48 replies to this topic

[+zhiVago]

Quote

This is coupled with a seeming need to see everything homogenize and become the same thing.

The in-game achievement points have become omnipresent now; it's like some precious commodity. And, of course, you need to be online even in single-player games to earn them.

[+sanke1]

I know what they want. They want in-app purchases in place of single player campaign.

[HawkMan]

AngelGraves13, on 02 March 2013 - 10:01, said:

Haven't really played those 3 games myself, but yeah they have co-op. L4D2 is probably the one I've played the most. Always fun.

The difference is that L4D , while a cool game in itself, is a horrible example for this. It is exactly what we DON'T want. yeah it has fun multiplayer "coop" but it's not really a single player story experience, that game is built around just being multiplayer. They can have those kind of modes and certain games like L4D who is purely MP games sure can only have modes like that. but what we want if they're going this route is PROPER single player storylines, with drop in MP like Halo and GoW.

[compl3x]

zhiVago, on 02 March 2013 - 10:02, said:

The in-game achievement points have become omnipresent now; it's like some precious commodity. And, of course, you need to be online even in single-player games to earn them.

Do you? I am pretty sure I have achieved... achievements and trophies offline. If you want to sync them with the server you have to be online to do that.

[Riva]

compl3x, on 02 March 2013 - 10:26, said:

Do you? I am pretty sure I have achieved... achievements and trophies offline. If you want to sync them with the server you have to be online to do that.

Yeap I earned tons of achievements offline on the xbox

[GP007]

Adding co-op to the single player campaign is one thing but forcing a online only co-op or MP type game on us is a big no. I never played any of the l4d games exactly because they're forced online co-op. I want a single player story driven offline campaign and if they start to get rid of that in games then my gaming is done.

I've been doing some halo 4 MP these past few weeks but really it's just to kill a few hours when I have nothing better to do. Once I get a new game in I'll never go back to MP again, it's really just a bonus to hold me over till I can start the next game and nothing more.

[PGHammer]

And thus we are actually HELPING make Crytek's point for them. What has been getting the video-game industry in hot water (and especially shooters - the most violent video games) is single-player-by design - basically isolated gameplay by design. Why is social play (in or out of computer or console gaming) something to be reviled and rejected? Whether we realize it or not, the increased DEMAND for isolated gameplay as a design, and the increased rise in antisocial behavior in general (and especially antisocial criminal behavior - such as mass shootings) is having everyone+dog looking for ways to avoid contributing to it. (Yes - that includes the same developers currently in the societal crosshairs, such as Crytek.) Oh no - we want what we want and everyone else can go YKW up a rope.

Crytek is making such comments because they want to remain relevant as a company - and especially a company that wants to EXPAND. (In case we haven't noticed, they are not alone in calling for more connected gaming - practically EVERY developer is doing so.) Crysis 3 may well be the last PERMITTED single-player shooter - and as much as I wish I were kidding, look at the societal outrage over shooters. Crytek is making these comments basically to save itself from being lynched.

Are we THAT disconnecvted from today's headlines that we aren't aware of that?

[z0phi3l]

PGHammer, on 02 March 2013 - 16:29, said:

And thus we are actually HELPING make Crytek's point for them. What has been getting the video-game industry in hot water (and especially shooters - the most violent video games) is single-player-by design - basically isolated gameplay by design. Why is social play (in or out of computer or console gaming) something to be reviled and rejected? Whether we realize it or not, the increased DEMAND for isolated gameplay as a design, and the increased rise in antisocial behavior in general (and especially antisocial criminal behavior - such as mass shootings) is having everyone+dog looking for ways to avoid contributing to it. (Yes - that includes the same developers currently in the societal crosshairs, such as Crytek.) Oh no - we want what we want and everyone else can go YKW up a rope.

Crytek is making such comments because they want to remain relevant as a company - and especially a company that wants to EXPAND. (In case we haven't noticed, they are not alone in calling for more connected gaming - practically EVERY developer is doing so.) Crysis 3 may well be the last PERMITTED single-player shooter - and as much as I wish I were kidding, look at the societal outrage over shooters. Crytek is making these comments basically to save itself from being lynched.

