Has online gaming ruined ACTUAL games?

hightower1

More and more games I find are getting shorter and shorter while multiplayer parts taking the fore front.... MOD2 I mean you, amongst others.

I miss proper gaming , one player games that take at least 30+ hours to complete on a regular setting. MOD2 had around 6-7 hours worth and thats it? Why did that justify a full price tag? The developer retort for this is online gaming... what if your not that competitive and find multiplayer repetitive and looses its pull after 3 matches? Thats me and what I am left with is a game that cost 10euros and hour to play.

I never connect my xbox online simply because I deal with enough muppets in day that the last thing I want is to deal with more after work, I dont want teens screaming through my tv set or have no story or sense of accomplishment after gaming. Sure I can play friends online but wait... I have social skills, when I meet up with friends we drink, laugh, share funny stories go places. I would find it weird to start an online game with a mate and not talk about things other than games... if i wanted to play a game while trying to have a chat about other things I'd turn on the xbox while the missus was around.

Is the good single player concept going the way of the dead? , to be resigned to RPG's and sandbox games? I really hope not , I miss them and want them back. I still remember when multiplayer was the fun after campaign part not the whole point, now with games like MOD2 we have the single player as the afterthought.

Anyone else hate the online gaming thang, or as I call it.... competitive teen new age chatrooms craze.

dunworth1

i'm for one with you about the games getting shorter

i dont really play online. and would like a good long story to play

Twilightning

hightower1 wrote: »

More and more games I find are getting shorter and shorter while multiplayer parts taking the fore front.... MOD2 I mean you, amongst others.

I miss proper gaming , one player games that take at least 30+ hours to complete on a regular setting. MOD2 had around 6-7 hours worth and thats it? Why did that justify a full price tag? The developer retort for this is online gaming... what if your not that competitive and find multiplayer repetitive and looses its pull after 3 matches? Thats me and what I am left with is a game that cost 10euros and hour to play.

There's no clear cut definition on what 'proper' gaming is so I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Modern Warfare 2 has more than 6-7 hours of gameplay if you take a stab at it on veteran difficulty but I can see where you're coming from. The reason single player games aren't as lengthy as they used to be is due to higher development costs and workloads. While I myself don't necessarily care how great a game looks, developers are under more and more pressure with this generation's video games to make them look as lifelike as possible. Character models, environmental layouts, texture quality, special effects... Earlier games didn't have to spend a copious amount of time and effort on this aspect as they do now, but alas it's the truth.

I think the multiplayer element of a game justifies its pricetag. If you don't like competitive multiplayer, then don't buy the game, it's as simple as that. Reviews are your friend. Infinity Ward told everybody the campaign would be of similar length to that of Call of Duty 4 yet people still complain about it as if they never saw it coming. It's clear from the outset it's a more multiplayer oriented game.

hightower1 wrote: »

never connect my xbox online simply because I deal with enough muppets in day that the last thing I want is to deal with more after work, I dont want teens screaming through my tv set or have no story or sense of accomplishment after gaming. Sure I can play friends online but wait... I have social skills, when I meet up with friends we drink, laugh, share funny stories go places. I would find it weird to start an online game with a mate and not talk about things other than games... if i wanted to play a game while trying to have a chat about other things I'd turn on the xbox while the missus was around.

That's your beef with the online which I personally think is a silly one. There's a number of features built into Xbox Live and games themselves that allow us to mute or block communication with the players we won't want to listen to. Halo 3 has an option to just take out the voice chat completely if you're so inclined, but I wouldn't take it that far. It's like saying I'm not going to risk getting on the bus anymore because there might be some eejit down the back playing ****e on full volume on their phone which could potentially piss me off. There's idiots online wherever we go, you just have to suck it up and deal with it.

