Gaming trends - Multiplayer versus single player - My opinion

A little background.

I started gaming when I was around 7, My first real video game system was a VecTrex (look it up) then I got a Nintendo entertainment system or just NES not too long after. I played those games with friends so much that I can still remember exactly how they look and play despite not touching them in decades. I've owned pretty much every system since, with the exception of the 3DO and Neo Geo. I've seen a lot of the good games, and far more bad games than I'd care to remember.

So I've seen gaming when multiplayer meant sitting at a friends house and either hand off the controller, or actually using a second controller to play. Fighting games, like Street Fighter, or Mortal Kombat were pretty good examples, but nothing compared to 007 Goiden eye. I remember sitting with friends day after day playing those games. Then there were the arcades. At that time arcade cabinets actually had games better than the ones you could play at home, and they were usually packed. So you'd head there, and play other random people, to test your skills.

Now this is all common knowledge, but for those who weren't around in those times, it's a bit of history that you need to think about. A lot of games like Final Fantasy for example didn't start out as single player experiences because they chose to be. They had no alternative, the internet was still a distant decade away. For home gaming consoles it was closer to two decades, no one really got into the dial up setup for consoles. So, when they designed games they didn't give much though to "multiplayer". At least in the RPG genre, and even most genres for that matter. Unless we're talking about a fighting game, or a side scroller co op game like "Double Dragon".

Now fast forward to where we are today. Each console comes full ready to plug and play, or if you have wireless, you don't even need to plug an ethernet cable into it. It's online when you fire it up.

The vast majority of gamers pay either Microsoft or Sony that fee without a second thought for Playstation Plus, or Xbox Live. The rarity is the person who doesn't.

The point of this is that while in the past single player games were something simply born of necessity, in the current age of internet connectivity, it's simply ridiculous to perpetuate that. When you come out with a game which pretty much requires you to be online to play it, downloads, patches, etc... How much sense is there in simply ignoring the possibilities of Multiplayer? It would be like Ford making a new car that requires leaded gas. Yeah, you can add to the gas to make it work, but why would you? The technology is there, so to intentionally go out of your way to exclude it seems simply ridiculous.

I know, those of you who say "well what if I don't want to play with someone?" There's an answer to that... DON'T. How many games are out there that are multiplayer or have a co-op component to them, which you can play by yourself? Look at Borderlands, or Red Dead Redemption. Both games are wonderful, and if you play alone, you'll have a great time, and a great experience. If you chose to play with others, you'll have just as much fun as well. Grand Theft Auto would be another perfect example. The story is simply amazing in single player, then the online mode is almost a completely different game, but you can experience it with others.

Examples of games that would be far better with co-op, or the co-op option would be Metal Gear Phantom Pain. Think about it, you have a companion in every mission, why not give you the option to have your friend hop in and join you? There's no reason why that can't be done. Then there is The Witcher III, that game would be just amazing with a buddy. It's a great game as it is, but to exclude co-op is just in my biased opinion, going out of your way not to include it.

We live in an age where most people have smart phones, stopping to ask for directions is a rarity because everyone has a map on the cell phone, tablet, or nav system. We're starting to talk about VR, it's in its infancy, but in the next few years it has the possibility to completely absorb us into a virtual, yet non existent world. I don't see how games of the future can exclude the internet and multiplayer functionality. The death of single player games isn't a bad thing. It should be viewed in my opinion as an evolution, an improvement over what we were once incapable of doing. Golden Eye 007 for example, how amazing would that have been if there was an Xbox Live, or Playstation Network to play it on? What multiplayer does it eliminates the need to pass that controller. Instead, you can sit in your own home, relaxing, and playing a game with a friend who might live next door, or on the other side of the world.

I don't think there is any valid excuse to be against multiplayer. I can't think of a single game where adding it would hurt, but keeping it out would make it better. The simple way to put it is.... If for whatever reason you don't want to play with someone you know, don't. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. And if you don't want to, then that's fine, but why would you be against others doing it? It's kind of like saying "I don't eat meat, and I can't stand it if you do", why do you care?

