Crytek: Closed Single Player must go

[Silvianoshei]

I'm as much of a fan of Crysis as any other PC enthusiast, but this is getting ridiculous. In an interview with IGN, Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli bleated, "I'm not saying there will be no single player experiences," while stroking a hairless feline and eating irresponsible amounts of food in front of a starving child, "It could be it?s called Connected Single-Player or Online Single-Player instead." I'm thinking I could put the term "Connected Single-Player" in the dictionary under paradox.

To be fair, he does make a few noteworthy points. He is essentially saying that taking the single-player experience online can make you feel as though you are a part of a connected universe, but choosing to play offline shouldn't detract from the experience. He references The Walking Dead as the idea done right, which I agree with because you can play it offline.

However, on principle, I don't like the slippery slope that this argument slides down. The problem is that because the design of a "connected single-player" game is built to some degree around that connection, it's easy to have elements or mechanics associated with it feel out-of-place. Worse still, the game universe could feel less immersive because part of the immersion-factor was expected to come from the dynamism generated by player actions and less from the depth of the setting. It presents major design challenges that leave me with one question: what is the point?

Why can't we have our traditional single-player experiences along with our multi-player and hybrid games? It seems to me that games built around total single-player immersion (The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Ni No Kuni, Final Fantasy, Xenoblade, etc), do very well.

So, Escapists, what do you think?

P.S. No link, the interview is on IGN.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

However, on principle, I don't like the slippery slope that this argument slides down. The problem is that because the design of a "connected single-player" game is built to some degree around that connection, it's easy to have elements or mechanics associated with it feel out-of-place. Worse still, the game universe could feel less immersive because part of the immersion-factor was expected to come from the dynamism generated by player actions and less from the depth of the setting. It presents major design challenges that leave me with one question: what is the point?

Uh, technically that's your argument sliding down the slippery slope, Mr. Fallacy. Not to pick nits...

I'm thinking I could put the term "Connected Single-Player" in the dictionary under paradox.

Playing single player while connected to the net is not a paradox. Online/single player are not mutually exclusive.

So, Escapists, what do you think?

Well, I think industry heads speculating about the death of the offline experience is not particularly surprising, but it's not going to be a popular sentiment amongst the hardcore gaming crowd. Particularly on these forums, where we've already had people invoking the Holocaust as an analogy for the rise of always online gaming.

It's certainly not a direction I'd want the entire industry taking, for fairly obvious reasons. A few titles here and there I can cope with.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

Firstly, I must disagree with the notion that games with other people are inherently better than games played alone. They're just different. A lot of the experiences that work well in a pure singleplayer experience don't work well when other people are added to the equation. I would not want to play Amnesia, for example, with any other people involved in my playing experience.

Now normally, I wouldn't care too much about this. As long as I can play my games offline in some capacity, I don't give a flying fuck how much better you think it is to "connected" (that is such a fucking buzzword right now) to other people.

However, this, combined with Crytek's "we're going to make everything free-to-play" sentiment, it's a little worrisome. It almost seems like they're going to push online shit in singleplayer so they can get people to buy more microtransactions, instead of thinking about how this will meaningfully improve consumers' gaming experiences.

I'm not panicking until I actually see where they're going to go with these ideas, but Crytek has a long way to go to prove to me that this is a good direction that they are taking, both with they're everything free-to-play and they're connected single player stuff.

 

[Silvianoshei]

Playing single player while connected to the net is not a paradox. Online/single player are not mutually exclusive.

The term is paradoxical. I'm not saying you can't be connected online while you play single-player (e.g. Diablo 3), I'm saying that you aren't playing by yourself if your world is connected to other people who can affect it.

I don't think the idea of an online single-player game is inherently bad, but only if the game is designed for that type of play. In D3, it wasn't. It was DRM for their RMAH.

