Extra Punctuation: Mixing Single and Multiplayer
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's kind of like saying surely the primary focus of a movie is the visuals. If by game you mean a board game or a card game, then yeah the game is the point. But video games are an interactive medium. Thinking of them simply as games is a disservice to what they are and can do. I think of Call of Duty online as just a game but I think of Amnesia: the Dark Descent as an [/i]experience[/i].SammiYin said:
For me, rarely. Plus I know very few games, and of them, not many are either not playing the same games as me (that have MP) or simply none of us can get online at the same time to play.
I think reading a book is a good time lol. But honestly as much as I read, it's not the same as experience a good game with a good narrative. I just finished the latest Game of Thrones book Dance With Dragons and it was extremely good, but I punctuated much of it with being on my PC playing some games or doing other stuff. 950 pages takes a loooong time to read and can be tiring so often it's fun to relax and play a game instead. I would be sad if I couldn't ever play a game that goes beyond pew pew! Explosionzz! I say that because I just started Crysis 2 and it's not that fun lol.
Anyway I don't mean to pick all of what you said apart like that, but mostly I'm just trying to get this point across: different strokes for different folks. I definitely think the gaming market is big enough to have some games with fantastic co op and some with fantastic SP and some with fantastic MP, but games should consider what route their taking from the start. I have, at one time or another, thoroughly enjoyed co op and MP (mostly when I was a lot younger playing N64) but my tastes and preference is now for good SP.
Just need to say that I totally agree with you. First off that finding the right co op partner sucks monky scrotum, and not all of us have friends who have the same schedule and interest in games as us AND is at a similar level of competency in the game (to make it enjoyable).DeadpanLunatic said:
The other thing is, SPAWN COPIES ARE THE BEST GOD DAMN THING BLIZZARD EVER DID!
Seriously though, I installed spawn copies of Starcraft on anyone's PC I could and we had lots of fun playing together. There's many games out now that I wish I could do that with, primarily PORTAL 2. Seriously, no local co op if you bought "only" 1 copy on PC, but consoles can? Plus the fact that most games have removed LAN play. UGH.
online multiplayer, competitively anyway, is not something I jump at quickly
I do play online MP for familiar series, but I hate it when the single player totally gets the short end of the stick
I do play online MP for familiar series, but I hate it when the single player totally gets the short end of the stick
LOL I wouldn't wanna join in either, doesn't mean I'm anti-social ;p
Richardplex said:
Did you solo a lot? I pretty much only play in groups with friends using voice chat and it is not conducive to reading quest boxes.
It's kind of disappointing that Yahtzee didn't discuss Demons Souls any: a game that really successfully mixed single and multiplayer (I am always eager to give DS a quickie). Though I think From Software would agree with Yahtzee's general sentiment though. The story telling in DS is very unconventional. A moronic onlooker who has never played the game would mistake DS's story for being shallow and simple, perhaps even non-existent, as it pretty much just sets up why your hero is there. But once you get into the game, you end up finding the world is full of tons upon tons of interesting and intriguing lore that really pulls you in. This is one reason why it ended up working for DS, since you can enjoy all of the lore of the world without risking getting it ruined by the interaction of other players.
Overall, I think that adding multiplayer elements to a single player game trying to tell a linear story is bad. But this doesn't mean developers should stop trying to fuse the two different gameplay elements. I think that they just need to be cognizant of how it might impact their story, and experiment with new ways of telling stories in video games to make mixing single and multiplayer work.
Overall, I think that adding multiplayer elements to a single player game trying to tell a linear story is bad. But this doesn't mean developers should stop trying to fuse the two different gameplay elements. I think that they just need to be cognizant of how it might impact their story, and experiment with new ways of telling stories in video games to make mixing single and multiplayer work.
Unless I was in an instance, I never quest with people. I'll talk to people over Teamspeak/vent/mumble/what ever crazy contraption we would use, but I'd always quest alone. Questing becomes boring and just as long with more people, in my opinion. Plus, I could never go at my own pace.castlewise said:
I think some genres lend themselves better for mixing multiplayer and single player experiences. Games where the focus is more in the action than the experience and story can blur the line pretty effectively.
