I miss singleplayer :(...

Recommended Videos

ThirdPrize

New member
May 14, 2009
42
0
0
Yeah. I think game companies go for the multi player aspect as it gives you a lot of game with little effort on their part. Multiplayer capture the flag, last man standing, etc are all variations on the same thing. They don't need the devs to spend time doing things like AI and plot and cutscenes.

What annoys me is multiplayer 360 achievements. I am probably never gonna max out any proper game (except maybe lost odyssey) as they all have at least 1 or 2 multiplayer achievements.
 

Crash486

New member
Oct 18, 2008
525
0
0
Chaosut said:
Iwamori said:
Yeah, if you're looking for some decent single player games RPG/RTS are your best bet. Most shooters these days are pretty much entirely focused on the multiplayer experience. The COD/Crysis/Serious Sam/Painkiller series are pretty decent single player fps experiences though, look into those if you haven't already.
Good thinking, however i'm not the biggest fan of RTS's, so i'll probably have to stick with RPG's. I guess it's pretty hard to find an FPS these days that doesn't sport online MP.
You could check out the metal gear series. In total its probably about 100+ hours of some of the best single player gaming you can get.

Single player games still exist, in fact 2 of the most anticipated single player games this year are going to be coming out within a month, inFamous and Prototype. Later on there will be Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank Future 2, and God of War 3, all of which are single player titans.

Single Player only FPS games were never very good. Yes some of them had excellent singleplayer AND excellent multiplayer (halflife) but FPS is really about twitch reflexes. It's not that much fun to strut your twitch on bots. Half-life had a very strong singleplayer, but it's the multiplayer that's made it famous, (CS, TFC, NS, etc.).

Even Doom and Duke Nukem 3D had online components.

Vrex360 said:
So yeah it does hurt when games neglect single player time for expansion of multiplayer like in say Halo 3 (GASP, VREX JUST MADE A CRITICISM TO HALO 3, QUICK CALL THE PRESS) where because of the addition of the four player co-op the campian had to be shorter.
shame they didn't put it on blu-ray so it could have fit both a full length single player and four player co-op *cough*.

Yooz said:
Iwamori said:
Yeah, if you're looking for some decent single player games RPG/RTS are your best bet. Most shooters these days are pretty much entirely focused on the multiplayer experience. The COD/Crysis/Serious Sam/Painkiller series are pretty decent single player fps experiences though, look into those if you haven't already.
I cannot emphasise enough how much you should look into Serious Sam.
Serious sam had a multiplayer/co-op component as well, or at least it was modded in.
 

The_Angry_Haruhist

New member
Apr 16, 2009
91
0
0
I miss the days when a well constructed single palyer experience was the drawing point of a game...

These days it seems that gaming is more about testoserone-fueled competition as opposed to playing for fun. Play any FPS for any length of time and you'll know what I mean.
 

Zombie_Fish

Opiner of Mottos
Mar 20, 2009
4,584
0
0
The_Angry_Haruhist said:
I miss the days when a well constructed single palyer experience was the drawing point of a game...

These days it seems that gaming is more about testoserone-fueled competition as opposed to playing for fun. Play any FPS for any length of time and you'll know what I mean.
Oh I know what you mean. Companies seem to think that people only care for the exitement and not the game itself. That's why multiplayer is so commonly used, as there is usually excitement in going up against other people, instead of NPCs, but what I can't stand at all is when you go up against someone much more experienced and they just spend all of their time beating the crap out of you. I just find that so annoying.
 

The_Angry_Haruhist

New member
Apr 16, 2009
91
0
0
Crash486 said:
Single Player only FPS games were never very good. Yes some of them had excellent singleplayer AND excellent multiplayer (halflife) but FPS is really about twitch reflexes. It's not that much fun to strut your twitch on bots. Half-life had a very strong singleplayer, but it's the multiplayer that's made it famous, (CS, TFC, NS, etc.).

Even Doom and Duke Nukem 3D had online components.
Bioshock was singleplayer only, and it was brilliant.
 

Otterpoet

New member
Jun 6, 2008
273
0
0
Although I?ve had some amazing fun playing co-op Resident Evil 5 with my friend, I?m really a single player from start to finish. I deal with enough obnoxious jerks at work, why introduce them into my preferred form of relaxation? So the continuing movement toward MP preference is getting under my skin. It?s why I?ve lost interest in most FPSers, where the SP experience is gutted to make room for MP options (Fry Cry 2 being a major and blessed exception). I like a narrative to my gaming experience (even a thinly veiled one). I thank the gamer-gods every day that I bought a 60GB PS3, so I can play all the amazing PS2 RPGs and their ilk in order to fill the gap between solid single-player games.
 

PedroSteckecilo

Mexican Fugitive
Feb 7, 2008
6,732
0
0
Personally I don't give a damn about multiplayer...

