Is this the generation the end of quality single player games?

[Insomniac Gamer]

I don't know about you guys but I think the quality of the single player game in the majority of current gen games is slipping dramatically. With the advent of online multiplayer more and more developers are making games with a view to multiplayer quality.

I have no arguments against that but I do have problems with developers making a single player campaign because they "have to". You know the ones, the games with such dramatically bad single player but quite good multiplayer. For example, Halo 3 (My personal opinion, no flaming) had a very lacklustre single player but fairly decent multiplayer. CoD:WaW had a disapointing single player but the multiplayer redeemed it somewhat (albeit only a little, IMO WaW multiplayer is a mess of glitchers) Killzone 2 had a very bland single player but fairly decent, although short in terms of ranking (I was top rank the same day of purchase), multiplayer. Even games like Guitar hero, which are meant to be enjoyed with friends, seems to have the career mode stuck on as an afterthought.

Now apparantly these dev's think they can get away with having a bad/lacking single player if the multiplayer is good. It seems they can. But what about people like me that want an engaging single player experience? What do we get? A few hours of boredom and then a shove towards the multiplayer. Not. Fun. I have to resort to RPG's from the PS1 and PS2 to get anything in the region of "satisfying" single player.

So what of you fellow escapists? Do you even care? Do you think that multiplayer is better? Or do you agree with me?

EDIT: Stop mentioning Bioshock. In my opinion it was the worst, most over rated piece of crap I played this generation.

 

[scnj]

Depends on the game. There are still great single player orientted games like BioShock, Mass Effect, Dead Space etc. And the single/multiplayer quality gap in multiplayer orientated games is closer this generation than it was last gen. I mean, Halo 3's campaign is much better than Timesplitters 2's campaign.

 

[BolognaBaloney]

No, there are plenty of single-player only games that have a high level of quality. i've seen several of these threads, and again, my answer is no. Don't worry, single player will be fine.

 

[Space Spoons]

I'll concede that there is some degeneration occurring, but I'm pretty sure it's a genre specific thing. Genres that don't tend to put much emphasis on story (shooters, music, fighters) have never really had a reason to focus on single player gameplay, because that's really not where they flourish. Now that global multiplayer is so easily accessible, the single player aspects are gradually being phased out.

Again, I wouldn't say this reflects gaming as a whole. Indeed, there's still hundreds of great single player experiences to be had. I just wouldn't go into Guitar Hero looking for a great story.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

You'll probably get ripped on for "expecting a good story from FPS games," but there are a few out there (Bioshock, CoD4, Brothers in Arms, etc.). Games that do provide epic stories and awesome single-player experiences usually stand out above the rest, so I'm not too worried about them dying out.

 

[StigmataDiaboli]

Dead Space wasn't bad. And Dante's Inferno, God of War 3, Final Fantasy XIII are coming soon with the sole purpose of single player gaming.

Single player games aren't dead, just left behind to focus on online multiplayer, which it shouldn't.

 

[HardRockSamurai]

You're half right. MOST games are dipping in singleplayer quality, but only certain games, specifically the ones with a history of being multiplayer centered. The best example, Halo 3; it had a god awful campaign, but fantastic multiplayer.

If you want a good singleplayer experience, look for games that don't HAVE multiplayer. For example, Assassin's Creed, Dead Space, etc

 

[lostclause]

I would quote bioshock as an example but since the sequel promises multiplayer it would be pointless.
Of course not. GOW had an excellent single-player campaign along with assassin's creed and many others. That said with the ease of connection to multiplayer that we have now I think more games are concentrating on putting the multiplayer in inappropriately (see bioshock 2).

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I see you really meant quality single player in FPS. To be honest, the campaigns might feel like throwbacks, but it's probably due to the developers knowing that a solid multiplayer experience can greatly enhance their game's longevity. Single player you will only go back so many times to, multiplayer you could be playing that for months to come. It's a shame single player quality has to sometimes be sacrificed.

I do think they should bring back quality single player FPS, but then you have to ask if they need to bring back single player FPS?

 

[Tharticus]

I doubt single player games are gonna end. However, most people would play with each other rather than alone.

 

[Zelurien]

I know polls aren't the most accurate of things, especially online ones, but recent numbers show that only about 50% of 360 owners actually play online with any regularity. That goes down to 20% for the PS3 and I'd imagine even less for the Wii.

Even if those numbers are rising quickly (which I doubt) developers still have to cater to the mass market which includes a large amount of non-online gamers.

Plus when you consider how well GoW 1&2 mixed single player with multiplayer, and games like Fallout 3 and Bioshock, there's still great single player action to be had. I personally really like when a game can offer both.

 

[scnj]

I would quote bioshock as an example but since the sequel promises multiplayer it would be pointless.