It's sort of like you're implying people who play online with their mates lack social skills or capacity which is nonsense. I share stories, drink, laugh and go places with my mates as well as game with a few of them. Why would it be so weird to talk about something not related to gaming with somebody over an online game? Do you not talk about anything other than football if you're watching a match? I chat about all sorts with the people I play online with. It sort of lifts the monotony of the usual "He's up on the roof", "Bastard just killed me over by those crates" and "Shoot down the helicopter!" It's also nice to have a chat while a new map is being chosen or while the loading screen is doing its thing. I really can't grasp what possible problem you could have with people chatting while playing a video game.

hightower1 wrote: »

the good single player concept going the way of the dead? , to be resigned to RPG's and sandbox games? I really hope not , I miss them and want them back. I still remember when multiplayer was the fun after campaign part not the whole point, now with games like MOD2 we have the single player as the afterthought.

It's up to you whether or not you see a game's campaign nowadays as an afterthought. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I first played it just for the story on hardened which kept me occupied for a good 2 or 3 days because I didn't take it all in one go (Which I recommend.), and I'm still not done playing it on veteran. Still working on picking up all the intel items, and I haven't even completed Spec Ops yet. And that's on top of an amazing multiplayer aspect. I really don't have many complains as far as MW2 goes. Recent games like BioShock, Mirror's Edge and Dead Space have given me peace of mind regarding the single player aspect of games today. They're excellent games that are worthy of mention.

hightower1 wrote: »

else hate the online gaming thang, or as I call it.... competitive teen new age chatrooms craze.

Nope, don't hate it at all, not one bit. It irritates me at times, but I just deal with it because nothing's going to be perfect. I've met people across all age brackets while playing online. You said you don't even connect your Xbox to XBL so I don't think your opinion of online games being a "competitive teen new age chatrooms craze" holds much merit at all.

Asmodean

I completely agree with you about the ridiculously short campaigns in a lot of games that have MP also. I hate dealing with these little twats online too so I try to avoid them as much as possible, although I do enjoy MP gaming aswell as single player.
I think it's fairly unfair of you to assume that people that play online with mates have no social skills. I have a very healthy social life with my friends outside of gamin but we often love to get into a party and play a few games together online. We'll have the headsets on and be chatting away in the process, not only about gaming but the normal things we'd talk about too. I'm away in college in a different city for the week and as I dont get to talk to my friends during the week I really enjoy having some time online to chat with them, hell of a lot cheaper that phone calls too.
A lot of people might not enjoy going out to the pub and enjoy the somewhat social aspect of team gaming ONLY if they are amongst like-minded people in the game environment and not these little racist tweens that are a cancer to Xbox live.

BlitzKrieg

Is the good single player concept going the way of the dead? , to be resigned to RPG's and sandbox games?

Out of curiosity can you name a few 30+ hour games of yore that are not rpgs or sandbox?

Yes MW2 is short and is pretty easy to complete. But I cant think of many straight up action FPS that doesnt clock in somewhere between 5-8 hours to complete.

They are getting shorter mind you, just I think you might be overstating the difference.

MW2 is a bad example anyway, its a game that was going to sell on its multiplayer, they could have skipped single player alltogether and the game would have still been a huge success.

Though surprisingly the multiplayer only fps sub genre which many thought would dominate when tribes, UT and Q3 hit seems to have subsided with really only the battlefield series continueing to update regulary and even that has brought in a single player.

EDIT:

What I think online gaming has done to first person shooters is made the single player gaming much easier. Developers are less likely to punish or frustrate players in the single player with insanely challanging levels instead offering a fairly painless high octane ride and leaving the challange and frustration to your fellow gamers in multiplayer.

Star Lord

I don't usually enjoy online multiplayer, as I find that it tends to be full of people who have nothing else to do but sit at home all day honing their skills, and as these days I only get to game now and again, I tend to get slaughtered pretty much straight away because I'm not levelled up and don't have access to the same equipment. Nevertheless, I do find some games like Burnout Paradise a lot of fun to play in online multiplayer, as it's fairly balanced, and the challenges are an awful lot of fun. 16 people tearing round all trying to barrel roll through the same bits of suspended fuselage gets much lols

calex71

Unfortunately not every game is fallout 3 were I get so sucked in I put 120 hours into it and its add on's (or do I mean fortunately :rolleyes:)

RossFixxxed

I've never taken to online gaming. I love a good story and characters etc. There's no chance of that. MW2 is just 14 year old freaks killing me all the time. The SP campaign was about 5 hours for 55 quid. Insane IMHO. I guess i should have realised it was all MP that game. Might flog it off.

