Hardcore Gamer's Luke: It’s rare that a game asks the player to make a sacrifice. It is even more seldom that a game forces that sacrifice upon the player. I’m not talking about story elements that has the character making sacrifices; I’m talking about the player having to do so. Whether it be an in-game item, time or any form of negative effect in the face of small and/or delayed personal gain.
from paulsemel.com: In this exclusive Q&A, the author of the new technothriller based on "Tom Clancy's: The Division" discusses how it ties to the games while also bringing its own story to a close.
If you're looking to try out an exciting, team-based shoot 'em up, The Division is currently on sale on Steam!
TIM WHITE WRITES: "Multiplayer or single player? Developers, you can do both, just not willy-nilly."
I hate when I see single player games and see people begging for multi-player. Jeez guys it don't need to be on every game. Latest one I seen was atomic heart.
Multiplayer or even co-op
If it was always a single player game then that's how it is
It's a trend that never really went away. For me multiplayer in a primarily SP focused game was an excuse for DLC. Then there's the mentality gamers had that adding multiplayer makes a game worth the price, otherwise it should be half price for half a game. A way of thinking devs reassured when they started adding multiplayer to their sequels. We see the same with multiplayer focused games getting SP in their sequels.
I remember when certain single player games had them as included optional modes that was played on the couch. Had brilliant times with Syphon Filter and Golden Eye. Me and my bro used to used to fight over who would play as Gabe even though it was technically just a skin. Good times.
if its done properly, in a game that has some sort of sub context about it, i think it can be properly achieved. definitly never in a game like CoD where you press "x" to pay respects..