Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Look, Single-Player People Are Just Better

By John Walker on August 1st, 2011 at 11:39 am.

A man, being superior.

I’m not denying this is territory I’ve covered before. There’s no disguising that I’m a fan of single-playing gaming over multiplayer. Finally it’s time to just say it. We need to stop avoiding the matter, stop not saying what everyone’s thinking. I’m the man brave enough to do this. I am a valiant man, and maybe I won’t be recognised within my own lifetime, but by God one day I shall be heralded as the prophet and man of integrity I truly am. But please, don’t think me immodest. I would hate that.

The very last thing I would want is to come off as snobbish. But I’d like to make the argument that multiplayer gaming is the going down to the pub to watch the “match”, to single-player gaming’s evening in with a glass of wine. What I’m trying to say is, I’ve had quite enough of loud, yobbish multiplayer gamers making noise outside my window as they drunkenly make their way home, because I have guests. I would like you all to keep it down please.

I remember the first time I played a multiplayer game. The internet had yet to find its ways into homes, and my friend Fred carried his PC to my house on his back. Setting them up in my father’s study, we linked the two together with something people back then called a serial cable, and with a fizz and a pop the two were connected. Their entities so entwined, when we each loaded up Doom by some sort of witchcraft we appeared on the other’s monitor. Dazzled, we found ourselves unable to look at only one screen, frantically swinging our heads back and forth to see how when we moved in our game, we moved at the same time in the other. It barely made sense.

But now, just as how the modern world has forgotten the value of a phone call now you no longer have to carry the coal from the bottom of the garden, multiplayer gaming falls too easily into the hands of the unwashed, and it becomes the grubby equivalent of teenagers comparing ringtones on a crowded train.

I stress again, I would hate it if I appeared pompous at all when I suggest that single-player gaming, ever-more the forgotten gem of our hobby, is for the more sophisticated, intellectual individual. It takes something more, a different kind of mind, a more educated, refined view, to understand and value the art of the single-player. Let me tell you why.

The worth of single-player comes in the form of narrative. As with any good novel, or a finely crafted film. It is the equivalent to literature. While multiplayer is an ill-informed argument. It has no direction, no beginning nor end, no meaning.

Games are made with intent. Like books, films and television, the finest examples among them are those that both exist to say something, but allow the player to create his own interpretation. And while of course there are any number of poor or stupid single-player games, there is no multiplayer that evenly closely matches the finest RPG or adventure.

Like I say, I would be just mortified if anyone interpreted these words to be snooty or condescending. I’m just saying people who prefer single player games are a better class than people who mostly opt for multiplayer.

But what about massively multiplayer games, one may ask. Well, it’s quite simple. When approached as a single-player game, with a world to explore, stories to be told, and a beginning, middle and end, they are firmly in the category of the more refined arts. Once they’ve descended into mindless raiding in an endless, empty pursuit of a trinket, looped for eternity, then they are something quite other.

I can hear those loutish grunts of protest. “Who are these ‘guests’ drinking your wine if you’re playing single-player?” they ask, thinking they’ve been so astute. Well, my generously foreheaded friend, they’re the characters in the game.

Yes, indeed, characters. Something of a mystery to our hooligan brethren. The closest they can understand would be the cartoons that accompany Team Fortress 2, pretending that these outlines of personalities have any effect on their Möbius strip of gaming. Meanwhile I am meeting people, people with lives, backgrounds, motivations and goals. People I can influence, and who can influence me, beyond temporarily making them be dead for a fifteen second wait.

My company in these single-player games does not berate me, nor shout racial and homophobic epithets after me. If I choose to play at my pace, on my terms, the cast of the game does not huff and grumble, nor question my parents. If I do extremely well they do not grow bitter, or question my methods. They play their parts, along a journey.

A journey with a goal, and ending, a purpose. Mine is a gaming infused with meaning. Mine is a simulacrum for life, a reflection on experience and a metaphor for understanding my existence. Multiplayer gamers emulate some Sisyphean torture, yet as the ball rolls back down the hill these creatures cheer and high five.

I do not argue that these people should be stopped, nor that their games should not be made. Of course not – they need their entertainment, and it’s best if they’re kept busy. Far better that they’re imagining progress within their 45,000th match of Modern Warfare 2 than out smashing windows or selling drugs in parks. But where I object is when the games that sate them become greater in number than those for the more discerning player.

I remember the days when every game had a multiplayer component bundled in with it, something to keep the children happy while the adults played the proper game. But this has now swung the other way, with single-player modes often a bot-based version of the multiplayer nothingness. This absolutely has to stop. The yobs cannot be allowed to dominate, or I would argue all of society can only be minutes from collapse.

So as I have said, coming across in any way as if I think myself superior is far from my intent. I apologise if anyone has gotten that impression. But let’s not let the multiplayer lot take over, eh?

__________________

« | »

, , , .

269 Comments »

  1. studenteternal says:

    Hear hear. Though that said I think the potential for a narrative in multiplayer gaming exists. ‘A tale in the desert’ was an interesting take on it; and player influenced persistent worlds like those in EVE, Shattered Galaxy, and Planet side seem like the bedrock on which such a beast could perhaps be built. But it will take a dramatic break with the current design paradigms to create such a narrative multiplayer game, and probably include at least a couple of false starts, that no one seems particularly inclined to attempt at this point; not when there are such profits to be made with simple entertainments.

    Edit: Added punctuation to make sentences.

    • SamfisherAnD says:

      Was that whole thing 1 sentence…? o.O

    • Arbodnangle Scrulp says:

      I was (until Monoclegate made me emoragequit) a single player EvE player, a carebear to the first degree. Before that I was the same in World of Warcraft. I guess many people are just more temperementally (hey, I just invented a word!) suited to single player play-style, even in MMOs. Probably something to do with the size of their gonads.

    • Smidey says:

      Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I know that this piece is satire, but I know that there are people who hold this opinion. All that any narrative can be is a product of one person or a small group of peoples’ imagination. The world that if created, no matter how richly detailed, MUST be viewed though the lens on the creator/s. All that anyone can do – be they writer, director, or what have you – can do is finish their creation and then ask the world, “do you agree, or disagree?” Where our media differs from almost any other is the unique ability to create a forum that allows for a real human tapestry to be woven. This allows for a story to unfold not through the lens of someone else, but through the viewer’s own. This is where a game like EVE fairly shines. At it’s purest form, a game like EVE has almost nothing to do with space pewing, but rather with groups of humans competing and interacting to tell their own story. This, more than anything else, is where I think the future of storytelling in video games lies. If arty is the lens through which society is viewed, what could be more compelling than using your own?

    • jalf says:

      Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong yourself.

      EVE is not a storytelling experience, and it is not the future of storytelling in any way. Storytelling implies a storyteller who tells a story.

      EVE is not like that. Stories are emergent properties there. They just happen. They aren’t told.

      Gaming is unique for more than one reason. It is unique for allowing stories to emerge, the way they do in DF or in EVE, sure.

      But theyt’re also unique for their *storytelling* capabilities. For being able to tell a story *where the audience is actually an active participant in. That’s what narrative singleplayer games do, and which EVE doesn’t.

      And honestly, claiming that one, and only one, of those two paths is “the future of gaming” is so childishly naive it’d be cute if it wasn’t so dangerously detrimental to what gaming *can become*.

      Honestly, the thing I love the most about being a gamer is that the medium is so broad. I can get amazing narrative experiences, stories crafted for me to *participate in*, I can get weird emergent mini-stories like in Dwarf Fortress, or I can get epic social stories by playing Eve. I can play Guild Wars, Half-Life, Lost Planet 2, Command & Conquer or dozens of other types of games, and each can actually offer a unique flavor of stories. Some are story-*telling* games, and others are just games in which stories happen. All are amazing, and all have their place.

      And if I have anything to say in the matter, the “future of storytelling in games” lies with the games that actually tell stories. And that is typically (but not exclusively) singleplayer games, because storytelling requires someone who is “outside” the story who can *tell* it. Half-Life can tell me a story because the developers are outside it, and they had a story they wanted to tell. Eve can’t tell me a story because it’s just a big sandbox in which all the participants can interact, whereby stories appear. But they’re not being told and there’s no storyteller.

      Of course, “the future of stories in games” is a somewhat different matter. That’s a much broader concept, and Eve Online is certainly a significant part of that.

      But please, don’t pretend that the last 25 years of singleplayer games have no value, that MMOs are the *exclusive* future of games. It’s stupid, and it detracts from what gaming *is*, what it *should be*, and what it might *become*.

    • dragonfliet says:

      Wow, Smidey, you don’t seem to have any idea what you’re talking about. First off, even with written narratives, they do NOT need to be viewed through the lens of the creator. Nor have they. For a LONG TIME. Roland Barthes wrote about this in the sixties, but he wasn’t even breaking new ground, merely putting the capstone on a long-held opinion ( http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm ).

      Not only does narrative not need to be viewed through the lens of the author, but what you describe is not at all unique to gaming. The so-called stories being created in EVE aren’t stories, they’re experience. If I go to the grocery store, I’m not participating in storytelling, I’m getting food. If I raid a pirate ship in EVE, I’m not participating in storytelling, I’m getting cash for my efforts and XP. The only way it becomes storytelling is if an individual (or group of individual) goes back and restates that experience in the form of a story, at which point there is no individual participation, even if they had previously participated, as the events become altered to fit into the form of a narrative.

      Further, even when there is storytelling, like all stories, it is dictated by an author who takes the information and condenses it, tweaks it and imparts their own worldview upon the events. Even with interactive storytelling (which is not even close to being exclusive to gaming), while the player/reader/viewer/etc. is participating, they are only choosing paths that have already been laid out by the storyteller–it is an imaginary participation. This goes even with pen and paper RPGs which have infinitely more interactivity than a videogame, but is still being steered down a few paths by the DM. In other words, there is no truly interactive storytelling, as it is an inherently passive activity (even when it integrates levels of interaction), and all forms of storytelling do not rely upon the reader/viewer/player to view it through the creator’s lens, but rather they filter it through themselves and draw their own thoughts about it.

