Gogogic CEO Says Single-Player is a "Gimmick"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, multi-player is where the money is right now, so that is of course what most companies are going to want to defend at the moment.
One also has to remember that with all the masses being brought into gaming, the guys who want to be interconnected by things like Twitter and Facebook, serious gamers, many of whom are the solitary "geek" types are now a minority within the hobby.
I disagree with this guy, but I do understand where he's coming from. Personally I like both kinds of games, for the most part I prefer single player experiences though because to be honest other people being involed frequently ruins immersion or inevitably leads to them being obnoxious. As fun as MMOs and such can be, a time inevitably comes when I feel my brain cells melting listening to other people talk or chat, and just need to get away to do my gaming elsewhere.
In the end though, the lowest human denominator that has been brought into gaming represents the most profit, and does outnumber the more serious gamers. Catering to them, and being able to sell say virtual shirts and such to people to show off to each other is a big business. Few companies can resist the temptation to chase after the biggest profits possible, what's good for gaming itself, espcially in the long term, be damned. Companies will always try and find some way to justify their actions and position, including doing things like spouting banality over how single player is a gimmick.
One also has to remember that with all the masses being brought into gaming, the guys who want to be interconnected by things like Twitter and Facebook, serious gamers, many of whom are the solitary "geek" types are now a minority within the hobby.
I disagree with this guy, but I do understand where he's coming from. Personally I like both kinds of games, for the most part I prefer single player experiences though because to be honest other people being involed frequently ruins immersion or inevitably leads to them being obnoxious. As fun as MMOs and such can be, a time inevitably comes when I feel my brain cells melting listening to other people talk or chat, and just need to get away to do my gaming elsewhere.
In the end though, the lowest human denominator that has been brought into gaming represents the most profit, and does outnumber the more serious gamers. Catering to them, and being able to sell say virtual shirts and such to people to show off to each other is a big business. Few companies can resist the temptation to chase after the biggest profits possible, what's good for gaming itself, espcially in the long term, be damned. Companies will always try and find some way to justify their actions and position, including doing things like spouting banality over how single player is a gimmick.
That's like saying masturbation is a gimmick because sex was meant to be done in pairs (or groups). What if you don't have (or want) friends and wanna do it on your own? BAM.Andy Chalk said:
?that metaphor is gonna get me in trouble ˘_˘
everything thats wrong with the gaming industry ill never buy a online only game unless it blows my mind never buying cod for that reason terrible game made by the worst developers out there sooner devs realise online isnt the primary thing people want the better
I was talking about Bethesda Game Studios, the people who make the main Elder Scrolls series, not ZeniMax Online Studios, the team developing The Elder Scrolls Online.Jadak said:
And The Elder Scrolls Online doesn't mean Bethesda will stop their single player Elder Scrolls series. It's, uh, way too damn successful. Therefore, single player isn't just a gimmick.
Some guy I've never heard of who makes games I've never heard of and don't care about made a comment about the validity about the way I play? RAAAAAAAAAAEG!
I'm not debtaing that, while I haven't played Braid it seeems like a great game, I have heard nothing but good things.leet_x1337 said:
However, some of the things Jonathon Blow has said in articles since then come off as pretentious.
Are you 100% sure that it's what he said ? Because as far as i understand, it can also mean that everything below Mass Effect epicness is shit. Which, of course is pure nonsense as proved by let's say "Faster Than Light" or other indie gems.ThunderCavalier said:
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.
