Will single player go the way of the Arcade?

[KingWeasel]

Even on Star Trek, you would see individuals using the Holodeck for single enjoyment. Some games are just better when your the only one makeing the decisions.

I know some tards think a game is incomplete if you cant play it with other people, and to be honest I just dont get it. On the Mass Effect forums every month someone comes in asking why no one wants multiplayer in Mass Effect 3.... and evey month people tell that moron, I mean person, that multiplayer will take away from the single player expeirnce.

So dont worry just yet. For every COD crap story campaign put in just to teach you the controls, there will be a Mass Effect 3, ES5: Skyrim and others. Sure single players games may be fewer and farther between these days, but they arnt dead.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

...I personally still enjoy playing games without ... race hate, homophobia ...

I guess you don't play very many western RPGs =)

Anyway... on topic...

I don't see single player experiences disappearing entirely... but I have a feeling that we'll be seeing a pretty sharp increase in the number of cooperative games on the market.

Which I really don't think is such a bad thing if you have a close friend or relative to play the game with. I think yesterday's Extra Credits about sharing our medium sums up how I feel about it quite nicely. It's good to get more people involved, especially if you can get someone that's close to you to share with your hobby/interest in gaming.

 

[Sangweyth]

Not at all. Look at books and movies, for example. A book is more akin to a single player game, whereas a movie can be experienced by multiple people at once. Did books go away? I think not.

 

[Kagim]

I didn't see anyone saying arcades have gone extinct and the subject has nothing to do with whether or not single-player will go extinct, the question is: "will it take the route arcade games did?" as in go from the number one thing in gaming to being a mere backdrop.

The question is "Will single player go the way of the arcade"

To which the OP opened with answering his own question...

"I would say no..."

The original saying is "Go the way of the dinosaurs" meaning "to go extinct". Seeing as how the OP didn't clarify I choose to follow the implications of the original saying.

Not to mention others have mentioned the idea of it going extinct being the topic and working on that concept. So, i am not sure where your getting any of that.

I question where you are getting your numbers from, what you classify as a single/multiplayer game, and if your considering any Generation of consul other than the current one (it is 7th right?) because this is the first time that networking with consul games has been a standard thing (yes I know that PS2 could handle online, but that was an add on). In the not to distant future, Xbox Live will be free (well ok Microsoft is greedy so maybe not), and PSN will be secure and both will be much faster connections and multiplayer with continue to thrive, you see the reason that multiplayer is big right now is because so much supports it.

I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be. You make it sound like i think MP is a fad. I don't, nor thought it was. MP is hot, and will stay that way. However the discussion was whether or not SP will fade away, to which i say no. However MP is talked about the most because it is the real big thing amidst all the fake big things. It's because the Idea of a MP driven game is still relatively new.

The rise of MP as of late is in fact because it still kinda is a huge new thing. Even going back to the old days of gaming online games weren't super popular. Outside of games like Quake or UNreal the average person either didn't play online or didn't play games. MP is thriving, nor did i mean at any point in time to imply it wasn't or that it would stop. I am however stating that since the sudden concept of MP oriented games put more into the mainstream with a significantly larger audience they are hot right now. It's a big deal. You will here less of it when it becomes standard. Considering the fact there are people who still seem to think MP can;t be the main show.

So honestly, i am not really sure what you were trying to say. For Numbers? Scroll through EB's online site for awhile. For what counts? Well look at games that obviously rely on MP and once that obviously rely on SP. It's not difficult to spot. For how far back? Well that was partially my point. That MP is a new big thing for a game to be oriented a bit, with SP taking a back seat. Where MP used to be a kinda fun add on, and not the main show.

Oh and I wouldn't say Arcades are doing well, I'd say that their surviving

It takes a large enough city but they do more then survive. Not to mention the emergence of places Like PC bang becoming more and more popular.

 

[Joccaren]

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

if that,s going to happen I,m going to leave gaming.