Zeouterlimits

Twilightning made a fantastic post, pretty much addressing everything as I would.
There are plenty of epic rpgs if you're looking for 30 hours+ of play time, for example: 1up's reviewer spent 78 hours in one playthrough before writing his review of Dragon Age: Origins.

Looking back I don't see many other genres having that kind of play time in any portion of gaming history.
As Twilightning pointed out, they didn't have today's kind of development costs (while still being locked into a similar dev time).

Don't forget as well, that multiplayer is huge price tag incentive and helps stop people trading it in so the dev'll actually make some money when people buy the game.

0ubliette

I enjoy MP but i prefer SP. It is a shame to see great SP games like bioshock forced to shoehorn in a multiplayer just to appeal to the scrotes of xbox live

Lands Leaving

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

I don't usually enjoy online multiplayer, as I find that it tends to be full of people who have nothing else to do but sit at home all day honing their skills, and as these days I only get to game now and again, I tend to get slaughtered pretty much straight away because I'm not levelled up and don't have access to the same equipment. Nevertheless, I do find some games like Burnout Paradise a lot of fun to play in online multiplayer, as it's fairly balanced, and the challenges are an awful lot of fun. 16 people tearing round all trying to barrel roll through the same bits of suspended fuselage gets much lols

I used to play online until the leveling system appeared in everything. Totally ruined online games for me, even if I'm as good or better at the game than whoever I'm playing they always win because they vegetate online for days getting body armour and bigger guns. And if I manage to get body armour or something like that they get armour piercing bullets. And bloody airstrikes!

I was hugely into COD2, then totally let down by modern warfare, hated the single player, which suffered clearly because it was all based on multiplayer. And the multiplayer is only fun for people who basically suck all the fun out by levelling up their online persona.

I didn't get the MW2 hype at all, back in my day people got hyped up for a new game because it continued a story or gave a new experience or even expanded on the original concept. MW2 seems to me just like a map pack that people had to get straight away so they could beef up their stats to always win... and screw over anyone who didn't get it on launch day. - Pathetic!

Asmodean

It's ridiculous alright. Sure a day after the launch of MW2 there were already people up to about level 40, and 70 a day or two after. I wouldn't mind at all playing against people of my own level but I never could understand the 'Match-making' in these games, especially MW.
Why the hell do lvl 1 players get placed into matches with other people lvl 50+ etc. It just completely abolished any kind of fun that a new player might have and completely diminish the learning curve for them. Why not introduce matchmaking criteria that say for example puts you in a game with people between level 1-10 if you are a level 8 etc. It really just makes my mind boggle, surely there are enough players online to allocate fairer setups for people!

Oafley Jones

Asmodean wrote: »

It's ridiculous alright. Sure a day after the launch of MW2 there were already people up to about level 40, and 70 a day or two after. I wouldn't mind at all playing against people of my own level but I never could understand the 'Match-making' in these games, especially MW.
Why the hell do lvl 1 players get placed into matches with other people lvl 50+ etc. It just completely abolished any kind of fun that a new player might have and completely diminish the learning curve for them. Why not introduce matchmaking criteria that say for example puts you in a game with people between level 1-10 if you are a level 8 etc. It really just makes my mind boggle, surely there are enough players online to allocate fairer setups for people!

This is slightly off topic, but another improvement treyarch introduced in WAW (and forgotten by IW for MW2) was the matches limited to level 8 and below.

BlitzKrieg

Why the hell do lvl 1 players get placed into matches with other people lvl 50+ etc. It just completely abolished any kind of fun that a new player might have and completely diminish the learning curve for them.

I think it has to do with your K/D or Win/Loss ratio much more then your rank.

Someone can be rank 50 and still be crap or rank 1 and be a natural at the game.

