- nocoolnamejim
- Level: 35 (4%)
- Rank: Stitches
- Member since: Nov 19, 2003
- Last online: 10/11/09 10:21 pm PT
-
My Emblems:
- Moderator
- General Moderator
- Popular
- Greatest Game Hero Preliminary Voter
- Readers' Choice 2007 Chooser
- Tagger Maker
- Grandfathered Community Reviewers
- Serious Collector
- Moderator
- General Moderator
- Popular
- +1 Orator of Distinction
- Old-School
- Good Taste
- Serious Collector
- Grandfathered Community Reviewers
- Tagger Maker
- Readers' Choice 2007 Chooser
- Greatest Game Hero Preliminary Voter
My Friends
-
yeah_write online
-
SYdoggXxX online
-
GabuEx online
-
Caddy06_88 online
-
btaylor2404 online
-
Genetic_Code online
-
RK-Mara online
-
xaos online
-
monco59 online
-
D3nnyCrane online
8May 09
So, the big news of the day is that Bioshock 2 will have a multiplayer co-op component added to it.
Of course, if I use the word "news" doesn't it imply that this wasn't completely inevitable? Doesn't something have to be at least mildly unexpected for it to qualify as "news"? These days, a true singleplayer only game is as rare as a popular Republican politician. They're damned hard to find.
Consider the trend.
Resident Evil 5
Uncharted 2
Bioshock 2
Knights of the Old Republic
What do all these games have in common? They are all franchises that enjoyed great success as a singleplayer offering and, arguably, would have been better off staying that way. Instead, they are going to be multiplayer games and, in the case of KOTOR, MMORPGs.
Damn it all. I'm old enough to remember the time when gaming was an antisocial experience. By god, you went into your room, closed the door, and provided you had the foresight to bring in some snacks and stimulative beverages with you before you began playing, you didn't emerge again until your eyes started bleeding from overuse or your bladder was about to explode. And you loved it!
Some people might reasonably argue that "you don't have to play multiplayer if you don't want to" or "it won't come at the expense of a good singleplayer experience. It's a bonus." Respectfully, I must call "shenanigans" on that response.
Let's say for a moment that you have a budget of $10 million dollars to make a game. This is fixed. It does not change. You are given this $10 million to work with and told to make the best game possible. Let's speculate further that you're given three years to work on the game. This is also fixed. It is timed to coincide with a holiday season or some other business driven need.
Now then, those are your constraints and you are told to make the best possible game while staying within those parameters. Other than that, you're widely given discretion on what to do with the game itself. Like those old-school "Choose Your Own Adventure" novels, you are at a crossroads.
Scenario Number One:
Take the money and the three years and devote it exclusively to a singleplayer game. This results in a longer and more polished singleplayer experience. The game is less buggy. The story is more in-depth. The character development is more detailed. Unfortunately, some folks might claim a lack of replay value since there is no multiplayer component.
Scenario Number Two:
Split the money and time in some fashion between singleplayer and multiplayer aspects and claim that the singleplayer aspect will not be impacted.
Realistically, how many of you out there genuinely believe that you can make an equally good singleplayer experience with $5 million dollars and a year and a half to work as you can with $10 million dollars and three years to work with? Logically, that's just plain ridiculous. Anyone who claims that adding a multiplayer aspect to a game won't result in a reduction, to some extent or another, to the singleplayer portion has not thought it through all the way. Or they are full of ****.
Now then, that doesn't mean we can't argue about how much of a reduction occurs by shifting development dollars, time and resources away from singleplayer. Can you have a game that adds a multiplayer component and remains spectacular? Absolutely. Is there a point of diminishing returns when it comes to focusing solely on a singleplayer game? Can you, at some point, reach a point where a game cannot be improved any further without adding new features like a multiplayer component? Sure. Do a lot of games reach that point?