Proof that it is unlikely to happen. I'm sure there are many out there who share your views, myself included, and thus the industry would deal itself a killing blow by doing this. I don't think single player is in any danger really, its just that multiplayer usually gets more publicity.

you would say that, at first, but then you would hear about a new game and figure, "sure I'll try it out" you'll play it and actually enjoy it.

or the change will be so gradual that you will hardly notice is lacking until you go back and play your 6th gen consuls

I will try out almost any game, but like very few that focus on multiplayer. The problem with these games is that, in focusing on multiplayer, they lack focus in story, which is the main reason I play games. In MMO games, story has to take a backseat so that the multiplayer aspect can work properly and be balanced. Games are a story telling medium, and many people play games for their stories, not the competitive aspect, and until a game is released that has properly working MMO multiplayer, and a story that achieves what I want it to in this game, and is noticed by a reasonable portion of the community, I will remain skeptical as to whether MMOs will push single player into the arcade.

If the change is gradual, and I hardly notice it is happening, then a MMO that matches my expectations in Gameplay and Story would have been made, otherwise people would have been complaining more about the consolification on gaming, and blaming the increased multiplayer focus on that (because as we know, consolifcation is the reason for every bad development decision /sarcasm).
Which also leads me to say that I will never go back to a sixth gen console, at best I would play my PS2. I am a PC gamer, and I feel that certain game styles on the PC, that are usually very hard to port successfully to consoles, have very little to fear from losing single player. Styles such as Turn Based Strategy games have very little to fear, unless majorly simplified and playing is only allowed on small maps. These games take hours to play most of the time, and thus are not very well suited IMO for online play. Usually, when I play online with these games, you might have an hour or two of play, then someone has to leave. Dependent on the game, they are either replaced by a bot, or the game is saved, everyone quits, and the game is resumed when we are all back online.

If talking about LAN multiplayer campaigns (Portal 2's Co-op as an example), then I am just as doubtful, and feel that these would become more of a niche gaming style than Single Player.

At present time, Single player is in very little danger of becoming a niche market, too many people prefer it to multiplayer for that to be a viable market strategy. Unless the industry is going to alienate a large portion of its audience, and cut down its income by a ton, I doubt they will focus on purely Multiplayer games.

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

If you don't think SC is strategy then I would love to hear what you consider strategy
And if you think it is always the same thing than I would suggest watching some of the pro games (after familiarizing yourself with the game of course) so much of it is about intel (the legitimate kind not like a stat or processor) knowing what your opponent is doing while keeping them from knowing what your doing, and people get creative about that.
As for WC3 how people get board baffles me, other than the endless league and tournament play, the massive collections of custom games though if its sports games your into, than I guess I get it.

The last time I heard of a hack working on one of blizzard's games was. . .7 years ago it think

I played one NHL game on a modern consul so I don't think I'm in speaking terms with the actual game play (never played online). Jerks exist, the real question is how can they express themselves, can they follow you between games, etc. As for cheaters, that is the makers responsibility and they need to make patches to the game to compensate for the errors and misbalances of the game, a company like EAsports is not a very honest company and their just pulling in cash from the project. From your words I would consider NHL11 a half-baked game, a game that was started and never really finished.

Also hate to go there but you know the Jerk Jock thing.

So this is a problem right immature people on multiplayer games, but here is the thing, the reason that they seem to feel no shame is because nobody is teaching them online manners, but as a new generation roles in our generation will be teaching internet manners, and maybe regulations of servers will become stricter. In any case the community will become more civilized with time, thus negating one of the biggest drawbacks of multiplayer

Civilization 5 is a strategy game. Honestly, I feel for a game to be a true strategy game, it needs to be turn based. "Real-time" removes the strategy element from all but the best players. Take two Bronze level players in SC2...let them play 5 games in a row against each other...you won't find a single moment of strategy in any of those games. You'll see different kinds of rushes and turtling...but no REAL strategy. A strategy game needs to actually have strategy across all levels of play, not just the best of the best.

I'm subbed to Husky on YT, I've watched a LOT of his videos (he's entertaining). However, I can't even recall the last time I saw something new. All those top games play out the same way, with strict build orders and timing. Thats less about strategy and more about memorization. Play Protoss, build sentries and stalkers...win. Even that isn't strategy so much as reflexes. Drop shields to cut the enemy forces in half...seen it hundreds of times, its (arguably) TOO effective. Hell, most top level games don't use over 50% of the units available! Just spam tier 1 units all game. Its boring.

WC3 in the early days was "hero rushing"...thats all it was. I didn't care for it.

I'm not into sports games in general, just Hockey, big Hockey nut, but that was just an example of a title from a top publisher thats won TONS of awards. I play lots of games, there are cheaters in ALL OF THEM.

