Pedro Urquia at Twinfinite discusses why he believes that Single Player where always be the more dominant video game form.
multiplayer games come and go. Either people move on, or the servers shut down. Single player games are forever. I mean, remember Mass Effect 3 MP or Tomb Raider MP? Yeah, me neither. Financially speaking, it still is befuddling as to why they'd add MP to single player games. MP are a financial blackhole; they require resources for development, server maintenance and endless stream of (VERY EXPENSIVE) patches. That's not to say I'm anti-MP; just leave the multiplayer to the 'big league' titles instead of adding it to every other game.
I can defintiely agree with this opinion, I've always been a single player guy, and the only time I enjoy multiplayer is when its local on a couch with some friends, that doesnt get to happen taht often anymore but it's still a lot more enjoyable for me, personally, than playing online with 64 strangers. But then again I'm an extremely introverted person, I like my space and I like to disappear in to worlds and my own imagination :)
If I had to choose between the two, I would choose coop. ;-)
I'm a single player guy as well. Hate it when my sessions outcome is up to a stranger. I like experiencing these games on my own terms. With that said, remember Demon Souls online function where other players left notes for you to find? Now that's a cool and welcome online touch I would more than welcome in other games as well. Of course to a certain extend that is. So lets keep buying SP games to support those developers left who actually bother making meaningful games.
I've got to disagree slightly with you. The only single player games that I've truly enjoyed, have been Skyrim and Fall Out. They are giant open world games with no linear story to follow, make your own choices, and you can just get lost doing anything you want basically. Single player campaigns like those found in COD and BF, are a joke. Everyone cried about Titanfall not having a campaign, but in all honesty I'm happy it didn't. The MP is fantastic and generally MP is what keeps a game alive. No one buys Uncharted for a MP. Just like 99% of people don't buy COD for the campaign. Very few games are capable of nailing both the SP and MP aspect into one game. I think usually you get one or the other. And servers don't shut down for a long time. Single players games aren't forever. Generally once you beat the story, that's the end of the game. Skyrim lets you keep playing, but majority of SP games, once you beat it, thats it. Unless you want to play through it on tougher difficulty but it's still the same game. I just think MP offers much more replay value (and DLC) and it's always fresh playing against real people and not stupid AI.
How can multiplayer games offer more replay value Lets say you have two gamers, Gamer 1 is starting to play Skyrim while Gamer 2 is just starting to play Titanfall. One single player only game, the other a multiplayer only game. 3 hours later... Gamer 1 has got lost in the massive open world of Skyrim and has done a few quests here and there. Game 2 has played standard death match like 30 times and has been on most of the maps. 6 hours later... Gamer 1 has just started to do the main story line, he's also explored a few dungeons, collecting lots of loot. Game 2 has played on most modes and has played on all maps now a bunch of times 12 hours later... Gamer 1 hasn't even scratched the surface of the game. He's just now did his first side quest and started the Thieves Guild. Gamer 2 has played on all modes over and over again and played on all the maps more then once You get the point Multiplayer is the same crap over and over again, least with single player games you always have something new. In a full day someone could of explored everything an online game has to offer. Something like Skyrim would keep you going for weeks and you'll always be finding new things in the game unlike multiplayer
"Single player campaigns like those found in COD and BF, are a joke." Bad Company's single player was better than those found in COD or betafield 4, don't lump it together with that crap. Those games are multiplayer games with a tacked on single player, obviously the SP sucked. Also, with multiplayer games, once the publisher decides to close the servers, you're screwed. Dozens of old games get their servers cut each year. A few keep going because of players crying out / devs caring about their fans (demon's souls). You can still buy a great single player game years down the line to play for cheap.
@PONTIAC08G8GT Oh yeah, COD and BF single player games are a joke, they don't really count, they're not true single player games, they're core focus has and always will be multiplayer with SP tacked on, or at least thats how COD has been since MW1-ish, and BF has only started attempting to do a fleshed out SP in the last 2 iterations after Bad Company was cross bred with the franchise. Single Player for me is games like the original Dead Space (the sequels got further away from waht made the first so memorable), mass effect 1 & 2, final fantasy VI up to X, any elder scrolls game (bar the mmo), metal gear solid, Outlast, The Stanley Parable, portal 1&2, the half life series, Uncharted, TLOU, Limbo, Fez, the original Cave Story (I still get flash backs to 2004 because of its impact on me), etc. I could keep going on but I'd be here all night, but this is the standard I hold my SP games up to, if it's not met then I tend to pass on them. No amount of MP can convince me otherwise.
