Should Multiplayer and Single-player be Separate Games?

By Dave Snell
for GameZone.com

As the expectations of gamers slowly shift over time, new gameplay directions emerge. One recent trend is for games to release with less single-player content and more multiplayer, often with the inclusion of co-op modes. Co-op is nothing new; console games used to ship with co-op modes regularly back in the days before internet connections, but a resurgence in the option to work with friends instead of against them is a welcome addition to many top titles. A case in point is the new Splinter Cell – the single-player campaign (which the series is renowned for) has been relegated to a five-hour experience, with the bulk of the gameplay being invested in multiplayer and co-op. The more multiplayer content that gets added to modern games, the more it seems to diminish the single-player content (in both quality and quantity); maybe it is time we ask: should the two be sold as separate products, and if so, how?

The argument for this goes as such: often (but not always), by incorporating both types of gameplay, each suffers, and the gamer ends up with a title that is not particularly outstanding in either. For example, Modern Warfare 2 offers a great multiplayer suite and a nice co-op collection too, but few will argue that the single-player is particularly strong. As a counterpoint, Bioshock 2 has multiplayer that feels included to make up for the brevity and lower quality of the single-player experience compared to its prequel. So why shouldn’t developers sell the two as separate products, offering the potential buyer a stronger multiplayer suite (more weapons, more game types, more maps, etc.), and keep the single-player for an independent title that deserves more focus?

Generally, expectations of both single and multiplayer games are quite different. Single player often requires a good story, some level variation, and imaginative enemies. On the other hand, multiplayer games generally need well-balanced maps, tactical weapons, and varied play styles. To really narrow this down, single-player titles often require a level of direction and storytelling flow, and multiplayer generally needs to provide good tools for the players to utilize. Although this is a generalization, it proves true when applied to top-rated games, although there are exceptions that break the rules. World of Warcraft, for example, combines multiplayer with a rich and engaging storyline, although these titles do tend to be somewhat few and far between.

It’s becoming increasingly common for games to be judged as a complete package, but we seem unable to come up with a clear choice for grading; if a game has an amazing multiplayer but poor single-player, how do you judge that? Do we give it, say, a score of 7, because the whole package isn’t perfect? And (as an extension of this) do we give a game with no multiplayer at all a lower grade for offering less? Is Battlefield: Bad Company 2 better than, say, Final Fantasy 12, based on what you get in the box? There are plausible arguments for either side, and a lot comes down to personal taste, but the basic point still stands.

Packaging games as individual entities lessens that somewhat; those who prefer playing solo get a full game for their money, and the players who don’t want a story get more levels and game types. It also forces the developer to make their game full and entertaining: a poor single-player (or multiplayer) experience will simply not sell. It also prevents another increasingly common folly for many developers: the relegation of a complete single-player experience to little more than a multiplayer tutorial session.

The arguments in favor of the current system include a shelf-life debate: most single-player games weigh in at around 8 to 10 hours nowadays, and a multiplayer makes up for this. Removing the extra components make the game a far less justifiable purchase, as many gamers like to drop in for the odd hour of multiplayer, and would find it hard to justify buying a full price MP-only title. Also, despite the huge number of multiplayer games available, the time required to become truly good at them causes only a few titles to be played with regularity. Examples are Modern Warfare 2, World of Warcraft, and even Counter-Strike – games that take considerable time investment to get the most out of them, and carry the greatest weight in terms of bragging rights (a serious consideration for the discerning gamer).

So where do we stand? With rising development costs, and noticeable failures with online-only games (MAG being a recent example), AAA titles will continue to offer both single and multiplayer segments in order to draw in the sales for the foreseeable future. The real losers could be the single-player crowd, as co-op and multiplayer get shoe horned into most major releases, thanks to the increasing demand. Sometimes it works (FIFA 10), sometimes it doesn’t (Alien v Predator), but trust publishers to push for the best return on their investment for now. Let’s just hope that good, lengthy single-player campaigns don’t get lost in the mix…..