As far as hacking in a Blizzard game, you're kidding right? SC2 had map hacks, still does. Diablo 2 has TONS of hacks (but I guess that falls within the 7 year frame). WoW has botting. Also, its hard to have hacked games in the last 7 years when you've released 1 title in that time frame, lol. Blizzard isn't immune to it however, claiming otherwise is ridiculous.

Of course Blizzard isn't immune to it, but they are one of the best at taking care of it, banning and fixing very fast, I couldn't find a maphack that wasn't being traced by blizzard, I did find some assistance bots, which is bad sportsmanship but not really cheating. Did you ever see that game (I forgot who vs who) where terrain was sniping broadlords? That was innovation, and in every tournament every unit is seen at least once, now. As for the beginner games, well the strategy there is found on a more micro level, the person who realizes that if he leaves his siege tanks slightly father apart than they'll be less exposed to zerglings. That type of thing is the small strategy seen in beginner match-ups. The real strategy in the games is how well you apply concepts from The Art of War by San Tzu. Botting isn't really cheating, it doesn't let you do anything more than an average player, just takes out a patience factor, but doing it is kind of pointless (it's an orpg afterall) As for diablo, don't know much about it (not an expert at everything) and ok, yeah the lack of titles does really explain quality of management, but they still release patches for warcraft II.

 

[Dylan Hentchel]

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

if that,s going to happen I,m going to leave gaming.

Proof that it is unlikely to happen. I'm sure there are many out there who share your views, myself included, and thus the industry would deal itself a killing blow by doing this. I don't think single player is in any danger really, its just that multiplayer usually gets more publicity.

you would say that, at first, but then you would hear about a new game and figure, "sure I'll try it out" you'll play it and actually enjoy it.

or the change will be so gradual that you will hardly notice is lacking until you go back and play your 6th gen consuls

I will try out almost any game, but like very few that focus on multiplayer. The problem with these games is that, in focusing on multiplayer, they lack focus in story, which is the main reason I play games. In MMO games, story has to take a backseat so that the multiplayer aspect can work properly and be balanced. Games are a story telling medium, and many people play games for their stories, not the competitive aspect, and until a game is released that has properly working MMO multiplayer, and a story that achieves what I want it to in this game, and is noticed by a reasonable portion of the community, I will remain skeptical as to whether MMOs will push single player into the arcade.

If the change is gradual, and I hardly notice it is happening, then a MMO that matches my expectations in Gameplay and Story would have been made, otherwise people would have been complaining more about the consolification on gaming, and blaming the increased multiplayer focus on that (because as we know, consolifcation is the reason for every bad development decision /sarcasm).
Which also leads me to say that I will never go back to a sixth gen console, at best I would play my PS2. I am a PC gamer, and I feel that certain game styles on the PC, that are usually very hard to port successfully to consoles, have very little to fear from losing single player. Styles such as Turn Based Strategy games have very little to fear, unless majorly simplified and playing is only allowed on small maps. These games take hours to play most of the time, and thus are not very well suited IMO for online play. Usually, when I play online with these games, you might have an hour or two of play, then someone has to leave. Dependent on the game, they are either replaced by a bot, or the game is saved, everyone quits, and the game is resumed when we are all back online.

If talking about LAN multiplayer campaigns (Portal 2's Co-op as an example), then I am just as doubtful, and feel that these would become more of a niche gaming style than Single Player.

At present time, Single player is in very little danger of becoming a niche market, too many people prefer it to multiplayer for that to be a viable market strategy. Unless the industry is going to alienate a large portion of its audience, and cut down its income by a ton, I doubt they will focus on purely Multiplayer games.

First off, the Turn-based strategy game genre that isn't large enough to make much difference.

Now, you said that games are a story-telling medium, but I tend to argue, litureture and film are story-telling mediums and while of course games are full capable of telling a story, the medium tends to be more suited to self-exploration, seeing what you would be like in non-normal situations.

Lastly, other than strategy games, what games don't transfer from PC to consul? I can't think of any.

 

[Joccaren]

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

if that,s going to happen I,m going to leave gaming.