I do know when I party up with friends who have a much better K/D ratio then me that the standard of opponents we play shoots up quite substantialy compared to when its just me.

manic mailman

Twilightning wrote: »

There's no clear cut definition on what 'proper' gaming is so I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Modern Warfare 2 has more than 6-7 hours of gameplay if you take a stab at it on veteran difficulty but I can see where you're coming from. The reason single player games aren't as lengthy as they used to be is due to higher development costs and workloads. While I myself don't necessarily care how great a game looks, developers are under more and more pressure with this generation's video games to make them look as lifelike as possible. Character models, environmental layouts, texture quality, special effects... Earlier games didn't have to spend a copious amount of time and effort on this aspect as they do now, but alas it's the truth.

I think the multiplayer element of a game justifies its pricetag. If you don't like competitive multiplayer, then don't buy the game, it's as simple as that. Reviews are your friend. Infinity Ward told everybody the campaign would be of similar length to that of Call of Duty 4 yet people still complain about it as if they never saw it coming. It's clear from the outset it's a more multiplayer oriented game.



That's your beef with the online which I personally think is a silly one. There's a number of features built into Xbox Live and games themselves that allow us to mute or block communication with the players we won't want to listen to. Halo 3 has an option to just take out the voice chat completely if you're so inclined, but I wouldn't take it that far. It's like saying I'm not going to risk getting on the bus anymore because there might be some eejit down the back playing ****e on full volume on their phone which could potentially piss me off. There's idiots online wherever we go, you just have to suck it up and deal with it.

It's sort of like you're implying people who play online with their mates lack social skills or capacity which is nonsense. I share stories, drink, laugh and go places with my mates as well as game with a few of them. Why would it be so weird to talk about something not related to gaming with somebody over an online game? Do you not talk about anything other than football if you're watching a match? I chat about all sorts with the people I play online with. It sort of lifts the monotony of the usual "He's up on the roof", "Bastard just killed me over by those crates" and "Shoot down the helicopter!" It's also nice to have a chat while a new map is being chosen or while the loading screen is doing its thing. I really can't grasp what possible problem you could have with people chatting while playing a video game.



It's up to you whether or not you see a game's campaign nowadays as an afterthought. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I first played it just for the story on hardened which kept me occupied for a good 2 or 3 days because I didn't take it all in one go (Which I recommend.), and I'm still not done playing it on veteran. Still working on picking up all the intel items, and I haven't even completed Spec Ops yet. And that's on top of an amazing multiplayer aspect. I really don't have many complains as far as MW2 goes. Recent games like BioShock, Mirror's Edge and Dead Space have given me peace of mind regarding the single player aspect of games today. They're excellent games that are worthy of mention.



Nope, don't hate it at all, not one bit. It irritates me at times, but I just deal with it because nothing's going to be perfect. I've met people across all age brackets while playing online. You said you don't even connect your Xbox to XBL so I don't think your opinion of online games being a "competitive teen new age chatrooms craze" holds much merit at all.

now THERES a reply! great arguement tho gotta hand u that Twilightning

smooch71

I have no issue with online gaming (even if I suck at it) and feel it gives longevity to games that otherwise might be gathering dust on the shelf once the single player campaign is finished. MW2 being the classic example that everyone is citing.

A relatively easy roller coaster ride that's finished quickly so you can get stuck into the multiplayer. At least they made an effort with the storyline in COD4.

Games like Uncharted 2 have got it just right in my mind. A single player mode that has an excellent story and enjoyable gameplay. Added to that is a good multiplayer that you can play if you so choose. But the game doesn't revolve around it.

What I think is more important to games like this (and MW2) is the addition of the co-op modes. Where you can play the single player campaign, or sections of it with a friend. Much more fun that getting shot by squawking American kids who think they're fighting a real war.

What I don't like is the likes of Resident Evil pandering to the online community by adandoning everything that made the series great and making into basically a co-op only game.

Asmodean

I think it has to do with your K/D or Win/Loss ratio much more then your rank.

Ah ok fair enough, I didn't know this. I suppose come to think of it I have played against fairly high levels the odd time and come out of it not looking too foolish

DeVore

For someone who was involved in the birth of online gaming in this country.... I almost never play Live. Firstly its laggy as all hell generally but mostly because its populated by obnoxious teenage racist homophobes who either slaughter you because they have misspent their days playing nothing else or quit like b*tches with skinned knees if they lose.

