surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I tend to agree with you that some games are and should remain a solitary endeavor. That being said, I think that there ARE ways that devs can incorporate multiplayer aspects without ruining the game.
Three games that immediately spring to mind are Journey, Demon Souls and Dragon's Dogma. Each game had a multiplayer aspect that I do think added to the experience. I haven't personally played Journey or Demon's Souls and I'm sure you're familiar with the way they used multiplayer - but both cases seem very non-intrusive and seemed to actually add to the single player portion of the game.
With Dragon's Dogma, the pawn system was the multiplayer aspect. You could have 4 people in your party - yourself, your own pawn that you created, and you could rent 2 additional pawns. The pawns are player creations and seeing the diversity available was a lot of fun. It was also an interesting element to have pawns from people on your buddy list in your party - to see how they dressed them, created them, gave them particular personality characteristics (from voice to qualities like protector, gatherer, etc). The whole pawn system actually added a lot to the game and it was fun to see the comments people might leave when renting your own pawn too! (and the pawn system was also integrated into the actual story).
I don't think that "multiplayer" needs to be co-op or actual multiplayer and I think that devs that think outside the box actually add to the single player experience with the ways that some have used the concept of multiplayer - so it's not an absolute "bad" thing. I'm actually a bit excited to see what other ways this multiplayer aspect could be used in games - because the options presented so far have been wonderful!
Three games that immediately spring to mind are Journey, Demon Souls and Dragon's Dogma. Each game had a multiplayer aspect that I do think added to the experience. I haven't personally played Journey or Demon's Souls and I'm sure you're familiar with the way they used multiplayer - but both cases seem very non-intrusive and seemed to actually add to the single player portion of the game.
With Dragon's Dogma, the pawn system was the multiplayer aspect. You could have 4 people in your party - yourself, your own pawn that you created, and you could rent 2 additional pawns. The pawns are player creations and seeing the diversity available was a lot of fun. It was also an interesting element to have pawns from people on your buddy list in your party - to see how they dressed them, created them, gave them particular personality characteristics (from voice to qualities like protector, gatherer, etc). The whole pawn system actually added a lot to the game and it was fun to see the comments people might leave when renting your own pawn too! (and the pawn system was also integrated into the actual story).
I don't think that "multiplayer" needs to be co-op or actual multiplayer and I think that devs that think outside the box actually add to the single player experience with the ways that some have used the concept of multiplayer - so it's not an absolute "bad" thing. I'm actually a bit excited to see what other ways this multiplayer aspect could be used in games - because the options presented so far have been wonderful!
I have to agree and part of the problem with the gaming community is that people will whine and complain about something in a game coming out, but then will still purchase it. There will never be enough people that will just say, "Oh hey, I dislike this thing they did, so I will skip this game."
For example, Dragon's Dogma was a game I was sort of excited for, but upon reading about how the game has in-game advertising for download content, I didn't even want to play it anymore. Yes, I feel like I might be missing something extremely fun, but I could also replay games I own already until something else releases.
This is why I like the focus on Kickstarter now. There will be no publisher to tell the developer what to shoehorn in there. And if the Kickstarter is done well, they are getting feedback from the fans in forums.
But as for multiplayer, it's ok if the game is multiplayer focused like Left 4 Dead or Journey (in my opinion) or multiplayer heavy like Call of Duty where it has a small single player experience, but it is mostly bought for the multiplayer. But in purely single player games, don't force things in to sell more units. The best news is that plenty of developers still make single player experiences, they just aren't owned by the major publishers.
For example, Dragon's Dogma was a game I was sort of excited for, but upon reading about how the game has in-game advertising for download content, I didn't even want to play it anymore. Yes, I feel like I might be missing something extremely fun, but I could also replay games I own already until something else releases.
This is why I like the focus on Kickstarter now. There will be no publisher to tell the developer what to shoehorn in there. And if the Kickstarter is done well, they are getting feedback from the fans in forums.
But as for multiplayer, it's ok if the game is multiplayer focused like Left 4 Dead or Journey (in my opinion) or multiplayer heavy like Call of Duty where it has a small single player experience, but it is mostly bought for the multiplayer. But in purely single player games, don't force things in to sell more units. The best news is that plenty of developers still make single player experiences, they just aren't owned by the major publishers.
I'm sure single player games will never disappear entirely, although it is a shame, and kind of scary, to hear big publishers saying they'll never approve any purely single player games anymore. If all the big companies start saying stuff like that (which is unlikely; surely Nintendo would never do away with single player games... the Zelda franchise will always remain popular), then at least we'll still have the indie market to rely on.
I wrote a blog just like this once before. I'm totally with you.
Although, I'm not opposed to muliplayer from time to time: specifically with my wife.