  2. Arglebargle says:

    Someone got up on the wrong side of their instant coffee this morning.

    Archly funny though…..

  3. Sheng-ji says:

    I would like to argue that local co-op counts as single player (Or at least Co-op with your friends, from real life) in the context of this article

    • studenteternal says:

      This puts me in mind of Valve, for some reason :)

    • Jumwa says:

      I for one second this motion.

      Quality co-operative play with a refined partner can–in every way–be the equal of our completely unsnobby, yet superior, single player experience.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      It is important that your carefully selected company should also agree 100% with every point made in this article and be at the exact same stage in the game as you. Ideally you’d only ever play it together.

    • Carr0t says:

      Very true. The important thing about single player is the narrative. If a game can be crafted such that more than 1 person can experience that narrative effectively, the game has achieved the best of both worlds. I played Portal 2 through with my girlfriend and we both absolutely loved it. Sadly I game more than she does so if this had been the extent of the game I would have been tempted to rush ahead, and spoil her fun. Luckily, Valve provided me with a separate single player only campaign to sate my gaming lusts. We have tried playing World of Warcraft together, and it just doesn’t work because we play in different ways when playing that kind of game.

      That being said, maybe it’s just that I enjoy playing *with* my friends, rather than *against* them. And I don’t enjoy being owned by abusive 15 year old at every turn (*grumble grumble* in my day…). Maybe I would enjoy multiplayer more if I still had the reaction times and time to practise that would make me competitive (maybe). Serious Sam, even the single player campaign, had more in common with a multiplayer game. And yet it was great fun, fun that was multiplied a thousand fold when 4 of us got together, piled computers on tables and trailed cables across my living room, and spent a sleep deprived and drunken night playing through both the first and second encounters in one sitting, stopping only for bathroom breaks and snacks. At least 2 of the people present were and still are far better multiplayer gamers than me, and yet there was enough fun for everyone because I was working *with* them, not being shot in the face *by* them.

    • Jumwa says:

      In all serious, yes, I really only care for co-operative play with friends. I don’t have the “skills”, reflexes or dedication to keep up with competitive multiplayer, and the whole environment of such games is typically hostile and unpleasant.

      I game strictly to relax and have fun. Competitive gameplay runs counter to my personal aims. It stresses me out, as the youth of today say.

    • Vile Vile Vilde says:

      @Sheng-ji
      I’ve done that. Only ever played a game when I and a certain person could do it together. It improved the experience doing it that way I think.

    • Dr. Evanzan says:

      @Sheng-ji

      Following from John’s analogy, this should make Co-op with friends the refined Dinner Party, where the quality of the evening depends on the quality of the guests as much as the food.

    • Sicky says:

      Me and my wife reguarly play co-op games togather sat next to each other on our pc’s and love it, but there are less and less good quality co-op games coming out now :(

    • Mman says:

      Co-op is spiritually much closer to SP than multiplayer, but it’s still in no way comparable to SP. However good your friends are Co-op is pretty much always played at a faster pace with less time to appreciate the scenery and small details (both in narrative and the visuals). Plus any sort of atmosphere is pretty much inherently destroyed when you have friends to joke around with and watch your back. Not to mention that for every player you add the amount of things that can get in the way of playing the game rises almost exponentially (and that’s before you add in stuff like differing playing styles and personal taste).

    • Sheng-ji says:

      @ Dr Evanzan: Agreed completely! I know it wasn’t what he was driving at with the dinner party analagy, but I think it works better this way – the game content being the meal! /me closes eyes and awaits the banhammer for disagreeing with staff

      @ mman – I know that feeling, I think I’m truly lucky my friends are nerdy enough to role-play every game we play, so if you want to slow the pace down, it is possible.

    • Ragnar says:

      Co-op is a pretty happy medium. I agree, the pace is generally faster than SP, but part of it is based on how the lore and story is presented. Long-winded dialog boxes tend to be skimmed and ignored, while voiceovers and cutscenes are absorbed and enjoyed. Many a game has been saved by having co-op, and I find I even prefer to play primarily single-player games in co-op, since it gives you someone to share the story and experience with. It invites a friend to your dinner party.

  4. Smarag says:

    Quite. ಠ_ರೃ

  5. Gundrea says:

    The middle screenshot of the beach. Is that WoW?

  6. Cerzi says:

    Agreed in at least as far as Single Player Gamers Vs The Players of Team Fortress 2 and Modern Warfare.

    To be honest, though, there are many single player games that exhibit e-sports qualities not far from these multiplayer games. Anything with a leaderboard, for example (recent examples that come to mind are the likes of Super Meat Boy). Here, the story takes a back seat to the gameplay and competition in a not dissimilar way to your local FPS.

  7. Ondrej says:

    That was a great read, thank you. I am sharing the same view, somehow multiplayer games don’t appeal to me. Heck, I even play CounterStrike with bots in it, mostly because they give me a faint chance of beating them. Maybe I am yet to find some good fellow multiplayers.

    Also, whose views are they if not john walkers?

  8. RF says:

    Err… wat.

    Is this… Satire?

  9. Grygus says:

    What could possibly have brought this whole thing on?

  10. sonofsanta says:

    I think another key part of the argument is that, should I submit to a multiplayer experience willingly, as I did for 2 years in New Eden, I am having one experience. In those two years I am then missing out on dozens of other possible experiences.

    Nearly two years ago I moved house, and bought a new PC with some of the mortgage money (because I am responsible like that). At that time I said, I will now take a break from Eve; I will be internetless, and my new machine will allow me to catch up on those games that I missed. I have still not returned to Eve, and doubt I now will; there are so many other games, that mean so much more to me, that I cannot imagine only playing one game.

    I don’t regret the time spent in Eve, not at all – it was a thoroughly unique experience in gaming, and I had some excellent weekend meetups/pissups with my corp. But it was a time that, to me, speaks for all such dedicated gaming; I have now been there, and done that, and now I can return to immersing myself in so many other worlds and characters.

    I simply cannot understand those people who are not “PC gamers” but “Street Cleaning Simulator 2011 players”, who play one experience, refine one experience, and do not move out of it. In a way I envy them their dedication, for they are milking fun out of a game that I will never even comprehend, it is so deeply buried in the experience – but variety is the spice of life, and sitting still in your comfort zone is the antithesis of life.

    (Suspecting that this is posted in response to the D3 thing, as well, I would point out that Diablo is not chiefly multiplayer, but co-operative – at least for the fun stages of the game, before the grind of the end game. Co-op is something very different to competitve and enjoyable on its own terms)

  11. studenteternal says:

    I like the “Actively seeking Reddit downvotes” tag as well.

  12. noodlecake says:

    I have always felt like this. That’s why The Secret World looks so appealing as an MMORPG.

  13. JiminyJickers says:

    Hear hear.

  14. CMaster says:

    Is this a ruse to draw out the idiots who say “But of course! You are completely right!”
    Is everyone saying that above just in on the joke, or do they mean it?

    Too many layers!
    Edit: And of course the idiots who “OMG n00b faggit U wrng!”

    • Kollega says:

      I second this notion. The article itself is confusing enough, so much that my sarcasm detector had the indicator it’s dial spin 360 degrees a few times over, and then fizzled out, it’s flammable isolation bursting into flames. I don’t really get if the tone really is supposed to be condescending, or serves as a satire on condescending tone. But the comments is where it gets truly confusing: not only the views of John Walker are not necessarily the views of John Walker, but the views of every person saying that they approve may or may not be theirs too.

      All in all, i’m not even going to try sorting this whole mess out.

  15. westyfield says:

    All your arguments against multiplayer seem to stem from the fact that the people you play with are a shower of stellar bastards. Perhaps consider playing games with people who are nice – you might be surprised at how fun BC2 can be without a 14-year-old screaming in your ear.

    • studenteternal says:

      As much as I love Single player :) BC2 is actually a phenomenal experience with a good team. In defense of the above though (and yes I do get that it is a bit tongue in cheek) even a great BC2 game is a popcorn experience, round win or lose, reset, do it again. There is no context or structure to an hour gaming session outside of those 10-20 minute matches. If I talk to my friends about it later, we can not really use it as a metaphor or starting point to discuss anything beyond the tactics or snapshot moments from the game. Compare this to, to grab an example not at all randomly, Planescape: Torment which can seed a many pages long forum discussion about the teachings of zerthimon and how they are interpreted by characters with in PS:T.

      Is this a worthwhile discussion? Honestly I am not sure, but it certainly feels like it is one engaging my brain at a much more substantial level then debating the 40mm grenade launcher vs the under slung shotgun on Isle.

  16. Cinnamon says:

    I’m guessing this is a satire on something on reddit but since I don’t subscribe there does anyone have a link? Although I think that it is nothing I haven’t heard before.

  17. Temple says:

    “My company in these single-player games does not berate me, nor shout racial and homophobic epithets after me”

    Somebody make this happen in a single-player game please.

    • Cinnamon says:

      Full Metal Jacket, the game. Would be a somewhat different experience to the typical military shooter.

    • Temple says:

      Suicide for the Win?

    • diebroken says:

      I remember Homefront having this tone with you, the player, taking too long to move ahead or (dare I say it) try to explore any part of a ‘level’.

      (Edit: good thing that game wasn’t long for SP…)

    • Cinnamon says:

      I guess that in the first half of the Full Metal Jacket game would be a boot camp where you select a character from a range of characters with some trait that sarge can mock you for by bellowing in your ear the entire time. If you want all the “cheevos” you have to get all the different insults. If you want to unlock the character with the best stats in the second half, Animal Mother, then you have to top yourself. It would be like a modern version of the arcade classic Combat School.