Burnout Paradise and Need for Speed are good examples of games designed to have a single player mode integrated with multiplayer, and I think Borderlands, Saints Row 2 and Left 4 Dead are pretty good too; because they all share a single characteristic: the story is secondary. They can add nods and stuff around for people that like to get story via content, but their focus is in the gameplay, not in an extended, overarching story, that requires the attention of the public.
That is why games like Resident Evil 5 and Peace Walker are not examples of good design.
Burnout Paradise and Need for Speed are good examples of games designed to have a single player mode integrated with multiplayer, and I think Borderlands, Saints Row 2 and Left 4 Dead are pretty good too; because they all share a single characteristic: the story is secondary. They can add nods and stuff around for people that like to get story via content, but their focus is in the gameplay, not in an extended, overarching story, that requires the attention of the public.
That is why games like Resident Evil 5 and Peace Walker are not examples of good design.
Wow he didn't mention Brink. Then again Brink didn't even have much of a story to begin with, it was literally just "Oh those guys up there get all this cool stuff we should rebel". The story of each mission was done by voice overs during loading, and each cutscene was about the soldiers arguing, even though none of them are ever established and are all nameless. The horrible model design also detracted from it as well, but everything else was just so bad, the gameplay the story etc. etc. It was the only game I hated because I payed full price for it and it was so shit and half assed, probably to accomadate for the multiplayer.
I think F.3.A.R. just did it badly, it's worked in other games, WOW is a multiplayer game with a narrative, and I've liked co-op in games like Perfect Dark, Halo and Resident Evil 5. It is true that if your with a friend you'll probably focus on the story less but good game play still holds up even without a good story.
Seems like Yahtzee wants every game to fit in the same hole for him. Multiplayer games are like sports. There's no story needed. Single player games are like books, story and art are paramount.
Sports, i.e., multiplayer FPSs are really popular right now. Books, single player campaign games, aren't as hot, but they're still out there. I don't necessarily want sports in my books or vice versa.
However, it can be done. Demon's Souls is a good example of mp in a single player game that works, even if a lot of people kind of hated it. It didnt' change the story or force you to engage in it, but it was there and it was a pretty neat feature.
I doubt it will happen, but I wonder if a day will come when Yahtzee either tires of or fails to find something to complain about?
Sports, i.e., multiplayer FPSs are really popular right now. Books, single player campaign games, aren't as hot, but they're still out there. I don't necessarily want sports in my books or vice versa.
However, it can be done. Demon's Souls is a good example of mp in a single player game that works, even if a lot of people kind of hated it. It didnt' change the story or force you to engage in it, but it was there and it was a pretty neat feature.
I doubt it will happen, but I wonder if a day will come when Yahtzee either tires of or fails to find something to complain about?
hm I wonder what Yahtzee's feelings are regarding the Legacy of Kain series, I consider it to be some of the most fantastic storytelling in game and other media... on top of being just great games anyway.
OT: i've never really played any multiplayer that had a compelling story. I played a few Tom Clancy's with my brothers but always quit before half-way through out of boredom. the only multiplayers i get any real joy from are the fighting ones like Bloody Roar, Marvel: rise of the imperfects etc.... cause its nice to be able to beat my 2 older brothers in-game ^^
OT: i've never really played any multiplayer that had a compelling story. I played a few Tom Clancy's with my brothers but always quit before half-way through out of boredom. the only multiplayers i get any real joy from are the fighting ones like Bloody Roar, Marvel: rise of the imperfects etc.... cause its nice to be able to beat my 2 older brothers in-game ^^
I've always wondered what it is about wedding cake that sets it on a level far above any other cake. Almost makes me wish I'd get invited to more weddings just for the cake.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Actually, that's rather unfair. I'd go for the wine/champagne as well.
Yeah, it was pretty pathetic. Fear2:Reborn dropped, FearAnimyr said:
erseus Mandate was dropped before and was silly so I didn't care, Fear:Extraction Point dropped. Along with various story lines from the first Fear game, what ever happened to Jankowski? Also, if you play single player the cutscenes are always from the POV of Pointman. The second person is never there though it acts like they are. It was just a mess. Did anyone else get sick too while playing as Pointman? The motion blur that they used was just ridiculous and I don't get sick while playing games.
