78 replies to this topic 6 votes

[Boz]

yep.. he can try to release games without single player.. he isn't getting my money.. a ton of us want GREAT story, great single player expeirence and overall just great visuals. Not a single one of those things can be done properly with multiplayer.

[Freelancer1111]

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.

[Anaron]

Freelancer1111, on 05 October 2012 - 14:11, said:

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.

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.

[Nerd Rage]

I dont think it's dead, but single player is definitely not as popular as it used to be. Looking at the top 10 played games on Steam, 8/10 are games with multiplayer. I don't think single player is bad, but I enjoy games that give you a multiplayer option. For example, in Battlefield, COD, or any other FPS games, I don't even play single player, I just start in with multiplayer as soon as I get the games installed.

[~Johnny]

Well this title is entirely misleading

He's not saying single player games are bad, no longer fun, or no longer relevant. He's saying pouring massive budgets into them and trying to get that money back is harder. People will buy it, finish it in 3 days and then trade it in - usually leading to decreased retail sales and less opportunity to sell DLC content at a later date. I'd also wager is probably easier to try and combat piracy with online games (where you can at least try to cut off online access) than with single player games.

[Nothing Here]

WoW is dead.

[Lord Method Man]

~Johnny, on 05 October 2012 - 14:19, said:

Well this title is entirely misleading

OP is learning from the Front Page editors.

[z0phi3l]

Lord Method Man, on 05 October 2012 - 14:21, said:

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

[+Perfect72]

GP007, on 05 October 2012 - 07:43, said:

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.

I agree. Though, MMOs aren't always bad, if you view them like a single-player game. Guild Wars 2 I am mainly playing solo just leveling characters, and with no fee, I treat it like a single-player game.
But I get what you are saying.
Give me a game with decent gameplay, and rich story any day and I will take it.

Lord Method Man, on 05 October 2012 - 14:21, said:

OP is learning from the Front Page editors.

z0phi3l, on 05 October 2012 - 14:38, said:

Most of the responses are completely based on their knee jerk reaction to the title and not the whole story, so sadly it worked

Actually, I just used the title I came across from the source, along with the story. Wasn't trying to be sensational. I am glad after the knee-jerk comments the thread has turned into some nice chat about the two types of gaming and why people think it is or is not dying though.

[Emn1ty]

Joshie, on 05 October 2012 - 05:21, said:

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.

Even in that context, games like Skyrim, Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed prove that wrong.

[Joshie]

Emn1ty, on 05 October 2012 - 20:09, said:

Even in that context, games like Skyrim, Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed prove that wrong.

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.

[Glassed Silver]

I like my single player gaming a lot lol

If that were to be true, the future of retro gaming would be a very very dark one...

Servers get shut down and hence the games.
No thank you.

edit: apparently The article seems to imply something different, the quoted part from the OP didn't really counter the headline, did not read OP's comment though to be honest.
Not yet.

Oh well, as long as SP sticks around, I'm happy.

Side note: Bring back the split-screen action!

Glassed Silver:mac

[Emn1ty]

Joshie, on 05 October 2012 - 23:00, said:

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.

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:

• 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)

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".

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.

[Joshie]

Emn1ty, on 05 October 2012 - 23:25, said:

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:

• 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)

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".

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.

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.

[Emn1ty]

Joshie, on 06 October 2012 - 02:51, said:

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.

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).

• Assassins Creed
  
• Assassins Creed II
  
• God of War
  
• God of War 2
  
• God of War 3
  
• Dead Space
  
• Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
  
• Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
  
• Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
  
• Fallout 3
  
• Fallout 3: New Vegas
  
• Half Life 2
  
• Final Fantasy XII
  
• Final Fantasy XIII
  
• Bioshock
  
• Batman: Arkham Asylum
  
• Batman: Arkham City
  
• Dante's Inferno
  
• Darksiders
  
• Darksiders II
  
• Deus Ex: Human Revolution
  
• Dragon Age
  
• Dragon Age II
  
• Heavy Rain
  
• inFamous
  
• Kingdom Hearts
  
• Kingdom Hearts 2 (and many other handheld sequels/prequels)
  
• Mafia
  
• Mafia II
  
• Mirror's Edge
  
• Prince of Persia (and a few other games)
  
• Prototype
  
• Prototype 2
  
• Shadow of the Colossus
  
• Silent Hill: Homecoming
  
• Silent Hill: Downpour (and a couple others I think)
  
• KOTOR
  
• KOTOR II
  
• Zelda (lots)

And there are probably more.