"Single-player gaming is our focus."

[Lephys]

Sure, but as we learned from Secret of Mana, nothing quite beats the ability to pick up that 2nd controller with your friend and play as the other person in his party, while he plays what is otherwise the exact same game.

 

I think co-operation has been a part of games since games have existed.

[Sofaking]

I think co-operation has been a part of games since games have existed.

Even Baldur's Gate had multiplayer, some of my favorite times were playing no pause games with friends.

[rustypup]

I actually look forward to the day that single player RPGs become a thing of the past.

 

Yeah, about that. No thanks. 

[Greydragon]

Sure, but as we learned from Secret of Mana, nothing quite beats the ability to pick up that 2nd controller with your friend and play as the other person in his party, while he plays what is otherwise the exact same game.

 

I think co-operation has been a part of games since games have existed.

Concentration and solitaire are quite old; there are probably better examples too of single player gaming at its earliest. However from the gaming standpoint isn't it because of the annoying details of humouring another person in a game that singleplayer exists at all? I remember the pause battles on older consoles. I find being alone adds to the experience of games, movies and other entertainment; there is no distraction or arguing, no one to spoil the story or laugh at what is serious.

[rustypup]

no one to spoil the story or laugh at what is serious.

 

More importantly, the SP experience tends to deliver deeper stories and better content. MP is more focused on enforced cooperation, because "fun", and mindless action. 

[Karkarov]

On one hand I agree with Bryy it is heading that direction, especially about the ME3 multiplayer having no impact on the single player.  However I don't agree single player is "going away".  Even if it eventually gets to the point where "single player" is just you turned the multiplayer features off or played offline (Watch_Dogs/Dark Souls) there will still be people that will do that in many cases.  I am probably one of them.

[Bryy]

Oh right, let's not forget that anytime co-op or MP is in a game, it takes away from content. There's no possible way for the game to be designed with those features in mind. Why in the world would the developers want you to have fun with your friends? How dare they give you the option of playing with other people. Having choice in video games is bad!

 

 

I think co-operation has been a part of games since games have existed.

Even Baldur's Gate had multiplayer, some of my favorite times were playing no pause games with friends.

 

But - but - that was - DIFFERENT.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Bryy

[Suburban-Fox]

 

I actually look forward to the day that single player RPGs become a thing of the past. There's literally no reason past budgetary concerns this gen to not have some sort of connectivity feature.

 

I don't. Some of us don't want to play multiplayer, and just want to play by ourselves. There are plenty of multiplayer only games out there, so why should single player gamers not have games to play?

 

 

 

Are you honestly going to tell me that the multiplayer mode hurt the single player campaign at all?

It might. It comes down to a matter of developers having to spend resources to implement it and make sure it works properly. I'm sure they've considered giving us the option to run it in multiplayer, but if they can't make it work properly, they shouldn't compromise the single-player experience in order to satisfy the few people who are likely to play it as multiplayer.

 

 

What about the cake?

 

THE CAKE IS A LIE!!!

[rustypup]

Oh right, let's not forget that anytime co-op or MP is in a game, it takes away from content. 

 

So, you disagree. That's fine. In my experience, MP products are very content light. They rely primarily on the MP aspect to cover this. Because the MP aspect is such a large part of the game. SP games tend to carry really strong stories, story arcs and innovative mechanics. 

 

But please feel free to enjoy the heck out of whatever games you appear to enjoy enough to get worked up over. Just don't expect those gamers who purposefully backed an SP game to celebrate the silliness alongside you.  

 

Personally, MP games are largely bland, homogeneous, grind fests and as entertaining as pea soup. 

[Bryy]

 

 

 

I actually look forward to the day that single player RPGs become a thing of the past. There's literally no reason past budgetary concerns this gen to not have some sort of connectivity feature.

 

I don't. Some of us don't want to play multiplayer, and just want to play by ourselves. There are plenty of multiplayer only games out there, so why should single player gamers not have games to play?

You can play Watch Dogs fine, AC4 fine, Original Sin fine, Battleblock Theater fine.

 

Baldur's Gate fine.

 

All have multiplayer features.

 

Multiplayer just means other people have the ability to hop on if you so choose. I don't see why it's so horrible to have that option.

 

Let's put aside the doom and gloom for just one minute and talk about this realistically instead of jumping straight into "every game will force you to play with - gasp - other people and it will ruin my experience!".

 

 

 

Are you honestly going to tell me that the multiplayer mode hurt the single player campaign at all?

It might. It comes down to a matter of developers having to spend resources to implement it and make sure it works properly. I'm sure they've considered giving us the option to run it in multiplayer, but if they can't make it work properly, they shouldn't compromise the single-player experience in order to satisfy the few people who are likely to play it as multiplayer.

 

And if they cannot make it work, they obviously shouldn't do it. It's the reason MP is not in BioShock Infinite.