When you started talking about VR I immediately thought of Ready Player One by Ernest Cline. If you haven't read it, please stop what you are doing and check it out.

I don't believe there is a death of single player games if that is what you were referring to. Many of the games that come out nowadays know their audience and cater to that in development of the game.

I agree with you as we are seeing an evolution of games in our current generation and I do remember those long nights passing the controller around playing GoldenEye on N64. As we grow more social in life, games must adapt and come long for the ride to stay somewhat relevant. It is like following trends almost. If you want to be successful sometimes you have to jump on the bandwagon.

I am glad to see that many games are not afraid to go against the grain and deliver a true single player experience and provide a good story at that like the Witcher. I feel like if you added co op to that game, yes it would have been great, but would it detract form the story?

Good points though.

I hate how there people that believe that mp will always makes games better.

Just like first person that the 3d goggles encourage there is limit to what MP can do and many good game play elements will be lost if they force a MP in all style of game play.

I'm not as old as you but close enough and have pretty much the same experience until the Dreamcast came along and did online gaming first on consol.

I didn't play that many game online as those aren't my style that much and few are really good at it too. Like the online part of the Last Of Us or Tomb Raider were unnecessary as the game is pretty much a single player thing.

And yeah Borderlands is pretty cool either alone or with someone else. One of the few games I played online.

"The death of single player games isn't a bad thing" I strongly disagree. I've been gaming as long as you have btw. I treasure those couch co op sessions, and, to a lesser extent I still enjoy them today. Online multiplayer is totally different breed though. While I do enjoy some online gaming, it just isn't the same.

I also treasure the occasional me moments where I can escape from everyone and have an adventure all by myself like Witcher 3 or Fallout 4. I like JRPGs as well and games like Metroid Prime where I'm all alone. I don't see why both can't continue to exist.

@jeezyfizzle: At this point in time, I don't see adding multiplayer components to games like Fallout and Witcher taking anything away from those stories. Mainly because of the size of the formats that they're using. BluRay when these developers are increasingly using space on the discs to include future DLC that will be unlocked at a later date, to me it says that they have space they aren't using which could, and in my mind should be used on more in game content for the vanilla product.

@wiouds: I don't prescribe to the notion that multiplayer in all forms would take something away, or something would somehow get lost if it was added to every game. There are just so many different ways to implement it. I look back at games that could have, but didn't have any multiplayer components at all. Skyrim for instance, there was one expansion in which you could build a house.... It's great to be able to do that, but a part of building a house, is the individuality of it, to make it yours, and to make it unique. Then again what's the point in that since no one else is there to appreciate it's uniqueness? The same thing applies to Fallout 4's settlements. I don't think anyone can argue that it would be great to show off your house, or your settlements.

@Bigboi500: The ting about escapism is that it's ever present even in games with multiplayer option, even in GTA V you can hop into the multiplayer world of GTA Online and play by yourself if you so choose, you can create a private game, and run around there. I remember an option in Borderlands I think to set it to invite only. Those kind of options coupled with going anonymous when you feel like playing alone would continue your ability to simply withdraw from your friends and play by yourself if you're an introvert and need that.

If you had to pay more to play a game because of it's multiplayer component, sure, I could see the hesitance. However you are paying more to play a single player game than you are to play a multiplayer game. You're paying more because you are using hardware that's present, and a service that you're already paying for, yet the game you're playing for whatever reason has chosen not to utilize them. For whatever reason in my personal opinion, it just doesn't make sense.

