Poll: Are Single Players now in the minority?

[rob_simple]

I feel like I should make this clear: I'm not saying that single player games don't exist anymore. Obviously. What I'm saying is that it feels like in many games (including series that never had any sort of multiplayer before) single player is now taking a backseat to forced multiplayer elements.

Yes, things like CoD still have a single player but it is considerably shorter with less replay value than older FPS titles (which all still had multi) and, as someone who plays games exclusively on his own, I think it's a bit shitty to start kicking people who've been playing single-player focused games for years to the curb in favour of this new online multiplayer culture that's became hugely popular now that current gen consoles have reliable internets.

As I stated in the OP, I'm open to the option that I am in the minority here and that while I grew up playing games entirely on my own everyone else was out having huge multiplayer parties and it's only since I've started hanging about in forums and reading news sites that I've suddenly realised I am the weird one.

 

[Dandark]

Although I do enjoy multiplayer, I still play a lot of single player games. I don't play multiplayer as much now due to all the overpriced map packs, online passes, cod clones etc...

The only multiplayer games I still play regularly now is League of Legends, other than that I tend to stick to singleplayer games I enjoy, currently playing Skyrim and Darksiders 2 for example.

I wouldn't say singleplayers are the minority but there has been a large shift in the industry towards the multiplayer side of things, it's become a large part of games rather than just a add on.

 

[Kyrian007]

I see it getting too focused on online multiplayer. Single-Player is still the primary focus of most gamers, but the industry sees the numbers and success of online games like WoW/mmo's and shooters like TF2 and CoD and respond. Because feedback on server populations is just easier to gauge than plays of non-online, single player games... which would boast probably greater numbers.

But even the big numbers from CoD and WoW don't really tell the real story. Some people try and claim that online-multiplayer is popular because of the social interaction you get during gaming. This is misleading, most people I know who play online games do so with the voice options muted and constantly ignoring other players. Purposely turning a social experience BACK to just a gaming experience.

Which is how I would do it... IF I ever bothered with online multiplayer. I've tried, and found a couple of decent players who are good people. But they were outnumbered by a thousand times by little twits who thought that loudly doing nothing but swearing could mask their pre-teen age status, forgetting that they still had the squeaky kid voice.

Don't get me wrong, I like multiplayer... LOCAL multiplayer. I have friends, and multiplayer games are great with them. Borderlands was a weak game, made very fun by local splitscreen (which most devs have done away with.) Good enough that I will get the so far ho-hum looking and tellingly over-hyped sequel (usually indicates a publisher trying too hard to unload a game they know isn't very good, and it works sometimes)... just because of the local multiplayer.

I'd even go so far as to online play, but only with a group of people I know. Had that back in the Everquest days... have not since. Plenty of Escapists I've interacted with have been decent people who I would not mind gaming with... but I just don't have many multiplayer games anymore.

 

[aguspal]

I am suprised it is even a question.

OF COURSE today industry is focused more on Multiplayer, you really have to be pretty blind to not see it... Honestly, this is almost a joke thread.

Not that it is a bad thing... theres plenty of Single player too.

Yeah, not really adding to the discussion there, chief. My point was is this a good thing and does it reflect the desires of the gaming community as a whole or is it due to pressure from publishers who don't understand the industry.

I have already stated that its not a bad thing that games have Multiplayer, at least SO LONG as it dosnts gets in the way of Single player.

Or, saying it with other words: The fact that the game should be Single Player/ Multiplayer or both should be taken early into the game´s devpoloment (Spelling... I know). It should be added as a weak last attempt just so you can say "X game is about Y, with Z character... oh yeah, THERES MULTIUPLAYER TOO, meaning you can have potentially nearly infinite hours of fun with this game, BUY IT NAO!!!" Just no.


As for what the general gaming community thinks about this, well I guess its something around what I said... But not sure.

 

[rob_simple]

I am suprised it is even a question.

OF COURSE today industry is focused more on Multiplayer, you really have to be pretty blind to not see it... Honestly, this is almost a joke thread.

Not that it is a bad thing... theres plenty of Single player too.

Yeah, not really adding to the discussion there, chief. My point was is this a good thing and does it reflect the desires of the gaming community as a whole or is it due to pressure from publishers who don't understand the industry.

I have already stated that its not a bad thing that games have Multiplayer, at least SO LONG as it dosnts gets in the way of Single player.

