SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Single-player Only Games Are Finished

Posted: Dec 09 2010 12:05 am

I just had to post this after reading it because it's fucking retarded.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/113/1138974p1.html

IGN wrote:

The single-player-only model of games could have had its day, according EA Games' label president Frank Gibeau, who believes that "online is where the innovation, and the action, is at."

His comments to Develop come in light of the addition of multiplayer to Dead Space 2, following the original's well-received mix of solo sci-fi and survival horror. "It's not only about multiplayer, it's about being connected," he said, "I firmly believe that the way the products we have are going they, need to be connected online. Multiplayer is one form of that."

"I volunteer you to speak to EA's studio heads; they'll tell you the same thing," Gibeau continued, "They're very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay – be it co-operative or multiplayer or online services – as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours-and you're out. I think that model is finished."

Rabble rabble rabble.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 12:16 am

Yeah, I wouldn't take EA's word on anything about where video games are going. If you wanna feel connected, go outside and make a friend. I don't find online multiplayer fun with a bunch of shit talkers you don't even know.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 12:24 am

Well now I'm questioning if I want to get Dead Space 2 or not.

I have no problem with games having online but when it becomes the sole reason for the game's existence, and single-player is basically a 5 hour training session for online I won't play it. If they want to force online on me they need to stop charging for Xbox Live, because I refuse to pay $15 on top of internet bills which are already outrageous.

I actually kind of enjoyed in Fable 3 where the online basically just showed orbs of people and you could interact with them, or join forces. Stuff like that is actually pretty neat, and made me glad the game came with a 30 day gold trial. Smile

Stuff I hate is games like Call of Duty. My brother had a copy of one a few years back and I think I sat there for maybe 4 hours and beat the entire game. I couldn't believe people would pay $60 bucks for that little gameplay. Not to mention that one comes out every single year. I guess I just can't see wasting $60 worth of good food or beer for the exact same multiplayer experience every year, plus live gold costs, when I own Counter-Strike: Source lol.

Give me an rpg or something that I can get 60-100 hours out of any day, and I'll go play my $20 CS:S game when I want to shoot something!

Posted: Dec 09 2010 12:38 am

Funny how this moron rambles on like this and possibly their best subsidiary, Bioware, continues to make fantastic single player experiences (IMHO obviously) to this day. This guy can go suck a fat one. When the single player game Fallout New Vegas made 300 million in three weeks, Single Player hardly seems dead to me.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 12:46 am

Mario Galaxy and Galaxy 2 are probably the most fun that I've had gaming in awhile. You know how much multiplayer they have? ZERO, in every realistic sense of the word.

I remember "obtaining" one of the early Unreal Tournament games and being pissed that I wasted a CD-R on it once I found out it that there was no single player campaign. I mean, what the fuck? I guess the word "Tournament" should have tipped me off, but I thought it was going to be a sequel to Unreal. Quake III, which I actually paid for, was also bullshit. Perhaps even moreso. FPS games with no single player mode are bullshit. I can understand if the emphasis is no longer on single player, but fuck, give me something to do where I don't have to listen to 14-year-old Aspies scream into headsets.

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

since when has EA known ANYTHING about games or gamers that weren't sports related?

Posted: Dec 09 2010 01:01 am

EA Games taught me to challenge everything! And also, to get in the game!

Posted: Dec 09 2010 01:14 am

If there are two game companies I avoid like the plague, it's EA and Ubisoft.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 01:21 am

sidewaydriver wrote:

If there are two game companies I avoid like the plague, it's EA and Ubisoft.

Really? I'd usually avoid Activision and Microsoft games. On the other end of the spectrum, I almost always go for Atlus, Konami and Capcom...

Posted: Dec 09 2010 01:25 am

Those are just games I avoid soley based on brand name. I'm sure I subconciously avoid Activision too since I don't own any of their cames and I can't think of anything they make.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

FNJ wrote:

since when has EA known ANYTHING about games or gamers that weren't sports related?

EA Games switched management and went on a huge business model overhaul, acquiring new IP's and offering publishing deals without huge commitment from third party devs. They've encouraged games like Brutal Legend, Dead Space, and Mirror's Edge, while also offering to publish for outside devs who don't want to get locked down forever in contracts (such as id, Bioware, and Epic). I respect what they've done recently.

