One of the coolest features in Call of Duty 4 multiplayer is the way players are rewarded for getting so many consecutive kills without dying. Kill 3 enemies without dying and you can call in recon (see where enemies are on the map). Kill 5 enemies without dying and you can call in an airstrike. Kill 7 enemies without dying and you can call in an attack helicopter.
Why don't we see this sort of thing in single-player and co-op modes?
Showing posts with label single-player. Show all posts
Showing posts with label single-player. Show all posts
Monday, March 09, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
offline play isn't going anywhere
Apparently, almost half of the gamers with an account on Xbox Live don't pay for a Gold membership (which would give them access to online multiplayer). This makes me even more certain that online play and multiplayer are not, as they are sometimes touted to be, the future of gaming. They are merely options, with offline play and single-player games remaining very popular.
We can assume that many 360 gamers want to play online but either will not / cannot pay for it or they don't have enough free time to justify the expense. However, we can also assume that many gamers pay for a Gold account but don't regularly use it for online play (I'm an example). I expect those and other factors make the Gold/Silver accounts balance a less-than-perfect indicator of interest in single-player gameplay vs multiplayer, but it might be roughly accurate in that regard.
More importantly, though, we can look at the sales figures for single-player games. Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Play, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Metal Gear Solid 4 are all bestselling games that thrive on offline, single-player experiences. Other hits like The Sims, Spore, and Little Big Planet are essentially offline, single-player experiences in which online components work backstage. Single-player games are still very profitable and still among the most popular games around.
And yet, how much money is there to be had from downloadable content? That potential will skew the market toward online gameplay. Single-player games will always have a large share of the market, but I expect we'll see more and more games using the model of Oblivion and GTA IV: single-player, but with DLC that does not always appear simultaneously as hard copies.
We can assume that many 360 gamers want to play online but either will not / cannot pay for it or they don't have enough free time to justify the expense. However, we can also assume that many gamers pay for a Gold account but don't regularly use it for online play (I'm an example). I expect those and other factors make the Gold/Silver accounts balance a less-than-perfect indicator of interest in single-player gameplay vs multiplayer, but it might be roughly accurate in that regard.
More importantly, though, we can look at the sales figures for single-player games. Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Play, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Metal Gear Solid 4 are all bestselling games that thrive on offline, single-player experiences. Other hits like The Sims, Spore, and Little Big Planet are essentially offline, single-player experiences in which online components work backstage. Single-player games are still very profitable and still among the most popular games around.
And yet, how much money is there to be had from downloadable content? That potential will skew the market toward online gameplay. Single-player games will always have a large share of the market, but I expect we'll see more and more games using the model of Oblivion and GTA IV: single-player, but with DLC that does not always appear simultaneously as hard copies.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
multiplayer does not equal grouping
Again, I'm going to cheat and simply reprint a comment I made over at Cameron's site.
First, MMOs attract gamers for more reasons than just the other players. The worlds are huge compared to single-player games, as are loot tables. There's simply more to explore than in single-player games.
That said, the point of playing in the same gameworld as other players can potentially extend far, far beyond grouping. In the real world, individuals constantly affect the lives of others without direct contact. In fact, that's the basis of modern economics. The same can happen in games.
In Shadowbane, I once wandered onto a smoldering ruin. There were no players around, but the burning buildings and broken walls I was viewing were the results of a siege that had taken place just a day or two before I arrived there.
The now extinct Trials of Ascension included many ways in which players could create gameplay for each other without ever meeting. For one example, a player could sacrifice the last of his lives to create a relic which would be randomly hidden in the world.
Simply watching other players run around helps to create the feeling of a living world. Multiplayer can mean so much more than merely grouping!
First, MMOs attract gamers for more reasons than just the other players. The worlds are huge compared to single-player games, as are loot tables. There's simply more to explore than in single-player games.
That said, the point of playing in the same gameworld as other players can potentially extend far, far beyond grouping. In the real world, individuals constantly affect the lives of others without direct contact. In fact, that's the basis of modern economics. The same can happen in games.
In Shadowbane, I once wandered onto a smoldering ruin. There were no players around, but the burning buildings and broken walls I was viewing were the results of a siege that had taken place just a day or two before I arrived there.
The now extinct Trials of Ascension included many ways in which players could create gameplay for each other without ever meeting. For one example, a player could sacrifice the last of his lives to create a relic which would be randomly hidden in the world.
Simply watching other players run around helps to create the feeling of a living world. Multiplayer can mean so much more than merely grouping!