No. If a lot of games reached that point, we'd see a lot more perfect ratings given from the critics who write the reviews. When I think of the greatest games that I've played over the years, I have a hard time coming up with any that have withstood the test of time that were multiplayer. I think of Planescape: Torment. I think of Star Control 2. I think of Fallout 1 and 2. I think of Max Payne 1 and Max Payne 2. I think of Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2, or Grand Theft Auto Vice City and San Andreas. Heck, I think of Dragon Quest VIII, several of the Final Fantasy or Zelda games, or Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay.
I could go on, but my point is this. It is entirely possible to have a great game that has both singleplayer and multiplayer elements. However, it is highly unlikely to have a truly cla.ssic game that has both. Yes, for every rule there are exceptions. Some of the Blizzard games come readily to mind. I suspect there will be a generation gap in my responses. I'm thirty years old. I was raised on singleplayer. Younger gamers might beg to differ.
Don't get me wrong. I am not fully and firmly opposed to all multiplayer games. Some games have been demonstrably better off as multiplayer. But typically, those are games where the main game isn't really intended to be a narrative, story-driven experience.
Take Gears of War for example. Yes, it has a story. Yes, it even has some characters (and thus character development) in it. But they aren't really the focus. To this game, storywise and gameplay wise, it makes sense for it to be co-op or multiplayer driven. Some of the games I listed up above are not.
Let's look at Bioshock. Part of the attraction of Bioshock was the environment. It was the "creepy" factor. You were alone and isolated and in the middle of a survival horror experience. How horrifying can it really be if you're listening to a mate chatter at you through your headset, or farting after too much bean dip beside of you on the couch? Don't you think that might ruin the mood at least a little bit?
You can say the same thing about the Resident Evil games. Humans are, by nature, pack animals. We feel uncomfortable and concerned when we are isolated, particularly in dangerous situations. Adding a side kick reduces that feeling.
As for KOTOR: The MMORPG. Well, don't even get me started. Yeah, it will probably be cool for a bit. But really, how special is being a Jedi if you see a couple dozen of them run past you on the way to raid a couple of dozen Sith. How unique do you think that will feel?
Please developers. Take some time and consider things. Does the game you're working on really need a multiplayer component? Will it fit the story and the overall game experience or just feel tacked on and gratuitous, a way to check off another box under "design requirements" somewhere?
Alternatively, you could try and make Final Fantasy XIII multiplayer. You've taken just about every other franchise that direction so far. Why not go the rest of the way?
Edit: Reader and fellow Soapboxer OrkHammer007 reminded me that Star Control 2 did have a multiplayer component called Super Melee which I had forgotten. I regret the error and thank Ork for the correction.
Of course, if I use the word "news" doesn't it imply that this wasn't completely inevitable? Doesn't something have to be at least mildly unexpected for it to qualify as "news"? These days, a true singleplayer only game is as rare as a popular Republican politician. They're damned hard to find.
Consider the trend.
Resident Evil 5
Uncharted 2
Bioshock 2
Knights of the Old Republic
What do all these games have in common? They are all franchises that enjoyed great success as a singleplayer offering and, arguably, would have been better off staying that way. Instead, they are going to be multiplayer games and, in the case of KOTOR, MMORPGs.
Damn it all. I'm old enough to remember the time when gaming was an antisocial experience. By god, you went into your room, closed the door, and provided you had the foresight to bring in some snacks and stimulative beverages with you before you began playing, you didn't emerge again until your eyes started bleeding from overuse or your bladder was about to explode. And you loved it!
Some people might reasonably argue that "you don't have to play multiplayer if you don't want to" or "it won't come at the expense of a good singleplayer experience. It's a bonus." Respectfully, I must call "shenanigans" on that response.
Let's say for a moment that you have a budget of $10 million dollars to make a game. This is fixed. It does not change. You are given this $10 million to work with and told to make the best game possible. Let's speculate further that you're given three years to work on the game. This is also fixed. It is timed to coincide with a holiday season or some other business driven need.
Now then, those are your constraints and you are told to make the best possible game while staying within those parameters. Other than that, you're widely given discretion on what to do with the game itself. Like those old-school "Choose Your Own Adventure" novels, you are at a crossroads.
