Will single player go the way of the Arcade?

[Dylan Hentchel]

Could you imagine playing a game like Oblivion, Fallout or Tomb Raider as a multiplayer? I can and it kept me awake for HOURS!!

I know think of all the cool ways you could do it, like having so that players run into each other and have full decision of how to deal with each other, changing the game every time you play through it, oh man that would be so cool if done right. Fallout would work perfectly too.

 

[MightyRabbit]

Not a chance. There's always going to be games you can't play with others, no matter how hard they try to put in multiplayer. And there are too many problems with playing online like finding people who want to play with the same ruleset you do etc. Single player will always have a place in gaming.

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

Sweet Jesus I hope not, the only reason I buy the Call of Duty games is for the single player campaign. The MASSIVE set pieces are so excellently done, I would hate to lose them all together.

That makes me cry for so many reasons, most notably that you're saying you play a shooter for the scenery.

So what? When I played the "Second Sun" mission of Modern Warfare 2, the scenery, and the background were so well done, I found myself just randomly looking around. So cry all you want, I do enjoy the scenery in CoD games.

Captcha: khosta cross
Sounds like a christian boomerang weapon.

You said you like to look at the set peices of the single-player on $40.00 game, just go and watch the directors cut of avatar, thats a much better use of your time and money.

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

Not a chance. There's always going to be games you can't play with others, no matter how hard they try to put in multiplayer. And there are too many problems with playing online like finding people who want to play with the same ruleset you do etc. Single player will always have a place in gaming.

And so will arcades

 

[Knight Templar]

Arcades went away because thety were not economicly viable. Everything they offered could be found elsewhere for a lower price.

Multiplayer still rakes in cash and does things multiplayer cannot.

 

[Vault101]

well I dont think that they will simply get rid of games like Mass effect or LA noir for COD

no both wil be around I mean its a completley different experience on both sides, and theres no reason for single play to die out...not EVERYONE likes multiplayer

Borlderndas was dull single player, no real interaction with NPC's certain things affecting imersion

Never said anything about getting rid of them, just that they would become much less popular and improve at a slower rate.

I assure everyone at Microsoft likes multiplayer. And it isn't a completely different experience, just substitute fake humans for real ones and presto, you guys keep going on about plot and such, but I think you are really talking about cutscenes, which are fully unnecessary to plot, just putting a flowing plot that matches the pace of the multiplayer works fine. And once again (third time or so I believe) this isn't about single-player disappearing arcade games are still produced believe it or not.

I felt Borderlands be a very laid back sci-fi western, it managed to make even the piles of bones and such seem almost peaceful. Though you should note I never have played the multiplayer and haven't gotten through the full story. And the lack of NPCs just contributed to the western feel of things.

actually I dont agree

single player and story is more than cutscenes, its scriped events and cutscenes and a combination of ALOT of things

and its not quite the same as just substuting AI for real players, its a like a play everyone follows their part

plus I wouldnt want people messing with around in my game

bottom line, mabye alot of games will have some kind of online component, but I doubt it will resemble how we currently veiw single and multiplayer games

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

Once again I say this in not true, you can build a story by environment alone (actually I recently won a competition for this) and it is something that the industry has been trying to do more effectively (I found that out at aforementioned competition) so although you can't have a central "plot" you can have a story or sorts, and even many stories.

Well if you do "story of sorts" it means you went half arsed, if you want your game to be noted for it's story you need to go all out.

That's the main problem with MMO's, they put in this grand world and story but due to the bad presentation in the end noone gives a shit about it.
Multiplayer has no atmosphere and hardly any immersion, plus you are no longer the hero of the story just another peon among millions, in those circumstances you don't care about the world only how you stack up against others.

story of sorts can still be a lot, remember every single-player game has fake people in it to fill the slots, the more fake people you can replace with real people the more immersive a game can be.

The problem I most notice with MMO's is that they have a tendency to try and make a linear plot in a non-linear game, thus you end up going to the wrong places at the wrong time and just sort of missing the whole thing, this is fixed by a completely non-linear plot line

 

[RheynbowDash]

Sweet Jesus I hope not, the only reason I buy the Call of Duty games is for the single player campaign. The MASSIVE set pieces are so excellently done, I would hate to lose them all together.

That makes me cry for so many reasons, most notably that you're saying you play a shooter for the scenery.

So what? When I played the "Second Sun" mission of Modern Warfare 2, the scenery, and the background were so well done, I found myself just randomly looking around. So cry all you want, I do enjoy the scenery in CoD games.

Captcha: khosta cross
Sounds like a christian boomerang weapon.

You said you like to look at the set peices of the single-player on $40.00 game, just go and watch the directors cut of avatar, thats a much better use of your time and money.