Don't confuse the ability to play multiplayer with the requirement. I'm not saying that all games should require you to, I just want the option. You need to realize, there's a difference here. You don't even want the option, for whatever reason, I'll never know. If you don't want to play a game like the Witcher with a friend, that's fine by me, it's your dime, however I'd like the option, I'd like to be able to run co-op with a friend. I don't see the absolute steadfast position against it. In fact if anything you're saying, if you don't want to play like I do, then don't play the game at all, while I'm saying I don't like playing the game like you do, I'd like the option to enjoy it and experience it in my preferred way, with an option that's not that hard to include, while you can continue to experience it in the way you prefer. That's the gist of it.

@cavethug: Not wanting to always have bros around to hold your hand in every game doesn't mean you're an "introvert".

The devs of games like Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 decided they didn't want to add that multiplayer experience to those games, and it's totally their call. They felt like the vision of their works would be compromised, and who are we to tell them they're wrong?

Often, the additions of a multiplayer element is nothing more than tacked on for another selling bullet point, and ends up draining valuable resources and being a shallow after thought.

Actually it does. An introvert is someone who needs to withdraw from others at times. You're either an extrovert and thrive when dealing with others, or an introvert who needs time alone. It's an either or type thing. don't act like it's an insult.

As for the devs, and their vision. There was once a Dev at Atari, his vision was a game called E.T. which was not a very good game at all, but it was his vision. I could compose an almost endless list of people's who's "vision" was pretty close to a lack there of.

So, let's say the added two player co-op into Fallout 4. Which could have EASILY had that in it, as you can run around pretty much the entire game with a companion if you chose, or.... if you want "time alone" you don't even need to have that companion and can "solo". How would having your buddy replace that companion be anything even equitable to negative? How would that lessen the experience? Even assuming you are correct in your assumption that "often the additions of a multiplayer element is nothing more than tacked on", which is something I could argue, you're proving my point for me. If it's not that difficult to add, then why not add it? The assumption that adding it would take away from some other aspect of the game had it been single player is just ludicrous in my opinion, if that were the case, all single player games would be better than all multiplayer games, because they'd have more resources to spend by cutting the multiplayer. You and I both know that's not even close to the case. There are just as many if not more bad single player games.

Was Borderlands worse than Duke Nukem? No... Even if you were right, and it was just something they'd tack on, so what? The thing that's so wonderful about having the option... and this is just common sense here.. but YOU HAVE THE OPTION. If you don't want to use it, no one is there forcing you to. If you don't like it, or don't want to, then by all means feel free not to. However if someone else wants to, I maintain my position that it's just insane to say "no, I don't want it, so you can't have the option either".

We live in a world where social media has invaded almost everyone's life. How ridiculous would it be for someone to say "I want a new iphone that can't use facebook, and no one else will be able to use it either". It's just ridiculous, even if the logic is "by taking away the option to use facebook, it will be a better smart phone, because they'll be able to focus on more important things" sure, it might sell.. but to completely remove the option just doesn't make sense. If you don't want to use facebook, then don't. Obviously it would sell, but it would sell a lot more if they just included the option. Because in the end, there are more people who want to interact with others, than those who don't. Gaming is going in the same exact direction. Which is why I maintain my original position.

There is after all a reason why people are modding the PC versions of these single player games, and make them co-op, and why those mods are so popular. That's not something the developers are blind to. I'd be very surprised to see a Witcher 4, Elder Scrolls, or Fallout come out in the future that don't have some form of co-op.

I agree. I remember playing Goldeneye 007 and I remember having a damn good time. Local multiplayer seems like a lost art to me. I remember playing games like Mortal Kombat 3 and NBA Jam with my brother. I almost always played local multiplayer, never alone except for my gameboy I suppose (and sometimes I would play someone else with a linker cable.)

I was really saddened with the ds wifi shutdown, as it seemed to bring back some of the magical things that were in these earlier games.

Many people forget that multiplayer does require a number of things. This can be code changes or changes in game mechanics. For example multiplayer can only be done in active, real time or turn base. Those are two extremes that cuts out the possibility for game elements that mix the two.

