Illusion of Revolution

I harbor and foster numerous healthy personal relationships beyond these networked silicon landscapes, but as a gamer I am best imagined as an ill-kempt hermit whose wild-eyed fear of strangers is the stony gaze of looming madness. From my mountain crag I glower down upon lesser beings who interface and communicate in odd tongues while scoring endless headshots, flag captures and raid loot. And, as a crazy, disconnected old man stewing in a bitter elixir of pessimism that is my own special recipe, I have, for the better part of a generation, feared that the games I prize were being corrupted by this malignant multiplayer revolution.

It is with equal parts surprise and jubilation that I sally forth from my far less cool fortress of solitude and herald from on high what I see as the return of the single player, story driven experience, only to discover that playing with yourself had never, in fact, gone out of style after all.

At least, in one interpretation of the phrase.

Looking back over games like Uncharted 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dragon Age: Origin, Assassin’s Creed II and Fallout III — these are quintessentially single player driven games that describe the high points of the past year and a half for me. While I hate to look gift Dev in the mouth, as the self-absorbed malcontent who was inclined to hold his breath until publishers stopped pandering to the co-op gamers I feel like the game industry is finally and rightfully seeing things from my point of view. Now what will I complain about to people who honestly couldn’t care less?

If you have spent the past decade devouring JRPGs, lovingly crafted console platformers, 3rd person action games or turn-based strategy games, then my comments probably sound like an addled neighbor coming out from inside his house and proclaiming, “What? We have a sun now?”

To understand my joy, you must understand that I come from the people who embraced games like Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Baldur’s Gate, Fallout, Jedi Knight, Half-Life and other wholly Western style, PC friendly, story driven games. As multiplayer focus and emergent game play became the watchwords of the early and mid-noughts, games like the ones I tended to enjoy became an endangered species.

Over the past few months, as I revel in the digital entertainment that seems uniquely targeted to release the happy endorphins that swim like mirthful mermaids in the comfort centers of my brain, I must admit that what I’ve been waiting for from the industry is the re-birth of the cinematic game. In the end, I’m still just a kid on the couch with my Choose Your Own Adventure book, wanting to take part in the action but not ownership of it.

I have to stress here that I may have a very different interpretation of the word cinematic. I have certainly had experiences in games like Counter-Strike that could have been ripped from a Bruce Willis movie trailer. In a world, where one man has only a flashbang grenade, a Desert Eagle and thirty seconds to stop the terrorists from blowing up what basically appears to be a series of intermittently stacked boxes, will you survive or will you go on a *cue dramatic music* Noob Hunt!

What I’m describing is not the accidental scene, which is what I think a lot of people mean when they say emergent gameplay. No, I’m talking about a directed experience. I’m talking about an environment where actors, directors and artists collaborate in a real way that echoes the architecture of film. I’m talking about game makers that aren’t just thinking about how to make a gun sound cool, but how to frame a shot, how to block actors on the virtual stage and how to light a scene to the right effect. These are relatively new skills in our gaming world that are taking center stage and offering something uniquely different from that one time in Battlefield where you totally captured a key supply point all by yourself.

But, as I consider my newfound revelry, I fear that I was a man dying of thirst in a sea of fresh water. As I have wondered for years, perhaps my tastes are so narrow that I am inevitably doomed to feel out of touch most of the time. Even as I take joy in the directed single-player experiences that happen to fit the limited scope of my happy place, I know that the ride must be a short one, and I am truly at fault for not being able to take joy in the console RPGs and rich platformers, such as Sly Cooper and Ratchet and Clank, that thrived even as my precious shooters and RPGs got their multiplayer on.

I suspect I am just at a fortunate nexus point where the profitability of single-player DLC and the desire within the industry to control the gamers’ experience in-game have forced the hand of publishers. I am not the beneficiary of some cultural renaissance, but the target market for game makers who want to retain control and foster profitability in a way that is at least much more complex for multiplayer gaming, and as a result I can look forward to games like God of War 3, Final Fantasy XIII, BioShock 2, Dante’s Inferno and Heavy Rain for the time being.

I, for one, couldn’t be happier.

Comments

I'm with ya.

Same! Though I find myself moving toward multiplayer experiences more now (or again, really), I still very much prefer the single player adventures that emerge from great gaming. Part of it is that my girlfriend watching me play Batman is much more entertained than when I play CS, but the other part of it is for me that I find crafted games more enjoyable. Games where a set piece is created, on purpose or even on accident, is much more enjoyable moment to moment than turning the same blind corner only to be AWPd to the face 3 rounds in a row.

My love of gaming Was great once, with new games all the time. Dwindled when I moved into the mostly multiplayer space during college, but now I am rediscovering "real" gaming. I love it. Good article, as always.

Cheers.

The original article wrote:

If you have spent the past decade devouring JRPGs, lovingly crafted console platformers, 3rd person action games or turn-based strategy games, then my comments probably sound like an addled neighbor coming out from inside his house and proclaiming, “What? We have a sun now?”

Yeah, pretty much. But you do, at the very least, openly recognize that sentiment here and elsewhere in the article, so party on.