Saw it, didnt like Avatar. Anyway. A better use of YOUR time is not insulting people because they have a differing opinion than you. So instead of ridiculing me about liking the set pieces in Call of Duty, how about you add something to the conversation?

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

well I dont think that they will simply get rid of games like Mass effect or LA noir for COD

no both wil be around I mean its a completley different experience on both sides, and theres no reason for single play to die out...not EVERYONE likes multiplayer

Borlderndas was dull single player, no real interaction with NPC's certain things affecting imersion

Never said anything about getting rid of them, just that they would become much less popular and improve at a slower rate.

I assure everyone at Microsoft likes multiplayer. And it isn't a completely different experience, just substitute fake humans for real ones and presto, you guys keep going on about plot and such, but I think you are really talking about cutscenes, which are fully unnecessary to plot, just putting a flowing plot that matches the pace of the multiplayer works fine. And once again (third time or so I believe) this isn't about single-player disappearing arcade games are still produced believe it or not.

I felt Borderlands be a very laid back sci-fi western, it managed to make even the piles of bones and such seem almost peaceful. Though you should note I never have played the multiplayer and haven't gotten through the full story. And the lack of NPCs just contributed to the western feel of things.

actually I dont agree

single player and story is more than cutscenes, its scriped events and cutscenes and a combination of ALOT of things

and its not quite the same as just substuting AI for real players, its a like a play everyone follows their part

plus I wouldnt want people messing with around in my game

bottom line, mabye alot of games will have some kind of online component, but I doubt it will resemble how we currently veiw single and multiplayer games

Scripted events, and the unspecified lot of things all can be included into multiplayer (sometimes even cutscenes, but not easily) and if you want cutscenes, we do still have an entire medium called movies, the entire uniqueness of games is your ability to chose your own destiny, not to go through a linear sequence of events, and replacing AI makes a game infinitely less linear.

As for the messing around, the idea is that everyone would have a small part in your game, major roles would probably have to be played by NPCs. And I bet your only saying that because you've never seen it work out well (quite frankly neither have I, though demon souls was a step in the right direction). I stand firm in my belief the single-player will fade to just a backdrop for multiplayer.

 

[Smooth Operator]

story of sorts can still be a lot, remember every single-player game has fake people in it to fill the slots, the more fake people you can replace with real people the more immersive a game can be.

But the fake people fit the world real people do not, they are of your time and place so they will yank you out of virtual world every time.
Unless you set up multilayer with all professional voice actors playing their part, story and MP do not mix well.

 

[johnnnny guitar]

I hope not since my internet here in australia is really crap so I'll get tons of lag and not be able to play

 

[NeutralDrow]

You're also forgetting that a lot of games come out from the country where arcades are still going strong.

Just thought I'd mention.

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

Sweet Jesus I hope not, the only reason I buy the Call of Duty games is for the single player campaign. The MASSIVE set pieces are so excellently done, I would hate to lose them all together.

That makes me cry for so many reasons, most notably that you're saying you play a shooter for the scenery.

So what? When I played the "Second Sun" mission of Modern Warfare 2, the scenery, and the background were so well done, I found myself just randomly looking around. So cry all you want, I do enjoy the scenery in CoD games.

Captcha: khosta cross
Sounds like a christian boomerang weapon.

You said you like to look at the set peices of the single-player on $40.00 game, just go and watch the directors cut of avatar, thats a much better use of your time and money.

Saw it, didnt like Avatar. Anyway. A better use of YOUR time is not insulting people because they have a differing opinion than you. So instead of ridiculing me about liking the set pieces in Call of Duty, how about you add something to the conversation?

The director's cut added a lot to Avatar I strongly recommend it. Please understand that I am really just venting anger on you over the emphasis on graphic quality in games, something I don't see as being important to a game. Also please note I criticized your opinion, and the avatar line I hope you realize was a line saying the movies will always have better graphics than games, plain and simple.

Also on about that last little line, have you read any of my other posts?

 

[Randomologist]

I can't see either of them about to die out, but I think it might be argued that some games work better in a multiplayer setting. TF2, for instance. However, can you imagine driving around a GTA city with forty other people massacring the population? Then there's the practical stuff. Lets take for instance Minecraft, a game lots of people play. If you want to try making something truly colossal, like a computer, you probably need Singleplayer, because your actions directly impact the enjoyment of others for the worse. On the other hand, if you want to build something as part of a team, then obviously you need an external server.

Which is a pretty long way of saying No, I think. Singleplayer is here to stay, in some form or another.

 

[Vault101]

well I dont think that they will simply get rid of games like Mass effect or LA noir for COD

no both wil be around I mean its a completley different experience on both sides, and theres no reason for single play to die out...not EVERYONE likes multiplayer

Borlderndas was dull single player, no real interaction with NPC's certain things affecting imersion

Never said anything about getting rid of them, just that they would become much less popular and improve at a slower rate.