Frankly I'm only interested in playing with mates these days (happy to play with anyone on this site too).

I dont know if its ruined single player gaming, I've really enjoyed games like Portal, Braid and Torchlight which are all terrific single player games but I do agree that everyone seems to want some of the "online" marketplace.

DeV.

Asmodean

Just picked up dragon age:origins, and will maybe get AC2 after that so goodbye to MP for the next while! Funny though online gaming is only relatively new to me (last 3 years or so). Just thinking back to all those hours I pumped into worthwhile games with amazing stories. Sad to think the new generation are spending all those hours screaming abuse at people down headsets or spending hours thinking of 'hillarious' tags to put after their usernames.

Sheepy99

online gaming has prolonged the life-span of games making them way more worth their money than they used to be.

yoshytoshy

Could people get tags on xbox live ,when they register a credit card on xbox live. User name + Name on card.

Lands Leaving

Asmodean wrote: »

Just picked up dragon age:origins, and will maybe get AC2 after that so goodbye to MP for the next while! Funny though online gaming is only relatively new to me (last 3 years or so). Just thinking back to all those hours I pumped into worthwhile games with amazing stories. Sad to think the new generation are spending all those hours screaming abuse at people down headsets or spending hours thinking of 'hillarious' tags to put after their usernames.

Sometimes you have to feel bad for the younger generation just coming into stuff like this now. When I was hitting my teens along came Final Fantasy VII and a raft of great single player, story based experiences. Before that I was playing the Zeldas. Stuff you got excited about as an event of (minor) cultural significance, if only to your game playing friends. Now it's all sequels with no continued plot, just more of the same.

It's not just games either, movies, music, everything is going the same way. It's too risky to market a new intellectual property so they just churn out the same thing over and over knowing it will sell.

Just looking at my games and I see Dead Space, Gears of War, Lost Odyssey, Bioshock, Dead Rising, Mass Effect and The Darkness as the only games that aren't sequels, remakes (i.e. Prince of Persia) or a rehash of something else (movie games, lego games)

I have 45 games, there are 7 new IP's. Only one of which was a totally new experience - Dead Rising, and that's not even that good!

And then I stop feeling bad for the kids because they shout homphobic, xenophobic crap into their headset and drive normal people mad, while pushing the industry we grew up with into the business equivalent of them... making a lot of noise, but never actually saying anythinig new or relevant, all while hiding behind the internet!

folan

as far as FPS goes, sure this is right, but there are some good exceptions. although ill be honest, i fall back to half life and IGI alot more than id like.

Originial IP thoug hasnt been the strongest for a while, but then every so often something great comes along. For me, recently it was Assasins Creed, and ive heard good stuff about Dragon Age Origins. And try to tell me Halo isnt worth a good game!

but there will always be the problem of online, so i havent played online in a while after my last experience, i now play with some guys i know and very few others. saves on the trips to each others houses i suppose

Dcully

Just do what i do, while on xbox live set voice and text in your privacy settings to friends only.
This way you dont hear any BS voice comms chatter or get abusive messages.
On the PC i just play the game and ignore any crappy messages onscreen.
Problem solved !

Vegeta

DeVore wrote: »

but I do agree that everyone seems to want some of the "online" marketplace.

DeV.

And often dilute their franchise/series by doing it

smooch71

smooch71 wrote: »

What I don't like is the likes of Resident Evil pandering to the online community by adandoning everything that made the series great and making into basically a co-op only game.

RE5 co-op was excellent i taught, i played the whole thing through with a friend with Mics, not sure what the single player is like, but with a friend, it was epic

BlitzKrieg

gilberto_eire wrote: »

RE5 co-op was excellent i taught, i played the whole thing through with a friend with Mics, not sure what the single player is like, but with a friend, it was epic

RE5 co-op diluted the gameplay so much to allow co-op that it felt even weaker then re4 in far too many ways. Everything it did was smaller then what they did in 4.

smooch71

gilberto_eire wrote: »

RE5 co-op was excellent i taught, i played the whole thing through with a friend with Mics, not sure what the single player is like, but with a friend, it was epic

I take your point and I admit to enjoying parts of it when playing with a friend. Just don't feel that's what Resident Evil is about.

