nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Are Single-Player Gamers Slowly Becoming Alienated?

Gamer Bhoy 89

I know multiplayer online gaming is the biggest thing going for the industry nowadays, but does anyone else feel like the people that prefer the single-player focused story-driven games (myself included) are getting a smaller number of choices for single-player games as the years go on?

I feel that more and more online-multiplayer games keep coming and single player games are pretty much "endangered" (for want of a better term) at this stage. Aye, I think there are a few games coming that still focus on the single-player aspect primarily, though Metal Gear Solid 5 is all I can think of at the top of my head.

I feel like there needs to be a more fair balance of both multiplayer and single-player games. I exlude games that do have a single player aspect but has a more focused online aspect (Battlefield and Call of Duty, for example) and vice versa (Dark Souls and Assassin's Creed)

What does everyone else think of the direction gaming has come - and is going - in regards to its focus on online gaming?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Shiminay

Heard this argument 15+ years ago when Quake 3 was just an arena shooter. Been hearing it a lot since. It's never been true

There're definitely a number of games which have had a tacked on multiplayer because it looked like there was some sort of market pressure to include multiplayer in everything.

Do you know what *has* disappeared completely though? LAN games. All this "managed" server bollox and no more simply releasing the server exe for people to run their own has been a real shame.

[Deleted User]

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

theres a very set "way" to handle the bosses in dark souls, they have an attack pattern and triggers that lead to certain moves being used over others. learning takes a bit of time and Patience is the key, going toe to toe is rarely the answer - and I say that as someone who is still dipping in and out of dark souls on my first playthrough and has yet to complete the game (but I'm nearly there).

This pretty much extrapolates on what I was saying before and why I lose interest in the vast majority of single player games, especially modern fps games. Figure out the pattern; rinse, repeat. Dark Souls had a ton of variation though.

Generic Dreadhead

I think you mean Quake Wars: Enemy Territory.

My 2 cents is that there are too many oared in PvP experiences these days (Bioshock 2 etc)

Stone Deaf 4evr

Deleted User wrote: »

This pretty much extrapolates on what I was saying before and why I lose interest in the vast majority of single player games, especially modern fps games. Figure out the pattern; rinse, repeat. Dark Souls had a ton of variation though.

But you cant really have your cake and eat it in that regard - theres no better test than against human opponents, even the best AI is going to come up short there. personally I'd even argue that the telltale games, that whilst brilliant in their own right are more "interactive comics" than actual games. you're not really only an observer rather than a participant - They're a long way removed from something like Monkey Island in that regardless of what you do, the story is going to move on anyway.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Shiminay wrote: »

Heard this argument 15+ years ago when Quake 3 was just an arena shooter. Been hearing it a lot since. It's never been true

There're definitely a number of games which have had a tacked on multiplayer because it looked like there was some sort of market pressure to include multiplayer in everything.

I actually wish that the likes of Battlefield and COD could make the break away from single player entirely and invest that money into multiplayer, which is really what these games are about anyway. If anything games are too busy trying to be all things to all men. Even worse is the crime of having all the achievements loaded into the single player elements of these. Theres a lad on my friends list who has over 100 hours logged on advanced warfare and has only 2 achievements

CiDeRmAn

Well I just had the most excellent time playing and finishing Wolfenstein on the PS4, I still have Super Mario 3D World and Bayonetta 2 to finish as well, not to mention the likes of Dark Souls 2 and Dishonored to polish off.
I see no lack of single player and innovative experiences for the likes of myself and others for whom capture the flag sounds like death.

Retr0gamer

Single player games might not be going anywhere but great well paced 8-12 hour single player experiences are becoming a relic of the past. Some games warrant multi hour experiences but most games these days I find follow the Ubisoft model of stretching out gameplay that can sustain a game for 8 hours to 60+ with watchtowers and other busy work fetch quests.

