Anyone who knows me knows that I’m not a huge fan of people. They’re annoying and stupid in large groups and aren’t much better individually, to be frank. From this attitude birthed my love of video games – no people required. I know that multiplayer and co-op have blown up as we’ve seen an increase in online gaming. And while that’s good and all my attitude towards people remains the same, why the hell would I want to interact with a person online when I don’t want to interact with people in the flesh?! “I don’t” is the answer. So, I currently represent a shrinking number of gamers. Boo.
Now this whole ‘online revolution’ really shouldn’t affect me much. But as time goes on I’ve noticed a seriously annoying trend – short single-player campaigns.
So last week I’m doing the weekly Loot-Ninja Podcast with Matt, Steve and Al, and they’re all talking about Gears of War 2 and Resistance 2. Now, remember these guys are waaay more into online gaming than I am. So as they casually dissect the games, a common theme pops up – ten hours is the longest completion time for both, five is the shortest. “Yeah but, people buy it for the online play” they say.
Are you fucking kidding me?! Seriously?!
As soon as I hear these things, my mind automatically goes in a certain direction: being distrustful of others. With this online gaming boom, developers may very well think that they can get away with spending less time and effort on games and still charge a hefty $60 price tag. Now, I may be wrong, but I don’t think I am. Some people may think that I’m just paranoid due to my predisposition with others. But really, the reason myself and a lot of other people got into gaming in the first place was story, concept, and premise.
It’s like a book for Christ’s sake – people might buy a crappy book, but chances are they’ll read half of it then toss it. But if it’s a good book, they’ll purchase the sequel if made and so-on and so-forth. But who’s going to buy a book for sixty dollars if the author can’t even bother to develop the story much past the first book – they can just read the first friggin’ book over again? See what I’m saying?
And I’m aware that I can just not buy the game, but I’m feeling a little gypped here. And so should you, frankly. I was really looking forward to the story modes of both these games. Do you really think you should be paying sixty bucks for a game with little-to-no story? I mean, I already have my doubt about GOW2 as it is. Remember right before GOW1 came out? All those pictures of the Brumaks were clogging up the game sites and *POOF*, they disappear when release time comes around. And it just so happens that GOW2 comes out looking a little too GOW1-ish with a short single player mode.
Gears of War 1.2 sounds more like it. Dammit.
I may seem like I’m putting far too much emphasis on this whole thing. But the real question is: what if this is where things are going for AAA titles? That’s at the core of this little rant. You pay out the ass for a game plus any downloadable content and all the developers have to do is come up with a speck of story, a different (but the same?) multiplayer map/mode, and updated graphics to justify the money you shell out. Fuck that.
So what do you think people? Justified or just paranoid? Let me know what’s going through your heads – you might just make sense to Schwinghammer. Hmmm…
Durka?
I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels robbed by this online gaming BS. They give you online and in return remove the story, or make it so short that it becomes a tutorial of sorts. I miss single player games.
And on the other hand, DLC has facilitated developers’ laziness so that they can now give us an incomplete title and bandage it up piecemeal, while charging us for what they consider to be upgrades.
Great points, BJ! I think that developers have embraced online play so much that unless a game is single player only, the story gets sacrificed.
I don’t know if I’d want GOW2 to have a longer story. In the current iteration, Epic already threw in some pointless and frustrating scenes to try and change things up. The whole one person driving and one person gunning thing can be OK but can also get extremely tiresome.
I will by no means argue that people are annoying and stupid ( generally speaking ). Usually playing with close friends can be OK as you can actually be a team, unlike playing lonesome on a team that performs individually. Not only do they not help you but they also give the other team / players easy points. So, whether or not you’re good enough, you have to be fast enough to get the easy kils before others. Way too many examples to name but I do agree.
Overall, if it is a really good story, I don’t mind a longer campaign but to “beat a dead horse” so to speak on annoying tasks just makes one want to skip the campaign all together.
I’ve felt like this for about 3 years now. Ever since console gaming has gone online, game developers have gradually started to rely on the online/multiplayer aspect of their games. When a company solely focuses on single player, ala BioShock, it turns out great. When the focus is on multiplayer, like Halo 2, it’s a great gaming experience.
But there doesn’t seem to be a middle-ground anymore, which is a real shame. A game should be fun both online AND offline. It’s a core value that doesn’t sound all that hard to reach, but for some reason developers ignore it or fail to create it.
yea i think that the gears2 campaign shouldve been atleast another 10 hours long..lol
I love games! Online, not so much. For many of the reasons you stated in your article. I am not Aficaian American but I have been called/or heard others being called the N word while I was on line. Talking smack is one thing but the level these ten to fifteen year olds take it to is just stupid and racist. It spoils the experance for me, so I don’t go online that often even though I am a Gold XBL subscriber.
Back to the topic I think that certian games will always be just for the single player. But as marketing reps apply pressure to delevopers I see less and less single player games being produced, which is sad really. The only on line game that I wish was out there was co-op for Fallout 3. This is an awsome single player game, but it would be super cool to bring along a friend as well.
Yea it has become hard to find games with a good single player. A few games that I have enjoyed that have good single player are… Fallout 3, Bioshock, Splinter Cell: Double Agent, Lost Odyssey, there are a few more that I’m forgetting.
There are a few quality titles out there for single players but I have to agree with BJ, its getting tough to find a game that’s not an RPG where the storyline will take you a week or two to finish. The emphasis is on graphics, not much out there to draw you in.
Loot Ninja… YOU ARE A GOD AMONG MEN.
I did a search for this topic because I felt so alone. I first tried out Multiplayer with America’s Army. It was fun, but repetitive. No new or real challenge. Walk up to the battle area, hide, maybe get sniped or shot up close, or take everyone for the win – RINSE REPEAT (oh I’m sorry, forgot to add you do this on up to 10 maps. BIG WHOOP).
When I pay $60.00 I want it all in the package. None of that DLC crap. I want it when I pop in the game THAT I ALREADY BOUGHT. I want multiplayer as a secondary feature I look forward too. And give me BOTS as an option. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. Multiplayer is an excuse for lazy programming and to get more money by you being FORCED to get on pay for play sites like XBOX LIVE and soon PSN (mark my words).
One thing I do appreciate about GOW2 is the Multiplayer access WITHOUT having to go online. I got my moneys worth and appreciate the programmers setting up BOT AI. Thats like another game in itself without having to interact with fools (you know, like the guy on YOUR TEAM that decides to snipe YOU or some BS like that)
I’m sick of giving M$ my money for something that gets boring after awhile.
Contra, GTA series, and a handful of other classic games did not require online play for you to get your moneys worth (while spending more money). The STORY and SINGLE PLAYER alone was the MAIN FOCUS. Some people got LIVE specifically for MW2 which they’ll be playing religiously until IW decides the online MP is running dry and make MW3. That will probably be another 1 1/2 – 2 years. So in essence you’ve just spent $60 for the game, and another $90 for online play (most people are one trick pony’s i.e. MW2 on LIVE). You’ve just spent $150 on a game that you’ve been BRAINWASHED to think only is worth it if you “LOG ON”.
Thats why I’ve been playing Mass Effect 2. No LIVE required (yet). And watch BIOWARE is going to add MP to the next one. Heck ME2 has too many characters for it not to. ONLINE GOLD!!!