For me, content is king. If a game's experience is held back in an attempt (read: failed attempt) to save your profits from piracy, I'm much more likely to skip it. If the always online makes the game better without sacrificing depth, and I like it, I'll buy it.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Online single player sounds like always-on DRM to me. I see zero benefit to it, or even a point. The only time I've seen "connected single player" was in Demon's Souls where you could leave messages and I think there were even ghosts of other players. Anything other than that - what is the point? I like single player because you don't have to rely on other people, or an internet connection, or servers, to be able to play the game.

I did have an idea I was going to try and do (if I ever get off my lazy ass and start to work more on building a game) that had a "connected single player" idea in it. Basically a type of game like Borderlands or Dead Island where they are a ton of different weapons that are random and then have some sort of traveling vendor (like caravans in New Vegas) that have random weapons/items and also weapons/items that other players have sold them.

 

[porous_shield]

The worse thing about connected singleplayer would be that it gives the game a shelf life. A game like Demon's Souls that you come back to ten years from now won't have anyone playing it but it'll still be playable since it doesn't rely to much on the multiplayer component. If you get into more connectedness than that and game won't be nearly the same experience to the point it'll be unplayable.

 

[Hawkeye 131]

What is with this guy? It feels like EVERY week he does a new interview where he constainly reiterates the point that Crysis 3 is the ABSOLUTE pinnacle of graphical technology and the best looking game in the history of video games, that because developers have "achieved all that's possible" on the limited hardware of current generation consoles that there's nothing new or original that can be done with them, that current generation consoles are a rampant disease ailing the industry and even next generation consoles will only be a marginal improvement over the existing ones, F2P and micro-transactions are the GREATEST thing since Steam and that single-player games are becoming more and more irrelevant.

Am I the only one who is starting to get just a little bit annoyed with this guy? In some cases I do agree with SOME of the things he has to say but more often than not I don't. "Online single-player games" just sounds like a sutble excuse for more DRM than anything else.

Btw Yerli, sure Crysis 3 is graphically speaking a very impressive looking game. Is it beautiful? Not really no, sure there are a few pretty set pieces and environments and yes the gameplay is fun, engaging and well balanced (minus the bow), but the story just sucks. Seriously it's mediocre at best and is the pinnacle of "Tough guy that doesn't afraid of anything to save the day". Please don't attempt to piss on me and tell me it's raining.

-Hawk

 

[Pinkamena]

Closed signal player? Is this a play on words or something?

 

[gigastar]

Closed signal player? Is this a play on words or something?

Methinks someone failed to take the time to proofread...

 

[sanquin]

The way I see it, the gaming industry seems to agree that offline gaming is dying. Yet they themselves are the ones killing it by slowly starting to make more and more games that aren't supposed to be played offline. I mean, they're creating the problem themselves! -.-

 

[Silvianoshei]

Closed signal player? Is this a play on words or something?

Methinks someone failed to take the time to proofread...

*COUGH* Sorry. Guess that was a bit of a fail.

 

[Twilight_guy]

We've gotten to the point where my response is now:

How in the world did things get to where this is not an issue of discussion but one that comes up over and over?

Anyways, Internet and social media make people constantly connected, game developers try to integrate into games, people get upset over what they like potentially changing/going away, both are stupid and paranoid since they are making broad statements about things that undoubtedly will never get implemented globally, blah blah blah.
What's worse is that that you can't make any statement in these threads without someone calling you out. It's not only often started on rash angry snap reaction but it's full of people who are spoiling for a fight. It's like trying to post in religion and politics (ah snap R&P burn!)

 

[JemothSkarii]

Closed signal player? Is this a play on words or something?

Nah, signal player is when you use a series of morse code, flashing lights and sign language to add subliminal messaging into someone else's game, it's quite fun .

OT: I never really got into the series at all (I think the most fun I had was throwing a turtle through a house in the first game) so I don't really care about this guy. However, since I also have super drop outty internet, this is not very good for me as I don't feel like I should 'feel rewarded' for playing my SINGLE PLAYER with other people dropping in and hurling abuse at me.