PixelTrawler

One thing to do with short games is to stop playing on regular.
You can extend a game quite a bit by playing on hardest difficulty.

Also theres some decent games still that give long life such as fallout3 and GTA.

But overall games, as they are getting more complex and graphically intensive, tend to get shorter - Im sure this is related to expense of production also.

Rather then 30 maps, there might only be 10-12 in a fps single player game but the environments are getting incredibly detailed. Compare Medal of Honour 1 (allied assault) and Modern Warfare 2...

Still its shame to finish them so quick, although on the other hand Ive far less time to play then i used to

Adyx

Twilightning wrote: »

Modern Warfare 2 has more than 6-7 hours of gameplay if you take a stab at it on veteran difficulty .....

Dying more often does not equal more hours of gameplay just more frustration and replaying bits to get back to where you were.

MW2 was very disappointing for me. I enjoy the odd online game of it but single player was what drew me to COD. It just ends up as a run n' gun fest which gets boring very quickly. I prefer my shooters a little more tactical especially in multiplayer.

hightower1

I dont accept this whole "its production cost thing" and thats why games are getting shorter.

Major hollywood movies take approx 2 years from start to finish. 3 in some cases this is the exact same time as a game and the production costs for games are a LOT lower while the profit is an awful lot higher.

They are cheaper, more cost effective and quicker to make the ONLY excuse developers have for shorter one players is that they are relying on multiplayer as a crutch. Why spend time writing levels, story, character models, reactionary events, weather effects, voice acting, mo cap, etc that will give a one payer another 10 + hours in span as opposed to coding a multiplayer map which needs in some cases none of the above in some cases at most half the work of the above and will give not 10+ hrs life span but online muppets playing incessantly another 100+ hrs.
Its simply seen as a more efficient use of time in terms of hours put in and hours spent being played.

The facts are its easier and cheaper and more time effective to make a multiplayer portion of a game than single player..... and now we see multiplayer portions of games being the focus and single player being pushed to the backround.

Single player gave all us gamers playing from ages 0 upwards a life long passion, I'm 24 and will never finish playing games, multiplayer is a cheap thrill with no substance, story or progression vs reward. Anyone starting on games now is of coarse going to be multiplayer focused as its the cheaper thrill so to speak but given that .... will they have lasting love of games like most 20 somethings now? I dont think so.

Online sucks and not only that... its being promoted at the detriment of single player aspect. boo urns.

Zeouterlimits

........

It's a fact that multiplayer-inclusive games generally sell better than singleplayer only games. RPGs are practically the only genre that can really survive that.
Look at Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Uncharted 1 etc.
All pretty good/great singleplayer only titles that didn't sell nearly as well as simialarly AAA titles with multiplayer.
It's a much bigger incentive to the customer if there's a multiplayer component to drop their €60 on a title. And that really makes a lot of sense.
So including a multiplayer component both helps sales and slows down trade-ins.

Have to disagree really with the notion that it has ruined singleplayer games (saying "ACTUAL games" is ridiculous, grow up).

BlitzKrieg

hightower1 wrote: »

I dont accept this whole "its production cost thing" and thats why games are getting shorter.

Major hollywood movies take approx 2 years from start to finish. 3 in some cases this is the exact same time as a game and the production costs for games are a LOT lower while the profit is an awful lot higher.

Firstly the 2 year turnover is pretty much only for the hollywood blockbuster system, which when you consider the sub standard crap (Twilight, Transformers 2) they shovel onto viewers two years is a pretty pathetic timeframe for some of these projects. Movies are difficult to gauge since those 2 years you are counting on in most projects outside of the studio system tend to be only the time for a movie in production/post production, completely cutting out the pre production stage which in a lot of films can be the longest and most difficult part (get funding, write script put together cast and crew).

Secondly thats two years without the need to extensively beta test the finished project. While the test audiance is a much expressed example of movie beta testing, it has nowhere near the same extensive requirement as a beta test does. In fact its very rare for a movie to have any major reshoots because of a test audiance.

Finally thats two years for a movie that clocks in around 2 hours, considering vast amounts of the same techniques used in video games match up with those of the animation industry lets see what the average turnaround for an animated movie, you even named most of them mo cap voice acting, weather effects etc...

Why its 4 years minimum. The absolute minimum for an animated film at disney is 4 years.

some examples

Ratatouille:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratatouille_%28film%29

Jan Pinkava came up with the concept and directed the film from 2001, creating the original design, sets and characters and core storyline.

six years from conception to release

Lion King: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lion_king

The production of The Lion King, originally titled King of the Jungle, took place at Walt Disney Animation Studios in Glendale, California, and Disney-MGM Studios in Orlando, Florida. The original treatment, inspired by Hamlet, was written by Thomas M. Disch (author of The Brave Little Toaster), as “King of the Kalahari” in late 1988.

six years from conception to release


WALL E: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_e

In late 2003, Stanton and a few others created a story reel of the first twenty minutes of the film. Lasseter and Steve Jobs were impressed and officially began development,[15] though Jobs stated he did not like the title, originally spelled "W.A.L.-E."[16]

5 years.

The facts are its easier and cheaper and more time effective to make a multiplayer portion of a game than single player..... and now we see multiplayer portions of games being the focus and single player being pushed to the backround.

You're kidding right?

Multiplayer is the easiest part of a game to get wrong Its impossible to rely on multiplayer as a crutch in a new development because for it to take off you need the support of a community of players. Getting the multiplayer even slightly off will decimate your chances of forming a franchise, more so then any other type of video game you will need the turnover of players from one iteration of the series to the next if you want to continue, take a wrong step and the number of players that will simply stop playing will kill the series dead. The industry is litered with the countless games who's multiplayer was abandoned and as such the franchise is dropped.

If anything single player is a crutch for games focused on multiplayer, having a single player at least stops you from being at the whim of the online community and allow for continued sales. You can mishap with one entry in a single player game but with a good story or gameplay mechanic easily recover for a sequel.

Case in point Assassins Creed and Assassins Creed 2. But a mishap with a multiplayer game will kill the series because if you cant fill those servers the game is dead and worthless a few months after release. A single player game is the same regardless if you bought it on release or a year later.

Online sucks and not only that... its being promoted at the detriment of single player aspect. boo urns.

Again, this was predicted back in 1999 with the release of unreal tournament and quake 3.

considering that quake went back to single player with quake 4 (and so has Battlefield with bad company) since then and unreal tournament has not done anywhere near as well as it could have on release that seems to suggest the opposite is true.

Look at Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Uncharted 1 etc.
All pretty good/great singleplayer only titles that didn't sell nearly as well as simialarly AAA titles with multiplayer.

Assassins creed sold well as did its sequel, no multiplayer there. lets not forget wii titles like Mario Galaxy and Zelda Twilight princess as well.

The prince of persia series has consistenly done well. As has Ratchet and Clank.

Dead Space was still a commercial success btw despite throwing it in with mirrors edge and uncharted.

We could also bring up the hugely successful Civilisation series or the total war series, both franchises that sell mostly on their single player campaigns (which are both 30+ hours btw)

Asmodean

Mirrors edge was a cracker, although it still had a paltry play-through time despite it being single player only (which is not technially true seeing as how you can 'race' other players ghosts online)

Zeouterlimits

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Assassins creed sold well as did its sequel, no multiplayer there. lets not forget wii titles like Mario Galaxy and Zelda Twilight princess as well.

The prince of persia series has consistenly done well. As has Ratchet and Clank.

Dead Space was still a commercial success btw despite throwing it in with mirrors edge and uncharted.