I don't want to play with some random douchebags online and I have very different game tastes from most of my friends (I'm the only one who likes pure shooters and Resident Evil, for example) so it's an enormous piss off when a game comes out that's "co-op focused" like RE5. I want my friggin single player back! Why do game makers assume I want to play with all these annoying people on XBL?
 

Russian_Assassin

New member
Apr 24, 2008
1,849
0
0
Pi_Fighter said:
I hate it when a new game comes out and the SP campaign is about 5 hours long. It just feels as though some games should be released as multiplayer only.
This. Honestly, I hate how bloody short the games are today! Well anyways, to comment on the original topic, I agree, single player is often what makes a god game. Of course there are exceptions, like my beloved Team Fortress 2, but in most games it's just an excuse to make it shorter, release it quicker and earn some of our precious money (I wonder why do I always end up bashing the game devs :S).
 

The_Angry_Haruhist

New member
Apr 16, 2009
91
0
0
Beating the crap out of you whilst questioning your sexual orientaion, don't forget that.

The only game where I don't find this happening much is Street Fighter IV. The overall atmosphere is remarkably friendly, and most everyone I meet seems to have fun even when they lose.
 

XJ-0461

New member
Mar 9, 2009
4,513
0
0
Nigh Invulnerable said:
Retrofraction said:
i always liked how single player allowed you to save and leave on most games.

L4D takes 30-20 mins to Finnish a level
I'm sure it's a typo, but you said 'Finnish' instead of 'finish' and I got images of crazed Viking hordes descending upon the zombies in L4D. Maybe that's just me.
That would be awesome. I congratulate you on this idea.
 

Erzengel

New member
May 13, 2009
56
0
0
I totally agree. Singleplayer has seemingly vanished; then there are awesome games that are singleplayer only (Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil, Anachronox) that no one ever bought (as Yahtzee says, "because they're not safe or familiar", specifically showing the first two). If you haven't bought Beyond Good & Evil, cripple the hand opposite the one that you crippled for not buying Psychonauts.

There still is single player out there. But it is very annoying to see a good game that I can't play because I don't want to pay Microsoft for the right to log on (which is funny because I have a 3 month card that I got for free but I still don't use it), or the sheer number of games that are bought simply because they have multiplayer. More gamers want fun multiplayer than good single player, and so that's what publishers tell developers to do.
 

ffxfriek

New member
Apr 3, 2008
2,070
0
0
Crumblebumble said:
Chaosut said:
zauxz said:
I think that is one of the reasons why RPG is my favourite genire.
Yeah true, RPG's are a bit of a saviour for SP people.
Completely. That's why I can't ***** about JRPGs and further limit my choices!

I really hate how a load of the achievements on XBL are for online playing. It makes me feel like I haven't finished the whole game because I'm inadequate when really it's because I don't want to go online and get my ass shot off by a 13 year old screaming, "HA HA, NOOOOOOOB!" in my ear.
please no flameing here but why dont you mute everyone before the match?
or before it stats mute the annoing people.

on topic: im still workin on my RPG i got for christmas. need to loot more dungeons

but i miss sigleplayer. halo 2 was forever it took me 3 days. halo 3 single player took me 14 hours and was waaay to short. id prefer a great singleplayer like halo 2 and less on multiplaer.
 

Erzengel

New member
May 13, 2009
56
0
0
Russian_Assassin said:
I wonder why do I always end up bashing the game devs
Honestly, it depends on the dev and publisher. Sometimes the publisher is doing executive meddling, sometimes the development studio is just bad. Sometimes a good dev studio just gets tired and goes bad thanks to the publisher's and public's incessant nagging and inexplicable desire to buy crap games with ever increasing numbers rather than the new, innovative games that are actually fun.

Game development is a business. A very expensive business. A very, very, very expensive, time consuming, soul eating business. As such, we go where the money is. It's easy to get cynical when it's December and you haven't left the office since August except to bathe every couple weeks or drew the short straw to go pick up Thai food for the team.

I wouldn't call that an excuse for crappy games, but it is an explanation. Game devs generally are gamers themselves who want to make good games, but after years you just want to get it done with. Maybe if gamers as a whole were willing to buy innovative games, even bad ones (After all, gamers as a whole buy horrendously bad sequels, why not bad innovations?), and we could get away from the tyranny of Christmas, games as a whole would improve.
 

Crash486

New member
Oct 18, 2008
525
0
0
The_Angry_Haruhist said:
Crash486 said:
Single Player only FPS games were never very good. Yes some of them had excellent singleplayer AND excellent multiplayer (halflife) but FPS is really about twitch reflexes. It's not that much fun to strut your twitch on bots. Half-life had a very strong singleplayer, but it's the multiplayer that's made it famous, (CS, TFC, NS, etc.).