@cavethug: okay, A) the game you referred to - E.T. - was a bad game due to the publisher forcing the game out before it was ready to coincide with the release of the film. That, and terrible publishing conditions in general. The developer likely, if given enough time, would have made it a lot better. In other words, his vision was hindered by poor planning and management, not his vision. Had you used Aliens: Colonial Marines or any crappie Steam Greenlight title as an example, you may have had a stronger point.

B) it takes a lot of resources to make multiplayer happen. Aside from servers, there's the inherent lag between a button/key press that's made more apparent by variable Internet speeds, adjusting servers for said variable speeds, the changes to loot drops in co-op games, needing communication tools...shall I go on? It costs a lot to both create and maintain online capabilities in games, and every project has a set budget, give or take unforseen incidents. Multiplayer is part of that budget if the devs do include it, and thus, inevitably, resources have to be removed from other modes unless they specifically had both single and multiplayer in mind. As for being able to show off your achievements, that's what recording devices and software are for. Or even screenshot software, for that matter No need for a separate multiplayer type server there.

C) you're missing an important point in all of this: not everyone wants to have a multiplayer experience all the time. I love a good co-op session on Destiny, Dark Souls, and even Diablo 3. I even relish a fun competitive game every now and then. But I will always prefer a complete, intimate, engaging single player experience over whatever kind of multiplayer you can throw at me. Many others will and do agree with this sentiment, and it's a bad idea to ignore one major group of gamers. These are the same groups that have allowed Fallout, GTA, The Witcher, Uncharted, Mass Effect, The Last of Us, and many other single player titles to sell millions.

So in short, I disagree with the notion that single player is dying simply because multiplayer exists. Not everyone wants the latter, and there is more than enough room for both types of games to coexist in harmony.

@wiouds: How would you explain a game like Rome Total War II for instance that uses turn based, and real time both in the same game? And a game which has just as much if not more content than it's single player counterparts? And which has multiplayer, a co-op campaign, and the single player, and co-op are exactly the same content wise.

@mastermetal777: Well I guess my entire premise was wrong. Here I was under the impression that in almost all games with multiplayer you have the option to play solo if you so choose, of course the only games in which you don't are ones which are specifically made to be multiplayer. I must have been mistaken, I completely missed all of the other people in my Metal Gear Phantom Pain campaign, here I was thinking I was playing solo, I also didn't realize that when I was playing GTA Online in my invite only session, that other could join without me sending out invites... I guess you have a point, just because a game has multiplayer, it means you can't play single player no matter if you want to or not, it's either or... if it's single player you can only play alone, and if it's multiplayer you are forced to play with people weither you like it or not.. be it multiplayer, co-op or any form in between. I guess you're also right about the extra cost, see here I was thinking that a game like Borderlands has so much more content than a single player game like FTL.

In case you didn't pick it up, that was extremely sarcasm laden.

@cavethug: you're missing the point entirely. Not once did I say you were forced to play either mode instead of the other. And also, quit comparing different genres. It makes your argument less sound. Borderlands and FTL are vastly different from one another, having different goals altogether, and don't really warrant a fair comparison. You also missed me saying that most games with two modes are specifically built with two modes in mind, unless the publisher decides it needs multiplayer to increase sales. It has happened, to Spec Ops: The Line, as a prominent example. Even if some modes are invite only, they exist because the devs wanted it there, which, again, wasn't the main point I was trying to make.

As for your above comment, core gameplay elements have little to do with it being either single or multiplayer. In Call of Duty, either mode has you doing the same thing: shooting people till they die. Any differences are due to the desires of the intended audience. Same with adding co-op. Doesn't change the main game, just tweaks it for that mode. The difference is that different modes require different resources based on the needs of their intended audience.

Also, I smelled the sarcasm from the beginning. No need to be condescending about it. We're trying to debate, and all you can do is be sarcastic. I understand you really want your point to be true, but at least back yourself up with credible comparisons or at least good information.