Proof that it is unlikely to happen. I'm sure there are many out there who share your views, myself included, and thus the industry would deal itself a killing blow by doing this. I don't think single player is in any danger really, its just that multiplayer usually gets more publicity.

you would say that, at first, but then you would hear about a new game and figure, "sure I'll try it out" you'll play it and actually enjoy it.

or the change will be so gradual that you will hardly notice is lacking until you go back and play your 6th gen consuls

I will try out almost any game, but like very few that focus on multiplayer. The problem with these games is that, in focusing on multiplayer, they lack focus in story, which is the main reason I play games. In MMO games, story has to take a backseat so that the multiplayer aspect can work properly and be balanced. Games are a story telling medium, and many people play games for their stories, not the competitive aspect, and until a game is released that has properly working MMO multiplayer, and a story that achieves what I want it to in this game, and is noticed by a reasonable portion of the community, I will remain skeptical as to whether MMOs will push single player into the arcade.

If the change is gradual, and I hardly notice it is happening, then a MMO that matches my expectations in Gameplay and Story would have been made, otherwise people would have been complaining more about the consolification on gaming, and blaming the increased multiplayer focus on that (because as we know, consolifcation is the reason for every bad development decision /sarcasm).
Which also leads me to say that I will never go back to a sixth gen console, at best I would play my PS2. I am a PC gamer, and I feel that certain game styles on the PC, that are usually very hard to port successfully to consoles, have very little to fear from losing single player. Styles such as Turn Based Strategy games have very little to fear, unless majorly simplified and playing is only allowed on small maps. These games take hours to play most of the time, and thus are not very well suited IMO for online play. Usually, when I play online with these games, you might have an hour or two of play, then someone has to leave. Dependent on the game, they are either replaced by a bot, or the game is saved, everyone quits, and the game is resumed when we are all back online.

If talking about LAN multiplayer campaigns (Portal 2's Co-op as an example), then I am just as doubtful, and feel that these would become more of a niche gaming style than Single Player.

At present time, Single player is in very little danger of becoming a niche market, too many people prefer it to multiplayer for that to be a viable market strategy. Unless the industry is going to alienate a large portion of its audience, and cut down its income by a ton, I doubt they will focus on purely Multiplayer games.

First off, the Turn-based strategy game genre that isn't large enough to make much difference.

Now, you said that games are a story-telling medium, but I tend to argue, litureture and film are story-telling mediums and while of course games are full capable of telling a story, the medium tends to be more suited to self-exploration, seeing what you would be like in non-normal situations.

Lastly, other than strategy games, what games don't transfer from PC to consul? I can't think of any.

Seeing as turn based strategy games are being made, I would say that they are large enough to stick to making and releasing single player games, even if everyone else went for multiplayer only.

I would have to disagree with you on the 'Games are not a storytelling medium' argument. Books and movies are too story telling mediums, but that does not mean games can't be too. Games can do what both mediums do well, and combine them, and more too. Books usually have a lot of depth, and detail, however, we are unable to see what is going on visually, and it is left to imagination (In some cases, this is preferable IMO). Films allow us to see what is happening, but due to the fact that people are just sitting there watching them, they are unable to go for the length of time, or provide as much build up to major twists, as books can.
Games can have a lot of depth, as we are participating in the story, and thus are more willing to allow a game to go for a long time and reveal things at a slower pace, which can provide great buildups to some major plot twists (Bioshock 'Would you kindly' would be my example here) whilst allowing us to see what is going on.
On top of that, they are interactive, and allow us to participate in, and in some cases influence the path of, the story.
I read somewhere not too long ago that some movie studios are looking into 'Interactive Movies' where the audience can choose what happens at some points throughout the movie. To me, this seems a lot like a simplified version of a game.
Yes, telling a story is not all that a game can do, but I feel it can do it better than any other medium. Whilst it can also be about Self Exploration, to limit it to this would be removing a large part of what makes our medium great.

Other than strategy games, it starts to take on your interpretation of successful. I personally count a successful port as one that works on a console almost as well as on a PC (Arguably FPS. Even though PC controls are more precise, consoles are given extra auto-aim to help make up for that), not something that sells as well on consoles as on PC.
However, given the different available interpretations of even that statement, let us work along the lines that Strategy games are the only ones that don't port to consoles properly, for the sake of simplicity.
This is still a rather large market, and a lot of companies put a lot of effort into single player, especially some of the ones where a small map can take anywhere from half an hour to 3 hours to play.

 

[FalloutJack]

Nope! Can't say that it would.

NEXT!