surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
People hate single player experiences in games like Zelda, Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto... Phil Harrison just knows.
Multiplayer is alright, and I'll use it if I have friends over, but most of the time when Im playing games its single player. I find it easier to get sucked into the story of a game if it's just you playing. I don't know anyone who buys games based on their multiplayer capabilities, unless they want casual "party" games.
This comment is coming from a guy who calls himself ReclusiveSpirit...but I couldn't disagree with him more.
A few recent examples...Bioshock, Oblivion, Half Life 2. Oh, did I forget to mention the God of War series?
Nuff' said.
A few recent examples...Bioshock, Oblivion, Half Life 2. Oh, did I forget to mention the God of War series?
Nuff' said.
I hardly play any multiplayer games anymore. I loved playing things like Tekken, Goldeneye and NHL Hitz with my mates when I was a teenager, but that involved us all being in the same room. All my favourite games are single-player centric; Deus Ex, GTA Vice City, Half Life 2, Mass Effect..... but then again:
This is stupid.
Gamers don't want single player, gamers only want casual games, gamers want to punch hookers in the face.
Why don't they understand, that there are different types of gamers out there? (Some might even want to play casual multiplayer hooker punching games...)
Gamers don't want single player, gamers only want casual games, gamers want to punch hookers in the face.
Why don't they understand, that there are different types of gamers out there? (Some might even want to play casual multiplayer hooker punching games...)
Condemned 2 online is fun. It's just people wandering around talking about the single player and how the multiplayer is crap.
What a retard.
What he means is "we as publishers don't want single player games, because multiplayer only stuff has fewer requirements and the added bonus of easily raping wallets with DLC".
Personally I'm with you Jim, I've got my share of online games, but I enjoy and even prefer to experience an immersive story or narrative-driven single player mode.
Until you can provide that in an online setting, without douchebaggery, you better keep releasing titles with a good single player to them.
Fucking moron.
What he means is "we as publishers don't want single player games, because multiplayer only stuff has fewer requirements and the added bonus of easily raping wallets with DLC".
Personally I'm with you Jim, I've got my share of online games, but I enjoy and even prefer to experience an immersive story or narrative-driven single player mode.
Until you can provide that in an online setting, without douchebaggery, you better keep releasing titles with a good single player to them.
Fucking moron.
Phil Harrison. You are right.
I want to play multiplayer games where I'm stuck with
idiots who have fully understood the fact that I can't
sneak into their bedrooms at night and slit their throats if I'm pissed.
And I want these games to be made especially by Atari.
I want to play multiplayer games where I'm stuck with
idiots who have fully understood the fact that I can't
sneak into their bedrooms at night and slit their throats if I'm pissed.
And I want these games to be made especially by Atari.
Here's an idea, why not have a game focus on what it does well? Trying to tell a story? Don't worry too much about multiplayer and vice versa. Keep your MySpace out of my RPG. Not every game needs an online community.
Ben Mattes, producer of the new Prince of Persia, doesn't agree with Phil.
I think Phils comment smacks of him trying to head off any failure to sell in huge numbers by saying "we made an amazing single player game but people don't want that anymore".
I think Phils comment smacks of him trying to head off any failure to sell in huge numbers by saying "we made an amazing single player game but people don't want that anymore".
I know they're two popular franchises, but Zelda and Mario seem to sell damn well and they're both single-player.
Then again, God of War and Resident Evil 4 didn't exactly break records, nor did BioShock. Each was popular, but not like Halo 3, CoD 4, Gears or WoW.
And considering the cost of gaming these days, buying games with a considerably longer shelf life probably seems like a good idea to the average 18-24 year old male who just wants to press buttons and blow shit up.
So I think in terms of sales potential, he may be somewhat correct, but only time will tell.
Then again, God of War and Resident Evil 4 didn't exactly break records, nor did BioShock. Each was popular, but not like Halo 3, CoD 4, Gears or WoW.