That said, I'm mainly a single-player gamer (I kind of lost the enthusiasm for online multiplayer after Team Fortress 2 started adding more and more crap), thoughI don't mind multiplayer being in a game, as long as the SP isn't sacrificed. What the president said isn't saying that all SP will be sacrificed, he's just saying that it's what sells those extra copies these days, and he's right. I can't really spite the guy for trying to earn money on his investments. Now, if he was saying something like SP is stupid and pointless, then fuck the guy, but I didn't hear that in what he said.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 01:50 am

Greg has a good point, but I honestly couldn't care less about what ever microsoft says about anything that doesn't affect my laptop. I play Nintendo games, and nintendo goes there own way. God, strike me down with all your fury the moment Zelda has to have an online multiplayer aspect because microsoft said single player was dead.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 02:15 am

I could never imagine an online Zelda.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 02:50 am

Andrew Man wrote:

I could never imagine an online Zelda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eZIwb_PpF8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAlNnb2vC9M

Posted: Dec 09 2010 03:21 am

sidewaydriver wrote:

If there are two game companies I avoid like the plague, it's EA and Ubisoft.

Why Ubisoft? They've made some excellent games recently, like Scott Pilgrim.

And Spanish Meatloaf beat me to it. I was going to say those were new gameplay videos from OoT 3DS.

Joined: Jun 08 2010 Location: Termina Field Posts: 1541

I don't even use multiplayer on games. Mainly because too many people are idiots who are complete cheats and/or dicks. Especially with the voice chat. The are fucking people who sound like eight year olds who say stupid shit, the ones who put their shitty music up to the microphone, and as Syd said, screaming retards.

Multiplayer games should be like IRC, there should be the ability to kick these idiots.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 06:52 am

Now that I'm done bitching, let's look at this fairly. FPS games, especially the most popular ones, already offer robust online multiplayer experiences. This business model isn't likely to change.

With other genres, online multiplayer isn't as important. Shmups, for example. Who really cares if you can play with another person? The whole point of a shmup is trying to good enough to beat it on one credit by yourself. Platformers also don't require online multiplayer. Fighting games and racing games definitely do, though I generally prefer the 1P modes in both games. Sports games, I say the one player is more fun. Imagine a Madden game where you had to play your entire season online against human opponents. That would suck. The fun of something like Madden is figuring out way to exploit poor AI, then throwing 70 yard bombs down the field. Who the hell wants to play against someone who will actually smarten up?

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Syd Lexia wrote:

I remember "obtaining" one of the early Unreal Tournament games and being pissed that I wasted a CD-R on it once I found out it that there was no single player campaign. I mean, what the fuck? I guess the word "Tournament" should have tipped me off, but I thought it was going to be a sequel to Unreal. Quake III, which I actually paid for, was also bullshit. Perhaps even moreso. FPS games with no single player mode are bullshit. I can understand if the emphasis is no longer on single player, but fuck, give me something to do where I don't have to listen to 14-year-old Aspies scream into headsets.

Unreal Tournament definitely has a single player campaign. It is an arena style fighting game, but you can play through from start to finish without ever going onto a network.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

It's structured like online play though, you know what he's talking about GP Rolling Eyes

If someone was watching me play Unreal Tournament, there is no way in distinguishing the "single player campaign" and multiplayer. That said, I actually enjoyed the first Unreal Tournament, but I'm not gonna pretend it wasn't trying to be an outright "emulation" of an online deathmatch tournament.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 10:46 am

i have exactly played two PS3 games online. SF4 and blazblue. Wich leaded, especially at SF4, to serious frustration because every online player is a fucking hardcore gamer. there was no fun invovled. so much for the online-gaming-is-more-fun-theory. that EA-guy has no idea about videogames. I'am not against online gaming, i just see no real reason for it. if i don't wanna play alone a call over some friends but seriously, i like nothing more to play alone and really get into the game. thats the real deal to me.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 12:02 pm

joshwoodzy wrote:

It's structured like online play though, you know what he's talking about GP Rolling Eyes

If someone was watching me play Unreal Tournament, there is no way in distinguishing the "single player campaign" and multiplayer. That said, I actually enjoyed the first Unreal Tournament, but I'm not gonna pretend it wasn't trying to be an outright "emulation" of an online deathmatch tournament.

Exactly, Josh. Thank you.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 12:53 pm

This is just like that thread in Reading about comics saying stupid shit like newspaper strips are dead and the majority of readers are female.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 01:18 pm

Black Zarak wrote:

This is just like that thread in Reading about comics saying stupid shit like newspaper strips are dead and the majority of readers are female.

Yes, except this is scarier because unlike the issue from the reading session, this guy may actually have some sway if he wants it to look this way, unlike that nobody who said that manga is, has, and always will be better than anything that western comics have ever produced.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 02:18 pm

I like Team Fortress 2 and it has no single-player component to speak of, unless you play offline with bots. Short of that and possibly Smash Bros., every single game I've gotten into is single-player at its core.

Posted: Dec 09 2010 05:24 pm

Yeah I really don't see multiplayer completely replacing single player. More likely that every game will have multiplayer in the future and single player mode will be become more of what multiplayer is now to most games. If that makes sense. It doesn't, does it?