    • diebroken says:

      Heh, reminded me of the training level at the start of Opposing Force.

    • Moth Bones says:

      Moth Bones ‘likes’ this.

    • Kryopsis says:

      Bloodline Champions bots insult you. In fact, they even talk about you among each other which results in a hilarious experience. From what I remember, they do accuse you of hacking if you win as well.

    • Burning Man says:

      BULLETSTORM!!

      *takes a bow*

    • Bret says:

      Playable Adam Baldwin would be worth the effort.

  18. Berious says:

    *Standing ovation*

  19. skinlo says:

    Agree totally.

    Multiplayer has its place, but for a high quality gaming experience, a good single player beats nearly any multiplayer game.

    Edit – Although not sure is serious. Either way, single player beats multiplayer.

  20. Cerzi says:

    It’s basically sports vs art, competition vs contemplation. And in my opinion anyone who indulges in only one of the two is missing out.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      Pretty much. But TRIBES was the only competitive multiplayer experience I’ve ever really enjoyed, and even then, I would’ve appreciated a good single player campaign more.

      I’d be interested in some massively multiplayer coop, like ATITD. But otherwise, I have very little interest in multiplayer. I play computer games for the single player experience. If I want competition, I always have board games and football.

    • Shazbut says:

      @Cerzi

      Agreed. Well put

  21. Necroqubus says:

    I so miss proper single player : <

  22. Anjiro says:

    I think games should focus on either being single or multiplayer games. One usually ends up crap at the expense of the other.

    • airtekh says:

      I am 100% in agreement with you there.

      I hate this modern thing of ‘tacked on’ multiplayer. Either make a decent multiplayer game or a decent single player game; not a half-assed attempt at both.

  23. ichbinspikeface says:

    bravo! i have always thought this way, and as a poor, wretched refugee from the IGN gulag, i was always in great despair at their ‘if you prefer single player games, then find some friends and play properly’ shtick. single player games is the king, for all the reasons in the article, and more.

  24. henben says:

    Fascism doesn’t start with death camps. That’s where it ends.

    This is where it starts.

  25. ArcaneSaint says:

    This is exactly what I’ve been thinking for the past ten years, I approve! (in an unsnobby, yet sophisticated, intellectual way)

  26. PickyBugger says:

    Whilst I agree with the sentiment to some extent I can’t fathom why this article exists…

    • studenteternal says:

      I have a very sneaky suspicion that it may be in some distant way related to the… vigorous discussion going on in the Blizzard article that precedes this on. :)

    • The Sentinel says:

      …because it’s about gaming? About a form of gaming that seems to be dying off in this bold new era of F2P MMOs and multiplayer arena shooters?

    • PickyBugger says:

      Yes of course, I forgot that single player games were dying out. Silly me.

    • Droniac says:

      “multiplayer arena shooters”

      What!? Where!? Was Quake-3-in-a-browser not the epitaph of a genre gone the way of the space sim after all? Please point me to these elusive beauties of the multiplayer gaming world!

      Or do you mean to refer to what people commonly call ‘tactical’ shooters? Those monstrosities that go by names like Call of Duty, Homefront, or Medal of Honor? Those places where terrible gamers go to shoot at people and pretend they’re even remotely decent at it while spewing obscenities at each other? Those things that have been dumbed down to the point where aiming is very nearly a mere luxury and the focus has come to lie on creative name-calling rather than skill? Those references you may keep, but please refrain from lumping them together with proper shooters in the future.

      * Signed: a fan of singleplayer games of all genres, but particularly space sims, as well as an experienced eSports competitor in the (proper) FPS and RTS genres. (Note: If I come across in any way as if I think myself superior, then that is far from my intent. ;) )

  27. The Sentinel says:

    I fear the death of single-player gaming. I’m a very solitary person…and in the game. Being absorbed into a digital universe of any flavour is much, much harder to do when other humans, from that real life, are in there with you.

    The one and only time I tried to play Neverwinter Nights with my flatmate he pissed me off so much by engaging his OCD to explore every single pixel of the map for treasure, and by constantly running back and forth to the shop to buy and sell. Mostly sell. Amassing gold was the only objective he had. He’d even leave me to get pummelled by monsters while he darted around the outskirts collecting their dropped loot. Frustrated me no end. And thus our networking experiment died (our frienship suffered a spot of damage, too). Other people just ruin that special dialogue between you and game with their…irksome eccentricities.

    • Keymonk says:

      That’s actually one of the things I enjoy with Co-op games. You get to play with another person and watch them do silly stuff and then laugh at it with them. Mostly. When all goes well (with going terrible).

  28. fenriz says:

    i agree, but virtual worlds the Ultima way are good precisely because they have no stories. Then again they are not games at all, they’re well beyond, they are life simulations.

    the fact that videogames can be either sport or pure drama shows the medium’s versatility, but, it’s natural, drama has the precedence, always.

    also, it’s not easy to have narrative actually matter in multiplay. Because people like a story when they’re alone; when they’re together, they’re competitive, they want achievements, especially when it’s co-op. Multiplayer is ALWAYS sport, that’s why MMO story-driven quests have nothing to do with people, with virtuality, with the online, they could be offline but then you wouldn’t pay them monthly, and that’s a pity cause they couldn’t buy a new car.

    Narrative can matter in multiplayer only if the first directly affects PvP

  29. Kdansky says:

    And the game which captures this best, is Minecraft. Someone builds a world, and you can spend you own solo time in it. I would love a way for people to collaborate on world building, and then you can download a copy of the thing and play it by yourself. If only the game would support that without hackery.

  30. Dinger says:

    Frankly, I can’t figure out why these losers keep playing single-player games. Over and over again, they arrange the same cards in stacks, and they usually lose and have to reshuffle; or they constantly rotate the shapes of objects until they make lines. Pop. Repeat.

    Play what you want, but I think you’re mistaking some types of multiplayer games for the whole range. Yes, most MP games people play are grindtastic MMOs or tightly constrained battlespaces. The most popular SP game in existence is Solitaire. So what?
    Games have boundaries. I know when I’m playing a single-player game that everything in the gamespace is going to follow certain rules. The most memorable moments I have of SP games are when things didn’t quite go according to the rules, or where my actions take the game in an unanticipated direction, like when in Ultima III my party got strong enough to kill guards, and we walked into towns and wiped out every living thing. Come back two weeks later, and there’s still nobody in town. Or building a giant railway in Minecraft, through jungles, tunnels, caverns, even building a glass-lined tunnel on the ocean bed.
    Now, I play a “sandbox” game like Farcry 2 or GTA, and I get bored pretty quick. Why shoot that guy, if 10 minutes later his doppelganger will take the same place? Why cause mayhem if it’s only temporary? Why leave me in a world at all, if nobody remembers my actions?

    Multiplayer? Well, sure, there are games that do exactly the same thing. What’s epic about a quest that _everyone does_? Just like missions in SP games, these are Disneyland rides, only with other people in the boat. If the highest high is shooting 20 people in a row without context, is that memorable?

    On the other hand, I remember the first time I played a modern flight simulator online (that is, not counting PLATO’s JetFight). Suddenly, if I pulled up to a stall, the guy behind me would just nose down, he’d shoot me out from under my prop. I could fly bomber formations, and the fighters would be genuinely trying to kill me.
    In MP, you can find yourself in situations where it’s unbelievably easy, and others where it’s downright impossible. Flying CAP with 5 squaddies and two dozen Yanks in P-38 think they sneak past with an early NOE strike? Cue one horrific massacre, and a single survivor desperately breaking for home. Will he make it? No.
    That was ten years ago, and I still remember those events.
    Or building a map for OFP from elevation data for a couple of RL Islands, populating it with trees, a few buildings, enemy patrols and the rest, and four of us going on a hike, with nothing but our wits, rifles and a firebase of heavy artillery to protect us.

    Maybe it’s not the gamer, but the game.

    • skinlo says:

      Read the first sentence, stopped reading.

      I love how offended some people get at these type of things.

    • Dinger says:

      Thank you for your constructive input; it was extremely helpful for me to form my opinion of you.

    • Wilson says:

      @skinlo – You are in this case giving a great example of why you should never stop reading at the first sentence, and why you certainly shouldn’t then comment about the fact you stopped reading. The post was actually interesting.

    • Koozer says:

      I find it quite amusing that Dinger’s post opening is of the same tone as the article, which skinlo vehemently opposes.

    • DMANG says:

      Honestly, you make some valid arguments, but for the majority of the population that doesn’t take gaming nearly as seriously as you, it holds little water.

      I like SP games like a movie, its a fun experience, and I am entertained, and it draws to a statisfying conclusion.

      I like MP games like a sport, though, without their being any sort of physical activity/exhaustion, just finding ways to get technically better (use this gun there, attack with this type of unit, etc), I grow bored quickly (sports were originally invented so people could get stronger for battle, with out the physically excitement I can’t get into enough) granted you could argue MP games have some sort of intelectual growth, its not enough for me to get into it.

      just my 2 cents.

    • CloakRaider says:

      Yes! Exactly what I wanted to say! I think that John couldn’t be more wrong here. I find that the stories told in a multiplayer environment utterly crush those developed in a singleplayer game. Why? Because in the singleplayer game, when something astounding happens, often it was always going to happen. Especially with modern games, with your Mass Effect etc. You’re always going to be playing someone major, you’re always the biggest cog in the mechanism, maybe not at the start, but usually at the end. In a multiplayer environment, you’re a peon with what you achieve being down to you, and not the scripting of the game. If I hold a line in Red Orchestra against all odds, with my rifle down to the last few bullets when the killing is done, I did it through grit, through skill, against the wills of others. If I save the crew of the Normandy in Mass Effect 2, I’ve played my part as an actor in a script. Sure the story in the end may be better, but the experience from said story is just inferior I find.

  31. pipman3000 says:

    That’s a really long-winded way to say “I don’t have any friends to play with” :)

  32. Sinnorfin says:

    I Agree and also not.
    Chess is multiplayer.But take a Quake match, It has a beginning and an end.
    You say..but you repeat it over and over..But well you do see a movie twice or more too, if its good.
    I dont think audience of MP games are shallower than of SP games.
    Its not about how much people play a game together, it really is about what kind of game they play.
    For example i would describe playing WOW like hitting 1+1 in your calculator then rapidly pressing the = button until you tire..you look proudly at the number you produced with hard work..than do some more when rested..
    But single player games too has their ” Interactive chore ” category..its not even about story..
    People should not say that a game is like a movie. A book. It should be considered an active way of art. Its about experiencing and manipulating. The story the graphics, the sound, the number of players, all just servant under that purpose..

  33. resignation.speaks says:

    Most enjoyable reading, thank you!
    Maybe we could organize and blast through the multiplayer of Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption together? :)

    • fenriz says:

      sure but it would loose its story worth and become a sport as well, the one who makes the most efficient beast, the first who beats enemies. Then you would think of ranks, of co-ordination.

      Sport.

    • resignation.speaks says:

      fully agree, that was the intended point.

    • Eidoloclast says:

      I like that you picked the only game I can think of where it would be possible to argue in the other direction to make this point.

      And by like, I mean, ‘am confused by.’

  34. Luis_Magalhaes says:

    I mostly agree. I do feel that there is a much more intellectual pleasure from navigating a finely-crafted single-player experience, than most multiplayer melees.

    However, there are exceptions to the rule. A match of chess, a good board-game, or, to talk in videogames, let’s say Frozen synapse, can, between players of decent skill, deliver a highly enjoyable and very cerebral narrative, one of parries and feints, tactics and risks, epic wins and major fumbles.

    True, that narrative has no beginning and no end, but it does have characters, characters that exist in our mind and play their extremely physical but still dramatic parts.

    This was very obvious to me when I was teaching my brother how to play Magic the Gathering last Saturday. In playing the game, with all its creatures, events and lands, a narrative easily popped up in my mind – context was provided by the imagination.

    So maybe the problem is not one inherent to multiplayer by itself, but simply product of a general lack of personality in multiplayer games?

    • Ilinx says:

      Interesting point – I was also thinking about shared narratives in ‘multiplayer’ in terms of boardgames. Recent example: my group played Game of Thrones last week and that always yields interesting emergent narrative. Sure, we could play the exact same game tomorrow, next week, the week after and so on, but each game has its own start, middle and end, it’s own dramas, betrayals, unlikely alliances, protagonists and antagonists (although mostly the latter, which rather suits the source material). The characters are the players – not as in who plays which faction, but instead the personalities of those playing mixed with a bit of impromptu roleplaying.

      Perhaps the impersonal nature of most online multiplayer games should be the main complaint here?

  35. lhzr says:

    “Far better that they’re imagining progress within their 45,000th match of Modern Warfare 2 than out smashing windows or selling drugs in parks.”

    but then who would i get my drugs from? and if i’m sober how will i be able to stand “exploring” the same dungeon over and over in dragon age 2, hmm? hmm???

  36. Ian says:

    I assume, John, that you’re basing the experience of going to the pub for “the match” purely on things you’ve seen on television?

  37. Neut says:

    John just doesn’t like his enjoyment of games to be dependent on other people ;)

    Anyway, I’d just like to say that for me, the appeal of multiplayer games comes from the complexity of unpredictable players interacting with fixed game mechanics. Rather than being some grind of “Sisyphean torture” and a “Möbius strip of gaming”, really good multiplayer games is about how interesting and unpredictable stuff can happen in a fixed game world with a known set of rules. *cliche* I mean look at go, really simple ruleset, almost infinite complexity due purely to the interaction between 2 players and this ruleset *end cliche*.

    At the risk of sounding like a pretentious ass, I’d also argue that a really well designed set of game mechanics (multiplayer or otherwise) can be as much good “art” as the narrative of a single player game. In fact, as game mechanics are the defining characteristics that separates games from other forms of media, games per se can only be considered art with respect to its game mechanics, rather than how well written it is as a choose your own adventure book ;).

    • RevStu says:

      Go does NOT have a simple bloody ruleset. I’ve been trying to understand it for about 10 years and I still don’t get how it works.

    • Neut says:

      Lol whoops, yeh you’re right, my bad! I guess I mean mechanics, and I should stop oversimplifying and using stuff I don’t actually know that well as examples :D

    • ankh says:

      Thanks for articulating exactly what I was thinking, much appreciated. No sarcasm intended.

    • jaheira says:

      “John just doesn’t like his enjoyment of games to be dependent on other people ;)”

      I’m the same but it’s the vice versa of this that’s the killer. The horror of co-op gaming is that other people’s enjoyment of the game depends on me. Stuff like DOTA would be like a small slice of hell.

  38. Gassalasca says:

    What John is trying to do here is steal the thunder from Blizzard, as it were.
    I bet he saw the Diablo news and said, right, I’m going to try and (sic!) whip up a post that’ll get more comments than the one about D3.

    :D

  39. airtekh says:

    Single player and multiplayer provide different experiences. One is not necessarily better than the other, they’re just different.

    I like both. There are some things better experienced alone, but at the same time I’ve had some wonderful experiences in the likes of Team Fortress 2 and Natural Selection that I wouldn’t trade for anything.

  40. Vexing Vision says:

    So what about Minesweeper?

  41. Colthor says:

    I agree with this article’s conclusion, but not necessarily its reasoning. I don’t think I want, or like, stories in games in the same way as John.

    I’m firmly of the opinion that stories should be output from games, not input. If everyone playing a game has the same experience, then they weren’t really playing it – except in the way a remote control plays a video. Or in the way a rat plays a maze to get to the goodies the scientist has put at the end.

    Much more interesting are the games that give you stories because that is what, due to the mechanics and systems of the game, happened. Adventures in Minecraft or Oblivion. The unbeatable horde of high-tech starships which exploded just before reaching my home station in AI War. My pet goblin swimming team in Dwarf Fortress.

    But the multiplayer thing? Certainly. If I wanted to listen to racist ranting, I’d call my mum.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      Yes. Yes yes yes.

      It’s still about the story though, except you’re the one creating it, and the beginning/middle/end may be somewhat arbitrary.

    • Lacero says:

      Good post colthor.
      It’s about time we used different words to describe different games rather than just “games” for everything. But I can’t think of good words to suggest and people get hung up on the overlaps.

    • John Walker says:

      You’re very generous with your use of “reasoning”.

    • Colthor says:

      @John

      I have to be, lest the word remain inapplicable to myself.

      I know the article is deliberately ludicrous (even before you pointed it out on Twitter), and I enjoyed the article because of the way it was written, but you do shout your preference for single-player, story based games from the rooftops; it’s not hard to work out what you mean. If you were a writer I didn’t know I might have been confused about whether you were being sarcastic or not.

      Unless I’m being an idiot in interpreting this post as saying: multiplayer and co-op games don’t, and can’t, provide the story-based experience you want, and that you want to enjoy at your own pace, on your own terms, without other people mucking it up.

      So I agree that multiplayer’s not what I want, but I still want a different type of game to you.

      Too many commas, not enough full stops. Sorry, I have a headache.

    • Synesthesia says:

      yeah, i’m with you on this. I’m really starting to enjoy the procedural storytelling that’s starting to happen. Maybe dwarf fortress is the best example, but i’ve had similar experiences with just starting new worlds on minecraft with maybe one companion. Almost multiplayer.

      Strong sp, three act games are still the shit though. I thoroughly miss those. Good write up, john.

  42. PoulWrist says:

    Indeed. I dislike multiplayer in games where it doesn’t make sense, and I have some friends who insist that everything should be multiplayer and is better for it.

  43. McDan says:

    I love you John Walker, in the way a man appreciates another man very finely writing about a shared passion. If I wasn’t viewing this on the move I’d write more, I probably will later anyway. But I just wanted to say that this is another amazing piece of writing by you. Also the tags on the article are priceless: “the views of John walker are not necessarily the views of John walker”. Excellent stuff.

  44. Alexander Norris says:

    Serious comment: I disagree.

    My company in these single-player games does not berate me, nor shout racial and homophobic epithets after me.

    My company in multi-player games doesn’t do any of that either, because my company is either my friends or polite enough to be allowed to play on the server I frequent.

    Gaming is an inherently social activity, and I’ve yet to find a single-player game that’s anywhere near as satisfying as a game. As an experience, sure, System Shock 2 or Deus Ex deliver more per-minute than Brink; but I’ve never seen anything compare to taking a flag in BF2142, then holding out against an enemy tank squadron while shouting at the commander to come rescue your asses until your own tanks and walkers finally swoop in to soundly rout the enemy; or to dying repeatedly in ArmA2 because Bakke crashed the chopper again.

    (Also: picking a genuinely terrible multiplayer game and then going “lookit, it’s badder than single-player games!” isn’t exactly fair. MW2 is terrible. :P)

  45. pakoito says:

    Don’t come with the narrative argument, scripts are usually worse than Z movies. Then you have that lot of good games (single or muti) that don’t have story at all, such as Civilization or Solium Infernum.

    • studenteternal says:

      An interesting point, but a un-scripted single player game does still deliver a narrative with a beginning, middle and end. I suppose some Multiplayer games do as well, you could say that counter strike has a very short narrative (frequently very, very short for me :)) but any multiplayer game that you re-spawn before the end of the round damages the sense of contunity within itself.

    • pakoito says:

      That’s seeing too much in it, my whole life could be seen as a narrative and that doesn’t mean it’s a novel or script.

    • Lacero says:

      There is no narrative of any kind in tempest. Or pinball.

      And if you think there is you’re playing it wrong.

    • Kaira- says:

      “scripts are usually worse than Z movies”

      99.5% of everything is shite. That doesn’t mean that some of the most fantastic scripts that I’ve encountered are from video games (though they are a very serious minority, most scripts being an-excuse-of-a-plot for shooting people). Shame.

  46. mpk says:

    It’s all about the death of narrative, innit? Well, I think narrative is always dying, in one form or another, then being reborn in another fashion. From silent movies to talkies; from text adventure games to The Longest Journey etc.

    Pure MP games have their own form of narrative but I’m with John. I enjoy a good story, and the experience of experiencing it, start to finish, beginning, middle and end. Co-op aside, most multiplayer ganes just have a beginning and a middle – the end of my EVE characters’ stories sees them docked in station in Asabona for eternity, with no resolution to their tales of the war years. The best stories haveendings, and the best games have an end game. This far, and no more.

  47. Jockie says:

    Well, in the same way sometimes I want to watch a big dumb blockbuster, over a more considered cultural artefact, sometimes shooting some whining idiot in the face is more enjoyable than interacting with AI.

    I am able to drink wine and engage in sophisticated chatter, yet also go to the pub and watch football with the lads (usually not on the same evening), a fondess for one does not preclude me from partaking in the other.

    Obviously you’re employing an exagerrated view for comic effect (been watching a lot of Stewart Lee? The repetition in the prose is reminiscent), so this probably isn’t wholly represative of your actual view, but I have chosen to respond to it at face value anyway!

    • Advanced Assault Hippo says:

      Yes. About halfway through, my thoughts were ‘if Stewart Lee performed a standup piece about SP v MP gaming..’.

      Although that’s no slight on Walker. I’d like to see more articles based on comedy styles.

    • YourMessageHere says:

      That’s basically my feeling here. I’ll play alone or with others as the mood takes me.

      I used to play a lot of Action Half-Life. I got pretty good, I played daily, I learned to make weapon models for the game. Gradually I sickened of it; it was always the same small player base, playing the same way on the same maps. Also, the sheer competitiveness of it was wearing; I’m highly uncompetitive by nature (I just like shooting people) so it was pretty stress-inducing when it/I wasn’t being awesome. I swore off MP for a long while.

      Then I sickened of the predictability of the AI and the hoop-jumping of most singleplayer games. Like Dawn of War Dark Crusade, which had this awesome risk-style map for freeform campaigning. Only thing was, every time I finished a mission, the same territory would come under attack and I’d have to play the same mission all over again to defend it before I could play another one. Singleplayer FPS was much the same; everything was predictable, little was surprising, and if it was, it was only surprising once. When it’s done well, singleplayer is awesome; but honestly, it rarely is, and even more rarely is it awesome more than once.

      So I took to intermittently playing BF2 on public servers only, no clans, no friends, just whoever was around. That was great, in fact – unpredictable enemies and allies, a different experience every match. I do the same with Black Ops now. Playing MP without friends or voice comms (just disable it) and with little if any regard for score means all you’re doing is enjoying how the game plays, you’re not beholden to anyone. The worst thing that can happen is you might suck that day, or someone might type “U fag!!!!11″ or similar at you, which I can tell you is survivable – certainly preferable to sitting through a cutscene. I actually enjoy that sometimes, because it means I can hunt them down and annoy them personally.

      tldr: singleplayer is great if done well, but yobs make unreproducibly good cannon fodder for the relaxed manshootist.

  48. Monchberter says:

    The limits of interested involvment for me in single player games are the narrative, and the AI. In most cases, both are lacking. The narrative element is what can keep me playing long after i notice the holes in the AI, the exploitable elements etc IF the game is good enough.

    The positive and negative of multiplayer however swings almost totally the opposite way. Narrative is almost always frosting and superfluous. It’s the other players that are the make or break element, along with ‘balance’ that is.

    I started my gaming life as a resolute single player, not wanting to make the jump into the chaos of multiplayer, but since TF2 came out i’ve been lucky enough to find, and then move on to running a community of very warm friendly players.

    The one thing AI still can’t do is offer the challenge of human fallibility and the ever changing adaptive experience of playing with new people.

    I’m still agnostic as i’ll load up Fallout NV when it suits me but i still can’t ignore the lure of playing with others. There’s a time and a place for everything.

    • resignation.speaks says:

      i think that tf2 still delivers at least a bit more than your standard deathmatch.. it even has a ‘backstory’ and ‘characters’.. it has some special flavour to it. and a community! and humor, yes!

      or it’s just a fetish.
      i’m a medic.

  49. Lambchops says:

    As a side topic to this how many games can we name that have great multiplayer and great single player modes. i reckon it’s relatively few and perhaps dominated by (the now often maligned because we’ve seen it all before) military shooter genre.

    I’d put forward: Unreal Tournament series (one of the only games that was ever fun to play with bots), The firest Modern Warfare, Medal of Honour: Allied Assault, Worms Armageddon (yup, the single playe game did actually have some good missions), Portal 2, SWAT 4, Freespace 2. Probably a few others that i’ve forgotten. Never actually tried Serious Sam multiplayer but I’d imagine it would be a blast.

    I’m sure other can add to the list but for most games that try their hand at both there’s one component which is obviously stronger.

  50. faelnor says:

    s/better/bitter

  51. mod the world says:

    I also miss the times when the plebs couldn’t post their worthless babble under opinion columns written by handpicked professionals.

  52. GHudston says:

    “But I’d like to make the argument that multiplayer gaming is the going down to the pub to watch the “match”, to single-player gaming’s evening in with a glass of wine.”

    This could not be more true.

    …can I still have both?

  53. Web Cole says:

    I find that all I can play these days is multiplayer. However any kind of straight up death match or CTF etc is almost as boring and 1 dimensional to me as single player.

    If I’m going to play MP for me to stay interested it has to be complex, a la Solium Infernum, or have a good deal of scope for interaction between players, for instance Project Reality.

  54. Jamesworkshop says:

    the views of john walker are not necessarily the views of john walker.

    good, then no conflict with the massive TF2 fetish the writers have here.

  55. alexheretic says:

    Mr. Shotgun: “Well thank you very much for the article John, interesting and entertaining observations as always. I would say, however, this is not exactly what I was thinking of when I asked you to do an investigation into the Defense of the Ancients / MOBA genre…”

  56. Bantros says:

    Whoah, what’s this idea? This is not good, this is crossing a line. That is well outside the fucking box!

    Is something brilliant happening?

  57. Vinraith says:

    Games are one of the worst mediums in history for telling author-generated stories. Interactivity is the sworn enemy of pre-determined narrative, after all, and games are about interactivity. This is not to say that I don’t hold the majority of multiplayer in complete contempt, it’s only of value when played with friends which means it’s only of use when designed with a small group of people in mind and not reliant on being played with the great unwashed internet masses. That said, most of my favorite single player games have no or very little author-generated narrative, and instead allow “creating your own story” as you play. Morrowind might as well have no main plot, and Sword of the Stars spins a hell of a yarn without shoving a story down your throat.

    • studenteternal says:

      Just because we are not terribly good at it yet does not mean the medium is terrible. I expect as developers get more practice and new standards emerge we will see better and better authored stories out of games. Other then that though you have good points.

      Also: Planescape! :)

    • noodlecake says:

      Heavy Rain was highly enjoyable.

    • AndrewC says:

      It is interesting to note, considering how rubbish the narratives are in most games, how incredibly enthralling they are. The story might be ‘walk down a hallway to escape the monster’ pablum but by crap are we invested in a way we wouldn’t by an equally crummy horror movie plot. In this way you could argue that games are the very best way to tell stories. They are, at least, the very best way to tell rubbish stories.

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      The funniest thing about the article is after I read it I had to check it wasn’t written by Vinraith. Not surprised he’s echoing it with pure sincerity as it’s been his manifesto for years around these parts.

      Games are one of the worst mediums in history for telling author-generated stories.

      Strongly disagree. I’ve played plenty of games where the story has been enthralling because it depends on your actions either to unravel the next chapter or because it changes due to your actions. Ironically most of the examples I can think of off the top of my head are console games.

  58. itsallcrap says:

    And what of the L4D model? That’s multiplayer through-and-through, the single-player feeling like something they just threw in for people whose ASDL was down.

    Now I’m not saying L4D itself has a level of ‘meaning’ anywhere near what a well-produced RPG can manage, but since all the players are pulling in the same direction rather than fighting each other, what’s to stop a multiplayer game of a similar ilk achieving such heights?

  59. Owain_Glyndwr says:

    Your argument lists the reasons for why I don’t play MMORPGs all that much (did give Warcraft a go with the free trail though). I think it’d be interesting if there could be an online game with just as much focus on story and immersion as a good single player game. I’ve got high hopes for The Secret World.

  60. JFS says:

    I never liked multiplayer anyway.

  61. Sam Crisp says:

    I am a bit sad that Valve have said they aren’t making traditional single player games any more. I can’t help but think it’s a terribly irresponsible decision. Remember how good Half-Life 2 was?

    • Monchberter says:

      it was good. But given that they’ve got all the tools to see how much time people spend in certain games, they’ve probably come to the conclusion that per game, a multiplayer game gives you many many more hours of involvement than the longest single player campaign.

      Hence if time spent = enjoyment then multiplayer wins?

    • Mman says:

      I’m pretty sure Valve relented on that statement, or at least said it was never intended to be interpreted that way at all.

    • resignation.speaks says:

      Yeah, Portal 2 is ‘not-so-single-player’, I guess that’s what they were thinking of.
      I hope.

  62. silverdeath00 says:

    Hey, first time commenter here.

    I am inclined to agree, my most memorable moments in gaming have arisen from deep emotion involvement in single player games.

    However there are still examples of when multiplayer games still have a first class single player option. Take your very briefly mentioned photo example of modern warfare 2. The campaign mode for that game, while short, is deeply engrossing and I would argue rivals any blockbuster 90s action flick, The Rock with Sean Connery and Nicholas Cage comes to mind.

    While it was a short campaign (7 hours if my memory serves correctly) it is increasingly hard to make a war campaign a long campaign without completely boring the player. While I haven’t played any Battlefield game (and won’t until Dice decide they actually like ATI cards), the only way I can think of a long campaign working in a (highly demanded) war genre game is in the method Metal Gear Solid does.

    I know, I know it isn’t a PC game (though it technically is with the 1st and maybe the 2nd being ported to PC), however the way it stretches its single player mode, which is its only mode, is through long long cut scenes.

    They do say focus on quality, not quantity.

  63. Ajh says:

    The whole time I was reading this article I was thinking to myself two words. Planescape: Torment.

  64. Spatula says:

    hahaha the genius of my plan comes to light…..

  65. Kismet says:

    *waits for Mr. Rossignol’s “Look, Multi-Player People Are Just Better”*

  66. Tin says:

    Long time reader, but this post got me to register

    I’m thinking of this through the lens of KOTOR and Bioware saying that SWTOR is comprised of KOTOR 3+, so if I want to get at the stories I’ve got to plunge into the great unwashed. It seems a roundabout way of saying they need multiplayer to make a story based game, and they’ve got to twist it into a multiplayer game if it was to be made at all.

    And then you’ve got games like The Witcher 2 being made for around $10m.

  67. Edawan says:

    This article makes me slightly uncomfortable.

    It’s like being at a diner where a guest is making racist jokes.
    The puns are clever but the meaning is frightening.

  68. Mman says:

    The biggest problem I have with MP is that most MP games and modes simply have no reason to exist. As long as the data remains an SP game can be experienced in its intended form pretty much forever. Most MP games require a playerbase to properly exist for any length of time, and that playerbase frequently flocks to only a few different games rather than spreading themselves thinly. Which makes sense of course; why would they play a ton of different games when they can have an effectively infinite experience with a few games they love while playing with people who also love it?

    The same people who cry for MP in everything are mostly the same people who play a tacked on MP (and sometimes even the well thought out but more niche MP’s) once or twice and then move back to TF2/CS/Starcraft/COD/Halo/WOW/Whatever else they have already played for hundreds of hours and are familiar with.

    Developers making MP games is understandable as a successful MP game prints money, but it’s one of the riskiest things to make if it doesn’t hit big (the vast, vast majority of them).

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      Couldn’t agree more. See Brink for a recent example where a game dies because it doesn’t have the community to support itself.
      If I were in the games development industry I wouldn’t even think of making a pure multiplayer game in todays market. Trying to overthrow things like TF2, CS, CoD, Battlefield, Starcraft, WoW etc is an exercise in futility in the present market. Single player games can benefit from a long tail of sales (and often a better experience for the player the longer you wait due to post-release patching) while a multiplayer game which has no community isn’t going to sell after the initial release as there’s no one to play with.

      This is where games like Minecraft & Terraria are going back to basics. Quake, Half-Life & Starcraft did well back in the day because they were good single player games but they kept selling because they also had solid multiplayer (or enabled content creation through SDK’s). Modern indie games are doing the same thing the hits of 10-15 years ago did to become the hits of today & more power to them for it.

    • ankh says:

      So you have no ambition then? I see.

    • Mman says:

      what

      Following the flavour of the month sure is a great ambition!

  69. JackShandy says:

    Irony aside, you’re addressing what multiplayer games are right now – not what multiplayer games can be. Multiplayer games definetly have the potential to be just as great a wine-swilling parlour room experience as singleplayer. My personal dream is to make a story-based game that’s purely multiplayer, with the storyline decisions of one player affecting the others.

    Wild dreams, maybe, but even current games like Die2Nite show the storytelling potential of multiplayer. Hell, DnD is the best story game in the world. You’re cutting games a bit short by talking about their current natal state.

    EDIT: And another thing- Multiplayer games, by their nature, don’t suffer from that manipulation that John Blow is so against. The challenges have to be real and honest, because you’re facing real people. For that, if nothing else, they’re worth it.

    • Anton says:

      I think, in some ways, that’s Star Wars: The Old Republic is trying to achieve.

      The thing is, you can’t really force people to play at your own pace. If they find you too timid, or too aggressive and look like a feeder for the other team, they’ll hate you for it. When I play MP, I usually just find a good server and just play it cool even though I want to slap their behinds to a pulp.

  70. Anton says:

    Amen! Same feelings here. It’s like the number of game devs & publishers championing the cause is dwindling and Bioware is the flag bearer. Though for Bioware, they are slowly crossing into the “dark side” because of EA’s influence.

    • jaheira says:

      Yes. It’s depressing that ME3 is going to have multiplayer. Still, TOR is looking like quite a good prospect for soloing (Han Soloing? Heh – coined it) so I suppose Bioware are coming out even.

  71. Symitri says:

    “But where I object is when the games that sate them become greater in number than those for the more discerning player.” Well said.

  72. Drake Sigar says:

    The chosen one. I knew one day you’d come.

  73. quercus says:

    I can’t help feeling that your argument is a bit of a pointless one. The soul cherishes both solitude and socialising.
    An evening of fine wine and a novel is perfectly valid, but sometimes, surely even you would hear the laughter from outside the window and wonder what the noisy rabble could possibly be doing that they are having so much FUN with.
    Personally, I prefer gaming online with friends and having a laugh than playing single-player games, no matter how well crafted they are.
    Ultimately of course, there are still many games that are purely single-player experiences and I can’t see that ever changing (even if they do bolt on a lacklustre multi-player experience as well), due to the number of single-player gamers.
    Take Company of Heroes for example, a fantastic game that is still played and enjoyed online and one I love playing as a multiplayer game. But the truth of the matter is that of those who purchased it, the vast majority only ever played the single-player campaigns.

  74. colinmarc says:

    Yeah, absolutely.

  75. porps says:

    single player games are good for those of you that get annihilated in multiplayer games. Personally i prefer my games to be challenging, and playing against predictable AI isnt..
    Who needs story? there are millions of books and movies if thats what you want, and the majority will contain stories a damn sight better than anything found in a video game.

  76. Ham Solo says:

    There are still those kinds of multiplayer and the “good” multiplayer, where you play with a friend and make games like “Diablo” and “Doom 3″ even more fun than they were in Singleplayer (except Doom 3, that was less than “Fun” in Singleplayer). And still you got narrative and a sense of accomplishment in the end. But I agree with the meaninglessness of most online multiplayer games. I’VE SLAUGHTERED 10 YARKLAUGHS NOW I GET TO SLAUGHER 20 MORE HURR.

  77. Joe Duck says:

    I agree on the point that single player narrative is undervalued. I would like to point out that some multiplayer games are creating that narrative too, but in the interactions that spring between players as a result of sharing a space and a goal. Multiplayer can sometimes be the springboard of real life tales. Loads of wonderful stories have emerged from my 200 hours of L4D, and most of them have nothing to do with the game, but with the people I met in that game and that I now consider good friends. So maybe the narrative is still there, but on a different level.
    Also, pTerry warned us about people that thinks in italics. It is a clear give away of a dangerous mind.

  78. alexheretic says:

    Instant coffee people are just better

  79. DazedByTheHaze says:

    I play games for the mechanics. Thats why its called “playing a game” … otherwise it would be called “reading text” or “watching an animation” or “getting a story told” by an graphic engine. And I even like it more when I can go against other players, to see whos got the better hold on the mechanics. That’s why I still can love singleplayer games like SuperMeatBoy, their mechanics are superior to 99% of jumpandruns. Depth in game mechanics is what Im looking for. If there is a good story on top, even better. But not many developers are able to do that, most focus on one thing, the rest will be hasty crap. Sad thing is, most developers don’t have the “mechanics” on top of their list, even if the market shows that it can be extremly succesfull. I could make a list of indie-examples but we all know what I mean.

  80. Ross Angus says:

    Could not agree more. Thanks, John. Yahtzee has a similar gripe, with a twist.

  81. Nemon says:

    What about the ” john’s an antisocial buffoon who should likely be left alone for the good of everyone else” tag?

  82. mueti says:

    There are multiplayer games outside of the FPS and MMO genres, y’know…

  83. KingJason13 says:

    I really miss the quality SP experience. A lot of companies are throwing it out to deal strcictly with an MP experience. Case in point Fear 3… the game was a multiplayer game with a fractured SP tacked on to get you to the MP. The SP campaign was basically MP by yourself. Sad…

  84. Om says:

    Satire be damned. I don’t like MP – even if it has its place and I don’t consider myself a better person for shunning it – and I don’t like how it seems to dominate the games industry these days. I particularly hate reading about an interesting game on RPS only to encounter the dreaded acronym MMO a third of the way through the article. More single-player games, please

  85. ScottTFrazer says:

    “But this has now swung the other way, with single-player modes often a bot-based version of the multiplayer nothingness. This absolutely has to stop.”

    Ah, so you played played Brink, eh?

  86. Koozer says:

    Ahh the internet, a place where absolutely anything can be taken seriously and discussed deeply.

  87. Zogtee says:

    Well, quite.

    I have a whole bag full of memorable singleplayer moments and it’s a big bag, let me tell you. On the other hand, my memorable multiplayer moments, I can fit those in my pocket, the small one intended for coins. Playing against other people sounds great in theory, but is it fun to actually do it? Bugger no.

    As for MMOG’s, my personal dream is (still) a game where I can choose to play *alongside* other people and not be railroaded into partying with others, when I don’t want to.