We could also bring up the hugely successful Civilisation series or the total war series, both franchises that sell mostly on their single player campaigns (which are both 30+ hours btw)

Assassin's Creed, and two Nintendo franchises are what I'd see as exceptions to the norm.
As for:
Prince of Persia
Ratchet and Clank
Dead Space
All which the recent iterations of have been said to have had disappointing sales by their publisher.
Ratchet charted at 16 week of release in the UK and hasn't appeared on the chart since. It never charted here in Ireland at all.

Undead

Has online gaming ruined ACTUAL games?

No.


No it hasn't.

DirkVoodoo

I'll get back to you when Starcraft 2 is released.

If Blizzard have been simply appealing to the lucrative pro-gamer scene in Korea and elsewhere and neglecting the story, unlikely as it seems, I will give you a "yes".

Sure, COD:MW2 was short, 8 hours seems to be the acceptable average for a shooter since Half Life, I think MW2 rolls in under 5. Would you want more than 5 hours? Not really, it's hardly a story driven shooter like HL and the game is pretty much chock full of action from start to finish. If anything, blame the underhanded pricing strategy.

As for the multiplayer, I have yet to play. My younger brother comes home from school and plays MW2 religiously (he is unfortunately injured so besides that and study he has little else to do). He enjoys it. I asked him would he prefer a longer campaign with no multiplayer, "No".

As for "actual" games. I'm playing Dragon Age at the moment. Certainly plenty of single player storytelling in there, looking forward to Mass Effect 2 and Starcraft 2.

Can you compare these games to MMORPGs like WOW? I don't think so, they aren't really in the same bracket as a "multiplayer component", but I have no interest in those games so I'll leave that avenue be for now.

So what does this mean? Well, successful games, be they single player or multiplayer tend to produce sequels of varying quality and are studios just doing business and cashing in on success. Like movies. That's all you can say really. Like Hollywood is killing independent and original movies in the mainstream with crap like "Twilight", games publishers and developers are taking fewer chances on original titles.

Mobile games are probably the last refuge for originality for now. Even Dragon Age for me is a rehash of KOTOR and Mass Effect, but that's no bad thing for me.

BlitzKrieg

Zeouterlimits wrote: »

Assassin's Creed, and two Nintendo franchises are what I'd see as exceptions to the norm.

I'd argue the opposite, I'd say games more focused on multiplayer that are huge successes are more of an exception then a single player exclusive game being a success.

Prince of Persia

from wiki

Prince of Persia was the fourth best-selling game on the Playstation 3 in December 2008, but sold only 483,000 units on the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 combined Ubisoft later released sales figures showing that Prince of Persia has sold over 2.2 million copies worldwide as of January 2009

Ratchet and Clank

http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2009/11/22/a-crack-in-time-insomniacs-best-selling-ratchet-clank-yet/

Dead Space

also from wiki

Dead Space was a commercial success as well, with EA CFO Eric Brown confirming 1 million sales in 2008 across three platforms

irishman123

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Ihttp://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2009/11/22/a-crack-in-time-insomniacs-best-selling-ratchet-clank-yet/

Finished it - One of the best games of the year!

Zeouterlimits

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'd argue the opposite, I'd say games more focused on multiplayer that are huge successes are more of an exception then a single player exclusive game being a success.

Hmmm, perhaps I am mistaken, warped perception by the gaming media/publisher expectations I guess.
I still in the eyes of the consumer a multiplayer-inclusive game is a better incentive to spend your well earned dosh.

pipeliner

i dont think online gaming is at fault. Games like movies follow trends. I remember the n64 days the selling point was the lenght of the game. Turok 2 was something like 60 hours long, but people got bored after 6.

But then developers realised that gamers preferred their games if they were completable. Hence shortening them, dumbing them down and adding the latest fad to make them more appealing (co op, sandbox, bullet time, etc, etc)

Mitch Connor

what annoys me most about the prevalence of online gaming, is that developers have focused on it almost entirely for their multiplayer content.

So many games are coming out now that don't have a split screen element, such as Burnout Paradise, Far Cry, Battlefield Bad Company. I know there are a lot more, but i can't think of them right now. I was actually surprised that COD:MW2 had a split screen mode.

Asmodean

Yeah I definitely agree in that regard a lot of titles are missing the split-screen element.