Bro: Original Counter Strike, people still playing.
ive never cared for story mode. When the mode is the only gameplay available, i will play it, like infamous. But for games like halo, its multiplayer all the time
I rarely call people out, but you're a big ass stealth troll. Every one of your comments you slightly put down a Sony game/system while slightly praising a MS game/system. It's time for you to get banned... OT, I've always been a single player gamer. Give me a great story over MP any day.
Single Player by far is the best gaming experience IMHO. I love a great story & just i enjoy playing by myself more often then with friends.
Games that don't have multiplayer are usually longer and have more depth. Tomb Raider should have just stuck to it's exploration roots instead of trying to join in on the "multiplayer" band wagon. Games like Infamous Second Son and Wolfenstein prove that multiplayer isn't a selling point, gameplay is!!!
uncharted is quite similar to tomb raider and one of the coolest thing about the game is the multi.. so much fun to be had in multi and coop dont get me started about TLOU MP , a joy ride all the way through ! :) what's not fun is when a company tries to COPY other games and loose itself .. tomb raider mp was bad period not because it did not belong in the game but because squeenix did not know how/lacked effort to build it properly
I think the reason TLOU and Uuncharteds multiplayer works so well is because they were an after thought in the development pipeline, TLOU mp came together literally in the last few months because a few people on the team made a quick build in their spare time and realised it was a LOT of fun, I believe a similar thing happened with UC2, although about mid way through development. You can make a single player game, with multiplayer as an afterthought, and it works out really well. Unfortunately (and someone needs to tell this to DICE and IW/TreyArch) you cant make a mutliplayer game with single player as an afterthought and expect the SP to be good. But thats just from my experience and opinion.
I find single player after 30 years was getting a bit dull only so many quests I can be bothered with , oh look 10 hours finding a jewel that does nothing but sit in inventory.
Sigh... Those five reasons aren't as black and white as this piece makes it out to be. 1. Tacked on Multiplayer- Well sure but a shitty singleplayer game is still just a shitty multiplayer games same as multiplayer. 2. Story Telling- Sure I guess that makes sense. I mean some MMOs are fantastic story tellers yet I understand. 3. Immersion- Subjective 4. No Seamless MP- Very true yet changing such as Forza Horizon 2. 5. Being Alone- Yea but doesn't mean it's better just a preference.
It's an opinion piece bro, by definition it's a prefrence
Trying to justify why one is greater than the other is just stupid. Neither offer a "superior" experience, it's completely based on one's preferences.
i find most people that dont like mp in their games are anti social , they have a mic but would rather not use it , they hear a kid speaking and think 99% of the community is made up of 5years old . And if the story is not of their liking , they quickly blame multiplayer Instead of crying for "no more SP/MP/COOP" we should yell to get more amazing games that do get it right ! :)
This goes without saying. Games that don't feature SP, or have strong MP never make my list or get on my radar. Sorry, but I cannot stand idly by while I lay down money for games that have no narrative. These companies are firing their writers. Thats very telling. Guess they figure put a gun in the players hand, lay down a maze and start shooting one another is all that is needed.
both are awesome but as an old school gamer, a well done SP is just a little bit better Titanfall is amazing though, super addicting the solution is for FPS games in my humble opinion is to make games that have strong SP and EPIC MP, games like Goldeneye, perfect dark, turok 2, quake 2, Call Of Duty 4, halo.......
You had me until you threw in COD and Halo.
CoD 4 on veteran and some halos (especially halo combat evolved, one of the best sp games ever imo) had some amazing SP campaign, not on ge007/perfect dark levels of course but still so epic
Putting "Opinion" in the title works wonders Ppl are more inclined to rrad the article to find out your opinion why... It's a little thing, but without it, ppl more ppl just respond to the title without reading Atleast thats wat it seems like to me
people like multiplayer for the competitive side. others like it for the social side. i guess co op is a pretty cool idea, but if done like resident evil then it ruins the single player game. i personally like single player, but i wouldnt mind something with some multiplayer aspects. i do want to say that i do not have much time to game so i rather play a 20 hour max single player game and then move onto the next.
I think it depends on the genre you feel like playing and whether PC or console. I mention PC or console as with PC's you can play MP games that go back many years as 1)lookup servers can be supported very cheaply, 2)users can create the host game server, 3)compatibility has remained for many years 4)User patches (Hi res textures, AI bot enhancements etc) and user content helps keeps games fresh. I've enjoyed lots of SP RPG games since Ultima 1 but I've also found some of the free MMORPG's where you can go on quests with your clan or on your own really addictive fun too.
Depends on the game.
Great article, it's good to see that a lot of people still care for single player games. I hate when someone says that the future is online games only, i will always prefer a single player experience.
Same here! I do dabble in multi-player to see what it has to offer (generally just to get things that can assist my offline game ala Watch Dogs... *whispers*or to get online only trophies...) Other than that I much prefer single player
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.