Also, DERANGED HERMIT! SQUIRREL TOKENS!

Same here! I can count on one hand the number of times I've ventured into multiplayer territory on my 360. As a result, my three-star XBL status remains untouched, just as it was the day I unboxed the console.

It's not just that I hold the story to be the most important element of any game; it's that single-player games are friendlier to my lifestyle. I have a family, a demanding job, and deadlines galore. I need to be able to pause a game at a moment's notice and walk away without inconveniencing anyone. I may be gone two minutes, or two hours.

That said, I was a multiplayer whore before I became the dad, and the boss, and the homeowner, and all of that. I do occasionally miss the thrill of a good headshot.

Choose Your Own Adventure reference: +1 cool

There is a lot of Missouri on this page. I want to add to that.

Also, I agree - I love single player games. Let them return.

OzymandiasAV wrote:
The original article wrote:

If you have spent the past decade devouring JRPGs, lovingly crafted console platformers, 3rd person action games or turn-based strategy games, then my comments probably sound like an addled neighbor coming out from inside his house and proclaiming, “What? We have a sun now?”

Yeah, pretty much. But you do, at the very least, openly recognize that sentiment here and elsewhere in the article, so party on.

Don't forget adventure games.

Elysium, since you mention looking forward to Heavy Rain, did you play Fahrenheit? If you did, I'm curious to hear if you thought if fulfilled any of the desires you express in your antepenultimate paragraph.

I think the industry has gotten past the use of term "emergent gameplay" even without having fully figured what it actually supposed to mean.

Emergent gameplay is when I build a roller coaster in an E-rated game that kills people, so people don't want to ride it. Then I slap on a new coat of paint, rename the coaster Definitely Won't Kill You, and watch the lineup form.

Clemenstation wrote:

Emergent gameplay is when I build a roller coaster in an E-rated game that kills people, so people don't want to ride it. Then I slap on a new coat of paint, rename the coaster Definitely Won't Kill You, and watch the lineup form.

Is this an actual game? Can I buy it?

Staats wrote:
Clemenstation wrote:

Emergent gameplay is when I build a roller coaster in an E-rated game that kills people, so people don't want to ride it. Then I slap on a new coat of paint, rename the coaster Definitely Won't Kill You, and watch the lineup form.

Is this an actual game? Can I buy it?

You sure can!

Staats wrote:
Clemenstation wrote:

Emergent gameplay is when I build a roller coaster in an E-rated game that kills people, so people don't want to ride it. Then I slap on a new coat of paint, rename the coaster Definitely Won't Kill You, and watch the lineup form.

Is this an actual game? Can I buy it?

My daughter and her friend used to Zoo Tycoon to build high walls that prevented people from leaving, and would then let the lions out to eat the customers. I have to imagine there is an amusement park version of killing your customers.

conejote wrote:

Same here! I can count on one hand the number of times I've ventured into multiplayer territory on my 360. As a result, my three-star XBL status remains untouched, just as it was the day I unboxed the console.

It's not just that I hold the story to be the most important element of any game; it's that single-player games are friendlier to my lifestyle. I have a family, a demanding job, and deadlines galore. I need to be able to pause a game at a moment's notice and walk away without inconveniencing anyone. I may be gone two minutes, or two hours.

That said, I was a multiplayer whore before I became the dad, and the boss, and the homeowner, and all of that. I do occasionally miss the thrill of a good headshot.

This pretty much describes me too a T, except for the dad part, for now... I need to play on my time, and I just don't have 60 hours to devote to a single game anymore.

I am exactly the same type of gamer.

As much as I've wanted to level to 60 in WoW, LOTRO, and other multiplayer games, I spend *much* more time on the single-player quasi-cinematic experiences: case in point, I can't pull myself away from Mass Effect 2.

Even in the rare cases where I log in to my lifetime subscription for LOTRO, I hardly ever group. I may never see the endgame of these experiences.

By the way -- I'm surprised you didn't mention ME2 in your story.

I'm surprised too. Obviously ME2 is my soul mate and we're going to be together forever.

As for the topic at hand, I am playing through BF: Bad Company right now. It is a pretty fun game, that I enjoy because it doesn't take itself to seriously. I've been interested in the sequel that is soon to drop, but I'm rather annoyed with what seems to be a monumental focus on multiplayer.

I played through the demo of the multiplayer some, and I just couldn't really care less about it. It's not that it is bad, it's that it seems to miss the point of the game. I'm curious as to what will become of the sequel, as I am afraid the publisher and developers have decided that the long tail of a strong multiplayer will increase sales far more than a fun story.

My main multiplayer experience now is sports games, and even that is starting to take a back seat to a solo experience.

I, for one, couldn’t be happier.

What if you had a pony?

benu302000 wrote:
I, for one, couldn’t be happier.

What if you had a pony?

Make sure you ask for a real one.

