It may just be me, but I don’t really like multiplayer games. For the most part my experiences with them have not been anything positive. So when I make a game I don’t really consider the aspect of many people participating at the same time in the same game world.
This could also be a generational thing. When I grew up, the idea of “multiplayer” meant that your friend came over, and if you were lucky enough to have a game that supported more than one player at the same time (such as Contra), you could play it. So for the most part it was a single-player experience or trading controllers off or waiting your turn.
And I don’t think that I’m alone in this opinion. The single-player experience can be quite enriching and fun, even moreso than simply running around and blowing other people to bits across the Internet. In a multiplayer game, story takes a back seat to shiny graphics, physics, and sending inflammatory messages in-game either through text or voice chat. When is that fun to me? Never.
Granted, there are cooperative games now that almost demand many people get together at the same time in the same space and play, such as Guitar Hero. That’s the great, fun, social aspect of those kinds of games. For me, the single-player experience is what I crave, with rich, deep stories.
When I finally get the time to, and work begins more in earnest on it, Chromasphere will do just that. There aren’t that many compelling single-player games out there that I’ve seen with deep story immersion. Sure, you could play a nice casual puzzle game for a quick fix, but those dive you only a few minutes or so of play, then you move on. Chromasphere will give that impression, just as Dead Space had tried to accomplish.
I believe that the single-player experience should not be ignored or forgotten. And I hope to contribute to it, not just for me but for everyone else out there that loves to immerse themselves in a complex storyline that can take many hours of play to finish.
6 thoughts on “Why I Don’t Like Multiplayer Games”
Comments are closed.
I hate multiplayer games!
I have tried a few and just not for me, now days, if a game requires me to be online for the full affect I just wouldn’t buy it!
I have most consoles and a decent PC a library of 150+ 360 games, 70+ ps3 games, 500+ PC games, a PSP, Wii and a Dreamcast. I have been gaming since I was a kid and I’m 38. I am registered with Xbox Live and have a few MMO’s I hardly ever play the multiplayer side of any of my games. I also love the single player experience. I find it a worry that game developers are more and more catering to multiplayer platforms at the expense of the single player game. Occasionally if I love a game that much I will try the multiplayer side.. I tire of it really quickly.
Good read, I totally agree with you Devin.
Please forgive me for copying a reply that I just made to another post:
WOW…I had sincerely feared that I was the only person in the world who understood this. I could go into detail, but I won’t. Quite simply: a game is either single player or multiplayer. Don’t understand yet? Any given idea for a game is either a great idea for single player game, OR a great idea for a multiplayer game, NOT both. Either developers design a game and then tack on multiplayer because “it’s what the people want”, or more lately, devote valuable personnel and financial resources to the multiplayer aspect of their SINGLE PLAYER game. Here’s a bit of advice: if multiplayer is what the people want, then DESIGN A MULTIPLAYER GAME.
You will be hard-pressed to find many fans of well-crafted SP games who are delighted that you spent 5% or 30% of your budget on the MP ‘feature’. I understand the misguided reasoning for doing this (trying to extend the game’s playability, increase the appeal and potential market [Hey! Two demographics with one stone!], attempting to address piracy issues, etc.), but when you try to be the best in two different categories, you usually end up the best in neither. This is the reason we don’t have coffee makers built in to our vacuum cleaners. When I want a cup of joe, I use a Mr. Coffee. When the floor needs cleaning, I usually pay someone else to take care of it, but that’s beside the point. This is a short-term solution with negative long-term consequences.
The multiplayerization of ‘Bioshock 2’ is a case in point. When I heard about the care going into the multiplayer aspect of ‘Bioshock 2’, I felt like I had been kicked in the gut. As a musician, I know that it is often difficult for an artist to understand why other people like your work. Your work is very personal, and you know what YOU think makes it great, but that is not always what other people like about it. Bioshock has two things that make it an amazing game: story and atmosphere. The developers went on and on about how revolutionary and exciting the weapon mechanics were. They weren’t. The rich story and richer atmosphere, however, were unparalleled. Now here comes the punchline: anyone who thinks that story and atmosphere have anything to do with multiplayer needs a head adjustment and industrial-strength reality check. Preferably one of ACME’s reliable and anvil-shaped offerings. This is not a matter of opinion: by definition, in multiplayer, the player does not care about story, and does not have time to savor atmosphere, whether visual or auditory.
I guess this is my appeal to fans of well-made single player computer games–the first text adventures to the graphical adventures of the 80’s and early 90’s, the birth of FPS and true 3D on to the technological marvels of recent vintage. Until I have the financial ability to start my own development house, the only thing we can do about this problem is speak up–and if absolutely necessary, send the loudest message by NOT purchasing a piece of software that does not measure up to our standards. Or at least until the game goes down to thirty dollars. Thirty-five tops.
I agree fully about multiplayer. ODST was a major rip-off. Not only was over half the game multiplayer, it was the same multi-player they already sold me with halo3. The Co-op with graw I and II is about the only multi I have done lately and even with that I had to worry about what a bunch a strangers wanted from me. I don’t want to communicate and co-operate during a game anymore than I do during a good movie. If they want to sell multi-player make it a stand-alone extra sold separate. It’s obvious that multi takes less effort to make. To pawn it off as equal in value to Campaign content is dishonest.
I have to agree with you on the multi-player part but their is also the game that never ends to take your money. You know the games that costs 60 dollars in the store and then to play you have to pay a monthly fee. Star Wars galaxies is an example of such a game.
I love this article. I too often have felt very alone in not liking multiplayer gaming as well. Finally, others agree with me. I would NEVER buy a game if it were multiplayer only. That’s not to say that once in a great while I don’t hop online to play Counter-Strike or something but to me multiplayer gaming is basically about who can wrack up the most kills and than feel all proud of themselves when the match has ended. Boring!! I want a good single player experience where I can traverse from mission to mission and enjoy the detailed graphics and environments, interact with other characters, play with different weapons or whatever and just enjoy a good story. Sorry, but for the most part multiplayer sucks. Why do people enjoy it for hours on end?! It’s just the same thing over and over again. Ugh!!!