What was once just a highly-craved, welcomed add-on tacked on to a game designed to be played by an individual at a time, has now manifested into a popular, ever-expanding feature practically deemed necessary by gamers and some developers for a game to be considered adequate. Entire libraries can be filled talking and touting all the intricacies and details that entails how, when, where and on what game should such a feature be implemented toward. Some feel every game should come equipped with it while others feel none should at all. A delicate yet stern, resounding integration of this feature is pertinent in establishing a stronghold on a developers fanbase, revenue, rapport and overall stance in the gaming industry. If decided to be put to use, how well a developer executes this feature ultimately defines who they are and who their target audience is. If by now you haven't a clue at what I'm hinting at, I'm referring to gaming's new backbone--Multiplayer.
How is it then, that of which was once just an extension of a self-sustained experience, have now come to be a veritable triumph in its own right? When said out loud, the word alone--"Multi-player& quot ; -- should immediately send the readers mind down a tunnel of unmeasurable, almost unattainable possibilities. Those of which can only be achieved by a platform that allows a user to control the outcome of a scenario ( a video game in essence), and doubles it. Whatever was happening in your game, can now be done by another, sometimes simultaneously. Yes, Multiplayer, or the act of playing a game with another user, can be enjoyed and experienced in a multitude of ways. Today, developers offer gamers the ability to team up with other players on the same screen or in a different time zone. They can also annihilate that very same person, often times within the same game. The possibilities are almost limitless. When attempting to grasp the massive potential to be harnessed by the concept, it almost proves fruitless to imagine another entity that can stand against it. Yet, one exists. It has always and continues to dwell, if even ever more so gallantly.
Its tough to imagine an activity thats so engaging and empathetic, that when its experienced by anyone else besides the user at the time its happening, it actually loses its worth. A technique that was designed to make a game more fun by adding more users into the experience, actually taints the experience when additional users are forced into it. Many gamers feel adding co-op to a game, limits the impact of the campaign by forcing other gamers to be involve in the story. The Single Player experience thrives off its ability to concentrate all of its resources into delivering an unadulterated experience designed to only affect a single individual at a time. Imagine if a movie was directed by two different people. However similar these different directors viewpoints on the plot of the movie may be, its hard to imagine the movie being completed as it would have originally been, had one person directed it. This isn't bad in the least, however it is highly improbable for two individuals to respond the same exact way emotionally to every scene. Much like a movie in its production phase, a Single Player game being played is only truly recognized for its brilliance if one individual controls the outcome of the product in the way he/she sees fit. Anything designed that's so desperately dependent on the emotional attachment of the user to the product via its storyline, gameplay, length, entertainment value, visual fidelity and musical scores, can only be understood as the result of a person or group of individuals, who understand the value of the human beings ability to understand a person's vision. It is because of this notion, Single Player games are both held on high pedestals and remain so popular. When the ideology is finally realized, it becomes very easy to understand why Single-Player games are in a league of their own.
If we're to assume that this is all true, then which experience remains the better of the two? Unfortunately, this question can't be answered by conventional means. Anyone of us in here can go on for days as to why each respective component is better than the other. Not before long, we'll come to the inevitable conclusion this subject isn't as black and white as we'd hoped it'll be. To truly find out which component of gaming reigns supreme, we have to come into terms with how trends work. This is the only true way to coming as close to a solid conclusion as anyone can hope for. There's a great debate ready to be tried with the subject matter at hand for those who wish to undertake the task in finding out which is better. However, I personally believe that to even begin to understand the overlying point that is present in a case such as this, is to look towards the status quo.
The state of the gaming industry is seldom in a standstill. Most times it's pretty useless to use it's current performance as a means of providing solid proof in any case. There is in one instance however, where the industry's constant fluctuation plays a vital role in supporting a case. That is when the case is proving what's hot and why? It's as simple as that. Only in an industry such as this, can a feature/game/graphic style/genre/etc reign for years at a time and then suddenly, overnight, become superfluous. This is the case with the "What's more important/better, Single Player or Multiplayer" debate. As it stands, both can exist successfully as their own embodiments. However, only a developer who implements both features inside of a game whose very SP/MP components compliment each other so well and transition between each other so seamlessly, reserves the right to be accredited a winner. Many titles execute this technique very well in fact. Isn't it ironic? In an age where mere components that once couldn't exist without each other, are now only regarded as great when they exist within each other? This says much more about the games we play and the gamers who play them, then it ever could about the components themselves.
As it stands, Multiplayer now lives as its own entity in the gaming universe. It has emerged and to many, evolved further than its Single Player counterpart ever could have hoped to. Entire, fully-priced games are being designed around Multiplayer alone and the general "hardcore" consensus leans towards multiplayer based games, over single player campaigns. Suffice it to say, games that ONLY include MP are generally priced at $39.99 USD....which leaves one wondering about its integrity in the industry. Now so more than ever are Multiplayer components (meaning some sort of multi-user gameplay) being implementing into games whom which were once designed to just deliver a single-player experience. Many gamers feel the forcing of this application is where the problem lies. Its difficult to determine if a game could've been better or worst with or without multiplayer added to it. Much like its difficult to tell if a song would've been as great if it did or didn't have that artist guest featured on the track. Declaring a winner on a subject as grand as this has little chance of succeeding by simply referring to one article's perspective. C'est la vie. Alas, this is just one observers attempt to understand what's at hand. I have my viewpoints, as you have yours and we both have our preferences. However, to get involved means to be support what you stand for, so do so by continuing to support the games and developers that generate the titles that you find deliver the respective features that are the most entertaining to you.
