Would you care if single-player games like BioShock and Oblivion suddenly became extinct? Former Sony exec and current Infogrames honcho Phil Harrison thinks that's where we're headed. Imagine: Grand Theft Auto IV bereft of its single-player story mode, Halo without its epic solo campaign, Mario without?well, whatever you want to call the single-player business Mario gets up to butt-stomping Goombas and whipping fireballs at Koopa Troopas across spinning, tilting fantasy-scapes.
In an interview with Eurogamer, Harrison said the following:
I don't think the industry is going to make many more of those. I just don't think consumers want to be playing games that don't have some kind of network connectivity to them, or some kind of community embedded in them, or some kind of extension available through downloadable content.
Now, that's not to criticise Alone in the Dark - it's just to recognise the industry is changing, and the role we play as creators and publishers has to reflect those changes. I don't think I'm alone in having those views, either.
And indeed he isn't. Former Ultima Online lead designer and Star Wars Galaxies creative director Raph Koster took some flak (from me and plenty others) for claiming as much a couple years ago. Said Koster:
Single-player gaming is doomed, because already today, the large crowd playing Solitaire is doing it online, whilst chatting in a chat room, because they can; because the RPG player is doing it whilst chatting with friends about the plot in a chat room, because they can; because fundamentally, the vast majority of humans want human contact even if only fleeting. We want to know where we stand compared to everyone else, whether what we like matches what the world likes, and whether or not others care that we are there.
I don't know. I intuitively get what Koster's saying about single-player gamers being introverts and how all that's changed with multiplayer pulling in a totally new crowd. I get what a lot of people keep saying about the "millennial" generation being inherently connected and hive-minded. And I get what Harrison's implying between the lines about single-player games being costly, increasingly risky endeavors.
But I think it's important to bear in mind that these guys aren't track-record visionaries, and particularly in Harrison's case, more like businessmen with microphones. Entrepreneurs with vested financial imperatives. Their job isn't to tell you how it ought to be in some pure philosophical space, it's to tell you how they'd prefer it to be, and it should come as no surprise that both are working like mad on major multiplayer initiatives. If multiplayer gaming were doomed, just to play devil's advocate, they'd each be out of a job, in other words.
So the question, fellow gamers, is what's your pleasure? Do you still want companies like Bethsoft and Rockstar to be making games you at least have the option to play without the participation of others? Or do you see a transition to games you only play with others as the inevitable terminus for this industry?
Re-Play
Fearless or feckless? Have your say below or pelt me with emails here.
Hi, Matt--
I'm going to date myself here by saying that my idea of a good online multiplayer game is bridge. ( I used to play on OKBridge but lately I've transitioned to Bridge Base Online.) But I also like to download and play casual solo games, which seem to abound on sites like Big Fish. I certainly hope those don't go away anytime soon.
Yardena Arar, PC World.
Hmmmm ... I still play single player games, but they're feeling increasingly pointless of late. They take many hours of investment, and at the end, you get ... some sort of probably disappointing ending animation and a bunch of data taking up space on your hard drive. Comparing my score/achievements/badges against other people does a better job of tricking my brain into thinking that I was actually working toward something; playing with friends adds all sorts of dimensions that make my brain feel happy, on account of me being human and therefore a social animal.
Single player games probably aren't going to disappear entirely -- I still enjoy short little experiences like "You Found the Grappling Hook", which feel like a bracing dialog between me and a designer with something to say -- but multiplayer games are just inherently more fun and more fulfilling, and you're probably going to see the big budget stuff increasingly head in multiplayer directions ...
I think the big-time, single player epic games have been getting chipped away for a while now. Storylines replaced with multiplayer-only firefights or straight-up skirmishes. Old-school RPGs, phased out for online monthly fees. There are still places to get your single player fix -- and they aren't going away. Along comes something like BioShock or Portal and suddenly everyone is back to remember how much fun a good single player game really can be. (but if you can throw in a multiplayer portal mode, I won't complain ;p)
Darren Gladstone
Senior Writer, PC World
I believe that games of the future will include both single and multi players suchs as Halo3, etc. I seldom play video games (71 yrs old, however I bought a X-Box 360 last year. My 4 yr old grandson loves playing Bee Movieand Ratatouille. He also enjoys playing Halo3 with his father. Therefore I believe single player games will be around for a long time, parents are not going to let 4 year go on line and play games with strangers, and they are not going to have children over to their homes long enough to finish games such as Bee Movie or Ratatouille.
As a rabid lover of Oblivion & Morrowind, I would hate to see lack of single player games. I loved playing all the Half Life series, but hated the multiplayer firefight thing. You just did the same fighting over and over--quite brainless.
I tried D&D online, but it seemed tiresome to have to go back to get quests at a central hub rather than just having a storyline to follow. Running around with other players at breakneck speed was not too enchaning either. I enjoy the emersion in a game as well as the action.
There is a place for those who love MMP's and those of us who don't mind playing alone. I do like to play card games on line with real people. I would just rather have my fantasy between myself and my computer at my own pace.
Harrison's comment is more that games will all have network features & very few will be -solely- single player. It's UNrealistic to say single-player is dead, there are times when you just aren't 'connected', and it's good for practice. When some multiplayer only games came out, there was a grumbling, and single player was added back in. Showing my age, I'm more interested in a compromise between the texting in Quake 1, and the miniscule type found in later games... and providing for circle-strafing nail guns of Quake 1 and rail guns of later games. Quake 1 had quite a bit of community lost when sequels came out with faster/frenzied play, single shot kills, and tiny text... while screens got larger and resolution higher. There are fewer pools of calm to 'rest' and text, tiny type is hard to read when there's a non-stop firefight. Yes you can spectate or text when you're killed, I suppose, but when the game is reduced to clicking the 'trigger' and flashbangs, socializing suffers.