Although, I'm not opposed to muliplayer from time to time: specifically with my wife.
@myherozero....
Dragon's Dogma had ingame advertising for DLC??? I've got about 180 hours in the game (played it through twice) and I don't recall any advertisements for DLC at all. In fact from what I've seen, the DLC is pretty much limited to more board quests, some new outfits and some starter money to rent better pawns. The DLC is totally negligible. The only mention of DLC I've seen at all in the game is the option to download DLC from the main menu... that's it! (Unlike Dragon Age where sometimes taking a quest was actually an option to download DLC).
... if that was the only thing holding you back from Dragon's Dogma, don't let it.. go buy the game!
Dragon's Dogma had ingame advertising for DLC??? I've got about 180 hours in the game (played it through twice) and I don't recall any advertisements for DLC at all. In fact from what I've seen, the DLC is pretty much limited to more board quests, some new outfits and some starter money to rent better pawns. The DLC is totally negligible. The only mention of DLC I've seen at all in the game is the option to download DLC from the main menu... that's it! (Unlike Dragon Age where sometimes taking a quest was actually an option to download DLC).
... if that was the only thing holding you back from Dragon's Dogma, don't let it.. go buy the game!
Some fine blogging Handy!
I'm a big fan of multiplayer. Done right, I think playing with other people can be one of the most enriching experiences of your gaming life. But "done right" is the key part.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say publishers are forcing more and more multiplayer without knowing how or where to do it. I hate to use it as an example yet again, but Dark Souls is a game that can be played through top-to-bottom in single player mode and be an incredible experience. But if you choose to dip your toes in its whacky world of invasions and jolly co-op, it adds an entirely new layer to the experience. It adds to the game while taking nothing away from the single player, thats how you do it right.
All these publishers that want their game to be the next CoD or TF2 just don't get it. Those games were built from the ground up to be MP experiences (TF2 didn't even have bots for the first 4 years of its life span for christs sake). You can't just bolt a deathmatch with progressive experience on the side of a SP game and expect a community to spontaneously erupt.
I'm a big fan of multiplayer. Done right, I think playing with other people can be one of the most enriching experiences of your gaming life. But "done right" is the key part.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say publishers are forcing more and more multiplayer without knowing how or where to do it. I hate to use it as an example yet again, but Dark Souls is a game that can be played through top-to-bottom in single player mode and be an incredible experience. But if you choose to dip your toes in its whacky world of invasions and jolly co-op, it adds an entirely new layer to the experience. It adds to the game while taking nothing away from the single player, thats how you do it right.
All these publishers that want their game to be the next CoD or TF2 just don't get it. Those games were built from the ground up to be MP experiences (TF2 didn't even have bots for the first 4 years of its life span for christs sake). You can't just bolt a deathmatch with progressive experience on the side of a SP game and expect a community to spontaneously erupt.
If you want to make a multiplayer game, you need to make a community, or else it will just be ignored, and then nobody can ever play it again. I'll admit that my experience with any online multiplayer is limited to a handful of games that added up to 15 hours of playtime, but I have to say that I just don't get what's so special about it. Sure, I had an absolute blast going through Rayman Origins and Secret of Mana is 8 times more fun with a friend, but notice that those are both co-op games which need to be with someone you personally know.
And while I understand playing with people online, the idea of needing a total of 4 people seems a bit too much when all you have is auditory communications. That might just be personal, but whenever a fourth person jumps into anything, I'm always the guy who is left out. Even by listening to Podcasts, random topics do not normally involve even 4 people.
As for the whole interconnection bit, we will eventually reach a singularity of sorts where everything is connected, and these are just people trying to figure out how exactly it will happen. No game should ever force you to socially link the product, because truth is that nobody gives a shit if you are doing well during a round of a multiplayer game. All of that stuff is fine, until they start making the actual game difficult to play or understand without those tacked on extras.
I try to embrace the future more than the next guy, but if something works and you don't have an easier method, don't even bother! I understand needing to get the logistics and stats to prevent piracy, and that's fine, but if you are out of the game for more than 1% of your total playtime, chances are that there is something very wrong with the infrastructure.
All of this extra crap is perfectly fine, as long as it is indeed extra! And never shoe-horn them in just because you can. Unless you actually care about what you are putting in, it is just a waste of time, money, and resources.
And while I understand playing with people online, the idea of needing a total of 4 people seems a bit too much when all you have is auditory communications. That might just be personal, but whenever a fourth person jumps into anything, I'm always the guy who is left out. Even by listening to Podcasts, random topics do not normally involve even 4 people.
