Was I the only one who noticed how games seem to be really focusing on multiplayer? Even games that have traditionally been single player?
I'm curious to hear how our communities feel about this. Stardock is taking a big bet on Star Control: Origins. It is a single player game (other than Fleet Battles of course). The game is about you. I personally have no interest in multiplayer RPG games these days.
So what's the deal? What do you guys think?
Its more of a completely different way of making an online game than it is a "game concept". You are missing a lot of elements of this because those elements have never appeared in a computer game before. I'm pretty sure people would want to play actual multiplayer games much more than single player games where other people are playing them at the same time. It's simply a matter of nobody in the computer game industry understanding game and simulation design well enough to even consider such a thing. They have a 30+ year long history of not allowing any actual professional game designers into their industry. The design of multiplayer games is one of the places where their amateur status really shows itself strongly. They don't even attempt to make actual multiplayer games, because they don't even see how such a thing is possible. So they simply make a "single player grind alongside other players", because they don't understand simulation design well-enough to make actual multiplayer games. The "single player grind" makes things so simple that monkeys could do it, which is what they need. They really don't know anything about game and simulation design, and won't allow anyone who does into their industry.
That is the only reason that you don't have actual multiplayer games, they would never allow someone who was capable of making one into their clown show.
See, I don't think I am; I read your description...perhaps you haven't done such a great job, if my responses are "missing a lot".
See, you keep saying "actual multiplayer games", and all it sounds like is the MMOs we have now, but with factions and cooperation.
The problem is that, if every "monster" in the game, every enemy, was another player...what if nobody's logged on? Who do you fight?
What if people are logged on, but don't want to organize enough to do a mission into enemy territory?
What does conquest look like? What if one side has taken over completely? Won't the game get boring?
I just think you're expecting too much of gamers, that people will cooperate enough to have a real faction, that they'll want to, and that enough of them won't be complete jerk-wads about it, killing off their own team with friendly fire because they think it's funny...or something. In my experience, gamers just plain aren't that mature.
You have a good idea...but I don't think it would survive in the real world.
Tell me, have you actually worked in the game industry...? Cuz I have--as a software/hardware tester, cut-scene scripter, and level designer, including for big names like Disney--and I gotta tell ya...what you're describing doesn't resemble my experiences at all.
Granted, I was mostly just an artist, but it's not like I didn't hang with the coders, go to weekly team meetings, etc...are you sure this isn't just sour grapes on your part, rather than an accurate picture of the game industry?
I like to watch (some) multiplayer games, I like to play single player (and sometimes cooperative) games. I don't like pure or primarily PvP games.
Like I said, all of your questions are examples of the elements of making an actual multiplayer game that you are missing because they are beyond the knowledge of the computer game industry. I don't want to take over this thread with this discussion. I was really just wanting to give my response to Brad's question.
As for me making games, yes, I have been designing games since before the computer game industry even existed. Actual multiplayer games are actually a very simple thing for any real game designer. Before computer games, all games were multiplayer games. Multiplayer games are easy, The Matrix is hard... but I can do both;-)
This is the result of the computer game industry's long history of not allowing professional game designers into their industry. Game and simulation design has become "lost knowledge" too an industry that intentionally ignored the hundreds of years of game and simulation design knowledge that already existed, arrogantly insisting that they were "doing a new thing" and they didn't need any "rock star game designers". Now, in 2018, the actual professionals are so far ahead of them that what we do in 2018 truly is indstinguishable from magic too them.
So I like single player and multi player games about equally, even though the computer game industry doesn't actually make multi player games. They make "massively single player" games. They have a place, they can be good games. I like many of them. It's just that multi player games could be so much more, they could actually be multi player games.
Then, please, with your apparently god-like powers, do explain to a lowly worm such as myself how your "actual multiplayer game" would look from the perspective of one of its players.
[Citation needed]
"Actual professionals"...? "Actually multiplayer"...?