Mal-Adjusted

To be fair, that kind of stuff is usually in no way necessary to the enjoyment of the main story/campaign. Take the more recent Batman games. I loved the campaigns but am i f*%k going around trying to collect the four million riddler trophies.

Retr0gamer

A few new games seem to be making a trend of it. Ubisoft ones require you to do a certain amount of side quests and Dragon Age Inquistion is particularly bad with it gating off the next story section until you do x amount of side quests.

Varik

People are less likly to wait for multiplayer games, your friend are playing now so most will but sooner rather than later. If you wait a few months to buy a single player game cheap it doesn't hurt you in any way bar the odd spoiler.

Driveclub

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

To be fair, that kind of stuff is usually in no way necessary to the enjoyment of the main story/campaign. Take the more recent Batman games. I loved the campaigns but am i f*%k going around trying to collect the four million riddler trophies.

I liked them in Batman, you had the riddles in asylum and then the puzzles in the later games.

Audio logs are also good.

Mal-Adjusted

Varik wrote: »

I liked them in Batman, you had the riddles in asylum and then the puzzles in the later games.

Audio logs are also good.

Weather people like or dislike them isn't really the issue. it's the fact that they're optional as oppose to mandatory like the games Retro is talking about. Imagine beating the Mr. Frieze boss fight but not being able to continue until you get an arbitrary number of trophies, then again after the penguin fight. It would turn something that might otherwise be fun into padding.

Generic Dreadhead

I got all the Riddler Trophies..... I'll see myself out :pac:

Stone Deaf 4evr

Retr0gamer wrote: »

A few new games seem to be making a trend of it. Ubisoft ones require you to do a certain amount of side quests and Dragon Age Inquistion is particularly bad with it gating off the next story section until you do x amount of side quests.

I don't mind doing one of each type of sidequest as a way to let me know they're there (which in fairness is generally the way they're handled) or even if they actually have game functionality such as revealing the map. but pointless collecting just does my head in.

i have to hand it to far cry 4, if you are trying for achievements, you really only have to do a minimal amount of collecting - i.e. find 10 of an item as opposed to all 100 - something you'd do whilst playing the game normally.

Lemlin

I know we keep hearing that Ireland's broadband is beyond diabolical but until broadband develops and the online networks can support online play, single player games are going to continue to be the mainstay for gamers. Every second post in the PS4 Megathread seems to be people asking if PSN is down.

Personally, I live in a house I built in Cavan and the broadband is atrocious. Every evening while I'm playing Far Cry 4 I can see the internet dipping in and out. Online gaming on it would be impossible the way it is.

I got my PS4 at Xmas and so far I've enjoyed both Far Cry 4 and The Last of Us. I still have GTA 4 sitting there and am getting Shadow of Mordor next week.

Mal-Adjusted

Lemlin wrote: »

I got my PS4 at Xmas and so far I've enjoyed both Far Cry 4 and The Last of Us. I still have GTA 4 sitting there and am getting Shadow of Mordor next week.

How long has it been there for! :eek:

ShooterSF

I actually think we're seeing the opposite. A return to some fantastic single player experiences with no silly afterthought multiplayer tacked on. And I think we'll see the reduction of those bloatware collect everything games. And all because of Digital distribution and the inability to sell on games (as much as I disagree with it in principal). Publishers don't have to worry about you being finished with a game in a week because it won't mean gamestop's used aisle is filled up.

Lemlin

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

How long has it been there for! :eek:

Since Xmas day. It's still in the wrapping. I finished TLOU first, have been playing Far Cry 4 since and, as I've now arranged to swap it for Shadow of Mordor, I will probably play it next.

I've two young kids so playing time is limited, therefore I'm only playing one game at a time.

Kiith

I think he asked because GTA 4 has been out for 8 years...and it's not on the PS4 :P

john the one

The newest wolfenstein is sp only and is one of the most playable games I have ever played.

Lemlin

Kiith wrote: »

I think he asked because GTA 4 has been out for 8 years...and it's not on the PS4 :P

Oops