And considering the cost of gaming these days, buying games with a considerably longer shelf life probably seems like a good idea to the average 18-24 year old male who just wants to press buttons and blow shit up.
So I think in terms of sales potential, he may be somewhat correct, but only time will tell.
Why must people feel the need to talk for me? Fuck off Harrison, many people still enjoy single player.
Guys, why is anyone letting this annoy or bother them? It's just his opinion, and I do you really believe he thinks that NO consumer wants to play single player? What he means is what I said above: The biggest selling games usually feature online multiplayer or community features.
[i]Halo 3, Gears of War, Call of Duty 4, WoW[/b].
The list goes on. Watch and see in the coming weeks how great single player games like Ninja Gaiden 2 and MGS4 sell well, but not nearly as well as the games above. And again, RE4 , BioShock God of War 1 and 2. 3 of the best singe-player games ever made. Did they sell as well as all of these multiplayer games? NO.
So in that respect, I think what he is saying is somewhat right, looking at sales potential overall. Not saying a single player game can't be a huge hit, but it seems more likely that most won't be.
[i]Halo 3, Gears of War, Call of Duty 4, WoW[/b].
The list goes on. Watch and see in the coming weeks how great single player games like Ninja Gaiden 2 and MGS4 sell well, but not nearly as well as the games above. And again, RE4 , BioShock God of War 1 and 2. 3 of the best singe-player games ever made. Did they sell as well as all of these multiplayer games? NO.
So in that respect, I think what he is saying is somewhat right, looking at sales potential overall. Not saying a single player game can't be a huge hit, but it seems more likely that most won't be.
Not the sharpest observation from good 'ol Phil. Maybe he's trying to do advance damage control for Alone in the Dark - why, I have no idea - but hasn't he noticed that the video game industry was responsible for the two largest media launches of all time in the past 12 months? Or that a little third contender by the name of Metal Gear Solid 4 is about to drop?
What confuses me most is why is Atari apparently putting so little faith in AitD. I've seen the game, gone hands-on with the game - and this was months ago - and was pretty impressed. Granted, a short hands-on offers little indication of the final game's quality. But once the fairly complex controls are tackled and mastered, it seems like there's a pretty wide array of so-called "emergent gameplay" opportunities.
It's just confusing. With all the calls for innovation in the industry, here we have a top-tier title which is doing just that. It may not be perfect - hell, it most definitely WON'T be - but at least it's trying something new. However, instead of holding the game up and pushing its strongest qualities, Atari instead seems to preparing for the worst.
What confuses me most is why is Atari apparently putting so little faith in AitD. I've seen the game, gone hands-on with the game - and this was months ago - and was pretty impressed. Granted, a short hands-on offers little indication of the final game's quality. But once the fairly complex controls are tackled and mastered, it seems like there's a pretty wide array of so-called "emergent gameplay" opportunities.
It's just confusing. With all the calls for innovation in the industry, here we have a top-tier title which is doing just that. It may not be perfect - hell, it most definitely WON'T be - but at least it's trying something new. However, instead of holding the game up and pushing its strongest qualities, Atari instead seems to preparing for the worst.
It is a confusing statement. Ususally a figurehead like Harrison or Cliffy B or someone will make a fairly controversial statement simply to justify whatever they're selling at that time. So Phil's currently pimping Alone In The Dark 5 (which I'm looking forward to), a single-player only game, but yet he feels the need to say that consumers don't want this type of thing.
Forgive me, but if consumers "don't want" a single player only game, then why in the name of fuck are you making one?!?
Cliffy B made a comment a while ago that games should come with a solid single, multi-player and co-op mode. I am in complete agreement.
Forgive me, but if consumers "don't want" a single player only game, then why in the name of fuck are you making one?!?
Cliffy B made a comment a while ago that games should come with a solid single, multi-player and co-op mode. I am in complete agreement.
You guys must be really angry this morning. The man made one comment and now he has to go fuck himself. He's only doing his job. lol
@EternalDeathSlayer
The thing is, he isn't one man though is he? He's representative of a publisher. If Atari (not that they have much worth bothering with) drop single-player games what's to say others in the industry won't follow suit?
