Infogrames - Multiplayer not Single Player

[avatar_58]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/52861

I don't agree with this at all. Many single player games are doing just fine sales wise. To agree to this would be saying all single player focues genres are not worth exploring.

I'm sorry but there are certain things that do not carry over into multiplayer. I've yet to see a game with a decent story and interactive world that has multiplayer. MP usually entails arcade or simplistic gameplay or team based strategy/shooters.

I'd like to see them attempt a full cinematic shooter with multiplayer. Hasn't happened in years, let's see Bioshock or Crysis with co-op.

What about in depth RPGs? Not your everyday diablo, but actual hardcore story-filled RPGs? Games like the Witcher or Ultima would not work in MP (don't mention UO, because thats not Ultima gameplay wise).

Silly publishers don't know what they are talking about. What do you guys think? Is single player no longer worth it? All games must have MP or else they won't be created?

[Damien_Azreal]

I think that's a very stupid way of looking at things.

I love single player, and prefer it over mulit-player any day. And I know I'm not the only gamer out there that plays the single player campaign of games over and over again.

[avatar_58]

I agree with his notion that games will most likely include more community features like achievements and whatnot, but not because it's superior. Simply because "xbox does it" and everyone is hopping on the bandwagon. It works for some games (the gnome of HL2:EP2) but do we really need them in RPGs or Strategy games?

Achievement Unlocked - Pick up every single item that isn't nailed down in King's Quest

[alexgk]

Single-Player has the chance to be a deeper, more enjoyable experience for the player.

SP games not selling well? Super Mario Galaxy anyone? :rolleyes:

[Telee]

Completely agree with the above posts.

Also, Alexgk, your avatar rocks. :D

[Wamplet]

need more co-op

it can be done.

[sawn_off]

I think the line between single player and multiplayer should be blurred.

There's a lot of potential in having NPC's in multiplayer games. People wouldn't have to go medic (figuratively speaking), teams would always be balanced and you could join whatever one you wanted, machine gunners could guard your spawn (something like the Front Line Force team are planning for HL2), and you wouldn't even have to know who's human. All that "camp more worthless noob" talk would disappear if there was a 50/50 chance they were bots.

The only examples I can think of that tried some of this stuff are Battlefront 2 and Left 4 Dead.

[Zero]

need more co-op

it can be done.

Agreed, but only co-op that is done right, I prefer to have co-op done so both players are playing at the same time all the time, not just waiting for each other to do some things while other times both of them are in on the action.

[The Stinger]

I agree with his notion that games will most likely include more community features like achievements and whatnot, but not because it's superior. Simply because "xbox does it" and everyone is hopping on the bandwagon. It works for some games (the gnome of HL2:EP2) but do we really need them in RPGs or Strategy games?

Achievement Unlocked - Pick up every single item that isn't nailed down in King's Quest

Achievements are the new "I've got a 999900 points in Super Mario Bros." posts.
It gives me the GFU :rolleyes: feeling.

The obvious reason they want to make online games is online checking, so less illegal copies. Or in other words, they don't care about what gamers want, they just care about selling copies. Protecting your game isn't a bad thing, but atleast make good games. No use of protecting a turd with a safe.

[Mr.Fibbles]

Multiplayer is a sad attempt to add socialization to a nerds life.
I know that is harsh and hyperbole as well as potentially offensive, but come on, get a life. Friends you make on Steam are not friends for life or anything.
I prefer single player because if I want to play with other people, I will go over to a friend's house and play some super smash brothers on his game cube. And if I want social interaction, I go out with friends, you know, other people in real places.

I agree with Stinger that this push for multiplayer only is a little selfish on the game maker/publisher side of things. How much easier is it to prevent piracy than to make it all online? It also opens up for less work. Make some basic things and maps, but not have to make an AI? WTF?

[Phayzon]

Multiplayer-only games have their place (Like WoW, Guild Wars, Battlefield series, etc.), but to halt singleplayer entirely for ANY game is crap. I still enjoy SP games far more than MP (Doom and Duke3D anyone?).