I have to admit I MUCH prefer the single player games over the multiplayer ones but not for noble purposes like, "they are more emersive", or "being able to walk away anytime", but rather my ego just doesn't take well to having my butt handed to me by a twelve year old who's only purpose in life is spending WAY too much time learning every headshot location and taunting. I do play TF2 multiplayer but I don't venture far into the interwebs. I stick to our GWJer server and servers recommended by other GWJers to keep away the foul-mouthed and/or griefers who get fun by ruining mine. I guess that is the real answer. The "known" fun of the single player experience over the "unkown" roll of the die multiplayer experience.

I like it all (except JRPGs, they can rot in hell). But there is something about a deep, single player experience. Multiplayer, because developers acknowledge the limited amount of time that people can stand one another, seem to be shallowier as a whole. Losing yourself into a world like DAO, ME2, or FO3, is an enjoyment onto itself.

All that said, however, I'm amused that Elysium's game of the year was a multiplayer game.

Nevin73 wrote:

All that said, however, I'm amused that Elysium's game of the year was a multiplayer game.

I find it a bit of stretch to call Forza a multiplayer game. It has multiplayer, but for me at least its far more of a single player simulator.

OzymandiasAV wrote:

Also, DERANGED HERMIT! SQUIRREL TOKENS!

That's a pretty crappy rare.

My wife's comment on multiplayer gaming to the live show people and how women are more social gamers: "Other people just get in the way!"

I tend to play more single player games, but will not shy away from multiplayer if I know the crowd will be worth having around. I've endevoured into the realms of Quake 2, Half-Life Deathmatch, Counter Strike: Source, and more recently Left 4 Dead, and while they're fun, I lement the fact that the quality of experience is only there for a limited time, while single player games tend to be the same now and 5 years from now. Since I like to replay games, that's a good thing.

You, sir, have voiced my general sentiments with the industry for the past decade. Long live the single player cinematic experience. Plus, awesome MTG card. Takes me back to the days when I spent many an afternoon building unorthodox decks... I liked winning with combos people hadn't seen before. Ahhh... the memories!

MacBrave wrote:
OzymandiasAV wrote:

Also, DERANGED HERMIT! SQUIRREL TOKENS!

That's a pretty crappy rare.

Awww, don't say things like that. It's been a while since I've been out of the game, so the metagame has undoubtedly changed...but, in its day, that was a fun little combo card. Throw it in an Elf deck with Priest of Titania and a Wirewood Symbiote, and you could spit out a truckload of SQUIRREL TOKENS for an end-game overrun. All sorts of possibilities for casual beatdown fun.

I'm a multiplayer guy and Battlefield, Call of Duty, Gears of War, Team Fortress, and other online games were my bread and butter for years. Recently, however, I have had the most fun playing single player games, with Fallout 3 and Assassin's Creed standing out from the pack and now the wonderful Mass Effect 2. I no longer look forward to the next big multiplayer release as I do the next single player epic. I am beginning to really cherish my alone time in these well crafted virtual worlds.

Jayhawker wrote:

As for the topic at hand, I am playing through BF: Bad Company right now. It is a pretty fun game, that I enjoy because it doesn't take itself to seriously. I've been interested in the sequel that is soon to drop, but I'm rather annoyed with what seems to be a monumental focus on multiplayer.

I played through the demo of the multiplayer some, and I just couldn't really care less about it. It's not that it is bad, it's that it seems to miss the point of the game. I'm curious as to what will become of the sequel, as I am afraid the publisher and developers have decided that the long tail of a strong multiplayer will increase sales far more than a fun story.

I think I just OD'ed on irony. Surely you're aware that Battlefield games have always been primarily multiplayer, and Bad Company's "real" story campaign is the (happy) oddity?

If the MP-focused Battlefield 3 was right around the corner, I could sympathize, but I think BC2 is going to be both things to all people.

Gravey wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

As for the topic at hand, I am playing through BF: Bad Company right now. It is a pretty fun game, that I enjoy because it doesn't take itself to seriously. I've been interested in the sequel that is soon to drop, but I'm rather annoyed with what seems to be a monumental focus on multiplayer.

I played through the demo of the multiplayer some, and I just couldn't really care less about it. It's not that it is bad, it's that it seems to miss the point of the game. I'm curious as to what will become of the sequel, as I am afraid the publisher and developers have decided that the long tail of a strong multiplayer will increase sales far more than a fun story.

I think I just OD'ed on irony. Surely you're aware that Battlefield games have always been primarily multiplayer, and Bad Company's "real" story campaign is the (happy) oddity?

Yeah BC appealed to a lot of people that don't really care for BF. I thought it was nice that it was a separate product. I played some BC online, and I preferred that lighter gameplay, with less tools online. But with the BC2 demo hoopla, it's clear that this one won't be the case.

It's not the end of the world, as I don't play online that much anyway. But for me, BC2 will probably suffer because they are catering to a different audience this time around. I can't blame Dice, as this is probably a profitable move for them. But I was hoping for an improved single player game this time, not a stripped down one. Too bad for me.

Elysium wrote:

And, as a crazy, disconnected old man stewing in a bitter elixir of pessimism that is my own special recipe, I have, for the better part of a generation, feared that the games I prize were being corrupted by this malignant multiplayer revolution.

Love that. It is often I feel the crotchety old man that cant find a place with the red bull infused youth of today that seem to have the response time of a speed laced cat.