The thing is, he isn't one man though is he? He's representative of a publisher. If Atari (not that they have much worth bothering with) drop single-player games what's to say others in the industry won't follow suit?
I think this statement has been blown way out of context. I have interpreted it as the fact that he wants more connectivity in games. Not that games like Alone in the Dark should have multiplayer, but that it should have some means of accessing newer content or XBL/PSN in some fashion not just as multiplayer.
I am a casual gamer. My XBLA profile shows that rather well. If all of my games, PS3 and Wii included, had free Xbox-style achievements, I'd enjoy them that much more. While I prefer single-player games, I still like a little competition vs. friends, even if that only means finding all the jumps or whatever.
@manasteel88
It seems strange that if he simply meant leaderboards etc. He would say "... a beautifully crafted single-player adventure game. I don't think the industry is going to make many more of those"
Of more concern is the fact that he thinks more games should have DLC and stuff. Now, maybe I'm a cynic but I don't like the idea of publishers getting into the habit of releasing half-finished games so they can charge us in the future to see the rest of a story or get the most out of the game.
Imagine going to see a movie, only for it to finish 3/4 of the way through and someone popping up and saying "sowwy guyz, we need this bit for a sequel".
It seems strange that if he simply meant leaderboards etc. He would say "... a beautifully crafted single-player adventure game. I don't think the industry is going to make many more of those"
Of more concern is the fact that he thinks more games should have DLC and stuff. Now, maybe I'm a cynic but I don't like the idea of publishers getting into the habit of releasing half-finished games so they can charge us in the future to see the rest of a story or get the most out of the game.
Imagine going to see a movie, only for it to finish 3/4 of the way through and someone popping up and saying "sowwy guyz, we need this bit for a sequel".
I love awesomely crafted single-player games, and I hate it when people are "oh, it has no multi-player, I'll just rent it" because y'know, then nobody's going to want to make single-player games.. anyways getting off-topic. What I meant to say was.
Single-player games are awesome.
But Shadowrun is also one of my favorite games all time, that shit rules, if you can find it in your local bargain bin pick it up.
Single-player games are awesome.
But Shadowrun is also one of my favorite games all time, that shit rules, if you can find it in your local bargain bin pick it up.
Yeah and while you're at it Phil, we need more multiplayer books.
ROCKVILLIAN is now reading Calvin and Hobbes
1/24 Readers Reading
[JOIN READ]
(please don't join, I'm on the john)
ROCKVILLIAN is now reading Calvin and Hobbes
1/24 Readers Reading
[JOIN READ]
(please don't join, I'm on the john)
He must be right, because current gen consoles have invented multiplayer. There was no such thing as multiplayer on PC's since 1993, nope. Multiplayer is new and it will change the industry.
I love SP-games, but I like online-co-op games better :-)
Gears Of War was in that effect the perfect solution to me... great SP and coop!
Gears Of War was in that effect the perfect solution to me... great SP and coop!
Stuff it, Harrison! People are still going to want great single-player games, and are less likely to suddenly appreciate an SP game with a simplistic deathmatch mode just tacked-on.
Better yet, why not make brilliant games with great SP AND MP?
Come on! You people own the DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS LICENSE! That's tailor-made for games that swing both ways at the same time! Just look at Neverwinter Nights!
Better yet, why not make brilliant games with great SP AND MP?
Come on! You people own the DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS LICENSE! That's tailor-made for games that swing both ways at the same time! Just look at Neverwinter Nights!
I don't agree with him, but I can see where he's coming from...
Completely solo affairs aren't going anywhere, but he's right that more and more games are adding "network connectivity" and tacked on multiplayer, regardless of if it makes sense or not. When BioShock came out there were a bunch of people rumbling about the lack of multiplayer, even though there's obviously no need for it. I wouldn't put it past 2K to try and tack on some multiplayer in the sequel because of those folks, y'know?