 

[Zhukov]

Meh.

It's Crytek. They make pretty games in which you shoot aliens with guns and lunge for the mute key whenever the dialogue starts up.

Do we really care what they say?

 

[Loonyyy]

I don't really like the sound of it, but so long as there's the option of playing supposedly singleplayer experiences by myself, I'm fine. And someone will always make that. Playing with xXxIsnipebiaatchers-xXx won't do anything to improve my game's story, and most devs realise this.

I don't see Crytek, of all people, doing a good job with the concept anyway. I'm envisionaging more of a drop in drop out coop, or getting notifications about what your friends are doing, all sorts of gloriously pointless meta stuff.

But I guess you could make something cool with it, but they'd need to let go of the degree of control that they usually have over their stories. Left 4 Dead and Minecraft are cool experiences which work both ways, where players can make their own narrative. It's not going to work as a setpiece heavy linear story, at least not as anything new.

 

[Doom972]

First of all, as a PC gamer, I reject the claim made by the OP that we're all fans of Crysis. I have the game and played through it a few times (more due to it being short than having replay value). I felt the same about Warhead and I didn't like Crysis 2. Being a PC gamer doesn't automatically make one a fan of Crysis. Most PC gamers I know don't care for it.

As for the topic at hand: I'm not really threatened by Crytek's opinion. They are free to make their games however they wish, and there are enough developers out there who won't try to cram social elements into our single player campaign because they realize that it's completely unnecessary in most cases, and annoying when not optional.

 

[Vault101]

Anyways, Internet and social media make people constantly connected, game developers try to integrate into games, people get upset over what they like potentially changing/going away
both are stupid and paranoid since they are making broad statements about things that undoubtedly will never get implemented globally, blah blah blah

kind of a borad statment being so dissmisvley (even insulting) to people who do fear for the single player experience

NEVER underestimate what could possibly get implemented and what people will put up with and eventually accept, just look at steam..SURE everyone loves steam but in the end its another thing between you and your game


enough peopel bought Diablo 3 to make it a sucess....why couldn't "always online" become the norm? this forum is not the majority of the gaming public

[quote/]What's worse is that that you can't make any statement in these threads without someone calling you out. It's not only often started on rash angry snap reaction but it's full of people who are spoiling for a fight. It's like trying to post in religion and politics (ah snap R&P burn!)[/quote]
whoops...

well whatever, I disagree with you and I made my point

I'm as much of a fan of Crysis as any other PC enthusiast,.

I aint no fan of Crysis

 

[Silvianoshei]

First of all, as a PC gamer, I reject the claim made by the OP that we're all fans of Crysis. I have the game and played through it a few times (more due to it being short than having replay value). I felt the same about Warhead and I didn't like Crysis 2. Being a PC gamer doesn't automatically make one a fan of Crysis. Most PC gamers I know don't care for it.

I should probably clarify: I meant that I liked Crysis's (thbbbbbbbbt) visuals as a PC enthusiast. I paid a ton of moolah for my first rig, and Crysis still beat the hell out of it. I had a ton of fun trying to get every last bit of power out of my PC. The Gameplay was pretty standard and the story...well it's freaking Crytek.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I'd like to see them implement this just to see what kind of numbers they come out with. I don't see many people embracing this kind of thing ie: people will buy World in Crysis or whatever and just opt out or, play in single-player only mode. It's one of those things that sounds like it could be a cool idea for certain types of games but it isn't an omni tool that magically makes every game better. It'll just take some hard numbers to prove that...or to prove me wrong of course.

 

[Epona]

My cable company has been working on the lines for the last couple of weeks and that means that my internet has been going out a few times a day. I have no control over things like this but what if all my games required an internet connection? The only multiplayer that I play is over LAN but games like Starcraft II and Diablo III require internet even for that.

This is always online DRM just like Blizzard uses and it will eventually push me back to consoles and probably only Nintendo.