Or, saying it with other words: The fact that the game should be Single Player/ Multiplayer or both should be taken early into the game´s devpoloment (Spelling... I know). It should be added as a weak last attempt just so you can say "X game is about Y, with Z character... oh yeah, THERES MULTIUPLAYER TOO, meaning you can have potentially nearly infinite hours of fun with this game, BUY IT NAO!!!" Just no.


As for what the general gaming community thinks about this, well I guess its something around what I said... But not sure.

Yeah that's sort of my problem, I have no issue with multiplayer existing, but it feels like games are skimping on the single player content now in favour of pushing multiplayer. As I've mentioned elsewhere, even though FPS's have always had strong multiplayer elements they also had a thoroughly robust single player. Take Goldeneye, for example: I can't recall how long the campaign was, but it had extra objectives at higher difficulty levels as well as times and other criteria to beat to unlock cheats and other characters. CoD, on the other hand, has an eight hour campaign mode, increasing the difficulty only makes you die quicker and the intel you can collect is absolutely meaningless outside of unlocking trophies/achievements.

Then there's the opposite: tacking on a broken single player for no reason. Brink is a great example of this, the single player is nigh unplayable because ally AI just doesn't work properly; it's a completely deceptive gesture to get people who would be turned away by a multiplayer-only game to still buy it.

This is all exacerbated by the fact that local multiplayer is almost non-existent now, meaning that the longevity of multiplayer is wholly dependent on how long other people keep playing. It was fine when you could get your friends round for a game of Goldeneye, but now if I want to play a game with my friend he has to stay at home or bring his TV, console and an extra copy of the game. And all that's assuming the servers haven't been shut down because not enough people are continuing to play.

 

[Schtoobs]

I don't particularly like competition (read: bad loser) but it's great to have the option. Despite not playing very often, I think battlefield 3 multiplayer is the most intense visceral fun you can have in a game. But it's made a million times better if you are in a squad of friends. Without friends, multiplayer is no different from singleplayer except strangers can impact your game and you can impact theirs. It's still the individual's experience that really matters. So without knowing actual figures I've voted (guessed) single-player but there was definately an increase in competitive multiplayer which appears to be giving way to mainly co-op multiplayers like WOW, probably due to team deathmatch becoming more popular than deathmatch.

Fortunately we have loads of choice. Whatever the triple A dev's stop making the smaller and indie dev's will make.

 

[templar1138a]

Last time I truly enjoyed multiplayer was when I played Halo (1) multiplayer on my PC when I was fourteen.

Ten years later, the only multiplayer I want to be involved in is cooperative with people I actually know. Otherwise, I despise the multiplayer focus [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119449-EA-Turns-Its-Back-on-Single-Player-Games] the industry at large has taken. When TOR goes free-to-play, I won't feel any need to keep paying because most of the subscriber features have to do with interacting with multiple other people (PvP, Operations, that sort of thing). Not worth the money.

And I was very disappointed to learn that Day Z is a multiplayer thing. I would have liked to try a real zombie survival game without being griefed by teenagers with poor social skills and a complete inability to get a girlfriend.

Don't deny it, I've been there.

 

[BeeGeenie]

hmm... I suppose there have always been multiplayer games, after all, someone's gotta be luigi. Still, I miss the good old days when the single player mode was the default and player 2 had to push start to enter.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

Pretty much all of the statistics on the matter show that if a game has any sort of single player element whatsoever, a vast majority of players will only ever play that. Even in games that are supposedly "all about the multiplayer", like Call of Duty or Diablo III, most players are spending most of their time in single player.

Now, there is a big misconception, even among publishers that should know better, that a game will only sell if it has multiplayer. This is because of the big success of things like World of Warcraft or Call of Duty, which are games that people apparently only play for multiplayer (although like I said, most people only play Call of Duty single player, and I'm willing to bet a vast majority of WoW players only do solo content). Thus, you have companies like EA or Take-Two trying to push multiplayer as hard as possible, even though it's not why most people play games.

That said, enough people do play multiplayer that it's not stupid to design features of a system around it. But if you don't utilize them at all, you are not part of an obscure minority that publishers shouldn't care about.

I don't know about it being a 'misconception' on the publisher's part (multiplayer -> each player must buy a copy). But I essentially agree with this. Sure, kids can get their friends together after school and play Mario Party or whatnot, but take away that close-knit group of friends and multiplayer is just not that appealing. WoW, LoL, MW/BF, the trolling and harassment in these online games is phenomenal. I play single player when given a chance.