Even Doom and Duke Nukem 3D had online components.
Bioshock was singleplayer only, and it was brilliant.
That's true, but there are far more examples of bad single player only FPS than there are of good ones. Also bioshock wasn't really an FPS. More of an FPS/RPG.
 

internutt

New member
Aug 27, 2008
900
0
0
Single player is brilliant. However, when it comes to games like shooters and fighters, the fun is to play it against your friends. How many of you plugged more hours into GoldenEye's single player than the multi-player?

Banjo Kazooie is a wonderful game without the multiplayer, as is Zelda. Some series need multi player, while others have it as an added bonus.
 

BolognaBaloney

New member
Mar 17, 2009
2,672
0
0
internutt said:
Single player is brilliant. However, when it comes to games like shooters and fighters, the fun is to play it against your friends. How many of you plugged more hours into GoldenEye's single player than the multi-player?

Banjo Kazooie is a wonderful game without the multiplayer, as is Zelda. Some series need multi player, while others have it as an added bonus.
Quite true...on an off-note, your picture is amazing
 

xenxander

New member
Nov 14, 2007
97
0
0
Every multi-player game out there is the same clone of each other. What you get is a cut and past duplicate of another game you've played, with a different skin.

Honestly, play halo, play call of duty, play unreal, play... any game that focuses on multi-player and it's the same three tasks - capture the flag, have the most kills, or territorial, over and over again, and all you are really getting is a different weapon in which to do this by, a different map, or different graphics.

It's boreing, it's repetitive, and it makes me loose all optimism about any new game released. I'm still playing Icewind Dale, Homeworld, and Morrowind, because they, to me, are where classic gaming still lies.
 

searanox

New member
Sep 22, 2008
864
0
0
It's very easy to explain. Let me do it. Here are the best reasons I can give, roughly in order of importance.

Publishers think multiplayer sells games, so they demand almost every game has multiplayer by default, unless it is incompatible with the genre. It's a bullet point and despite successes of single-player games, evidence suggests it is still games with compelling multiplayer options that sell. Because of this demand, developers often have to divert attention away from the single-player portion of the game, reducing its quality, or even splitting their team in half to accommodate the two portions.

Games are getting more and more expensive to create. Multiplayer provides hours and hours of fun for comparatively little effort or cost. You give the players some maps and game modes and so long as it's fun, that's a guaranteed "X hours of gameplay".

Microtransactions and downloadable content are two of the best ways to make money these days on a game, because most big-budget titles don't even break even. If you can develop about 1% man-hours' worth of content in as much time, but sell it for 10% of the price of a full game, and not have to deal with major distribution costs or third-parties like retailers, that represents an absolutely massive potential profit margin. Although microtransactions and downloadable content work in both multiplayer and single-player, multiplayer is much easier because it usually involves little more than a few weeks of work to get a few new maps up and running (often built from single-player templates, cut from the final product due to time constrains, or reused from previous games), or a new gun, or whatever. Single-player stuff tends to require art, design, and programming, and fairly large teams on each front, while multiplayer stuff can be built with only a few people, usually an artist or two, one level designer, and a programmer or two to work the new features into the existing UI and handle the distribution process. Put simply, it's easy and cost-effective.

Multiplayer gives a reason for players to keep coming back for more. If you have a lot of people playing your game, that means they are less likely to buy what the competition is offering. Furthermore, online games are the ones people talk about. Because of the social element, players and press alike are probably going to promote those sorts of games more, both in face-to-face interaction and journalistic reviews.

Finally, developers create multiplayer while operating under the logic of 1+1=2, that is to say, if a game is fun with one person, it will be exponentially more fun with more people. Simple really. This isn't always the case, but I have seen this mentality before, especially with MMORPGs and similar.

I almost always prefer single-player games, although multiplayer is good for killing time and can provide certain experiences you can't get in a single-player game simply due to the constrains of artificial intelligence and the like. However, I have to admit that the above points have merit, even if it is mostly economic. Gaming is becoming increasingly mainstream, and generally the mainstream is comprised of more than a bunch of cynical, lonely, world-hating nerds; that is, the kinds of people who like to socialise. As this happens, demand for multiplayer goes up, although it doesn't actually represent as big a market as some would like to believe (most gaming is still casual and/or portable in nature). It's where the money is, and the fact is most people do not want to really devote even 20 hours these days into beating a game for what they may perceive as little to no reward.

I'd love every game to be as good as Deus Ex, to provide as engrossing and open-ended an experience as Oblivion, and as strong a storyline as The Witcher, but it's not going to happen. We're probably going to see gradually less of those games, too, although they certainly will never disappear completely, because even if it isn't the primary market, it still is a large enough segment worth considering. I think indie games are really going to take off in the single-player arena, with increasingly big-budget games moving into the online arena.
 

Iskenator67

New member
Dec 12, 2008
1,015
0
0
My Comfy Chair
Country
United States
Gender
Male
I hate how almost every game out there is multiplayer. I'm the lone gamer. I have no friends and I intended to keep it that way. I game and live alone. So peaceful...