[Lephys]

Concentration and solitaire are quite old; there are probably better examples too of single player gaming at its earliest. However from the gaming standpoint isn't it because of the annoying details of humouring another person in a game that singleplayer exists at all? I remember the pause battles on older consoles. I find being alone adds to the experience of games, movies and other entertainment; there is no distraction or arguing, no one to spoil the story or laugh at what is serious.

That's quite a splendid argument against mandatory co-operative play, but not against the availability of co-operative play.

 

Just because people don't always want to swing with other people doesn't mean we should only ever build swing"sets" with only one swing, in isolation.

[Greydragon]

 

Concentration and solitaire are quite old; there are probably better examples too of single player gaming at its earliest. However from the gaming standpoint isn't it because of the annoying details of humouring another person in a game that singleplayer exists at all? I remember the pause battles on older consoles. I find being alone adds to the experience of games, movies and other entertainment; there is no distraction or arguing, no one to spoil the story or laugh at what is serious.

That's quite a splendid argument against mandatory co-operative play, but not against the availability of co-operative play.

 

Just because people don't always want to swing with other people doesn't mean we should only ever build swing"sets" with only one swing, in isolation.

 

However single player games are being rooted out; exterminated like a virus. Also swing sets are a good example; they seat one person, how uncomfortable and dangerous they must be when you have someone on your lap squirming against the momentum of the swing. Now imagine a few dozen all riding the one swing, crowding each other until the chain breaks. That is multiplayer in a nutshell for single player only gamers.   

[Bryy]

That is multiplayer in a nutshell for single player only gamers.   

Again: separate swing sets on the same playground for different functions.

 

Really, what it comes down to is this: "they *might* put X in the game, but because they already announced multiplayer, they won't!". It's absolutely no use arguing that something that does not exist was cut for an actual announced feature. 

[Lephys]

However single player games are being rooted out; exterminated like a virus. Also swing sets are a good example; they seat one person, how uncomfortable and dangerous they must be when you have someone on your lap squirming against the momentum of the swing. Now imagine a few dozen all riding the one swing, crowding each other until the chain breaks. That is multiplayer in a nutshell for single player only gamers.

I'm telling you what multiplayer doesn't inherently mean, and you're telling me how it happens to be implemented a lot of the time. I don't see an actual disagreement, here.

 

Allowing (the key word being "allowing") co-operative play has never prevented singleplayer play from occurring.

 

Hypothetically, if every single singleplayer game ever made had an optional multiplayer mode that merely allowed a second person (if not more than 2 people) to also provide input to the video game alongside the first person, in the exact same gameplay setting/mode/scenario/what-have-you, then you'd never, ever have your singleplayer game compromised, and you'd never ever be required to partake in multiplay with anyone, ever.

 

Did I mention "ever"?

 

Seriously, though. I don't think some people grasp this. Especially when I point it out, and the retort is "yeah but nuh-uh, because look at this example of a game that didn't do that."

 

I'm inherently advocating a specific setup, here, that's entirely possible and non-problematic, and people keep repeatedly inferring that, no, it's somehow not possible, because multiplayer is inherently encroaching on singleplayer's turf. As if the main menu having "LAN" on it somehow screws up your entire singleplayer experience of an RPG.

[Sofaking]

That is multiplayer in a nutshell for single player only gamers.

Do you think Baldur's Gate suffered because they included multi player?

[Sarex]

Do you think Baldur's Gate suffered because they included multi player?

 

Probably. The time they invested for a feature that almost no one used could have been used to make the single player game even better.

[Karkarov]

 

Do you think Baldur's Gate suffered because they included multi player?

 

Probably. The time they invested for a feature that almost no one used could have been used to make the single player game even better.

 

Yeah except it was broken as heck and barely worked so I get the funny feeling they didn't exactly kill themselves putting that multiplayer in and way less time might have been spent on it than you think.

[Greydragon]

 

However single player games are being rooted out; exterminated like a virus. Also swing sets are a good example; they seat one person, how uncomfortable and dangerous they must be when you have someone on your lap squirming against the momentum of the swing. Now imagine a few dozen all riding the one swing, crowding each other until the chain breaks. That is multiplayer in a nutshell for single player only gamers.

I'm telling you what multiplayer doesn't inherently mean, and you're telling me how it happens to be implemented a lot of the time. I don't see an actual disagreement, here.

 

Allowing (the key word being "allowing") co-operative play has never prevented singleplayer play from occurring.

 

Hypothetically, if every single singleplayer game ever made had an optional multiplayer mode that merely allowed a second person (if not more than 2 people) to also provide input to the video game alongside the first person, in the exact same gameplay setting/mode/scenario/what-have-you, then you'd never, ever have your singleplayer game compromised, and you'd never ever be required to partake in multiplay with anyone, ever.

