I also think that it is worth to note that the single player mechanic is a gimmick – games are meant to be played with others and it doesn't matter if it's in-person or online.
yep, because the quintessential game is Pong and everything that deviates it from it is a gimmick (and not something different). Good for him for what his focus is but that doesn't make single player a gimmick, just something that is a different experience (obviously).
Donkey Kong? Terrible! There isn't another player that controls when Donkey Kong throws the barrels... there could also be a guy hidden behind the cabinet who does the same exact maneuvers as the AI (in any game) and BAM... it's multiplayer... yet it's exactly the same thing as single player! So I don't see what this person's point is. Multiplayer to me is for a varied experience as well as interacting socially with your friends around you but I know that sometimes that's detrimental to getting truly immersed in something, and it flat out doesn't work for specific kinds of games.
I don't think it's so much wrong as simply phrased badly. There are probably some aspects of gaming that his logic would have to stretch to cover - things like adventure titles or visual novels, for example - but I think the point he builds to is valid.
To me, it's kind of like comparing arcade titles with home console or PC games. Arcade games tend to make certain design decisions because their purpose is to make money, and the more continues/etc they can force in a unit of time they more profitable they are. Home console games don't have the same goals, and can be designed differently. If they incorporate the same kind of design as an arcade game, it should (ideally) be because it really works for the particular title.
That, effectively is what his closing paragraph in that reply said about single player games. If a developer is going to use that model, use it because it works well.
Extreme views like this are wrong, but sometimes useful.
Most games throughout history (before videogames) have been played with other people: sports, most board games, children's games, etc. When multiplayer games are actually able to incorporate human interactions either in person with local multiplayer or online via voice chat, then they create a platform for memorable experiences. I think social games need a lot of work because we don't have very good methods of interacting with each other in the videogame world. Even with voice chat, that's rarely part of the actual gameplay, and more just something you do while playing the game. Videogames succeed best at games about spacial navigation. They suck at social communication. Perhaps overemphasizing the need for games to be social is a starting point towards that. Or perhaps this guy's just an idiot.
I'll give the guy some credit. He does a good job of explaining why I think games like Demon Souls are stupid
"a game that's going to hurt you and make fun of you"
"as core gamers take on added real-life burdens I think they can't spend as much time playing games and that increases the frustration level of losing all your stuff or having to begin from scratch. You learn to appreciate using your time more efficiently."
As for the topic at hand, the most successful video game of all time was a single player game called Super Mario Bros.
Fuck this gen's obsession with multi-player gaming. I really and truly am sick and tired of it.
RyaNtheSlayA wrote:
Seriously. Screw you Shao Kahn I'm gonna play Animal Crossing.
