Will single player go the way of the Arcade?

[Smooth Operator]

Anyone that wants to tell a story needs single player, so unless the gaming industry really takes a nose dive into stupidity they can't do without.

But the games will be increasingly connected for sure, and I really wouldn't mind if someone joins in to play Alyx on my second playthrough of HL3 (yes I still believe)

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

No. No multiplayer game will ever be able to come close to giving the experience single player does.

I've yet to see a multiplayer game give the same experience as, say, shadow of the colossus.

Ever play GunZ? I doubt it, but the game itself (only multiplayer I'll note) had you pulling off matrix like moves to kill your opponents, when you get into a spree of say five really cool kills, that is more satisfying than platforming all the colossi in that game(well at least to me).

 

[Watchmacallit]

Nope. Single player is still a seller, multi-player just sells better to the kiddies.

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

Anyone that wants to tell a story needs single player, so unless the gaming industry really takes a nose dive into stupidity they can't do without.

But the games will be increasingly connected for sure, and I really wouldn't mind if someone joins in to play Alyx on my second playthrough of HL3 (yes I still believe)

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.

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

Nope. Single player is still a seller, multi-player just sells better to the kiddies.

And once the kiddies cease to be the kiddies?

 

[dimensional]

Cant see single player ever disappearing, at the moment there is a lot of focus on multiplayer usually via online but people sometimes want to enjoy a game alone (certainly enough to sustain a single player market).

Speaking personally I tend to find myself gravitating more and more towards single player games as I generally dont like playing with strangers (some are pretty sound but most seem to be complete prats) and the amount of times my friends and I are online at the same time playing the same game is negligible in short to get it to happen it has to be organised and if we can spare the time to do that we can usually spare the time to go to the pub (it is good for friends far away though).

Also it takes much more time, effort and resources to sustain, grow and manage an online community which small developers cant afford sure there could still be offline co-op/multiplay but in these instances I would bet they would focus predominantly on the single player.

However if im wrong and it really does start to disappear from games I guess ill have to find a new hobby.

 

[ExileNZ]

Simply put, no. Not everyone has an internet connection and you can bet your backside not everybody wants to play with other people online. Most of my gaming friends don't even have the same games as me, so it's random dickwads or no one at all.

(random PEOPLE I have no problem with, it's dickwads that spoil it for everyone)

EDIT: Also remember that the world's most popular computer game isn't World of Warcraft, it's Solitaire.

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

So many reasons to cry at the thought of offline single player disappearing.
I have a pretty strong dislike of playing online, because of the sheer number of elitist asshats outweighing the number of people who are fun to play with. I don't see how you view online as potentially being exclusively the future of gaming, as an isolated system is inarguably more reliable than a connection to an online network.

Yes there are assholes online, taking away mics helps a lot with this (something that microsoft needs to learn) as for the unreliable internet, that is becoming less and less true exponentially every day, so I don't see it mattering in the near future. And this isn't about the disappearance of all singleplayer games, its about single-player being about as common as arcades (there are about 3 in driving distance for my suburban home)

 

[GamerAddict7796]

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

 

[Vault101]

Borderlands? Crappy singleplayer? what are you talking about, anyway. . .
I don't see much future for single player games, as companies seem to be realizing, "hey if we pit players against each other then they'll want to win right? And if they want to win than they will take any need necessary to do that right? So we can get them to pay us more money right?" Now I know, some people aren't willing or can't afford to pay for extra content, but at least half of them have already bought the game. This goes primarily for shooters though.

As for MMOs I don't see them actually replacing the standard RPG, after all Dragonage (the first one at least) was a very well made game with a good gameplay and a good story and had nothing to do with online play. On the other hand MMOs do seem to be surpassing traditional RPGs at this point in time, I bet this trend will continue, but we won't see the end of traditional RPGs until we see the end of DnD.

The problem I see for single player games is that AI hasn't been making much progress simply due to the fact that you don't need it, allow me to explain. In CoD the AI is stupid and easy to outmatch, in Timesplitters the AI is simple but challenging, Timesplitters offers Arcade* play with any combination of humans and AI, CoD only allows arcade play with other players primarily via the internet. In defense of the companies, why spend hundreds of dollars making fake people, when you could just connect them with real people? As a result you'll notice that AI hasn't really gotten better than it was in say, Unreal Tournament, since I don't know, Gears of War.