Hey Yahtzee, check this out! I bet it won't piss you off even a little!Yahtzee Croshaw said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109850-Newell-Valve-to-Replace-Single-Player-With-Single-Player-Plus
Also, my god Valve what are you thinking?
I've been saying it forever. Forced Co-Op always sucks. Even forgetting the story aspect yahtzee was harping on, until AI gets way better the gameplay is hideous.
Either your computer partner is a moronic liability who the game engine is forcing you to drag around or they are better than you are at which point why bother to play?
In my opinion Halo 1 has the perfect balance. Full single player campaign, multiplayer allowed if you want. The only thing they missed is the ability for the 2nd player to jump in and out at anytime. Timesplitters 3 also got it right where there is a computer controlled partner but they can't die and they don't do any damage. That way they are effectively part of the atmosphere of the level. Borderlands worked fine also because the monsters were re-balanced for multiplayer and it really isn't story driven anyway.
Either your computer partner is a moronic liability who the game engine is forcing you to drag around or they are better than you are at which point why bother to play?
In my opinion Halo 1 has the perfect balance. Full single player campaign, multiplayer allowed if you want. The only thing they missed is the ability for the 2nd player to jump in and out at anytime. Timesplitters 3 also got it right where there is a computer controlled partner but they can't die and they don't do any damage. That way they are effectively part of the atmosphere of the level. Borderlands worked fine also because the monsters were re-balanced for multiplayer and it really isn't story driven anyway.
Trust me my friend, as long as things like my post above continue to happen, that grey and dull day will never come.Zom-B said:
I agree that not every game should have a co-op mode. Some game ideas simply don't work with it, and trying to bolt such a mode on is just a waste of resources.
I think part of the mentality of constantly bolting on these additions that don't work is because the broken review scoring system used for games keeps impressing this idea that a game can't be good or doesn't have sufficient replay-value without these additional bolt-ons. Games lacking these additions(regardless if it truly makes sense for the game), consequently, receive lower scores, and publishing companies, putting way too much value in an invalid scoring system(I've voiced my opinion regarding the invalidity of the current review scoring system in other posts), adjust their funding of future games accordingly. However, it is not just the publishers who put too much value in the system; we gamers also put too much value in it to guide our purchase decisions, feeding the rationale of the publishers and their actions.
Of course, this is all just my opinion on the matter; so take it with a grain of salt.
ADDENDUM: Looking over my own first statement again, I can see that it may cause confusion to think that I am agreeing with Yahtzee 100%. The truth is I only agree partially. My real intent is to say that it really depends on the game itself. Some games work well as a combination of multiplayer and single, some games only work well as multiplayer, and some games only work well as single-player. Where I most agree with Yahtzee is the blind mentality to simply add multiplayer to a game without considering whether multiplayer is truly appropriate for the game, but, instead, it is being added for marketing or review scoring reasons.
It's not a rigid box, as Yahtzee seems to paint it. Very few things in reality are rigid boxes.
I think part of the mentality of constantly bolting on these additions that don't work is because the broken review scoring system used for games keeps impressing this idea that a game can't be good or doesn't have sufficient replay-value without these additional bolt-ons. Games lacking these additions(regardless if it truly makes sense for the game), consequently, receive lower scores, and publishing companies, putting way too much value in an invalid scoring system(I've voiced my opinion regarding the invalidity of the current review scoring system in other posts), adjust their funding of future games accordingly. However, it is not just the publishers who put too much value in the system; we gamers also put too much value in it to guide our purchase decisions, feeding the rationale of the publishers and their actions.
Of course, this is all just my opinion on the matter; so take it with a grain of salt.
ADDENDUM: Looking over my own first statement again, I can see that it may cause confusion to think that I am agreeing with Yahtzee 100%. The truth is I only agree partially. My real intent is to say that it really depends on the game itself. Some games work well as a combination of multiplayer and single, some games only work well as multiplayer, and some games only work well as single-player. Where I most agree with Yahtzee is the blind mentality to simply add multiplayer to a game without considering whether multiplayer is truly appropriate for the game, but, instead, it is being added for marketing or review scoring reasons.
It's not a rigid box, as Yahtzee seems to paint it. Very few things in reality are rigid boxes.