By Brian Diefenbach
Western Herald
Some games are best enjoyed alone. Others give you the thrill of teamwork and the public humiliation of defeat in front of strangers.
Single player and multiplayer game modes have co-existed for decades. There’s no reason why a game can’t have an excellent single player experience AND include competitive multiplayer.
Plenty of titles have balanced the two. Others wisely stick to their strengths and include only one mode of play.
The problem is when developers force the issue.
Sequels are a breeding ground for unnecessary innovation. The stellar and immersive “Metroid Prime” for the Nintendo Gamecube had four-person multiplayer tacked on to its sequel, “Metroid Prime 2: Echoes.”
Fortunately, the single player was enough to make up for the lackluster deathmatch mode.
That was a few years ago, but devs still haven’t learned their lesson, it seems. “Bioshock” is an excellent game, one of my all-time favorites. The highly imaginative sequel (need one of those newfangled SarcMarks here) has an online deathmatch mode! Oh, that’ll fit right in with the immersive, story-driven single player game.
We also have the almost-award-winning (but nonetheless excellent) “Assassin’s Creed 2” expecting a sequel in spring 2011 (better make that late 2011 or 2012 to be safe). And wouldn’t you know, there’ll be multiplayer! Oh, joy, the prayers of thousands of gamers have been answered (seriously, SarcMarks needed)!
I swear, just because a few people think “Hey, that game could have multiplayer!” doesn’t mean you have to do it!
Wait, maybe you do. Maybe the bigwigs in the company are eager to expand the game’s appeal to a broader demographic. You know, include all those dimwits who’ll buy anything with “Halo” or “Madden” on it and spend hours online cursing at other players.
Granted, I’m a bit picky about my multiplayer – I’m not satisfied with any old deathmatch fragfest. Usually, I want there to be a method to the madness, a goal beyond killing random people over and over. It’s the easiest multiplayer game mode to splice into any game, so it’s the most commonly used.
Thing is, the best multiplayer games are either multiplayer only or have a unique game mode or twist (or both). I’m not satisfied with the highest rank or kill count. I want to accomplish something with a team. I want to pull an ambush at the last second to crush the other team. I’ve found this in games like “Team Fortress 2” and the “Left 4 Dead” series, not “Call of Duty” or “Halo.”
Again, there’s nothing wrong with those games or their gameplay. It’s the fact that the single player story, no matter how much polish or money went into it, is always subservient to the multiplayer. It’s selling out, prostitution. Not enough people will buy and enjoy the game for the single player experience, so the mass appeal of multiplayer is the only way.
It’s an endless cycle, really. As long as people keep buying the same old deathmatch game over and over, developers will stay under pressure to keep churning those types of games out. Creativity and innovation don’t count for squat unless you can get consumers to buy Xbox Live subscriptions and map packs.
Well-made, story-driven games can and do sell – just not as much as the big multiplayer titles. Every developer and publisher wants to have the next “Halo” or “Call of Duty.” They want the primetime major network material, not the Bob Ross reruns on PBS (don’t get me wrong, I freakin’ love me some Bob Ross).
To further complicate things, there’s the Catch-22 of success. If a single player game does well, there will always be higher expectations for the sequel. By “higher expectations,” I mean developers and publishers want more copies sold. Hence the selling out to mass appeal, hence the tacked on multiplayer.
I don’t want to say that this is a new phenomenon, but it’s certainly gotten worse in the Console Era. Sure, PC gaming has plenty of life left in it, but the future of the industry lies with the plug-and-play consoles. They’re ubiquitous; heck, even housewives have a Wii for their fitness regimen.
Speaking of Wii’s, this whole single player vs. multiplayer issue doesn’t really apply to them. Any gamer or anyone who has played online with the Wii can tell you that the system is ridiculous.
Really, you want me to punch in a “friend code” when I want to play online? Why don’t I just give you my credit card number and pin so you can suck the rest of the joy and money out of my life. Maybe Wii owners should stick to good-old-fashioned local multiplayer.
Like the old days, where we had to huddle around a standard-definition TV and try not to look at the other players’ screens. Oh, and they wouldn’t let you play as Oddjob or use the Blue Shells. Ah, those were the days.
Oh yeah, and walking uphill both ways. Bottom line is, single player and multiplayer can coexist, but we shouldn’t force them to.
Just because we can do a thing, doesn’t mean that we must. Video games aren’t about compromise; they’re about choosing the experience that YOU want.
So you shove that reheated leftover multiplayer crap right back in their faces and demand more of the good stuff. Then take that good stuff, lock yourself in a room, and enjoy the heck out of it while you can.
You know, before they ruin it in the sequel.
Brian Diefenbach, a copy editor and columnist for the Western Herald, is a senior majoring in graphics and printing science. For more Game Brain, visit WesternHerald.com.
About briand