As for the whole interconnection bit, we will eventually reach a singularity of sorts where everything is connected, and these are just people trying to figure out how exactly it will happen. No game should ever force you to socially link the product, because truth is that nobody gives a shit if you are doing well during a round of a multiplayer game. All of that stuff is fine, until they start making the actual game difficult to play or understand without those tacked on extras.
I try to embrace the future more than the next guy, but if something works and you don't have an easier method, don't even bother! I understand needing to get the logistics and stats to prevent piracy, and that's fine, but if you are out of the game for more than 1% of your total playtime, chances are that there is something very wrong with the infrastructure.
All of this extra crap is perfectly fine, as long as it is indeed extra! And never shoe-horn them in just because you can. Unless you actually care about what you are putting in, it is just a waste of time, money, and resources.
This was damn great blog that needs to be top-sauced. Also I with you. Hell, I even play mp modes alone (bot matches/horde modes). A lot has to do with my schedule and kids, but also, I don't want to always be playing with someone or chatting. Games are my escape and sometimes (a lot) I just want to be alone, since that is rare for me IRL.
@ Elsa
What I like about the way Dark Souls and Dragon’s Dogma handled it was how it made sense in the games respective worlds, with Dark Souls you really have to go out of your way to find the abilities that let you invade other players, and people invading your world appeared as dark spirits, they even added some that invade you when you’re offline to keep it consistent. With dragon’s Dogma, well, it made sense in the sense that none of it made sense.
@ myherozero
Like Elsa said, I can’t recall the DLC adds in Dragon’s Dogma being so bad, maybe there more in the loading screens but you don’t see many of them because you travel everywhere on foot and warps are rare, I’d say try it out now that it’s cheap.
I’m curious to see what comes out of Kickstarter when developers are left to their own devices, I wonder will they be able to please fans or will they have to adhere to the more irrational fans requests since they now answer to them directly.
@ Chris
I don’t mind it now and then, as long as it isn’t showed down my throat. I may dive in again once I finish Borderlands solo.
@ Wrenchfarm
True. Sometimes I’m sure there’s just adding these modes to tick a box and have another bulletpoint on the case.
@ Elect Nigma
Sometimes I feel like I‘m just not “getting it” too.
@ PhilK3nS3bb3n
Thanks! Once I a while I play multiplayer on my own but then I get really self-aware and depressed, especially fighting games, I wish they had more single player content like back in the day, Tekken Force Mode was the shiz for people like me, of course back then online wasn’t even a possibility.
What I like about the way Dark Souls and Dragon’s Dogma handled it was how it made sense in the games respective worlds, with Dark Souls you really have to go out of your way to find the abilities that let you invade other players, and people invading your world appeared as dark spirits, they even added some that invade you when you’re offline to keep it consistent. With dragon’s Dogma, well, it made sense in the sense that none of it made sense.
@ myherozero
Like Elsa said, I can’t recall the DLC adds in Dragon’s Dogma being so bad, maybe there more in the loading screens but you don’t see many of them because you travel everywhere on foot and warps are rare, I’d say try it out now that it’s cheap.
I’m curious to see what comes out of Kickstarter when developers are left to their own devices, I wonder will they be able to please fans or will they have to adhere to the more irrational fans requests since they now answer to them directly.
@ Chris
I don’t mind it now and then, as long as it isn’t showed down my throat. I may dive in again once I finish Borderlands solo.
@ Wrenchfarm
True. Sometimes I’m sure there’s just adding these modes to tick a box and have another bulletpoint on the case.
@ Elect Nigma
Sometimes I feel like I‘m just not “getting it” too.
@ PhilK3nS3bb3n
Thanks! Once I a while I play multiplayer on my own but then I get really self-aware and depressed, especially fighting games, I wish they had more single player content like back in the day, Tekken Force Mode was the shiz for people like me, of course back then online wasn’t even a possibility.
It's funny you bring up Dead Space 3 because I actually prefer what their trying to implement with that game WAY more than what they tried to pull with Dead Space 2. Plus it sounds like the developers went out of their way to make the single and co-op experiences different rather than just throwing in an extra character with no explanation. If you choose to play half single player and half co-op, I guess you really only have yourself to blame for the confusing, disjointed presentation. Basically, I think Dead Space 3's gonna be okay, even if it is being funded and controlled by Satan and Hitler respectively.
But I love a good single player game and you're right, there's a level of immersion that most multiplayer games just can't hit. Too many distractions and too many "YOU'RE PLAYING A GAME RIGHT NOW" reminders to really get lost in it. I don't think single player games will ever go away but we do have to accept that their not the king of the jungle anymore. A successful mulitplayer game is too tempting for a lot of publishers to ignore, whether it's always the best idea or not.