Scenario Number One:
Take the money and the three years and devote it exclusively to a singleplayer game. This results in a longer and more polished singleplayer experience. The game is less buggy. The story is more in-depth. The character development is more detailed. Unfortunately, some folks might claim a lack of replay value since there is no multiplayer component.
Scenario Number Two:
Split the money and time in some fashion between singleplayer and multiplayer aspects and claim that the singleplayer aspect will not be impacted.
Realistically, how many of you out there genuinely believe that you can make an equally good singleplayer experience with $5 million dollars and a year and a half to work as you can with $10 million dollars and three years to work with? Logically, that's just plain ridiculous. Anyone who claims that adding a multiplayer aspect to a game won't result in a reduction, to some extent or another, to the singleplayer portion has not thought it through all the way. Or they are full of ****.
Now then, that doesn't mean we can't argue about how much of a reduction occurs by shifting development dollars, time and resources away from singleplayer. Can you have a game that adds a multiplayer component and remains spectacular? Absolutely. Is there a point of diminishing returns when it comes to focusing solely on a singleplayer game? Can you, at some point, reach a point where a game cannot be improved any further without adding new features like a multiplayer component? Sure. Do a lot of games reach that point?
No. If a lot of games reached that point, we'd see a lot more perfect ratings given from the critics who write the reviews. When I think of the greatest games that I've played over the years, I have a hard time coming up with any that have withstood the test of time that were multiplayer. I think of Planescape: Torment. I think of Star Control 2. I think of Fallout 1 and 2. I think of Max Payne 1 and Max Payne 2. I think of Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2, or Grand Theft Auto Vice City and San Andreas. Heck, I think of Dragon Quest VIII, several of the Final Fantasy or Zelda games, or Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay.
I could go on, but my point is this. It is entirely possible to have a great game that has both singleplayer and multiplayer elements. However, it is highly unlikely to have a truly cla.ssic game that has both. Yes, for every rule there are exceptions. Some of the Blizzard games come readily to mind. I suspect there will be a generation gap in my responses. I'm thirty years old. I was raised on singleplayer. Younger gamers might beg to differ.
Don't get me wrong. I am not fully and firmly opposed to all multiplayer games. Some games have been demonstrably better off as multiplayer. But typically, those are games where the main game isn't really intended to be a narrative, story-driven experience.
Take Gears of War for example. Yes, it has a story. Yes, it even has some characters (and thus character development) in it. But they aren't really the focus. To this game, storywise and gameplay wise, it makes sense for it to be co-op or multiplayer driven. Some of the games I listed up above are not.
Let's look at Bioshock. Part of the attraction of Bioshock was the environment. It was the "creepy" factor. You were alone and isolated and in the middle of a survival horror experience. How horrifying can it really be if you're listening to a mate chatter at you through your headset, or farting after too much bean dip beside of you on the couch? Don't you think that might ruin the mood at least a little bit?
You can say the same thing about the Resident Evil games. Humans are, by nature, pack animals. We feel uncomfortable and concerned when we are isolated, particularly in dangerous situations. Adding a side kick reduces that feeling.
As for KOTOR: The MMORPG. Well, don't even get me started. Yeah, it will probably be cool for a bit. But really, how special is being a Jedi if you see a couple dozen of them run past you on the way to raid a couple of dozen Sith. How unique do you think that will feel?
Please developers. Take some time and consider things. Does the game you're working on really need a multiplayer component? Will it fit the story and the overall game experience or just feel tacked on and gratuitous, a way to check off another box under "design requirements" somewhere?
Alternatively, you could try and make Final Fantasy XIII multiplayer. You've taken just about every other franchise that direction so far. Why not go the rest of the way?
Edit: Reader and fellow Soapboxer OrkHammer007 reminded me that Star Control 2 did have a multiplayer component called Super Melee which I had forgotten. I regret the error and thank Ork for the correction.
- Posted May 8, 2009 11:10 am PT
- Category: Editorial
- 574 Comments
574 Comments