Gogogic CEO Says Single-Player is a "Gimmick"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
After searching through all of my reaction images, I decided this one works the best in my personal opinion. Why? Because that's just wrong. I rarely buy games for their multiplayer modes. I love a good single player game. The awesome stories, funny characters. It's all so amazing.
You forgot the abomanation known as TOR, though yes Bioware still is mainly single player.soren7550 said:
This guy is talking out of his ass. If I had to choose which is more gimmicky I would actually say multiplayer. Also Games were created singleplayer. Plus all of my favorite games(minus WoW and me3's multiplayer(which sucked because of the way you get stuff)) are single player.
He sort of has a point. Most games in the course of history were social experiences. However, calling a single player component a gimmick is going too far.
I guess it depends on the kind of experience you want. If you want something akin to an interactive novel, a great singleplayer campaign will scratch that itch. If you want something more like a traditional game, then a multiplayer focused game would be better. It's all what you prefer.
I guess it depends on the kind of experience you want. If you want something akin to an interactive novel, a great singleplayer campaign will scratch that itch. If you want something more like a traditional game, then a multiplayer focused game would be better. It's all what you prefer.
Single player - the most successfully "gimmick" in video game history.
I'm going to put this down to a poor choice of words on his behalf rather than outright incompetence. Either that or a mild brain aneurysm.
I'm going to put this down to a poor choice of words on his behalf rather than outright incompetence. Either that or a mild brain aneurysm.
Post EA it may be, but that's been the state of affairs for many years by now.ravenshrike said:
I was merely remarking on the fact that pointing to Bioware and Bethesda for single player developers is not the best of examples. Even Baldur's Gate had multi player. As did Neverwinter Nights. It was basically predicated on it. So really, Bioware was only a pure single player dev for a short time in the early 2000s.
If you want to point out some devs that do single player only and does well you could point to CD Projekt Red.
Surely inventing someone to talk to and play with as a toddler correlates more to playing a single player game than multiplayer? Multiplayer requires a minimum of 2 physical people, either in person or online, whereas single player games create the secondary characters for the player. The toddler's invented character and the game's characters are both fictional. His own argument for multiplayer theory shoots himself in the foot from the start.
Also the day that games stop having dedicated single player modes is the day I stop gaming. Even Assassin's Creed noticeable went downhill after they started spending dev time on multiplayer. On anything other than social networks and mobiles, games dedicated to multiplayer are the niche market. Not the other way around.
Also the day that games stop having dedicated single player modes is the day I stop gaming. Even Assassin's Creed noticeable went downhill after they started spending dev time on multiplayer. On anything other than social networks and mobiles, games dedicated to multiplayer are the niche market. Not the other way around.
The portal gun was the central component of gameplay in portal, thus by definition it is not a gimmick. Gimmicks are peripherally relevant to gameplay. An example you might argue as such could be assassination moves in Halo: Reach (and Halo 4) because you could still get the same effect by just quickly tapping them on the back. Still good for humiliating enemies though.Covarr said:
I could dissect his rambling down and prove that it's bullshit, but I'll just save you some time:
Jonan Antonsson is trolling you. Nothing more.
He states gaming started out as multiplayer, assumes this means it's inherently multiplayer, then states that we can go on making single player games anyway.
So what's the fucking point?
Oh right, he called single player games a "gimmick" because his company only makes multiplayer games, and "gimmick" in this context carries a negative connotation. He's just stirring the shit pot to make himself look smarter and more relevant than he actually is.
Jonan Antonsson is trolling you. Nothing more.
He states gaming started out as multiplayer, assumes this means it's inherently multiplayer, then states that we can go on making single player games anyway.
So what's the fucking point?
Oh right, he called single player games a "gimmick" because his company only makes multiplayer games, and "gimmick" in this context carries a negative connotation. He's just stirring the shit pot to make himself look smarter and more relevant than he actually is.
This is the kind of thinking that could ruin gaming if adopted by more people- which, thankfully, it probably won't. Just because games started with multiplayer in mind doesn't mean they were MEANT to always be multiplayer experiences.That's like saying colored movies are a gimmick because they started out in black and white. With changes in technology and time comes changes in the medium itself.
Yes, in the days of the arcade it was clearly more of a social thing, since you actually had to leave the house to play them and almost always had multiplayer, but that was before the home console market rose to great prominence. By that point, anyone could play games at any time, it didn't matter if you had friends over. Thus why single-player experiences became the focus, at least until online gaming came along. But just because we have that doesn't mean we should just write off the last 20-30 years and say "OKAY WE'RE DONE WITH THIS SHIT!"
If the day ever comes where I can't play something like Skyrim or Metroid Prime without some douchenugget sweeping in to verbally assault me and ruin the atmosphere, I'm putting away my controllers for good.
Yes, in the days of the arcade it was clearly more of a social thing, since you actually had to leave the house to play them and almost always had multiplayer, but that was before the home console market rose to great prominence. By that point, anyone could play games at any time, it didn't matter if you had friends over. Thus why single-player experiences became the focus, at least until online gaming came along. But just because we have that doesn't mean we should just write off the last 20-30 years and say "OKAY WE'RE DONE WITH THIS SHIT!"
If the day ever comes where I can't play something like Skyrim or Metroid Prime without some douchenugget sweeping in to verbally assault me and ruin the atmosphere, I'm putting away my controllers for good.
My exact first thought. If this guy really believes this, he's the biggest tool in the shed.DrOswald said:
