Gogogic CEO Says Single-Player is a "Gimmick"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Buuuuuuuuuullsh*t.
Single player and multiplayer games are pretty much seperate experiences. To say that one is inherently the proper game and the other is just a stick-on is not true in most cases. Sometimes multiplayer is a stick-on, if anything, but single player is where the game is almost always more immersive and amply better at thematic exploration and storytelling, amongst a bag of other things.
Single player and multiplayer games are pretty much seperate experiences. To say that one is inherently the proper game and the other is just a stick-on is not true in most cases. Sometimes multiplayer is a stick-on, if anything, but single player is where the game is almost always more immersive and amply better at thematic exploration and storytelling, amongst a bag of other things.
I see a lot of gimmicky tacked-on multiplayer modes in games these days...though that's more due to publishers forcing companies to divert resources to make a MP mode even when it's not in the game's best interesting :[ more local co-op would be good though
Who's this guy again? What company is this again? Not exactly a household name there, is it? I suppose he's entitled to his opinion, but if single player is a gimmick, it's a gimmick that has lasted decades now. So, just a bit more substantial than a fad by this point, I think.
This is a guy who is a non-entity working from the old idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Problem is, he's wrong, there really is such a thing, and saying stupid stuff like this is a great way to get it.
This is a guy who is a non-entity working from the old idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Problem is, he's wrong, there really is such a thing, and saying stupid stuff like this is a great way to get it.
That's a good point. Why are we paying attention to this guy? Who is he, relatively speaking? Nobody. And why do we care why he thinks?Pr0 said:
However I don't know how he can say that the first games were designed as multiplayer experiences when, except for maybe Pong, no they weren't. I mean Space Invaders wasn't multiplayer, Pac-man wasn't mutliplayer, Asteroids wasn't multiplayer...
This thread seems to be full of people making snide comments and generally pointing and laughing and I don't approve of threads of that, even if I disagree with the stated opinions. So instead, I'm leaving. This guy made a controversial statement and he should have known it was only going to make people dislike him so he should have keep it to himself for professional reasons. Now, good day.
Wow. What a fuckin' idiot this guy is. Did he just forget about all the single player only games that people play?
of coarse YOU would say that Adam Jensen...Adam Jensen said:
you and your silly little "Deus Ex: human revolution" (with no multiplayer to speak of) are no better than the gimmicy-est of the shovelware crap you find on the Wii!
GIMMICK BE GONE!!!!
What is this singleplayer he talks of? I thought only casual games existed? Back to farmville amiright?
Sounds as pretentious as Jonathon Blow...
Moronic as people thinking CoD is the be-all and end-all of video games...
Moronic as people thinking CoD is the be-all and end-all of video games...
What? Just no. Would Mass Effect's story be improved by adding other -people- to your experience? Would Bioshock's? How about Silent Hill's? Nope, doesn't seem like it. Amnesia? Bastion? Nope. Are they just 'gimmicks'? Didn't think so. So why are single player experiences being thought of as such? It just doesn't make sense.
Here's the thing - Braid was actually pretty freaking awesome, whereas, as has been demonstrated many times before, nobody knows who this guy is.VoidWanderer said:
