| What do you hate? in General Discussion |
|
|
| DRM is the killer feature in Microsoft Console |
|
|
| Prometheus 2 Gets Itself a Writer in The Media Room |
|
|
| Anywhere to find windows 8 discounted? in Windows Discussion & Support |
|
|
| New PC. Corsair Builder CX600W 80+ Bronze or not? in Hardware Hangout |
|
Posted 05 October 2012 - 14:11
Posted 05 October 2012 - 14:14
Multi-player is great but so is single-player. I don't think people here are choosing one over the other. Each one has its pros and cons. I, too, enjoy playing multi-player games like Counter-Strike or Dota with my friends. Some games don't have a single-player campaign like Counter-Strike, Dota, or League of Legends but it doesn't make those games bad.Well from my experience (as of most of my friends) we play waaaay more multiplayer (LoL, BF3, WoW, Warcraft 3 back then ) than singleplayer games. It's not that we don't enjoy some well written stories, but the feeling to open Skype/Teamspeak and play with your friends is (at least for me) much more satisfying.
Posted 05 October 2012 - 14:17
Posted 05 October 2012 - 14:19
Posted 05 October 2012 - 15:04
If games go to a pure MMO/MP type only thing then I'm done with gaming. I played games because I got drawn into a good SP, not to run around a map and frag people endlessly or grind endlessly just to level up, to me those two things are boring. I love a good SP with gameplay and most of all a good story to back it up and draw me in.
I hate MMOs, I won't pay for them let alone waste my time doing the same mindless grinding for nothing, I could just as well spend the time playing one of the many casual games which in the end, IMO, are the same mindless repetition but with less pretty graphics. Give me a good SP like Assassins Creed where I can spend 40-60hrs in at my own pace and I'll gladly drop $60 for it day one.
OP is learning from the Front Page editors.
Most of the responses are completely based on their knee jerk reaction to the title and not the whole story, so sadly it worked
Posted 05 October 2012 - 20:09
Even in that context, games like Skyrim, Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed prove that wrong.While I can still get in early on this thread, relevant link:
http://www.gamesindu...gends-rob-pardo
The WHOLE interview. Because context matters, and sources that take only a fraction of a person's opinion for the sake of a headline should not be shaping your opinions.
This was important to me, since it's clear gamers are some of the brashest punks ever to self-righteously proclaim opinions, and it was clear this thread is at risk of rapidly devolving into angry Pardo-hating sludge. His words might still be stupid, but for Christ's sake, read all of them before coming to the conclusion.
Single most holy-crap important detail from the original interview: the question that was actually asked... "Do you think that the big-budget single-player game is an endangered species at this point?"
BIG BUDGET, guys. So whoever wrote this as "single-player gaming is dead" is a no-good troll.
Posted 05 October 2012 - 23:00
Prove what wrong? Quote an entire sentence from Pardo's interview, and compare it to your Skyrim/ME/AC example, and explain how his quote is wrong.Even in that context, games like Skyrim, Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed prove that wrong.
Posted 05 October 2012 - 23:03
Posted 05 October 2012 - 23:25
I should have cut the rest of it out and singled out what was already bolded. I was responding to "Do you think that the big-budget single-player game is an endangered species at this point?".Prove what wrong? Quote an entire sentence from Pardo's interview, and compare it to your Skyrim/ME/AC example, and explain how his quote is wrong.
Are you saying factors are NOT making it difficult to produce games like that? Are you saying games like Skyrim DON'T require extensive risk management before pouring tens of millions of dollars into production? I'm just curious, because the only way you use a game like Skyrim to prove him wrong is if you're reading him wrong to begin with.
Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:51
Keep in mind that the context of the interview was explicitly about single-player games that did not have any multiplayer functionality whatsoever: games that were designed and built from the ground-up to deliver a specifically single-player experience. The addition of multiplayer to "widen the appeal" of the game can be spun as a bonus, but in the context of this interview, it was looked at as the curse of building single-player games: it's just more fiscally viable to find a way to design it so it's multiplayer-capable.I should have cut the rest of it out and singled out what was already bolded. I was responding to "Do you think that the big-budget single-player game is an endangered species at this point?".
I personally don't. Single player games are still very big franchises. Many may say that games like Gears of War and Halo are all about multiplayer, but there is a large percentage of those fanbases who play them for the single player content only. Assassins Creed, Uncharted, Skyrim, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, etc are all single player games that get tons of media coverage. Look at Civilization V (which, while having multiplayer isn't really a uber epic multiplayer game) as it sits at 3rd most played game on Steam. Skyrim is on that list, too. I think people who immerse themselves in the world of multiplayer games forget that single player games exist.
We're even awaiting some as we speak:And these are all just from this year at E3. Another one even is Max Payne 3. There are tons of single player games out there, I don't even understand how you could refer to them as "endangered".
- Dishonored (not sure if single player only, but from i've seen it looks like it)
- Assassins Creed III
- Tomb Raider
- The Last of Us
- Star Wars 1313
- Devil May Cry
- Resident Evil 6
- Dead Space 3 (although the 3rd has co-op and mp which I could care less about)
- Darksiders II
- Hitman Absolution (also not sure if single player only, but i'm sure the campaign is what people are after here)
It may be "easier" to put all your eggs into multiplayer and rely on it to fill in the replayability of your game. But that can be just as risky as creating a game without single player at all. So many multiplayer games exist out there as it is that it has become really difficult to make a truly unique multiplayer experience. There is no "endangered species" when it comes to single player games.
Posted 06 October 2012 - 09:44
Then my list would lose very few of the games on it (as in only 3). So lets list a few single player only games that have come out in the last 10 years (2002-2012).Keep in mind that the context of the interview was explicitly about single-player games that did not have any multiplayer functionality whatsoever: games that were designed and built from the ground-up to deliver a specifically single-player experience. The addition of multiplayer to "widen the appeal" of the game can be spun as a bonus, but in the context of this interview, it was looked at as the curse of building single-player games: it's just more fiscally viable to find a way to design it so it's multiplayer-capable.
So keep your list to games that were built for one player, 100% of the time. Remember, "single player mode" does not a "single player game" make.