Focus of modern video games

[Funkmasterr]

I wanted to discuss with you guys the trend that video games are following in the recent years. This was kinda sparked by the thread about Modern Warfare 2, which I'm sure will have a campaign you can beat on normal in 35-40 minutes.

Why is it that single player is getting less and less attention in video games? Also, why does it seem like every single game has multiplayer now whether it fits or not.

I realize that it's hard to ignore a multiplayer aspect of a game when you see the kinds of numbers that Halo, GoW etc put out, but that doesn't mean that everyone needs to jump on the bandwagon and throw together a half assed multiplayer feature. And to take that a step further, even if you decide to make a multiplayer aspect to the game, why do you need to take away from the single player to accomplish this? I realize that publishers give deadlines but fuck them, make the game the right way and it will pay off in the end.

I think that making a acceptable single player game and also having a dynamic multiplayer option is achieveable, but it rarely happens. What I would honestly rather see is this; if you are going to focus on the multiplayer aspect of the game anyhow, just make it a multiplayer game and don't bother with single player (and vice versa). Games that do this will only end up better for it.

I guess I am kind of bias too, since growing up I played mostly RPG's, and back in the day pretty much any RPG would be 100+ hours, so I got accustomed to long games early on. But is it asking so much to play a FPS with a 40-50 hour campaign? I know that a campaign this long would turn some people off, but so what, I'm sure there are plenty of people that it would appeal to. That and they don't have to try and make every game the next big smash hit.

What do you guys think about how things are?

Edit: I meant to say that I think the leading factor is big publishing companies. In the past developers weren't afraid to make games that catered to a small percentage of gamers if it was the type of game they wanted to make. Now with companies like EA buying up everything they can, this is becoming less and less viable, and games of all genres are being pushed into the mainstream, which is sad.

[Aslanna]

I wanted to discuss with you guys the trend that video games are following in the recent years. This was kinda sparked by the thread about Modern Warfare 2, which I'm sure will have a campaign you can beat on normal in 35-40 minutes.

I really don't want to derail the thread with the first response.. But I'm sure you're exaggerating things a bit. I'm sure it will have at least 4-5 hours like the previous one. I'm just hoping it's more than that. Like at least double.

And the reason they do both is to appeal to both crowds. If someone had no interest in online play they wouldn't buy an online only game. With the same for no online play. Whereas if it has both then perhaps both sides would buy it.

[Funkmasterr]

I wanted to discuss with you guys the trend that video games are following in the recent years. This was kinda sparked by the thread about Modern Warfare 2, which I'm sure will have a campaign you can beat on normal in 35-40 minutes.

I really don't want to derail the thread with the first response.. But I'm sure you're exaggerating things a bit. I'm sure it will have at least 4-5 hours like the previous one. I'm just hoping it's more than that. Like at least double.

And the reason they do both is to appeal to both crowds. If someone had no interest in online play they wouldn't buy an online only game. With the same for no online play. Whereas if it has both then perhaps both sides would buy it.

I hope it's longer too, and honestly if it isn't I don't know if I'll get it.. I skipped World At War.

How long do you think the people that don't care for the online aspects of games are going to keep shelling out their money for games with ever decreasing campaigns? How long do you think people that like online games are going to keep playing the same cookie cutter recycled crap?

[Aslanna]

I think World at War had a campaign that was actually longer than Modern Warfare but now I don't really recall for sure. At least on Veteran there were a couple points that were pretty brutal (aka frustrating) at getting through and I actually still think I have 1 or 2 more to go but haven't touched it in months.

I know some people skipped it because it was back to WW2 but honestly that didn't bother me at all. Makes no difference really other than you're holding a different looking weapon. It still propels lead at high velocities!

But anyway... I don't know the answer to those questions! I'm sure they lost some sales based on reviews stating how short the single player campaign was. I'm sure the limit is different for each person. Perhaps those lost sales were offset by the people who picked it up because the online was decent.

[Sylvus]

I think the shift is just because of where we are at, technologically, today. Back in the days of the Intellivision or Atari 2600 or NES or Sega Genesis, it wasn't possible to play a non-local multi-player game. They made single-player games because they had to make single player games. All consoles still supported more than one controller and most games had a 2-player mode.

Today, virtually everyone has an internet connection. I don't think you'll ever see a shift back, games are going to get more and more internet-enabled. I have no actual numbers to back me up, but creating a good multi-player framework with immense replay-ability (is that a word?) is probably cheaper to develop and offers a higher profit margin. Particularly when you can get users to create content, users to advertise via word-of-mouth, etc. Most people probably prefer to play with friends, or even with strangers, when given the option. Check the best-selling games of 2008, looks like a lot of people prefer less-robust (content-wise) games that they can play with others.

I think it's also a fallacy to say that good single-player campaigns do not exist. In the last year or two, how many great games have come out that are primarily solo-oriented? BioShock, Fallout 3, GTA IV, etc. How many great games really came out per year or two back in the day?

My belief is that you're suffering from the condition of remembering the games of yesterday being better than those of today. The same way your parents think that music today is crap or NFL football was better when Johnny Unitas was at the helm of the Baltimore Colts or whatever nostalgic feelings one may have, it happens to everyone. You were easier to entertain back then, so things were more entertaining. Not to mention that with built-in tutorials, unlimited saves, achievements pushing you in the right direction, and spoilers a mouse-click away, content becomes trivialized so much more easily. I can remember spending hours (if not days) trying to figure out puzzles in Zelda when I was a kid, or limited numbers of lives making me have to restart Ninja Gaiden, or any number of things that were caused by hardware limitations that simply do not exist anymore.

[Funkmasterr]

I think it's also a fallacy to say that good single-player campaigns do not exist. In the last year or two, how many great games have come out that are primarily solo-oriented? BioShock, Fallout 3, GTA IV, etc. How many great games really came out per year or two back in the day?

I guess I wouldn't say good single player campaigns don't exist, they are just scarce. And length is the main issue I am having here to be honest, I want to play a long ass campaign. Hell, most of the time RPG's aren't even super long anymore, and they should be. Look at that list though, Bioshock was a great single player game, and now the sequel is going to tack on some multiplayer. Fallout - I believe the next one is going to have some form of multi/co op, and GTA had multiplayer (that didn't do too well, I think). They are adding it to every game and it's just not necessary, and half the time it's just tacked on and half ass.

My belief is that you're suffering from the condition of remembering the games of yesterday being better than those of today. The same way your parents think that music today is crap or NFL football was better when Johnny Unitas was at the helm of the Baltimore Colts or whatever nostalgic feelings one may have, it happens to everyone. You were easier to entertain back then, so things were more entertaining. Not to mention that with built-in tutorials, unlimited saves, achievements pushing you in the right direction, and spoilers a mouse-click away, content becomes trivialized so much more easily. I can remember spending hours (if not days) trying to figure out puzzles in Zelda when I was a kid, or limited numbers of lives making me have to restart Ninja Gaiden, or any number of things that were caused by hardware limitations that simply do not exist anymore.

I think you may be right to a small degree, but I honestly don't think that's the majority. When I was younger it wasn't necessarily that a larger quantity of good games came out (although I might argue this to be the case), but that most games were considerably longer than they are now.

I definitely think you are right about access to info/strategies has a effect on this, and that's a factor I hadn't considered when I thought about it at first. I too remember spending huge amounts of time on numerous RPG games trying to figure out a puzzle, or trying to beat Mega Man games with limited lives.

While some of these things may have been merely because of lack of technology, I don't think that necessarily makes them something you need to stray away from.

I also wish that the market allowed developers to make games that are aimed at the more hardcore audience entirely without having to worry excessively about sales numbers. Cross Edge for the PS3 looks to be the first game to do exactly that for a long time, probably because it's developed by a bunch of Japanese developers who are used to making games for people who can deal with a game being difficult and taking more than 5-10 hours to beat (Japanese people).

[Sylvus]

It's also probably a case of us being cursed by the leaps and bounds we've made in technology. Back in the day, you didn't have to spend an inordinate amount of resources on textures and physics and such. 2-D games didn't have anything of the sort. If you're making a game using sprites and you don't have to care about making water ripples or someone's shadow totally realistic (which I've seen gripes about on this very board), you can have a lot fewer artists and programmers on staff, keep your costs lower, spend more time on the content, and turn more of a profit with a niche game. I'd be interested to see the difference in cost to develop and market your blockbuster 2008 game vs. your Legend of Zelda or Dragon Warrior or whatever.

I bet just paying the royalties on the soundtrack to a Rock Band or GTA would cover the cost of a lot of NES games.

[Funkmasterr]

It's also probably a case of us being cursed by the leaps and bounds we've made in technology. Back in the day, you didn't have to spend an inordinate amount of resources on textures and physics and such. 2-D games didn't have anything of the sort. If you're making a game using sprites and you don't have to care about making water ripples or someone's shadow totally realistic (which I've seen gripes about on this very board), you can have a lot fewer artists and programmers on staff, keep your costs lower, spend more time on the content, and turn more of a profit with a niche game. I'd be interested to see the difference in cost to develop and market your blockbuster 2008 game vs. your Legend of Zelda or Dragon Warrior or whatever.

I bet just paying the royalties on the soundtrack to a Rock Band or GTA would cover the cost of a lot of NES games.

Yeah you're probably right there, that's why I have been making a point to not pay as much attention to the graphics as I have in the past.. The visuals are only a part of the experience and I think too much focus is put on it a lot of the time.

[Chidoro]

I also think that you are forgetting that a lot of games were arcade ports. And those games are incredibly short by even today's standards. Half of the Genesis library of games could be beat in under 90 minutes. Not every game was an epic FF title. So unless the game was designed to play until you lose all of your lives, you could be done in no time. Everyone waxes poetic about Gunstar Heroes (and it was a cool game), but start to finish can be done in under an hour.

Your point about graphics is carried by a whole lot of console buyers out there as Wii and DS sales are indicating.

[cadalano]

quality single player "campaign" content is extremely expensive to produce these days compared to the past, due to exponentially elevating standards and expectations (as sylvus already said). whereas multiplayer is typically much less about the content and more about the gameplay. However, i don't believe there is necessarily a correlation between the two. The demands of the market are just constantly raising.. multiplayer sells, especially in the console world.

[Funkmasterr]

I guess I will just hold out for my dream FPS with a 50 hour campaign and CoD smashing multiplayer. Weirder things have happened, right?