Are we THAT disconnected from today's headlines that we aren't aware of that?

I don't buy into that horrible theory at all, yes games might have a bigger influence than real guns, but antisocial behavior and antisocial actions are the result of bad parenting, games might facilitate that disconnect, but are not the cause of it, it still falls to horrible parenting coupled with helicopter parenting that are breeding a generation of recluses that have no clue how to act in public

[Detection]

Just because they find it difficult to create an understandable and interesting storyline doesn't mean SP should be killed off, they just need to hire better devs for it, ones with the same talent as their graphics devs

[TPreston]

More bloatware and annoying online services to get in the way of the story and gameplay, And as usual the pirates will have a better experience than the paid users.

[Deranged]

Detection, on 02 March 2013 - 16:51, said:

Just because they find it difficult to create an understandable and interesting storyline doesn't mean SP should be killed off, they just need to hire better devs for it, ones with the same talent as their graphics devs

Truth is, they did. Crysis 3 is far more engaging than 2 ever was...and I'm not even that far in.

[Detection]

Deranged, on 02 March 2013 - 16:54, said:

Truth is, they did. Crysis 3 is far more engaging than 2 ever was...and I'm not even that far in.

But it's supposed to continue where C2 left off, I completed it already but apart from a few key points of the game, I couldn't tell you what it was about, just nice graphics and kill things

[brianshapiro]

PGHammer, on 02 March 2013 - 16:29, said:

And thus we are actually HELPING make Crytek's point for them. What has been getting the video-game industry in hot water (and especially shooters - the most violent video games) is single-player-by design - basically isolated gameplay by design. Why is social play (in or out of computer or console gaming) something to be reviled and rejected? Whether we realize it or not, the increased DEMAND for isolated gameplay as a design, and the increased rise in antisocial behavior in general (and especially antisocial criminal behavior - such as mass shootings) is having everyone+dog looking for ways to avoid contributing to it. (Yes - that includes the same developers currently in the societal crosshairs, such as Crytek.) Oh no - we want what we want and everyone else can go YKW up a rope.

Crytek is making such comments because they want to remain relevant as a company - and especially a company that wants to EXPAND. (In case we haven't noticed, they are not alone in calling for more connected gaming - practically EVERY developer is doing so.) Crysis 3 may well be the last PERMITTED single-player shooter - and as much as I wish I were kidding, look at the societal outrage over shooters. Crytek is making these comments basically to save itself from being lynched.

Are we THAT disconnecvted from today's headlines that we aren't aware of that?

I don't know if you're supporting the argument people are making or just mentioning it, but ...

But non-social isn't anti-social. You cite a concern with loners playing violent shooters, but playing single-player Civilization or SimCity is like doing gardening in your backyard or enjoying model building. And playing a single-player story-driven role-playing game like Skyrim is like reading a novel in your spare time. Some people look at gaming as a hobby, pastime, or personal enjoyment, not as a sport. Even with these single-player games, the gamers are often social, going on forums and entering discussions, just like model hobbyists and book readers discuss their hobbies and books with others.

But this really has nothing to do with people actually being anti-social or being violently anti-social. There is a long standing bias in our culture against people being non-social, the suggestion is that killers are always loners. This isn't true. Charles Manson wasn't a loner. The Columbine killers were two friends, so a social relationship. Lanza's personal life seemed to involve his mother smothering him, not him intentionally being asocial.

If violent shooters are the problem in these killings, which is another argument entirely (which I'm not going to argue for or against here), I don't think it matters if they're social games or not. Stormfront is a very popular social site for a limited group of people, White Nationalists. DailyKos is full of hateful comments every day. Socializing doesn't stop people from being anti-social. They just act anti-social in groups. Anonymous is a group that's anti-social.

[Solid Knight]

Demon's Souls was truly revolutionary. Looks like Crytek is onboard.

[Detection]

There is no difference between killing AI and killing characters played by real people, the player is still sitting in-front of a screen shooting charaters, MP is not social, just as forums are not, facebook is not, they call it social but in reality, you are still sitting on your own in-front of a screen regardless of it being other people or AI talking back to you

Sociable = Gathering with real people in a real place