A new Deep Rock Galactic: Survivor update is here, bringing a new boss, a revamped existing encounter, and much more to the auto-shooter.
TechRaptor writes, "Our Robobeat review tackles a rhythm shooter that is challenging BPM: Bullets Per Minute and Metal: Hellsinger for the genre's crown."
After years of development, Project Awakening is still nowhere to be seen. What exactly is going on?
I was impressed with the trailer and hoped to find out more and then it fell off the map with no new information. Not sure if it's vaporware or not but I stopped thinking about it and moved on. Maybe it was moved to a new and improved engine, moved to PS5 development and suffers the long Dev times that many games had/have suffered from lately. Who knows. But we'll see.
As for gaming bolt, that video was trash. A long winded video that says nothing for 7 minutes going back and forth on it may or may not still exist and just kept going and going and going trying to produce an informative video with barely any information. Like an article with a word quota that's just paragraphs of nothing. Showing me that they haven't gotten any better at game journalism. If we can even call it that.
One of the directors for the game already said that game was still being worked on just last month....
https://80.lv/articles/proj...
Personally I have no problem with Multiplayer games, but I prefer Single Player. Single Player takes gamers on a journey and shows the vision of what the developer was trying to achieve, and a successful single player campaign is something gamers will remember for generations example the Final Fantasy games, Legend of Dragoon, and most recently Uncharted 2. These are incredible single player experiences that offer an experience that can't be found in multiplayer.
Multiplayer really shows of the competitive side of gamers. I personally prefer co-op games like Left 4 Dead over standard multiplayer games like COD, Battlefield, Killzone, and Halo, but I can still enjoy those games as well. I think multiplayer is best when it's not just tacked on, and it offers something new that fits into the world of that game. FPS's, fighting games, racing games, and sports games are stuck in a endless hash of same old multiplayer and it's not going to end until someone comes along with the next idea. But games like Assassin's Creed Brother impress me the most with something different, unique, and innovative and personally those are the multiplayer experiences that I stick with.
There is room for both and I think the $40 price point should apply to both. Games nowadays have to be AAA quality, big budget, huge on action, great graphics, great audio, with a great multiplayer. And if a game doesn't have all these features then it's going to be overlooked, so that $40 price is a great way to get your game that might be in the boat of getting overlooked, some notice.
A $60 single player only game is a hard buy for a lot people unless it's something like an RPG with a lot of hours to put into. But a 12 hour game for $60 is a hard buy for most gamers nowadays. And the same goes to multiplayer to an extent. $60 is a hard buy for a multiplayer only game, but the $40 mark is that crossing point.
I think booth types of games are needed, and a better balance needs to be struck between the two. But more important than single player vs. multiplayer is lack of innovation, infinite sequels, and death of former great franchises (especially in Japan) within the gaming industry.
Very good post and likewise with the 1st comment.
Like you said, it use to be that Single-player was the priority and the reason people bought games and the multiplayer was something to do once you finished it, just a feature really. Nowadays it has nearly reversed. A lot of gamers buy a game for multiplayer and the single-player is the feature.
Perfect examples of this is most modern shooters, especially the COD series. I feel with COD, since the multiplayer has gotten so huge, they should release a multiplayer edition and a single-player edition, also a complete edition which contains both. They then should be able to provide a longer and more worthy single-player for people who have no interest in multiplayer. I notice with a lot of my friends who play COD that they dont even bother playing the single-player, all they care about is the multiplayer, so then at a lower price they can get the mp edition only.
Personally, i always have preferred single-player, i love getting immersed in a world and going on an adventure with the characters. Thats why Uncharted, MGS, Fallout, GTA & Red Dead, Half-Life, Bioshock etc... are my favorite games. I dont mind mp at all, it has been one of the best aspects of this generation and i have spent many hours on BFBC2, COD and GTAIV with friends. But i only really spend time on mp between game releases of great single player games. For example, ive finished InFamous 2 recently and now im waiting for Deus Ex next month and even though i hop into Bioshock or GTAIV now and again, i spend most of this time in Bad Company 2's mp.
Anyway, ive kinda babbled on here, but my main point would be that i dont mind MP at all as long as there is a balance of great mp games and great singleplayer games. I dont want mp to become too much of a priority that it starts to interfere with the quality of great singleplayer games.
"Not before long, we'll come to the inevitable conclusion this subject isn't as black and white as we'd hoped it'll be."
true, it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison isn't it? one type of gaming is narrative-focused, while the other is more 'emergent gameplay'-focused.
I'm curious, when you mention there are some games that successfully transition between SP and MP, do you have any specific games in mind?