 

Did I mention "ever"?

 

Seriously, though. I don't think some people grasp this. Especially when I point it out, and the retort is "yeah but nuh-uh, because look at this example of a game that didn't do that."

 

I'm inherently advocating a specific setup, here, that's entirely possible and non-problematic, and people keep repeatedly inferring that, no, it's somehow not possible, because multiplayer is inherently encroaching on singleplayer's turf. As if the main menu having "LAN" on it somehow screws up your entire singleplayer experience of an RPG.

 

Except you'd have a singleplayer game with a difficulty scaled to compensate; or something wacky and broken like Saints Row 4.

Also I technically wasn't intending to argue, more get my own point across; that multiplayer is inherently a wasted function for people like me. I don't see it as a waste of resources, because it is unrelated to game content although I really hate when singleplayer is influenced by multiplayer ... darn you Mass Effect 3! As if I didn't have enough reason to hate the game because of EA and the ending.  

[Bryy]

that multiplayer is inherently a wasted function for people like me. I don't see it as a waste of resources, because it is unrelated to game content

So you're complaining about how other people play.

 

Gotcha.

[Endrosz]

Two things:

 

1. I'm happy that Eternity has a SP focus. Especially on a first game with a new engine, don't spread thin those meager KS resources.

 

2. The BEST fun I had with an IE game was playing through IWD2 with a good friend of mine, each of us controlling 2 characters. That was my 3rd playthrough, I think, and multiplayer definitely added to the already familiar experience. Not only me, he too remembers this fondly and brings it up when we reminiscence about our older, more intense gamer days.

 

I enjoy single player. I enjoy multi-player if I can. I don't feel the need to be in any '"camp".

[Ahvz]

Isn't it similar to how most people here feel about fully voiced dialogue and CGI cutscenes? They're great if they're there but you'd rather them not take away from the story and gameplay, and that removing them from development can in fact improve the game (in the case of voiced dialogue/CGI, more reacitivity, more choices, and more overall dialogue)? 

[Greydragon]

 

that multiplayer is inherently a wasted function for people like me. I don't see it as a waste of resources, because it is unrelated to game content

So you're complaining about how other people play.

 

Gotcha.

 

Of course I am; because they are inherently not me and thus play differently. Complaining about multiplayer because it is multiplayer is redundant. 

[Bryy]

 

Isn't it similar to how most people here feel about fully voiced dialogue and CGI cutscenes? They're great if they're there but you'd rather them not take away from the story and gameplay, and that removing them from development can in fact improve the game (in the case of voiced dialogue/CGI, more reacitivity, more choices, and more overall dialogue)? 

Kind of, but the concepts are different.

 

VO: "If X is taken out of the Y mechanic, the Y mechanic will improve!"

MP: "If MP is in the game, then X can't be!"

 

See how they are different?

 

Both are logical fallacies, though.

 

 

that multiplayer is inherently a wasted function for people like me. I don't see it as a waste of resources, because it is unrelated to game content

So you're complaining about how other people play.

 

Gotcha.

 

Of course I am; because they are inherently not me and thus play differently. Complaining about multiplayer because it is multiplayer is redundant. 

 

... you're adorable.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Bryy

[PieSnatcher]

Kind of, but the concepts are different.

 

VO: "If X is taken out of the Y mechanic, the Y mechanic will improve!"

MP: "If MP is in the game, then X can't be!"

 

See how they are different?

 

Both are logical fallacies, though.

I think the argument was

"The time and resources that the developers have to implement X, Y, and Z are finite"

And

"X, Y, and Z all require time/resources to be realized"

And

"I like all features, except for X"

Then

"I would rather feature X was not developed"

 

Maybe I'm wrong

[NWN_babaYaga]

I never realy enjoyed MP games. There was only one game that i found cool to play in MP but only because i modded it... i just love SP games. There i can play how i want and pause when i want and i have no others around me ruining my time. I think for lone wolfs SP games are much better and i dont even have that "social interplay" thingy in my head. It doesnt play a role at all. I dont need other gamers when i play and i dont even get that feeling what it is that people enjoy so much. Ok, if the AI or bots are terrible stupid then it makes sense to run and kill other gamers instead because of the challenge but eh... challenge and competition... no i never had the time for that either.

 

So yeah SP games and screw the MP crowds!

 

And i find these clan people just bleh... always sitting in their l33t forum and talking bad about other "gamers" totaly wacko in their mind that they are somewhat special because they spent their WHOLE day playing a game... just a game you know guys? hehe.... well. This whole mentality of them are realy what troubles me.

 

But i must say that with some buddies over from the nwn community i wouldnt hesitate to jump in some crazy adventure and just have some fun. Just to have some funny moments killing and enjoying some cool crazy adventures. Yeah, that would be ok for me. NWN and BG games are an exception!

Edited June 28, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga