April 16, 2010
Should Multiplayer and
Single-player be Separate Games?
by Dave Snell
Today’s gamer demands a more
varied experience: should games be repackaged to fit?
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?
Modern Warfare 2 – considerably better when
played with your mates
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.
AvP’s single-player campaign is essentially a training
mode for multiplayer
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…..