There's a different team working on the multiplayer component, so the main team isn't distracted from the single player.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Yes.
I'm of the opinion that some single player campaigns are clearly an afterthought, but I don't think every game needs a single player campaign. Games like Unreal Tournament, Halo, and Warhawk are built for multiplayer matches. By the same token I can't help but think that some single player games would've been more fleshed out if they had neglected multiplayer and put those resources towards the single player experience. For example: when GTA4 came out, I wasn't expecting the next gen san andreas but at least a game with as much content as gta3. Perhaps it may have if they weren't also focused on the multiplayer.

There are still games with very good single player campaigns but now that you mention it, most of them don't have any multiplayer: Fallout3, Valkyria Chronicles. or Infamous. So I don't think it's the end but we're definitely seeing fewer.

 

[lostclause]

I would quote bioshock as an example but since the sequel promises multiplayer it would be pointless.

There's a different team working on the multiplayer component, so the main team isn't distracted from the single player.

But bioshock doesn't need multiplayer! Come to think of it, it didn't need a sequel either but that's something else. My point is that a horror game which emphasises the story doesn't work well with multiplayer and since bioshock is very much a story heavy experience adding multiplayer is going to be like adding wheels to a tomato to quote blackadder. For those who want a multiplayer game like bioshock go play dark messiah with only magic.

 

[Kiutu]

Not as long as Bethesda and Bioware exist, and considering Bioware has not slowed in years, and Bethesda has been becoming huge since Fallout 3 and now its recent gain of id. So unless Bioware gets cursed and Bethesda just stops making TES games, single player will be very strong.
There are others, but these 2 more than prove my point.

 

[scnj]

I would quote bioshock as an example but since the sequel promises multiplayer it would be pointless.

There's a different team working on the multiplayer component, so the main team isn't distracted from the single player.

But bioshock doesn't need multiplayer! Come to think of it, it didn't need a sequel either but that's something else. My point is that a horror game which emphasises the story doesn't work well with multiplayer and since bioshock is very much a story heavy experience adding multiplayer is going to be like adding wheels to a tomato to quote blackadder. For those who want a multiplayer game like bioshock go play dark messiah with only magic.

Maybe you're right, but it'll be pretty cool to see the war between Ryan and Fontaine firsthand.

 

[lostclause]

Maybe you're right, but it'll be pretty cool to see the war between Ryan and Fontaine firsthand.

Is that where the multiplayer will be based? I would have thought a good multiplayer would be have one guy as a very powerful big daddy and the rest have to take him down. That would be fun but if it's before the downfall of rapture then that can't happen. It'll just be some guys with plasmids throwing plasmids at some other guys with plasmids.
Anyway anyone who played bioshock will know the result of the war. I just fail to see the point as it is unlikely to be as varied or vibrant (managed with a straight face) as the Halo multiplayer or even come close. Horror and multiplayer don't mesh well with the exception of L4D.
Sorry if I'm being a little pessmistic but to me one of bioshock's strong points was it's originality (yes I know it ripped of SS2, I mean setting) and a sequel seems to undermine that originality somewhat. Hence I'm pessimistic towards bioshock 2.

 

[Vampire_Hermes]

I think that games with no multiplayer are going the way of the dodo, and we're also seeing games that can only be played with others (Shadowrun comes to mind). I don't think we'll ever lose single-player completely, though. Plot-heavy games (largely RPGs) would make coherent, strong stories a bit difficult. Seeing someone with a number in their name shouting at n00bs would certainly throw me out of the story. So, yeah, there'll always be a place for single-player so long as game developers want to tell a story.

 

[scnj]

Maybe you're right, but it'll be pretty cool to see the war between Ryan and Fontaine firsthand.

Is that where the multiplayer will be based? I would have thought a good multiplayer would be have one guy as a very powerful big daddy and the rest have to take him down. That would be fun but if it's before the downfall of rapture then that can't happen. It'll just be some guys with plasmids throwing plasmids at some other guys with plasmids.
Anyway anyone who played bioshock will know the result of the war. I just fail to see the point as it is unlikely to be as varied or vibrant (managed with a straight face) as the Halo multiplayer or even come close. Horror and multiplayer don't mesh well with the exception of L4D.
Sorry if I'm being a little pessmistic but to me one of bioshock's strong points was it's originality (yes I know it ripped of SS2, I mean setting) and a sequel seems to undermine that originality somewhat. Hence I'm pessimistic towards bioshock 2.

Yeah, the multiplayer is set before the fall of Rapture. One team will fight for Ryan and one for Fontaine. Should at least be cool to see the familiar locations in Rapture before they got ruined.

 

[quack35]

No.

You're only looking at the shooters, which are all about the multiplayer.