  88. Davie says:

    John, I love you and your opinions. And I fully agree at that.

  89. KenTWOu says:

    @John Walker: And while of course there are any number of poor or stupid single-player games, there is no multiplayer that evenly closely matches the finest RPG or adventure.

    I’m sorry, but it reminds me this:

    Rodger Ebert: As long as there is a great movie unseen or a great book unread, I will continue to be unable to find the time to play video games.

    • Caleb367 says:

      Not the best comparison, I fear. Walker did try multiplayer, he said, and doesn’t like it. Ebert flat-out refuses to be even looking at games.
      Somewhat like going out for sushi, one doesn’t eat the shrimp, the other makes gag noises and yells that raw fish is gross.

    • KenTWOu says:

      I understand : )

  90. Caleb367 says:

    Someone give this man twelve thousand internets. Wrapped in bacon. And a planetoid-sized keg of beer.

  91. Handsome Dead says:

    i read this article because i hate myself

    also hey demon’s souls was a game that merged single player and multi player without sacrificing narrative.

  92. I_have_no_nose_but_I_must_sneeze says:

    If I wanted to surround myself with hostile, insecure teenagers I’d go back to high school. So I prefer single player too. What aggravates me the most about playing with others online is that most people seem more focused on perfecting their skills and belittling those who don’t than simply having fun creating shared narratives.

    In L4D2, for example, some of the most memorable moments for me involved messing up and dealing with the ensuing chaos in-between fits of laughter, not messing up and having some random guy call you a fucking idiot until you quit. Unfortunately, when playing with strangers the latter scenario was much more likely to happen and any worthwhile experiences involved a lot of persistence in the face of idiocy. There was this one time in the Dark Carnival campaign when one of the players decided I was a terrible newbie and tried to get me kicked, only to get overruled by the others. He then tried to ruin the game for everyone by incapacitating me as many times as he could get away with. At some point, I noticed he was wounded and started healing him. He hated that and tried to push me away, but I kept at it until I was done. That was my way of showing him that we had to stick together, whether we wanted to or not. So get used to it, pal. We then managed to get to the final assault in the rock concert. I was low on health, nearly a goner, when this guy jumps out of nowhere and hands me some pills (I remember him giving me a med-kit, but that can’t be possible), shouting at me to heal. All of sudden, we were trying to make it to the end together. I had slowly warmed my way into this horrible person’s tiny heart and he was trying to keep me alive.And then we all died.

  93. Guhndahb says:

    I so needed this to take me out of my Blizzard-induced funk. Thanks John!

  94. the_fanciest_of_pants says:

    I get the feeling, John, that this is less of a Single/Multi Player argument than a Narrative/Emergent gameplay one. People yelling at you online aside.

    This may come across as a defense of multiplayer, and it sort of is, but understand that I love both aspects of gaming, for very different reasons.

    Though I think the statement that multiplayer games are without beginning, end or meaning is more than a little arguable, you’re right that MP is largely an “unstructured” experience; does this lack of a cohesive and linear progression of story and events mean that no story can emerge? Anyone who’s spent more than an hour playing a multiplayer game knows that such a statement is hogwash.
    I have my collection of great single-player related memories of course, just as I do for good literature and film, but there’s some different (and potent) about reminiscing over old war stories.

    For a lot of people, the most interesting challenges are organic ones; that is to say, ones that are not set in stone. That don’t require solution A to be placed at the feet of character B.
    Speaking purely from a design point of view, this is exactly how linear games work; they are limited to the paths the authors write for you. Non-linear games (not just multiplayer, mind you) often have no fixed solution or even goal; minecraft is probably the most boggling example, though you could even argue if it’s a game at all.

    Back to the point, multiplayer games are (at their best) always surprising you. Struggling against (and with) fellow humans can of course be grating, but if offers something that’s just missing when you play alone. No it’s not always pretty, and no it’s not always fun, but there is huge appeal in overcoming your fellow man, winning against all odds, stubbornly making them pay for every inch, and basking in glory or rushing to assign blame at the end of the battle.

    I think in the end what I mean to say is that Multi player games are too different from their single-player brethren to actually qualitative compare them.

    And;

    I remember the days when every game had a multiplayer component bundled in with it, something to keep the children happy while the adults played the proper game.

    is condescending garbage. I’m as old as you and I don’t remember such a time.

  95. shoptroll says:

    Interesting and pretty much on the mark.

    I know from my own experiences, I prefer to play games solo until I get a hang on them, once you add more people to the mix there’s no time to savor things. Everyone’s on their own schedule / pacing and it always devolves into a “go here, go there, rush rush rush, hurry up there’s no time!” instead of the ability to take the time to look around and breathe in the world. Even if that world is a dingy brown corridor shooter. It’s still my game damnit, and I’ll move my guy ahead when I’m ready.

    I picked up Diablo II just before I started college and finished it up on my own after a couple weeks. I had plenty of offers from friends to hand me loot and grind me to the end. Wisely I refused and went on to explore the game and enjoy things at my own pace. Once I was finished and finally started playing with other people, it was just a lot of running around chasing whoever was taking charge and killing things. No side-explorations! We have Pindleskin to run! Time’s a wasting!

    Left 4 Dead. Same thing. First online game I played with people, the team had a good 50+ meter gap between those of us who wanted to move slow and cautiously through the level and the rest who wanted to just run n’ gun.

    Most recently was Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Echoes of Time. A bit of a stiff dungeon crawler on the DS. Whining to a friend about being bored because it took too long to kill monsters, he decides to hand me top-tier armor and weapons. I haven’t touched the game since because I quickly grew bored of one-hit killing everything and it was either that or everything taking forever to die with my old gear. With no middle ground I was stuck and gave up.

  96. Bilbo says:

    This is tricky, because if I say I think you’re being a twat, I’m going to get told off by twenty people for not getting the joke, but I’m really not convinced it is. Saying six times that you don’t want to come off as a snob doesn’t make you seem any less of one, etc. The idea that narrative is only narrative if all the actors are robots repeating a script verbatim is easily the stupidest thing you said in there, though. All 32 players on a battlefield 2 map are acting out a fucking narrative, and the challenge for developers is to make player action in multiplayer better reflect/be rewarded for better reflecting said narrative. That’s pretty much been the whole challenge of multiplayer design for about fifteen years.

    You need to get a grip, John.

    • AlwaysRight says:

      Don’t assume in any way that my comment is related to this comment, but:
      Could you imagine if you had absolutely no sense of humour at all? Imagine what a hellish and horrific experience day to day life would be…

    • Bilbo says:

      This isn’t any kind of humour I can comprehend. And I’m not really a slouch in that department. I think there’s a fine line between satire and just bullshit, and I think the RPS community is by and large too afraid to cast a critical eye at the work of its’ paragons.

      Saying I have “no sense of humour at all” is just a flat insult though, so for your audacity and lack of good form you can feel my block

    • Matzerath says:

      Spoken like a true lover of multiplayer.

    • Bilbo says:

      Actually you’re full of shit because I’ve always been a bigger singleplayer person than multiplayer – I’ve just got some perspective.

      God.

      Not that it should fucking matter anyway – “spoken like a true lover of multiplayer”? When did loving games start being something to insult someone over? Please sell your PC and stop playing games. You’re disgusting. Totally disgusting. Eurgh. You. Yuck.

      As a sidenote, “DERP BILBO U DONT GET TEH JOKE LOL” – to which I say, six pages of comments of which 90% amount to “HEAR HEAR I AGREE GOOD FOR YOU JOHN” would definitely seem to back me up that this isn’t a fucking joke for anyone

  97. soulblur says:

    I’ve always wanted moderately multiplayer games. Where it’s just you and 99 other people in some sort of fantasy world (I always thought the D&D Brithright setting would be perfect). You and other PCs end up being properly super-powered (divinely powered, actually). You have lots of control over the surroundings, as well as your own character. You can make enemies or allies of them. And every now and then, someone does something which ends the world. And the server restarts.
    That would be fun.

    That said, different strokes. I play online with my family, and hugely enjoy it. It does take on a bit of the nature of sport (minus the physical benefits, unfortunately). And sometimes I go to single player.

    • Bilbo says:

      How often do you interact with more than 99 other people at once in an MMO anyway?

    • Hoaxfish says:

      As Minecraft servers have taught us… it only takes a couple of idiots to trash everything else (to put it mildly)

    • Bilbo says:

      So play on whitelisted servers. Job done.

      Seriously, the idea that “some people might try and ruin our fun, so we should never play together for fear of that happening” is so lazy and daft it makes my head spin.

  98. Jambe says:

    Perhaps I’m missing some allusion this article is making, but “meaning” is in the eye of the beholder. It can certainly be argued that most MP experiences don’t have narrative meaning but to say that they don’t have any meaning at all is just flat wrong.

    Also, your own community here is a good argument against the “oh noes multiplayer is full of annoying twats” problem. Develop a good community and the signal-to-noise ratio increases. I play with a community that caters to older gamers and even our public servers have only a few bannable nincompoops daily… and they’re dealt with virtually instantaneously.

  99. alec127 says:

    Wow, I am taking your article, putting it in quotation marks, printing it out, and taping it to my wall to remind me why theres hope for video games. I agree with every word, Single-player has always been, and always will be, better.
    You can pause a single player game.
    You can save from where you left off.
    You can wander around aimlessly for hours, listening to music, and screwing around without a care.
    You don’t get called a hacker for simply being really good.
    You don’t get kicked for being thus “hacker”.
    You don’t have to worry about real hackers spoiling your fun.
    You don’t have to have a poop bucket when your in the middle of a raid.
    You can cheat.
    You can glitch.
    You can Mod.
    Allows brotherly time between two pals, talking of the adventures you personally had, exchanging stories or funny little things that happened to you, Whilst with multi-player theres only the barbaric “did you see that? i shot that guy in the nuts! lololololololol”
    You don’t have to worry about someone buying an uber weapon of pwnage with the money he whined for from his parents and than kicking your ass with it, or calling you hacker when you kill him with simply skill and a strong familiarity with your favorite gun.
    Theres always more story.
    More adventure.
    More emotion.
    So why have multi-player other than to kill time destroying n00bs and declaring yourself teh-pwnerer?