In racing and fighting games I don't see any reason that it won't go in the way of internet only, after all each really has just featured: Cutscene; Arcade Match; Cutscene; Arcade Match. The events being only loosely tied together, and sure each one will always feature its own crappy story mode, but no, that will go the way of the "crappy single player experience."

Rhythm games haven't changed since they came out and won't change ever.

Sports games will go towards internet play only, but I'm not sure anyone cares

Strategy games already rely heavily on online play and that won't decrease in anyway, whether their single player campaigns stick around is anybodies guess (though I say so long as blizzard is around)

So in short: YES I do see singleplayer reaching a point where it is just a weak background for those without internet or that just need a break from multiplayer

*arcade play includes all non-story modes, where people play with the same availabilities (deathmatches, capture the flag, etc.)

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

 

[Watchmacallit]

Nope. Single player is still a seller, multi-player just sells better to the kiddies.

And once the kiddies cease to be the kiddies?

One would hope that they develop a taste for the singleplayer story line.

I realise not all teenagers and children don't enjoy singleplayer, just saying that a deep and meaningful story line might not be as fun to the kid as gunning down people in a small map (CoD)

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

Cant see single player ever disappearing, at the moment there is a lot of focus on multiplayer usually via online but people sometimes want to enjoy a game alone (certainly enough to sustain a single player market).

Speaking personally I tend to find myself gravitating more and more towards single player games as I generally dont like playing with strangers (some are pretty sound but most seem to be complete prats) and the amount of times my friends and I are online at the same time playing the same game is negligible in short to get it to happen it has to be organised and if we can spare the time to do that we can usually spare the time to go to the pub (it is good for friends far away though).

Also it takes much more time, effort and resources to sustain, grow and manage an online community which small developers cant afford sure there could still be offline co-op/multiplay but in these instances I would bet they would focus predominantly on the single player.

However if im wrong and it really does start to disappear from games I guess ill have to find a new hobby.

And . . . And . . . sometimes a person wants to go to a public place to show off their skills at the newest need for speed game, so you still see those around every now and then, or maybe they want to play time crisis with the actual kickback and you still see those around, this isn't about the complete disappearance of single players games people. As for your small developers, they can all afford to add in multiplayer on a consul game(except the really small ones). Once again I bring my mic point, people aren't nearly as dicky when they don't have mics (probably just the voice).

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

Nope. Single player is still a seller, multi-player just sells better to the kiddies.

And once the kiddies cease to be the kiddies?

One would hope that they develop a taste for the singleplayer story line.

I realise not all teenagers and children don't enjoy singleplayer, just saying that a deep and meaningful story line might not be as fun to the kid as gunning down people in a small map (CoD)

As I said elsewhere in this thread, story can easily be built without a central plot (through environment). GTA not a good example, imagine shadow of the colossus, except, take out the plot, the lore of the world still makes sense, and the game still has story to it (add in some environmental things about who the colossi are and why they are there and you have a good game). The singleplayer storyline sometimes I find just contributes to the lore of the world further built up the community of players.

 

[Smooth Operator]

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.

 

[Vault101]

Nope. Single player is still a seller, multi-player just sells better to the kiddies.

And once the kiddies cease to be the kiddies?

One would hope that they develop a taste for the singleplayer story line.

I realise not all teenagers and children don't enjoy singleplayer, just saying that a deep and meaningful story line might not be as fun to the kid as gunning down people in a small map (CoD)

As I said elsewhere in this thread, story can easily be built without a central plot (through environment). GTA not a good example, imagine shadow of the colossus, except, take out the plot, the lore of the world still makes sense, and the game still has story to it (add in some environmental things about who the colossi are and why they are there and you have a good game). The singleplayer storyline sometimes I find just contributes to the lore of the world further built up the community of players.

what works for one game might not work for another, for example everyone praises half lifes "no cutscene" way of doing things, but I doubt that would be as good in somthing like mass effect

anyway each to their own

 

[Wintermoot]

I hope not! if that,s going to happen I,m going to leave gaming.

 

[Justanothergamer300]

No it wont as much as multiplayer has dominated the scene single player is still needed besides stop looking at MMOs and COD because those are primary multiplayer games in the long run. Also with digital downloads a cheaper alternative we can get better, smaller, more fine tuned single player games with less of a cost not just 60 dollars.

 

[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.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I hope not.

Sometimes I just want to sit down and enjoy myself without needing to interact the the rest of humanity.

Besides, other humans = unavoidable greifing.

 

[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.