But I love a good single player game and you're right, there's a level of immersion that most multiplayer games just can't hit. Too many distractions and too many "YOU'RE PLAYING A GAME RIGHT NOW" reminders to really get lost in it. I don't think single player games will ever go away but we do have to accept that their not the king of the jungle anymore. A successful mulitplayer game is too tempting for a lot of publishers to ignore, whether it's always the best idea or not.
First of all, fantastic blog!
Second, it should be noted (as Corduroy mentioned), that at least in DS3 the co-op is truly, 100% optional. As in, no AI partner when the real partner is absent. So that's not as bad at least!
Second, it should be noted (as Corduroy mentioned), that at least in DS3 the co-op is truly, 100% optional. As in, no AI partner when the real partner is absent. So that's not as bad at least!
Front page material right here. This is exactly where I'm at, multiplayer and co-op can be great, but the person you're playing with has to be just about as good as you. If they're worse you're getting dragged behind, if they're better you're dragging them behind. When things line up it's great, but alot of the time I'm not enjoying myself because I end up playing a game a way I don't really want to because the other player wants to play their way.
Take NSMB Wii for example. By itself it was just a standard 2D platformer nothing really that special, but the multiplayer made and broke it. I beat the game with one of my cousins and it was some of the most fun I ever had while playing a game. What made it fun was being in the same room and talking and laughing and stuff. Now when I played the same game with some other family members I didn't like it too much because it was basically just me doing everything, then I played the game with my best friend and he was so good at it that I was just holding him back.
In order for mutliplayer to work for me too many things have to line up, the person has to be in the same room, they have to be about the same level of gaming as me, and it has to be the right game at the right time.
That and the main reason I prefer single player is because I'm an introvert. I just like being alone.
Take NSMB Wii for example. By itself it was just a standard 2D platformer nothing really that special, but the multiplayer made and broke it. I beat the game with one of my cousins and it was some of the most fun I ever had while playing a game. What made it fun was being in the same room and talking and laughing and stuff. Now when I played the same game with some other family members I didn't like it too much because it was basically just me doing everything, then I played the game with my best friend and he was so good at it that I was just holding him back.
In order for mutliplayer to work for me too many things have to line up, the person has to be in the same room, they have to be about the same level of gaming as me, and it has to be the right game at the right time.
That and the main reason I prefer single player is because I'm an introvert. I just like being alone.
@ Courdoruy and Andy
Yeah that whole part about DS3 was a lot meaner and more accusatory before I did some research (thank God I did before posting), but I still find it weird that you can go the whole game alone and then just before the last boss some random guy appears saying “let’s do this partner!”.
And while I was looking it up I saw that the creators had the gall to claim that you’re getting two games for the price of one. By that logic Borderlands is four games in one and Tekken Tag 2 is fifty.
Yeah that whole part about DS3 was a lot meaner and more accusatory before I did some research (thank God I did before posting), but I still find it weird that you can go the whole game alone and then just before the last boss some random guy appears saying “let’s do this partner!”.
And while I was looking it up I saw that the creators had the gall to claim that you’re getting two games for the price of one. By that logic Borderlands is four games in one and Tekken Tag 2 is fifty.
And this is why i generally just support companies that focus on and support single-player experiences, there are fewer big publishers that do it and plenty of small ones as well.
But EA and Activision more or less want to shove it down your throat, so fuck those publishers. Atlus, Bethesda, Square-Enix, From Software Xseed, Valve and Nintendo generally serve my interests in this regard rather well. Bungie and 343 seem very mindful of just how important Halo's story is to fans and supply them with meaty SP campaigns with good implementation of co-op IF you want that.
I'm not against multiplayer as a feature, but if the single player comes off like fast food, I'm out. I will not accept multiplayer for multiplayer's sake.
A classic example for me is Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. Probably my favorite of the three Prime games, but I can only wonder what extra areas we could have had or see had they not forced multiplayer into an experience where it didn't belong.
But EA and Activision more or less want to shove it down your throat, so fuck those publishers. Atlus, Bethesda, Square-Enix, From Software Xseed, Valve and Nintendo generally serve my interests in this regard rather well. Bungie and 343 seem very mindful of just how important Halo's story is to fans and supply them with meaty SP campaigns with good implementation of co-op IF you want that.
I'm not against multiplayer as a feature, but if the single player comes off like fast food, I'm out. I will not accept multiplayer for multiplayer's sake.
A classic example for me is Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. Probably my favorite of the three Prime games, but I can only wonder what extra areas we could have had or see had they not forced multiplayer into an experience where it didn't belong.
2k had the Spec Ops multiplayer outsourced to a random development team; Yager didn't make it. I'm sure if they had they could've come up with something less terrible and damaging. Bizarre situation there. Sort of surprising their game got picked up at all, unless the suits at 2k thought it a plain shooter and didn't recognize the subversive elements until too late.