Completely solo affairs aren't going anywhere, but he's right that more and more games are adding "network connectivity" and tacked on multiplayer, regardless of if it makes sense or not. When BioShock came out there were a bunch of people rumbling about the lack of multiplayer, even though there's obviously no need for it. I wouldn't put it past 2K to try and tack on some multiplayer in the sequel because of those folks, y'know?
"I just don't think consumers want to be playing games that don't have some kind of network connectivity to them..."
Look at Metroid Prime 3's tacked on 'network connectivity,' which resulted in needing to exchange friend codes to unlock stuff you probably would've gotten before just for beating the game. Multiplayer is good if well implemented, but THIS is the crap that gets to me.
Look at Metroid Prime 3's tacked on 'network connectivity,' which resulted in needing to exchange friend codes to unlock stuff you probably would've gotten before just for beating the game. Multiplayer is good if well implemented, but THIS is the crap that gets to me.
yeah Atari is doing great!! You can tell they are at the forefront of the videogame industry. Assassins Creed, Dead Rising, Mass Effect, Devil May Cr 4, Ninja Gaiden 2 all suck and need multiplayer. I like playing online dont me wrong, but I like single player games better unless im playing with people I really know. (or dtoiders of course)
FUCK YOU PHIL.
also, fuck you microsoft for not having my NG2 demo up yet!!
FUCK YOU PHIL.
also, fuck you microsoft for not having my NG2 demo up yet!!
I have to agree with Phil. So many companies push crazy online stuff that a single player experience is non-existent or, at least, the single player portion of the game really suffers (I'm looking at you Halo). I have a special place in my heart for single player only games, however, as I live in a place that affords me absolutely no online gaming. Ideally, I'd like to play more games with good co-op, like Gears or R6.
I don't mind not having multiplayer, but you can't expect me to shell out $60 for a few measly hours of gameplay. If I'm going to buy a game, it had better either be packed with content or be fun enough to replay over and over.
I want an excellent single player and multiplayer experience, but I will admit that if it only has a single player experience, then unless its Ninja Gaiden, I'm probably not going to be doing more than renting it. The PS2 was the last console I bought games with no online play for them.
Fuck him. I would much rather have an excellent single player game with no multiplayer than a mediocre single player game with decent multiplayer *cough*Halo*cough*. Online is nice, but I want my single player too.
The "attention share" for active networked communities in games is an INCREDIBLY limited resource, as well as one that can diminish very quickly over time. Thus only the best and most high profile games can generally be relevant in such a field.
The reality is, you're wasting your time with networked aspects unless they're going to really draw people in to buy the game, or you're working on a title likely to sell already. Single-player components however, rely on nothing external, and are just as relevant when the game released as they are a decade later. And Phil is an idiot.
The reality is, you're wasting your time with networked aspects unless they're going to really draw people in to buy the game, or you're working on a title likely to sell already. Single-player components however, rely on nothing external, and are just as relevant when the game released as they are a decade later. And Phil is an idiot.
I think there is something to this. Most games can be adapted to become a good multiplayer game. However, some game genres and some particular games just dont work in multiplayer. Plus, people sometimes want to "be alone". As an example, i'm sure pacman would be easy to adapt to a multiplayer game, and a lot of players would love it, however playing the original pacman would still rock just as much. (if you suddenly want to play pacman alone after reading this, you could try Paul Neave's pretty damn decent pacman clone here: http://nutstation.com/Game/Pacman/)
@ NutStationCom
Nice try with the self promotion. By the way, they made multi-player Pac Man on Gamecube. Cunt.
Also, 3000.
Nice try with the self promotion. By the way, they made multi-player Pac Man on Gamecube. Cunt.
Also, 3000.
Phil's full of cacca.
Publishers love including only Online multiplayer because that means they sale more copies per group of friends.
Publishers love including only Online multiplayer because that means they sale more copies per group of friends.