@mastermetal777: you got it. Borderlands, the original or the sequal has just as much content as a multiplayer game as fallout which is a single player. Rome total war 2 has more content with its co-op campaign as empire total was does without one. I could gone on and on.

@cavethug: except Borderlands has the exact same content for both single player and co-op. Total War Rome 2 is a newer game in the franchise, so naturally it has more content because of better tech, not what modes it has - in fact, it has more modes because of the better tech, not the other way around.

What about The Witcher 3? The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim? Dragon's Dogma? Amy other open-world single player RPG that promises hundreds of hours of content, and delivers? No multiplayer there.

Also, having co-op or other multiplayer and having more content doesn't automatically make a game better. Borderlands might have lots of stuff to do with friends, but the series is boring, at least for me. The only reason I would enjoy it is cuz of my friends, not the gameplay itself. Total War Rome 2 was automatically glitch fest on release, and was very toned down compared to previous entries. Same deal with Skyrim for some things. Again, multiplayer isn't an automatic mark of quality. Engaging gameplay is.

I call the turn base and active, real time as two extremes. Multiplayer can only be done in those two extremes. The gray area between the two can not be used in multiplayer. There are just game elements that can not be done because there are more than one player in the game.

actually in my view multiplayer can be good in some ways and bad in others. in games like call of duty etc.. it definitely makes developers lazy. they use the pvp aspect of the game to get rid of development time for AI and gameplay, in games like dark souls it enhances the game play dramatically. I think single and multiplayer aspect is perfectly designed in that game . yes. there are issues with pvp but I have not seen a single game where people did not complain about pvp (that includes MMOs like WoW, Swtor etc..)

Shooters, fighting games and other games like that I have no interest in playing online. So I pretty much prefer single player experience in games with the exception of mmos which i do like to play online sometimes.

Its too bad co-op games are pretty much dead. I did have fun playing Halo co-op in recent memory... and even older co-op games back on the nintendo and super nintendo. I remember Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers on the nintendo had really unique co-op ahead of its time. Even double dragon and final fight had fun co-op to play with someone. Battletoads was a bit of a fail in co-op because of its unbalanced difficulty.

Uhmm, what? They're at an all time high. Unless you mean local co-op.

Agree 100%

When more games turn to MP it´s bad for gaming and all gamers even those who like MP games.

^ absolutely this

Just to point out an additional thing regarding multiplayer.

I'm in favor of there being games intended for multiplayer and games intended for Singleplayer, aswell as the ones that mix the two like Borderlands.

But there is on fundemental difference between a single player game and a multiplayer game, A single player game you can, provided you have the system that can run it, still jump into and play 5-20-40 years from now. A Multiplayer game relies on there being servers available along with an active community, and servers cost money to keep running and communities have a tendency in most cases to move on. Case in point being games like BRINK and even more recently Titanfall, infact I've been recently enjoying a game called Verdun that's solely multiplayer and even there I can't exactly say there's at most more then 500-600 people playing it in the EU region.

Most multiplayer only games will at some point lose servers when the developers deems them too costly due to lack of player base or they want to use the servers to host for a newer game. Which then leaves the players either having to abandon the game or host their own servers if they are able to do so.

This also tends to apply to games with both single player and multiplayer, in many of them the multiplayer part is more or less dead cause there's no community anymore. Nobody playes the Multiplayer part of F.E.A.R. anymore. And if you have been playing games since the NES came out then you know this, and you should be able to see why there are those that are sceptical of everything going multiplayer in the way it is now because we're not sure if the games have the community or even is supported with servers in 5 years.

So the question tends to boil down to "Do you want to buy a game for 60$ ( or 100$ in my case) that might be "dead" in five or less years, or that you can still play 6 years from now?"

nah i meant online co-op obviously, Chip and Dale had great online gameplay. I used to play with all my internet friends back in the 1980s on my nintendo. Internet was pretty fast in the 1980s unlike these days. Also final fight had some great online death matches if you all can remember that. Those were the good old days.