age of gamers is now 32.

 

The report, titled Gamer Segmentation 2010, is based on an online survey completed by nearly 19,000 people. It found that the oldest gamers, with an average age of 42, fit into the Avid PC Gamers and Offline PC Gamers categories.

[Jek Jek Roo]

Singleplayer is good, and multi is sometimes funny

[BTGBullseye]

Singleplayer has the issue of, it will always be the same, no matter what. Multiplayer on the other hand does not have that issue... Everything is always different, the player almost never comes over that hill at the exact same spot, the guns usually are different, and you lose far more often.

 

However, the majority of companies seem to have come to the conclusion that "If you put in a crappy multiplayer aspect, people will pay more for a far worse singleplayer game", and unfortunately CoD MW2/Blops has supported this conclusion.

 

There are a few games that have however done well in adding the multiplayer to their previously SP-exclusive games... Like AC:B, and (hopefully) DX:HR...

 

My point of that post was that studies are inaccurate as hell, how many teens/tweens/children do you expect to find and actually care about this poll on the internet?

When I was under 18, I always put my age as 18-20 since most online things will mark you as a minor, and will never change it, despite exceeding that magical number. (most minors do the same when signing up for games)

[Kirkreng]

When, since around Half Life 2, have we seen a single player only game with such a lengthy campaign, which not only kept the gameplay going, but kept it engaging and evolving as the player progressed?

 

Bioshock, anyone? The first one that is, the second one did have multi-player and that sadly wasn't such a good thing. Then again the BS2 was developed by a different company than BS1.

[Eedo Baba]

When, since around Half Life 2, have we seen a single player only game with such a lengthy campaign, which not only kept the gameplay going, but kept it engaging and evolving as the player progressed?

 

Bioshock, anyone? The first one that is, the second one did have multi-player and that sadly wasn't such a good thing. Then again the BS2 was developed by a different company than BS1.

 

The reason I personally wasn't taking into account Bioshock is because I think it's pretty overrated. But that's a discussion for another time. Anyway, Bioshock is a good example of what I'm talking about. The first was a well received single player game, but for the second one, likely the publisher requested it's sequel to have a multiplayer component. I read an article once about how a publisher executive thought Dead Space was a bad game because it "lacked multiplayer". Guess what he had the developer do for the sequel?

(though to be honest I'm not knocking Dead Space 2's single player. It was better than the original imo, and worth the 50~ dollars I paid for it. My point is that it's an example of the publisher's shifting focus, not the developers.)

 

Also, I may have badly stated my point in the original post. I'm not saying that no great single player games come out. I'm saying that these changes are just starting to happen.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[The Scoutman]

For example not everyone can get into the civilization series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiHDmyhE1A

FTW

[Kirkreng]

When, since around Half Life 2, have we seen a single player only game with such a lengthy campaign, which not only kept the gameplay going, but kept it engaging and evolving as the player progressed?

 

Bioshock, anyone? The first one that is, the second one did have multi-player and that sadly wasn't such a good thing. Then again the BS2 was developed by a different company than BS1.

 

The reason I personally wasn't taking into account Bioshock is because I think it's pretty overrated. But that's a discussion for another time. Anyway, Bioshock is a good example of what I'm talking about. The first was a well received single player game, but for the second one, likely the publisher requested it's sequel to have a multiplayer component. I read an article once about how a publisher executive thought Dead Space was a bad game because it "lacked multiplayer". Guess what he had the developer do for the sequel?

(though to be honest I'm not knocking Dead Space 2's single player. It was better than the original imo, and worth the 50~ dollars I paid for it. My point is that it's an example of the publisher's shifting focus, not the developers.)

 

Also, I may have badly stated my point in the original post. I'm not saying that no great single player games come out. I'm saying that these changes are just starting to happen.

Yeah, I agree with what you are saying. But as you said that and many other bad things come because of the publishers.

[Alyxx Thorne]

In my opinion multiplayer has always been there, it has never been the death of single player in my opinion. There will always be single player games and multiplayer games, something for each taste.

[Jay Steinman]

Against. Pretty much ignoring the single player angers me because I don't like playing Multiplayer because its mostly filled with angsty little kids who think that saying 'fuck' makes them adults. Plus, most people spend hours and hours on Multiplayer and have gotten good to the point where it's no fun because they keep killing you and you can't get much better (Call of Duty: Black Ops adressed this, but executed it poorly). Speaking of that, the automatically assume that you'll go online or do a system link, keeping people like me (who don't like the people online/don't have online) in the dark.

[BTGBullseye]

Against. Pretty much ignoring the single player angers me because I don't like playing Multiplayer because its mostly filled with angsty little kids who think that saying 'fuck' makes them adults. Plus, most people spend hours and hours on Multiplayer and have gotten good to the point where it's no fun because they keep killing you and you can't get much better.

This is what hacks are for... Just sit there and watch the noobs run, then turn off the hack and learn from the good players... That's the only way some people can learn to rock in FPS games. I went from a 1-1 KDR at my best, to a 5-1 KRD average in most FPS games just by using a wallhack that let me get used to seeing what players did in various situations... Took about 1 month of hacking, and I never needed to hack again. (I still do for the noobrage, and just to annoy some people, but I mostly don't anymore, and never hack to level up)

[Kirkreng]

Against. Pretty much ignoring the single player angers me because I don't like playing Multiplayer because its mostly filled with angsty little kids who think that saying 'fuck' makes them adults. Plus, most people spend hours and hours on Multiplayer and have gotten good to the point where it's no fun because they keep killing you and you can't get much better.

This is what hacks are for... Just sit there and watch the noobs run, then turn off the hack and learn from the good players... That's the only way some people can learn to rock in FPS games. I went from a 1-1 KDR at my best, to a 5-1 KRD average in most FPS games just by using a wallhack that let me get used to seeing what players did in various situations... Took about 1 month of hacking, and I never needed to hack again. (I still do for the noobrage, and just to annoy some people, but I mostly don't anymore, and never hack to level up)

But by using hacks you have an unfair advantage over other players. And even if YOU learn from it, it is very selfish and ruins the fun for other players.

[Eedo Baba]

Single player is like an interactive movie. You move through an engrossing story and get immersed in it.

Multiplayer (in general) is more like a competitive sport. There's little to no story, and the goals are always simple. Kill these people, kill everyone, get this from there to there, ect.

It's really just about opinion. It's like, I enjoy watching a movie more than watching a game of football, so I'm more prone to enjoy single player.