He's right and he's wrong. We definately enjoy a single player experience. Without a doubt. The only issue is those of us who ACTUALLY pay for games. Quite often time want a high replay value. Single player games just have much of a replay value. However I think Phil Harrison of all people should know this will quickly change as Xbox 360 has achievements, so soon will the PS3. I even believe eventually PC games will have a similar change. Though it will probably be another decade or two of kicking and screaming first, before independent developer or possibly I suppose steam becomes more involved with the PC gaming achievements line.
Not to mention in this age of technology is it quite easy to split screen or lan or many other possibilities for multiplayer.
So wrong and right.
Not to mention in this age of technology is it quite easy to split screen or lan or many other possibilities for multiplayer.
So wrong and right.
* Excuses for not have the money to make good AAA games. A multiplayer focus game seems cheaper, because the people contributed for overall experience, rather than build more levels, enemies etc. But will not be soo simple how he hopes.
I often hate multiplayer games solely because every time you play with strangers you are associating with the most ignorant and immature people on the planet by default. And let's face it, no one can ALWAYS play with good close friends.
If developers would continue to include options like split-screen, offline co-op and the like I'd likely play multiplayer games much more often. With people I know and enjoy being around, no less.
As it is, I MUCH prefer a quality single player game well before any multiplayer game ever.
If developers would continue to include options like split-screen, offline co-op and the like I'd likely play multiplayer games much more often. With people I know and enjoy being around, no less.
As it is, I MUCH prefer a quality single player game well before any multiplayer game ever.
I can see where he is coming from, and I think "network connectivity" CAN be as simple as leaderboards filled with completion times.
For example, games like DMC and RE - those games ALREADY grade you. What if you had the option to upload your best scores/times onto the internets? In fact, what if you could do that for ANY game? Would that be so obtrusive in a game like 'Bioshock' (though I would include an opt out button, or a "by chapter" button)? The speed run guys who likely love that stuff.
If you really want to throw stuff out there, how about a recorded playthrough of an entire game that you could share with anyone?
I know it is easy to be cynical and expect the worst out of every company (hell, I do it all the time), and the guy is currently speaking hypothetically, but I think 'simple' additions like the ones I mentioned could add a lot of replay value for folks.
Just my $.02.
For example, games like DMC and RE - those games ALREADY grade you. What if you had the option to upload your best scores/times onto the internets? In fact, what if you could do that for ANY game? Would that be so obtrusive in a game like 'Bioshock' (though I would include an opt out button, or a "by chapter" button)? The speed run guys who likely love that stuff.
If you really want to throw stuff out there, how about a recorded playthrough of an entire game that you could share with anyone?
I know it is easy to be cynical and expect the worst out of every company (hell, I do it all the time), and the guy is currently speaking hypothetically, but I think 'simple' additions like the ones I mentioned could add a lot of replay value for folks.
Just my $.02.
Sales-wise it's not a completely incorrect statement, although you would have to be an idiot to try and generalize gamers into prefering one kind of gameplay experience and not thinking it would cause some kind backlash.
Obviously, single player games are extremely important. They always tend to be the ones making advancements and pushing games as art while providing the best immersive experience.
Although if Phil Harrison wants to start focusing on multiplayer only, good for him.
Somehow I don't think the games industry as a whole is going to be significantly affected by what Atari's doing.
Obviously, single player games are extremely important. They always tend to be the ones making advancements and pushing games as art while providing the best immersive experience.
Although if Phil Harrison wants to start focusing on multiplayer only, good for him.
Somehow I don't think the games industry as a whole is going to be significantly affected by what Atari's doing.
Isn't that kind of true, though? While there are extremely good single-player experiences (GTAIV, for example) out there, I'm finding myself wanting games to play with other people, not just by myself.
Also, where in that quote did he say that we didn't want to play single-player games? He just said that we want some kind of network connectivity.
Seems like most people commenting just read the title.
Also, where in that quote did he say that we didn't want to play single-player games? He just said that we want some kind of network connectivity.
Seems like most people commenting just read the title.
follow
