Rothbart vs. Lono

Rothbart: Great single player games are a dying breed…and I’m pissed!

If you look at the big releases as of late, you might notice more and more of them seem to be pushing (or focusing entirely) on the multiplayer aspect; be it online multiplayer on the 360 or local multiplayer on the Wii. Even some of the highest profile PS3 games that have been single player have been released with disclaimers along the lines of “We wanted to focus first and foremost on the single player in this game, we’ll pursue multiplayer in our next title”. So I ask, why?! Why should releasing a top-notch single player game need any form of disclaimer or apology? There were several high profile games this year that were single player only such as BioShock, Ratchet & Clank Future, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune, and Assassin’s Creed, just to name a few. One of the key features I love about these single player experiences is that I know I’m absolutely never going to run into smack talking 12 year-olds ruining any immersion or escape the game might bring to my otherwise reality-based life.

More Rothbart v. Lono, after the jump!

If you look at the overall trend in upcoming games (and even the reviews of recently released games), you’ll see people dinging games for not having multiplayer support. Who determines whether a game is excellent without multiplayer support or if it’s lacking for not having it?! Look at Halo 3. Yes, you “finish the fight”, but that game sold people on its multiplayer aspect, there’s no hiding it. Multiplayer also brings out the smack talking 12 yr olds, the foul mouthed idiots, the racists, the bigots, etc. Should I be expected to pay $60 just to find out “a$$ma9n37″ enjoyed my mother’s company last night?

Another AAA title that was recently released was Call of Duty 4. Call of Duty 4 apparently has as little as six hours of single player campaign (but they’ll feed you a line about playing it again with arcade multipliers and crap; don’t fall for it.) Again, that game’s being sold (or should I say bought) primarily for its multiplayer aspect. Racing games are another genre that are losing out to the constant push for online racing events. There’s no accountability for people that play like jerks. (yet, within the bounds of what the game allows). What fun is that? Is Forza 2 online the same game as Forza 2 offline? Hell no! I’m not saying games shouldn’t offer online or local multiplayer, but they should do what they do well first and foremost. If you’re going to offer a single player campaign or career mode, don’t skimp on it. If you’d rather just do an online deathmatch game, DO it! It might even end up better if you stop wasting resources on bullet points for your marketing department. I played the COD4 multiplayer beta and I’m not interested in playing the game online if they’re the same folks that played the multiplayer beta. Asking me to spend $10/hour on the single player game is awfully close to borderline for me, regardless of the quality.

Don’t even get me started on the Wii. They’ve dropped the “online” aspect of multiplayer in favor of local multiplayer. Sure, now I have control over who I play against (who ever thought I’d come up with a positive when describing the Wii’s multiplayer support), but it still feels artifically tacked on. The whole party-game explosion reminds me of the time I tossed an M80 into a pit toilet as a kid. It sounded like a great idea, and it was even fun at first, but after the initial bang, I was left with a bunch of crap all over the place. Even Super Mario Galaxy now has something your buddy (or grandma?) can do while you’re playing. Really. This needs to stop.

Lono Rebuttal: Good multiplayer = bigger bang for my buck!

Up until very recently I would have agreed with your half-deranged ramblings. Just because you suck at playing games online, doesn’t mean that the market should stagnate along with your gaming skills!

When I play single player games, like Bioshock, I can’t get over how really easy the games are nowadays. Back in the day, there was only one game setting and it was usually F$%king hard, and that was it. I guess as game developers noticed that people weren’t finishing games at a rate that would make them happy, they decided to shorten and/or dumb up the game play experience.

Dumbing up the game experience = Fail.

I mean, let’s face it, the A.I. for most shooters hasn’t taken any new steps since F.E.A.R. came out two years ago, and even in that game, if you just crept up and leaned around corners, you could pick baddies off at your lesiure. So what does a developer do? Have the A.I. cheat. Make it so they never miss, or give them extra health. That sucks and that type of game development sucks too.

What’s the answer?

If the computer sucks, then develop the game to include human adversaries. Ta Da! The best part about any online multiplayer is the challenge it brings. You play against people, not stupid bots with scripted routines. Granted that the majority of online gamers *ahem* halo*ahem* can get crazy, but that’s where friends lists come in.

Game developers also have come to realize that multiplayer= extra $$$ because a good multiplayer game can birth a “community” and “community” breeds increased interest in the game’s sequels. Increased interest = increased $$$$$$, which has led to a natural evolution of not just online multiplayer, but on-your-couch multiplayer as well. There’s no better way to get someone interested in a game than by letting them play it. It’s cheap advertising. If one buddy can convince another to sit down and play something, then the devs win.

I just picked up Call of Duty 4 and after popping it into my 360, I went straight into the multiplayer, without hesitation. The multiplayer portion of the game never ends. There’s no end boss, no crappy ending, no finite amount of game time… It’s just me, my buddies and the idiot on the other team that keeps trash talking in between matches even though he dies more than he gets kills…. but I digress.

Good multiplayer = infinite replayability. Rotbart, I think that developers are getting this right. You just need some practice.

Rothbart’s final word: I’m not paying $60 for a developer’s cop-out…

Lono, you’re proposing foul-mouthed 12 yr olds on Xbox Live are the untapped resource that the developers of million dollar games can’t implement via code?  I pay $60 for an average game.  Cry me a river if it’s “hard” to develop decent AI, people have been writing single player games since the very beginning of gaming and if some devs can’t cut it, maybe they should switch to writing tax software or something.  Laziness is the word I think you were looking for.

There’s a time and a place for multiplayer gaming and it’s not “always” and certainly not “the entire mainstream gaming landscape”.   Trust me Lono, the last thing a developer wants is an “infinitely replayable” game.  What they want is a game that lasts exactly as long as their next game’s development cycle lasts so you can be first in line to buy their new game.  Games today are almost being promoted and treated as consumables (which is really a topic best held for another discussion).  I don’t buy for a second “infinite replayability” is a goal for anyone except the marketing guys and even then it’s just for a bullet point and a buzzword.   Don’t even get me started on Achievements that require multiple players (I’m looking at you Guitar Hero II & III).  

Multiplayer gaming isn’t the answer to everything guys.  There are a lot of money spending folks that: don’t know other gamers, don’t have schedules that coincide with their gaming friends, don’t have broadband, or are just plain anti-social and like their gaming and their friends separate… When you think about it, the thousands of foul-mouthed 12 year olds online really do exist somewhere and they probably have friends; friends that can stand them except when they slap on a headset to play the games you like to play.  For the record, I think your catch phrase “Halo Jesus” is missing some punctuation. 

Halo?! Jesus…

Tweet This