I assure everyone at Microsoft likes multiplayer. And it isn't a completely different experience, just substitute fake humans for real ones and presto, you guys keep going on about plot and such, but I think you are really talking about cutscenes, which are fully unnecessary to plot, just putting a flowing plot that matches the pace of the multiplayer works fine. And once again (third time or so I believe) this isn't about single-player disappearing arcade games are still produced believe it or not.

I felt Borderlands be a very laid back sci-fi western, it managed to make even the piles of bones and such seem almost peaceful. Though you should note I never have played the multiplayer and haven't gotten through the full story. And the lack of NPCs just contributed to the western feel of things.

actually I dont agree

single player and story is more than cutscenes, its scriped events and cutscenes and a combination of ALOT of things

and its not quite the same as just substuting AI for real players, its a like a play everyone follows their part

plus I wouldnt want people messing with around in my game

bottom line, mabye alot of games will have some kind of online component, but I doubt it will resemble how we currently veiw single and multiplayer games

Scripted events, and the unspecified lot of things all can be included into multiplayer (sometimes even cutscenes, but not easily) and if you want cutscenes, we do still have an entire medium called movies, the entire uniqueness of games is your ability to chose your own destiny, not to go through a linear sequence of events, and replacing AI makes a game infinitely less linear.

As for the messing around, the idea is that everyone would have a small part in your game, major roles would probably have to be played by NPCs. And I bet your only saying that because you've never seen it work out well (quite frankly neither have I, though demon souls was a step in the right direction). I stand firm in my belief the single-player will fade to just a backdrop for multiplayer.

ah BUT what do you mean when you say multiplayer?

because Im talking about multiplayer in its popular form now...essentially just "everyone go kill the other team" type thing

you seem to be talking about intergrating the single and multiplayer experience, which yes I think in the future is what may happen, however right now they are seperate game modes for obvious reasons, with of ocarse deamons sould being somthing of an example

and cutscenes arnt that bad, they can be good if not abused, case in point mass efffect would not be the same without its cinematic nature, there are all kinds of methods for storytelling in games not one is better than the other, we do need variety after all

I am done here

 

[foxlovingfreak]

Not as long as great single player expirences like portal 2 bioshock the fallout games countnie to be made. Or even expirmental games like heavy rain and l.A noier countiune to be made. Personaly I think there will always be room for both.

 

[Thespian]

I doubt it. Some of the biggest releases in the coming year are single player. Arkham Asylum, Mass Effect 3, Skyrim, Deus Ex, Bioshock: Infinite are all solid singleplayer games and they are probably gonna be the big monster sellers. Plus you have stuff like Assassin's Creed: Revelations, Uncharted 3 and Dark Souls support multiplayer, but are primarily single player campaigns.

If SinglePlayer ever does give way to sole co-op/multiplayer games, it won't be for a long time and after a lot of advances in the tech needed to do so.

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

story of sorts can still be a lot, remember every single-player game has fake people in it to fill the slots, the more fake people you can replace with real people the more immersive a game can be.

But the fake people fit the world real people do not, they are of your time and place so they will yank you out of virtual world every time.
Unless you set up multilayer with all professional voice actors playing their part, story and MP do not mix well.

Voice acting unnecessary, simple text response and counter response would work fine (that would be a lot of scripting, but what else are interns for?) Ok so have you ever been in a point in a game where there has been too much story and you just want to kill something, a lot of games will throw completely random fights at you, why make these fights against AI it would work just as well to make them against humans, hell even merchants could be included, also it adds a little tension because any human could easily turn out to be a jerk, or not, like in life. As I said major roles (and some small ones too I suppose) would have to be filled with NPCs. Other than those couple of roles I see a lot of holes to fit in other players (games have a tendency to make worlds where everyone is evil, neutral, or on your side, whereas real worlds have most people as friendly or, unfriendly.

 

[Laser Priest]

No.

Only FPSs seem to be generally reducing campaign lengths anyway.

Play an RPG like Dragon Age. Origins gives you at least a hundred hours in side quests alone.

 

[Gigano]

Nope, but it'll probably be relegated to be decidedly secondary in AAA titles which have to earn back a large investment, sort of an extended tutorial for the online part where the real money can be made through micro transactions, subscriptions, premium services and such.

While AAA-games with a solid single player experience (i.e. a quality script, a properly paced campaign of decent length) won't die out, they have fallen on hard times in recent years with ever dwindling numbers, and will probably never really recuperate. So gamers who strictly do single player might increasingly be forced to look elsewhere than the AAA-titles between these releases.