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
solo-based classing
As I said over at Cameron's article, I think the reason soloing has become empowered in MMOs is not because developers think more people want to solo, but because it's easier to make both soloing and grouping viable option by beginning production with solo gameplay.
People love to group in Diablo 2, yet every class is capable of being a powerhouse on its own. What makes grouping attractive is mainly loot sharing and the ability to tailor one's skills to match any partnership. Both grouping and soloing are fun because complimentary skillsets are an option, rather than the rule. A necromancer can focus on curses, thereby playing a support role, but necromancer is not essentially a support class.
Solo-based design is more versatile.
People love to group in Diablo 2, yet every class is capable of being a powerhouse on its own. What makes grouping attractive is mainly loot sharing and the ability to tailor one's skills to match any partnership. Both grouping and soloing are fun because complimentary skillsets are an option, rather than the rule. A necromancer can focus on curses, thereby playing a support role, but necromancer is not essentially a support class.
Solo-based design is more versatile.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
withering single-player market?
This might be a gross misconception, but an impression has been growing on me these past few months that the industry is becoming somewhat antagonistic to single-player gameplay, particularly in regard to console games. I say that without denying a number of recent, interesting solo-focused games... Oblivion, Mass Effect, Two Worlds, Fable 2, Alan Wake, etc.
But I've noticed that with Oblivion, Gothic 3 and other recent solo-oriented games, both professional and non-professional reviews have included a lack of multiplayer elements as a mark against the individual games. No longer are such games accepted for the sort of games they are and reviewed as such. They are instead held against a standard that suggests all games should have some cooperative or, even better, competitive elements.
And it seems that there is increasing pressure from publishers for the inclusion of multiplayer gameplay wherever remotely possible, and perhaps even some places where it would best be left out. All of the console publishers have emphasized their online capabilities so fervently, and now Microsoft seems to be doing the same with Windows Vista, that a failure of any game to employ those capabilities is perceived as negligent.
In hindsight, this trend appears to have begun with the tremendous success of Goldeneye 64's competitive multiplayer mode. Today, my latest Game Informer magazine's main article concerns professional multiplayer competitions.
I certainly don't perceive direct and indirect multiplayer gameplay as problematic in itself. I'm very excited about the proposed online elements of upcoming solo-oriented games like Spore and Two Worlds. But I do wonder if, in our continuing fascination with the still-novel and still-explorative internet, and with our explorative forays into the many possible manifestations of multiplayer gameplay, a hostility is amassing against solo game experiences that is discouraging the production and player-acceptance of solo-focused games.
Keep in mind, solo-oriented does not mean non-social, let alone asocial. As Mark Terrano astutely pointed out at the AGC this September, single-player games can have considerable appeal for spectators and the sharing of stories about individual experiences.
So what do you think? Is there a mounting tension directed against solo game experiences, on either the player side or the production side?
But I've noticed that with Oblivion, Gothic 3 and other recent solo-oriented games, both professional and non-professional reviews have included a lack of multiplayer elements as a mark against the individual games. No longer are such games accepted for the sort of games they are and reviewed as such. They are instead held against a standard that suggests all games should have some cooperative or, even better, competitive elements.
And it seems that there is increasing pressure from publishers for the inclusion of multiplayer gameplay wherever remotely possible, and perhaps even some places where it would best be left out. All of the console publishers have emphasized their online capabilities so fervently, and now Microsoft seems to be doing the same with Windows Vista, that a failure of any game to employ those capabilities is perceived as negligent.
In hindsight, this trend appears to have begun with the tremendous success of Goldeneye 64's competitive multiplayer mode. Today, my latest Game Informer magazine's main article concerns professional multiplayer competitions.
I certainly don't perceive direct and indirect multiplayer gameplay as problematic in itself. I'm very excited about the proposed online elements of upcoming solo-oriented games like Spore and Two Worlds. But I do wonder if, in our continuing fascination with the still-novel and still-explorative internet, and with our explorative forays into the many possible manifestations of multiplayer gameplay, a hostility is amassing against solo game experiences that is discouraging the production and player-acceptance of solo-focused games.
Keep in mind, solo-oriented does not mean non-social, let alone asocial. As Mark Terrano astutely pointed out at the AGC this September, single-player games can have considerable appeal for spectators and the sharing of stories about individual experiences.
So what do you think? Is there a mounting tension directed against solo game experiences, on either the player side or the production side?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