Also, yeah, I don't play multiplayer games, really. And local, couch co-op if anything. And not in anything aiming to tell a story.
Also, yeah, I don't play multiplayer games, really. And local, couch co-op if anything. And not in anything aiming to tell a story.
@The Silent Protagonist
I might be the only one to think this but I actually loved Metroid Prime 2's MP. I don't know if you tried it with 3 friends but it was a lot of fun, especially for the Gamecube that had very few good split-screen shooters. Hell, it was probably the last split-screen versus I've played!
Really, I just have fond memories of that particular MP experience I guess. I still get your point, considering how the Prime series is a single player platformer... And I do agree that the shift towards multiplayer only is ruining the industry (I jumped on the Project Eternity kickstarter). Great article Handy!
I might be the only one to think this but I actually loved Metroid Prime 2's MP. I don't know if you tried it with 3 friends but it was a lot of fun, especially for the Gamecube that had very few good split-screen shooters. Hell, it was probably the last split-screen versus I've played!
Really, I just have fond memories of that particular MP experience I guess. I still get your point, considering how the Prime series is a single player platformer... And I do agree that the shift towards multiplayer only is ruining the industry (I jumped on the Project Eternity kickstarter). Great article Handy!
The emphasis on multiplayer is a sickness of a society obsessed with "sameness" and making sure everyone falls in line like a good little sheep.
Single player is all about the individual, which is important above all else. If the individual is not protected, you welcome tyranny.
The concept of "it takes a village to raise a child" that poisoned us in the 1990's has given society a terminal sickness that constructs a nanny state of bitch boys that are enslaved by their wives, are not only afraid of authority, but worship them, and happily repeat sound bites their hear from their cult of personality leaders.
Multiplayer corrals us into our play pens where we trash talk and learn to parrot what the peers are spewing with their eroded brains and drugged souls.
A bit over the top? Perhaps. Exceptions to this rule? Of course. But it is pretty clear that the insistence on online multiplayer has led to crappy DLC, and having to sign up to more and more accounts, and overlook the actual ART of gaming, which is all about an inspired creative IDEA that can grow and turn into something iconic and engaging.
Single player is all about the individual, which is important above all else. If the individual is not protected, you welcome tyranny.
The concept of "it takes a village to raise a child" that poisoned us in the 1990's has given society a terminal sickness that constructs a nanny state of bitch boys that are enslaved by their wives, are not only afraid of authority, but worship them, and happily repeat sound bites their hear from their cult of personality leaders.
Multiplayer corrals us into our play pens where we trash talk and learn to parrot what the peers are spewing with their eroded brains and drugged souls.
A bit over the top? Perhaps. Exceptions to this rule? Of course. But it is pretty clear that the insistence on online multiplayer has led to crappy DLC, and having to sign up to more and more accounts, and overlook the actual ART of gaming, which is all about an inspired creative IDEA that can grow and turn into something iconic and engaging.
As long as indie for horror and nintendo for everything else is all well and good than I should survive. Luckily multi is mostly a f/tps thing and I hate those genres.
I can't agree enough with this.
I'm going to share this with the site I write for (I'm just going to link it, don't worry I'm not trying to steal it), this is something that I feel very strong about, but you've managed to put it to words and explain it in a cohesive manner. Great job.
I'm going to share this with the site I write for (I'm just going to link it, don't worry I'm not trying to steal it), this is something that I feel very strong about, but you've managed to put it to words and explain it in a cohesive manner. Great job.
First off, I'll reserve judgement on Dead Space 3 for after I actually play it. Its OK to voice concerns over new directions in development, but Visceral have basically said "no guys, trust us, we got this" so I'm willing to hear them out. Lets at least give them the benefit of the doubt.
For as much as people seem to fawn over Valve I was pretty taken aback at one of their last press statements that said they were about done with single player games after Portal 2. Um, what? http://kotaku.com/5795355/valve-probably-done-with-single+player-games
But everyone knows that single player isn't dead. A friend once told me this in 2003 and I look around to see basically most of the games I enjoy that are still single player-only. I don't really pay much heed to tacked-on multiplayer components to begin with, but I suppose they are there and maybe we should be telling these companies in a better way that we don't really care about that stuff. Then they look at CoD and see the piles of money those guys have :/
For as much as people seem to fawn over Valve I was pretty taken aback at one of their last press statements that said they were about done with single player games after Portal 2. Um, what? http://kotaku.com/5795355/valve-probably-done-with-single+player-games
But everyone knows that single player isn't dead. A friend once told me this in 2003 and I look around to see basically most of the games I enjoy that are still single player-only. I don't really pay much heed to tacked-on multiplayer components to begin with, but I suppose they are there and maybe we should be telling these companies in a better way that we don't really care about that stuff. Then they look at CoD and see the piles of money those guys have :/
I still haven't played RE5 for this very reason, and I still have my big box version of RE1 on the PS1! I even bought a GC simply for the RE exclusives.
Co-op Resident Evil just seems wrong. I hear the AI for the co-op partner is terrible, so the best way to play is with a friend. Being that I don't have the game yet, I worry that if I jump into the game with a random stranger, I'd feel rushed because it would be their 4th or 5th time playing the game...
Co-op Resident Evil just seems wrong. I hear the AI for the co-op partner is terrible, so the best way to play is with a friend. Being that I don't have the game yet, I worry that if I jump into the game with a random stranger, I'd feel rushed because it would be their 4th or 5th time playing the game...
Man, I'm with you. I hardly play multiplayer games and I'm a single-player guy. That said, I'm fine with a game having multiplayer or co-op as long as it doesn't mean that the single-player experience suffers for it. Take Borderlands, for example. I'm having a blast playing it solo, when most play it co-op or bust. It's the perfect example of a game that can have a full single-player and co-op/multiplayer experience without either side unbalancing the other.
On the other hand, tacked on multiplayer-the likes of which EA seems to LOVE to force on games that don't need it-is absolutely despicable in my eyes. There are certainly certain games that don't need multiplayer at all. My case in point, Dead Space. Dead Space never needed the multiplayer that got tacked onto Dead Space 2, and it doesn't need the co-op it's getting in Dead Space 3. In fact, from what I've seen the co-op is pushing the single-player experience to the side and making itself out to be the hero, which isn't a good thing.
Of course, there are those who love multiplayer and co-op and might be happy that Dead Space 3 is getting such things. That's great, except the single-player gamer is left behind in the process wondering 'when do I get what I want out of this'? I, for one, don't want co-op only areas in Dead Space 3. That leaves single player gamers like us left with only a partial experience, hindered by things we never wanted and we never asked for. This is especially true in Dead Space, since, as a big fan of the series, I'm pretty certain that no one ever said 'Dead Space 3 could really use some co-op to make it a great game' or 'man, that Dead Space 2 multiplayer was awesome, we should bring it back in the third one'.
My point being in saying all this which you've basically said in your original blog is that you're exactly right. The only problem is, this problem is only going to get worse and worse. It's not going to get better. With corporate asshats like EA around, they're just going to keep pushing unnecessary multiplayer and co-op on every game they put out. Heck, I bet they might even take single-player out entirely.
And when they do, God help us all.
On the other hand, tacked on multiplayer-the likes of which EA seems to LOVE to force on games that don't need it-is absolutely despicable in my eyes. There are certainly certain games that don't need multiplayer at all. My case in point, Dead Space. Dead Space never needed the multiplayer that got tacked onto Dead Space 2, and it doesn't need the co-op it's getting in Dead Space 3. In fact, from what I've seen the co-op is pushing the single-player experience to the side and making itself out to be the hero, which isn't a good thing.
Of course, there are those who love multiplayer and co-op and might be happy that Dead Space 3 is getting such things. That's great, except the single-player gamer is left behind in the process wondering 'when do I get what I want out of this'? I, for one, don't want co-op only areas in Dead Space 3. That leaves single player gamers like us left with only a partial experience, hindered by things we never wanted and we never asked for. This is especially true in Dead Space, since, as a big fan of the series, I'm pretty certain that no one ever said 'Dead Space 3 could really use some co-op to make it a great game' or 'man, that Dead Space 2 multiplayer was awesome, we should bring it back in the third one'.
My point being in saying all this which you've basically said in your original blog is that you're exactly right. The only problem is, this problem is only going to get worse and worse. It's not going to get better. With corporate asshats like EA around, they're just going to keep pushing unnecessary multiplayer and co-op on every game they put out. Heck, I bet they might even take single-player out entirely.
And when they do, God help us all.
SO TRUE!! You are so right!! GO SOLO GAMERS! The only good multiplayer is couch multiplayer, and too few games support it or reward it.
Dude....I feel you. Oh, how I feel you. I agree 200% I freaking HATE multi-player. What was something that OTHER PEOPLE DID, is NOW something that I HAVE TO LIKE. And it's totally pissing me off.
@brainwasher - One of the best posts of the day, really inspired stuff. I love the bitch boys part. I have a rule whereby i refuse to buy a game with a crap single player campaign, which is why i love playing COD online, but i refuse to buy a copy of the game because they are tarnishing single player gaming with their refusal to put any effort into it, which is why you have a generation of fighting game fans who think that just because its a fighting game it doesnt need a good single player campaign. Yeah, tell that to Ed Boon, he will tell you to fuck right off.
Yeah man, I play even mmo's alone, I couldn't agree more.
Besides, if it's not split screen, the "multiplayer" might as well GO FUCK ITSELF.
Great blog Handy.
Besides, if it's not split screen, the "multiplayer" might as well GO FUCK ITSELF.
Great blog Handy.
Unfortunately multiplayer is staying. It provides the publisher with an excuse to keep you chained to them. It drastically reduces piracy and makes used game sales difficult. You're stuck with them as long as you use their product. This makes the bean counters and suits happy. You know, the ones who have no creativity or passions. All they see is $$$ and that's all they'll see. They'll complain about the need for online passes to cover server expenses. Expenses they've artificially added to keep you close and make used games sales as taxing as they can be.
They could learn a lot from Nintendo. Their used games are expensive and not a deal compared to new. Why? Because most people don't sell their Nintendo games, they keep them so the lack of used product drives the price up. Why don't people sell them? Because they really like them and they usually have a higher replay-ability rate.
Everyone bitches about Nintendo and how they're living in the dark ages. I bet you less and less people are bitching now especially after dealing with constant patches and firmware updates, DLC being jammed in your face, cursing tweens screaming into headsets while you're trying to be immersed and of corse multiplayer being shoe-horned into every title.
They could learn a lot from Nintendo. Their used games are expensive and not a deal compared to new. Why? Because most people don't sell their Nintendo games, they keep them so the lack of used product drives the price up. Why don't people sell them? Because they really like them and they usually have a higher replay-ability rate.
Everyone bitches about Nintendo and how they're living in the dark ages. I bet you less and less people are bitching now especially after dealing with constant patches and firmware updates, DLC being jammed in your face, cursing tweens screaming into headsets while you're trying to be immersed and of corse multiplayer being shoe-horned into every title.
An oldie but a goodie if anyone missed it:
http://www.destructoid.com/being-a-solo-gamer-in-a-multiplayer-world-112138.phtml
http://www.destructoid.com/being-a-solo-gamer-in-a-multiplayer-world-112138.phtml
I hate multiplayer for the most part. Especially co-op.
At least in competitive multiplayer I have the choice to play it or not.
A lot of single player games now have co-op enabled by default, or offer little in way of preventing a friend from jumping into your game.
I remember playing Diablo 3 at a slow pace early on, trying to take everything in. Then my friend teleports in. Then his friends teleport in. Then everybody is skipping dialogue and I have no idea what's going on. They were all way over-leveled and just killed everything before I even had a chance to try. What fun.
To me, co-op is just another "easy mode". You can't die if your friends are protecting you and heal you when you're hurt.
I like some challenge to my video games.
At least in competitive multiplayer I have the choice to play it or not.
A lot of single player games now have co-op enabled by default, or offer little in way of preventing a friend from jumping into your game.
I remember playing Diablo 3 at a slow pace early on, trying to take everything in. Then my friend teleports in. Then his friends teleport in. Then everybody is skipping dialogue and I have no idea what's going on. They were all way over-leveled and just killed everything before I even had a chance to try. What fun.
To me, co-op is just another "easy mode". You can't die if your friends are protecting you and heal you when you're hurt.
I like some challenge to my video games.
Online passes. This is why many publishers are shoving online modes into their games when they clearly don't belong. Online passes. That's it. Sony has been doing this for the past year. They are shoving multiplayer into games that have no business having it in order to justify the online pass. And, when they absolutely can't get mutliplayer into a game, they use the online pass to get single player content, like Rage did. So much for the whole "It is to pay for server costs!".
For me personally, if there is a single player game I really want to play, and that game has multiplayer, I won't buy it. I will borrow it or rent it or buy it used. I am a single player gamer. I love to be engrossed in a story, just like you said above. Having other people there with me, in multiplayer or coop, is practically useless to me. When I see a game has multiplayer, all I think about is the funds wasted on it.
I think about how much better the single player could have been. How more polished it could have been. More levels maybe? A better story? Better A.I.? I think about all the great things the developers could have done if they didn't steer funds away from the campaign to fund a multiplayer mode that 10 people will play for 2 weeks before going back to Call of Duty.
So, I rent the games, or borrow them, or buy them used. I won't spend my money for a single player experience that has clearly been downgraded in some way to pay for a useless multiplayer mode. I won't do it.
For me personally, if there is a single player game I really want to play, and that game has multiplayer, I won't buy it. I will borrow it or rent it or buy it used. I am a single player gamer. I love to be engrossed in a story, just like you said above. Having other people there with me, in multiplayer or coop, is practically useless to me. When I see a game has multiplayer, all I think about is the funds wasted on it.
I think about how much better the single player could have been. How more polished it could have been. More levels maybe? A better story? Better A.I.? I think about all the great things the developers could have done if they didn't steer funds away from the campaign to fund a multiplayer mode that 10 people will play for 2 weeks before going back to Call of Duty.
So, I rent the games, or borrow them, or buy them used. I won't spend my money for a single player experience that has clearly been downgraded in some way to pay for a useless multiplayer mode. I won't do it.
Great blog Handy, bravo.
I never knew thats what the lead of Spec Ops said about his own game...Shit. But I feel you, sometimes we all just want to sit and play some vidya ALONE, and as time goes on less and less games offer that option.
Your blog also made a single man tear drip from my eye.
Please don't die single player :(
I never knew thats what the lead of Spec Ops said about his own game...Shit. But I feel you, sometimes we all just want to sit and play some vidya ALONE, and as time goes on less and less games offer that option.
Your blog also made a single man tear drip from my eye.
Please don't die single player :(
I feel the same way. I also logged hundreds of hours into Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Phantasy Star Online, all offline.
Y'all so passionate about gaming its nuts. Makes me almost want to finish my blog. Oh what's that 100+ game backlog, sorry gotta go.
MOTHERFUCKING THIS!, also what Scissors said, I'll add that different schedules are another complication to add to the mix, I've been waiting for a weekend where my best bud and me are free to continue the RE5 campaign (it's day and night when you play with a friend vs playing with the annoying AI).
@Mr Andy Dixon, Corduroy Turtle: I agree it's not as bad as RE5's forced co-op the fact is that while they (may have) fixed the "forced" aspect they also added co-op exclusive areas... What. The. Fuck.
@Mr Andy Dixon, Corduroy Turtle: I agree it's not as bad as RE5's forced co-op the fact is that while they (may have) fixed the "forced" aspect they also added co-op exclusive areas... What. The. Fuck.
Awesome read! The quote from Spec Ops is a sad thing to see. I rarely play multiplayer, and the most experience I have with it, this gen, is probably the seamlessness of games like Dark Souls. RDR and GTA4's multiplayer never held my interest.
I play games because they're fun, not to experience some shitty B-movie storyline, or because one is "scary". The reason I want to be left alone while watching a movie or reading a book is because books or movies are actually good storytelling mediums.
Multiplayer games tend to be more fun for me. Each match tends to be different, each player has a different skill level and a way of going about things, so each match tends to be different. They have high re-playability and once you're used to the game mechanics, you can jump right in and out. No B-movie level cut scenes about shit I don't care about, no shitty characters, no half-assed jump scares, just game play.
Resident Evil 4 is one of my favorite games. Yet the addition of co-op in RE 5 made it even better, because now I could enjoy it with another friend. I also bought Bioshock 2 entirely for the multiplayer and enjoyed it more than playing through Bioshock 1's single player.
There seems to be this large segment of RE 4 fans that HATE Resident Evil 5, despite it being the exact same fucking game, except with co-op and a different inventory system. Really, the only reason you guys liked RE 4 was because of the half-assed layer of spookyness that it has, not because of the gameplay or anything? Really?
TL;DR:
I play games primarily because of the game play, I don't give a rat's ass about the story in most of them, or how "scary" they are.
Multiplayer games tend to be more fun for me. Each match tends to be different, each player has a different skill level and a way of going about things, so each match tends to be different. They have high re-playability and once you're used to the game mechanics, you can jump right in and out. No B-movie level cut scenes about shit I don't care about, no shitty characters, no half-assed jump scares, just game play.
Resident Evil 4 is one of my favorite games. Yet the addition of co-op in RE 5 made it even better, because now I could enjoy it with another friend. I also bought Bioshock 2 entirely for the multiplayer and enjoyed it more than playing through Bioshock 1's single player.
There seems to be this large segment of RE 4 fans that HATE Resident Evil 5, despite it being the exact same fucking game, except with co-op and a different inventory system. Really, the only reason you guys liked RE 4 was because of the half-assed layer of spookyness that it has, not because of the gameplay or anything? Really?
TL;DR:
I play games primarily because of the game play, I don't give a rat's ass about the story in most of them, or how "scary" they are.
It wouldn't be half as bad if there were ppl playing MP a month after launch, atleast when a traditional MP server is dead we can still enjoy the SP content. But with Dead Space 3 all we will be left with is a crappy bot.
I'm past been angry at the likes of EA & Co, they can sod off and make room for devs who want to make rich SP experiences. Although the cynic in me says that gamers will stay with them in a love hate relationship like Sonic Unleashed fans and the Werehog
I'm past been angry at the likes of EA & Co, they can sod off and make room for devs who want to make rich SP experiences. Although the cynic in me says that gamers will stay with them in a love hate relationship like Sonic Unleashed fans and the Werehog
follow
