Gogogic CEO Says Single-Player is a "Gimmick"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Rabble rabble rabble ad hominid rabble!!!
/me flips a car and starts a riot
Am i doing it right?
/me flips a car and starts a riot
Am i doing it right?
I was kinda more twisting what he said into something completely against what he meant. I'm well aware what the guy's trying to say, and he's a complete prick.JesterRaiin said:
However, quality control on single-player games could use a step-up. Games with deeply immersing stories (Mass Effect) or gameplay (Minecraft) could try to be more prevalent in the market, all things considered.
Dear everyone: If you are making a point that can be described as, "Games should always be X", then you are wrong. Also, possibly an idiot.
Multiplayer is great. It brings about a wide variety of Aesthetics that are wonderful, and the inclusion of multiplayer is one of the greatest innovations in video game history, if not THE greatest. But there are aesthetics that are distinctly the realm of single player only. I'd give a list of wonderful, awe inspiring games that would be made significantly worse by the inclusion of multiplayer, but I know that every person reading this has fabricated their own lengthy list. So I guess it ends there. No real gain to be had in arguing against a point that is so obviously dumb.
Multiplayer is great. It brings about a wide variety of Aesthetics that are wonderful, and the inclusion of multiplayer is one of the greatest innovations in video game history, if not THE greatest. But there are aesthetics that are distinctly the realm of single player only. I'd give a list of wonderful, awe inspiring games that would be made significantly worse by the inclusion of multiplayer, but I know that every person reading this has fabricated their own lengthy list. So I guess it ends there. No real gain to be had in arguing against a point that is so obviously dumb.
Games are meant to be played in multiplayer, you say?
Half Life, The Witcher, The Elder Scrolls, Thief, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. , Fallout, Dwarf Fortress...
Do you want me to go on?
Half Life, The Witcher, The Elder Scrolls, Thief, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. , Fallout, Dwarf Fortress...
Do you want me to go on?
So I guess those of us who played alone without inventing any imaginary friends as toddlers... those of us who are problem solvers by nature, not social butterflies... we don't factor into this equation?
I think this dude has a less than stellar grasp on the diversity of human psychology.
**edit**
I'd also like to say that I tried to figure out what games Gogogic has made... but couldn't find anything in English. In fact, this article and several others regarding the CEO's gaffe dominated the first page of the google search.
/facepalm
I think this dude has a less than stellar grasp on the diversity of human psychology.
**edit**
I'd also like to say that I tried to figure out what games Gogogic has made... but couldn't find anything in English. In fact, this article and several others regarding the CEO's gaffe dominated the first page of the google search.
/facepalm
Oh for crying out loud... I am getting sick and tired of all this hype-mongering.
This whole argument relies on a very specific and inflexible definition of games, and either this guy's being disingenuous or isn't willing to admit that games can serve a purpose other than enjoyment in a social context. It's like saying that the only interesting part of Magic: The Gathering is that you play against other people - ignoring the collecting, deck-building, and strategic aspects which also go into the experience. It's like saying that chess has no value as an intellectual exercise, only in having something fun to do with your pal Bob over drinks.
Games with a focus on Single-Player move beyond what traditional, more simplified games have usually done and in addition to having gameplay, create story and characters and a finely tooled, immersive experience.
And let's face it, there are PLENTY of people who play games, and love single-player and hate multiplayer, because playing games with other people, for them, was a previously necessary evil which has since been done away with. Some people don't care for the social dimension, and some folks don't really mind one way or the other.
CAPTCHA: Which one does not belong. There is a list of options:
1. Emo Kid
... And that's the whole list, I kid you not.
This whole argument relies on a very specific and inflexible definition of games, and either this guy's being disingenuous or isn't willing to admit that games can serve a purpose other than enjoyment in a social context. It's like saying that the only interesting part of Magic: The Gathering is that you play against other people - ignoring the collecting, deck-building, and strategic aspects which also go into the experience. It's like saying that chess has no value as an intellectual exercise, only in having something fun to do with your pal Bob over drinks.
Games with a focus on Single-Player move beyond what traditional, more simplified games have usually done and in addition to having gameplay, create story and characters and a finely tooled, immersive experience.
And let's face it, there are PLENTY of people who play games, and love single-player and hate multiplayer, because playing games with other people, for them, was a previously necessary evil which has since been done away with. Some people don't care for the social dimension, and some folks don't really mind one way or the other.
CAPTCHA: Which one does not belong. There is a list of options:
1. Emo Kid
... And that's the whole list, I kid you not.
...wut?!IamLEAM1983 said:It's "ad hominem", but close enough.Meatspinner said:
That's how I wrote it but spellchecker said no. Guess i shouldn't be so lazy with my english grammar. It's google spellchecker from now on.
I don't care if I have to copy paste a thousand times to complete a sentence. It will be done.
Despite the inflammatory initial comment. . . He actually raises an interesting point about the term "game". If you read the article and consider his points, he's not completely off base. I still disagree with some of his opinions but to completely dismiss the nature of his reply would be wrong.
BUT. With gaming nowadays, I think he misses the other aspect gaming has acquired. That it's not exactly a "Game" but in reality it also serves as an interactive story telling device.
BUT. With gaming nowadays, I think he misses the other aspect gaming has acquired. That it's not exactly a "Game" but in reality it also serves as an interactive story telling device.
Well he's technically right. The oldest games, chess, for instance- is technically a multiplayer PvP game.
Basically video game pushers when I was a kid needed to find a way to get you to play with yourself. I remember there was a sense that this was wrong then; to be shut in from everyone playing against a computer all day.
It's for this same reason that when I hit 13 and went into Jr. High in 1994; kids stopped playing Nintendo. They went into basements, attics, to the goodwill, they went away. If you played video games, you were not cool. You were a loser shut-in and you were a weird nerd that people avoided for fear of contagion.
It may seem laughable to call single player a gimmick now, that was my first reaction, but when you think about it- it does not have quite a history and there was a cultural revulsion to it as close as 20 years ago.
Context. Perspective. Get some.
Basically video game pushers when I was a kid needed to find a way to get you to play with yourself. I remember there was a sense that this was wrong then; to be shut in from everyone playing against a computer all day.
It's for this same reason that when I hit 13 and went into Jr. High in 1994; kids stopped playing Nintendo. They went into basements, attics, to the goodwill, they went away. If you played video games, you were not cool. You were a loser shut-in and you were a weird nerd that people avoided for fear of contagion.
It may seem laughable to call single player a gimmick now, that was my first reaction, but when you think about it- it does not have quite a history and there was a cultural revulsion to it as close as 20 years ago.
Context. Perspective. Get some.
What a pleb, that is meant as pure spin and nothing more.
It's all advertising and bullshit.
The large proportion of us in the UK, still don't have cheap or consistant access to the internet so single player is all we have to participate in, so try telling us it's just a gimmick... Jackass.
(Sorry, I hate that word but it was rather apt in the current scenario)
Until universal internet becomes a reality and we get rid of solitaire, crosswords, sudoku etc etc (both virtual and physical versions) then you cannot claim that "single player" is a gimmick or on the way out, because even the most social of us creatures enjoy our alone time.
It's all advertising and bullshit.
The large proportion of us in the UK, still don't have cheap or consistant access to the internet so single player is all we have to participate in, so try telling us it's just a gimmick... Jackass.
(Sorry, I hate that word but it was rather apt in the current scenario)
Until universal internet becomes a reality and we get rid of solitaire, crosswords, sudoku etc etc (both virtual and physical versions) then you cannot claim that "single player" is a gimmick or on the way out, because even the most social of us creatures enjoy our alone time.