  100. Keith Nemitz says:

    The problem I see with Single Player games is, there are so few good ones. It’s like Sturgeon’s Law squared.

    So, John, tell us what you really thought of ‘Catherine’.

  101. edgeblend says:

    I think everyone is right.

  102. 0p8 says:

    …… the focus on MP games in the last few years has pissed me off.

    BUT……thats not to say i’ve not had fun with MP games.I just wish it would stop being second fiddle to SP.

    …so in conclusion FUCK MULTIPLAYER and start concentrating on SP like you should be all you devs that are hopefully listening!!!

  103. TheGameSquid says:

    I’m ALL for Single Player. The word Multi followed by Player makes me wet my pants. The point is that I’m a basically an autistic dickhead who fears the unknown man on the other side of The Internet. There was this one time where I had trouble sleeping for about a month because I had haunting nightmares of people bothering me in World Of Warcraft. No joke. I never looked back.

    (I do like old-fashioned console couch-co-op though!)

    This is my contribution to this article without a single mention of Roger Ebert or the word “Narrative”. I’m off for some Dungeons of Dredmor now!

  104. Lord Uber Dowzen says:

    Well said. I’ve held a very similar view for a while now and it’s good to see someone else express it.

  105. Jason Moyer says:

    The worth of single-player comes in the form of narrative.

    Narrative has traditionally been the worst aspect of single player games, and I think the industry’s focus on trying to make single-player experiences more like books or movies is why AAA games typically suck outside of multiplayer. Even games that are well-written, your Black Isle RPG’s or Looking Glass-inspired shooters or whatever are nothing without good mechanics, even if those mechanics are just story interactivity. Thief 3 had a phenomenal story, and while it was a very good game it pales in comparison to the first two because the gameplay doesn’t live up to the same standard.

    I’d take an immersive sim with a player-experience based story or a completely narrative-less action game with creative mechanics over a 20 hour linear shooter that was written by the greatest author on the planet.

  106. Giaddon says:

    Is it a problem that 90+% of single-player game narratives are terrible?

  107. BatmanBaggins says:

    Honestly, I completely agree with this essay, tongue-in-cheek or not.

  108. BunnyPuncher says:

    “The closest they can understand would be the cartoons that accompany Team Fortress 2, pretending that these outlines of personalities have any effect on their Möbius strip of gaming.”

    Excellent turn of phrase.

    A Klein bottle metaphor must surely follow, soon.

  109. Buttless Boy says:

    Oh man, thanks for this. I dearly needed another thing to be snobbish about.

  110. SpaceAkers says:

    I don’t really understand this article of half-”satire”! You didnt really say anything clever or actually make any points! It kinda seems you are comparing books to sports, which is pretty apples to oranges! Are you actually making fun of anything here? WHAT IS GOING ON!?

    I could counter-argue that the emergent narrative that comes out of co-operative or competitive multiplayer games can easily rival that of a scripted moment in a single player game, but I’m pretty sure you aren’t even arguing anything! And do single player games even need narratives to be good? no? WHAT IS THIS I DON’T EVEN-

    (Also, in my experience the people who dislike multiplayer gaming are the ones who are shit at it. So, burned! :) )

  111. edit says:

    I think there is plenty of room for greatness in both single and multiplayer spaces, but it does seem to be, in a very general sense, that games with real ‘substance’ are predominantly single player, while multiplayer are more ‘fun’ focused. Single player games are more likely to be the personal artistic expression of creators, while multiplayer games are more likely to avoid anything unusual or esoteric in favour of creating a balanced and streamlined space for people to play in together.

    I’ve played over ten times as much Counter-Strike Source as I have Half-Life 2, for instance, yet the Half-Life series is infinitely more important to me.

  112. Wulf says:

    I wonder how much Internet ire and fire will arise from that bit of classy satire?

  113. Kamos says:

    Multiplayer is the easy, low cost way to make a game last another 100 hours for the easily amused. It annoys me that there are people saying John is writing a satire. He is completely right. There was a time when there was a game in the game. Now they give you a big 3D map, some guns, zombies and that’s it.

    Also, my comment about how long games should last, that got deleted (or otherwise vanished). Games should last forever, and that’s WITHOUT the multiplayer mode.

  114. RevEng says:

    It’s sad that the 14 year old homophobes have made such a mess of multiplayer gaming, but rest assured my competition-loving friends, your games are still rich and worthy.

    Satire or not, this article misses one important point: games are not literature. A game does not have to have a plot, story, characters, or even a theme. What is the story of Chess? What is the meaning of Go? Games are about taking a hidden system, and through the mechanics and goals presented, discovering how the system works so that you can beat it. This is no less true for Starcraft than it is for Backgammon.

    Games can certainly contain the elements of story telling and other art. They can be moving and cause us to reflect on ourselves and our world. Single-player games like Mass Effect and Bioshock are great examples of this. But they are still games. Without the running and shooting, the dialogue options, item upgrades, and experience gaining, it wouldn’t be a game — it would merely be a movie. It is still a game with systems that must be learned and goals that must be achieved; the fact that these are used to meter out character and story makes it no more or less a game.

    Most multiplayer games do not have these same story-telling elements. They may have a background story, a world, and a theme that implies some meaning, but when humans are all playing the main characters, they will inevitably upstage any story the designers have tried to build in. And that’s fine — games don’t need a story to be good games; they just need to have a challenge to be overcome. This is where multiplayer games excel.

    The problem with single-player games is that they are only as challenging as the designers made them. Once you’ve figured out the system, played out all of the levels, and read through the story, you’ve had all the game has to offer and it is over. But multiplayer doesn’t suffer from this problem, because the system within the game is only half of the challenge. With multiplayer games, your challenges are the other people. Just like any sport, a multiplayer computer game requires you not only to master the game itself, but also the skills and strategies of your opponents.

    Yes, it’s true, your opponent may often be a 12 year old kid spouting homophobic and misogynistic bile, but even they can provide you with a difficult challenge. A game played against other people is a sport, and as long as there is another opponent to play against, you will always have a new challenge to rise to. This is why multiplayer games can live on for years and people continue to enjoy them.

    Mr. Walker has tried to convince you that single player games are better because they share more in common with art, but if a game is about solving systems and rising to challenges, multiplayer games will never disappoint. You wouldn’t think any less of major league sports players because they chose to play a game rather than study art, would you? These people have played their entire lives at the game they love, rising above every challenge and developing skills among the best in the world. Is that not a great reason to play a game? Sure, it’s not literature, but nobody ever said a game or a sport has to be literature. Games and stories are orthogonal; they can be mixed, but neither is less for not containing the other.

    It is by this measure that I say that multiplayer games are wonderful in their own right. As games, they offer continual challenge and longevity. That’s not to diminish single player games — they can still have many challenges as well as a wonderful story to tell — but the lack of narrative doesn’t prevent multiplayer games from being great at what they are: games.

    PS: Seriously, who are the parents that let their young children play these terribly violent games and why aren’t they smacking them for being so rude and hateful? As adults, we really only have ourselves to blame for not teaching these punks a lesson. Now get out there and kick their asses so they can see how it feels to be teabagged and called a fag. We’ll show them who the bitches are.

  115. bjohndooh says:

    Y’know I’m not really sure how serious this is, but in some sense I kind of agree with it.
    I have more than a couple friends that won’t even touch a single player game, dismissing them because “It’s a waste of their time.”
    It’s this attitude like – if nobody else witnesses what I’m doing, it doesn’t matter.

  116. Eidoloclast says:

    This article is a trap, but a trap for whom, I wonder?

    Certainly not me.

  117. Jody Macgregor says:

    I think a smidgeon of a degree of satire may have been lost on some people, maybe.

  118. TheIronSky says:

    This article is correct.

  119. Monkeh says:

    I love singleplayer games, probably more-so than multiplayer, but IMO this article is just plain crap.

    Seems to me like you seem to forget there are also nice people to meet on the internet and not just 12-year olds that swear all the time. For one, I love Warband and it has a really tight community. Why do I play this game even though it has no end? Well for one, it’s fun and challenging to test your own skills against those of others. Second, you get better over time and therefor want to try to be the best you can be. And third, isn’t the fact it has no end one of the greatest thing about multiplayer? No round is ever the same.

    Ah well, it’s probably a good thing you stick to singleplayer, since you’d most likely be a dick in the chat, acting like you’re better than everybody else. :P

  120. Sharkticon says:

    Implying story/narrative is the prime motivation of single-player games is extremely flawed. Games don’t exist for stories, they exist for gameplay/interaction. Any game which excels in gameplay, single or multi player, is good.

  121. newchies says:

    I totally agree single player and co-op campaigns are far far more enjoyable than anything offered by multiplayer games. It is incredibly frustrating that new titles are focusing on multiplayer and cutscenes rather than actual gameplay and story. I like this graphic that shows the state of fps games http://www.halolz.com/2010/11/12/fps-map-design/, the now very famous doom vs. cod maps graphic. I personally would prefer poorer graphics for better gameplay any day of the week. I love the rise of indie developers over the last few years and the absolutely fantastic games being produced.

  122. jackelope says:

    Oh, you silly single-player gamers. The truth is, you were severely pwned by a 15 y/o in COD4 and just can’t cope with the embarrassment of trying again. /sarcasm

  123. Highforge says:

    Agreed -nt-

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Respond to our gibber

Read our finest words

Wot I Think: Soundodger

Search for clues

Browse the archive