Also I agree with the Wampster, Co-op plzthx.

[Mountain Man]

Anybody who says there isn't a market for offline, single player games is naive.

[The Stinger]

And you can't kill sp because alot of genres depend on it:
Adventures, simulations, platfrom, etc.

[vcatkiller]

Indeed. It's still not very easy to tell a convincing story multiplayer styled. Not impossible I assume, just very difficult.

And personally I still think the best form of multiplayer is either LAN or split screen. Playing online against another person over the internet just isn't the same, unless you actually know them in person, ie you see them regularly outside of gaming.

Not saying there shouldn't be online multiplayer, but playing against some person on the other side of the globe you'll possibly never physically meet at all? It's just too impersonal. Although playing in a team in an mmo is kind of fun when you're talking to complete strangers I suppose...

[The Stinger]

And personally I still think the best form of multiplayer is either LAN or split screen. Playing online against another person over the internet just isn't the same, unless you actually know them in person, ie you see them regularly outside of gaming.

When I play Guild Wars I play it with a friend through Skype and most of the time at his place.

[Reaper]

And personally I still think the best form of multiplayer is either LAN or split screen. Playing online against another person over the internet just isn't the same, unless you actually know them in person, ie you see them regularly outside of gaming.

Not saying there shouldn't be online multiplayer, but playing against some person on the other side of the globe you'll possibly never physically meet at all? It's just too impersonal. Although playing in a team in an mmo is kind of fun when you're talking to complete strangers I suppose...
Multiplayer is extremely fun with a person you know in real life, but at the same time it is possible to get to know people on a certain shard or server or whatever and have the same or similar amounts of fun playing with them.

[Mr.Fibbles]

Yes, but at the same time, you only know their avatar.
Besides:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y31/admiralahab/trolltheory.jpg

[Plagman]

For the PC, that's probably right. A successful single player only game will sell a lot less than an equally successful online game: the reason for that is piracy. You can protect your online servers to only accept players that actually bought the game, whereas any kind of single-player protection will eventually get worked around.
For consoles, nah.

[Jiminator]

i'd love to see a good MP game that plays like a SP game - I think that concept is out there, where you can either play a mission or as a baddie, not sure where in the dev process it is, or if you would have to subscribe, if yes, then that will suck royally. Really thought the rest of the MP concept appears to be a money grab to me, to where it isn't enough to dip their hands into your wallet once, but need to do it monthly. For myself I am not interested in MP games, reason being:
You suck unless you have no life and play all the time
Inability to play the game the way you want to play it
Monthly fees
I also think the piracy argument is hokum. yeah, there is lots of piracy, but that doesn't prevent good games from selling well. there have been lots of games that have proven that, oblivion being one.

[Wamplet]

Anybody who says there isn't a market for offline, single player games is naive.

agreed

look at oblivion and bioshock, recently.

hell, even fps games that offer multiplayer, even though the focus may be more on single player still sell, like your typical doom, quake, etc.

Altough, i have hardly bought many games recently, but mostly because they dont offer replay, co-op, multiplayer, or have starforce. :o

[Reaper]

I also think the piracy argument is hokum. yeah, there is lots of piracy, but that doesn't prevent good games from selling well. there have been lots of games that have proven that, oblivion being one.
Oblivion is not a good game. It would take a huge stretch of imagination to declare it otherwise.

[Mr.Fibbles]

Good it is not. . .but addictive it is.
Oblivion does stand as a single player game that sold well though (for both PC and consoles). Despite it's many defects and failures in the game category, it is a success in the business side of things.

[Water12356]

Multiplayer-only games have their place (Like WoW, Guild Wars, Battlefield series, etc.), but to halt singleplayer entirely for ANY game is crap. I still enjoy SP games far more than MP (Doom and Duke3D anyone?).

Also I agree with the Wampster, Co-op plzthx.

Agreed! I like multi-player but single is my favorite.