Tell me...do you put sugar in your porridge? *raised eyebrow* Are you a True Scotsman?
So far, your only description of an "actually multiplayer game" basically boils down to Monopoly or Tic-Tac-Toe.
Can you describe what one of these "actual" games would be like if it were, say, an FPS RPG? What would a player do in this "actually multiplayer" game that they wouldn't be doing in an "massively single-player" game? What wouldn't they be doing?
I've asked you to describe the actual gameplay more than once, but you've been awfully unwilling to give a description of what it'd be like playing your grand vision for the gaming industry that could only be truly realized if someone were to recognize your genius of vision and endow you with a team, a budget, and just a few short years to see it through.
You are newer here, I've been talking about these issues for over two years now on several game related forums. If I get into this discussion with you in this thread it will take over this thread with a lot of things most people here have already heard me say before. It's nothing against you, it's that I don't want to repeat all these same things here yet again.
If you really are interested, this is a link to my GameDev.Net blog. Specifically too the blog entry for an actual multyplayer game. There is a 200 page design document for it you can download and see exactly how it addresses many of the issues you brought up. It's even a top down space combat game, like Star Control, so it is a genre that you like considering that you like Star Control (which was based on a game that I helped to design).
https://www.gamedev.net/blogs/entry/2262620-pirate-dawn/
I'm not ignoring you, it's just that I've already talked about this subject on this forum more than I would like too and there are more than a few people here who would prefer that I stop talking about these types of things and just stick to Star Control.
Actually, I'm not that interested.
I'm on page 13, now, of the Q&A Regarding Paul and Fred thread and, frankly, I'm kind of regretting talking to you at all.
Computer game industry people pretty much always regret discussing games with those of us who have been making them since before their industry existed. That is actually the usual thing...
No.
Actually, I'd probably quite enjoy that discussion...if the member of "those of us" was rather more rational and significantly less bitter than my current sample, here.
No... you'd call any of us "irrational" because we are literally 3 entire generations ahead of you in our knowledge of game and simulation design. That's why it is "indistinguishable from magic" and "irrational" too you.
First of all, I don't think he get to decide what I would or wouldn't call someone; you don't live in my brain and we've known each other, what, ten hours? Max?
Also, how do you know you have three generations more knowledge than I? How old do you think I am?
And I never said that the concept is irrational...I said you are irrational. I wasn't addressing your points...I was addressing your behavior.
Are you me? Because it sounds like you're me.
Edit: And seriously, stop feeding Kavic. He wont shut up. You'll regret it. And the rest of us will have to wade through yet more of his endless diatribes.
I AM THE LIZARD QUEEEEN!!!
If it weren't for that last sentence, I'd keep tweaking him just to see how he's triggered next.
But okay...for the rest of you. Cuz I'm all nice an' stuff.
@frogboy my thoughts on why they were focusing on multiplayer more than single player is as follows...
A lot of developers have started along the path of shoehorning in short Multiplayer matches and/or co-op game play so they can fit the perceived shortened attention span or lack of time of modern gamers. This being said, people are focusing on the social aspect or the ability to pick it up and put it down like a mobile game on a cell phone more and more these days... that and I believe they are shying away from single player RPGs "I didn't see all the E3 coverage" as these days some people would say, yay another exploration game with a vast story, okay next... ooh there's 6 more, eh I'll just put them on my steam wish list and pick them up on sale.
Yes, there are many examples in BBS door games of games that you would fight to win the game in some way, either by defeating the other players, or by hunting out certain Macguffins, then the game would reset.
One particular example that I still dabble in now and then as a single player game is Land of Devastation. In that one, the players have to hunt down the 6 Puritron parts to purify the radiation in the wasteland. Those parts would go on a scoreboard with the name of the part and who found it. It's basically single player, except that once your player is a certain level, it costs you a significant amount of money to stay overnight in the safe zone, so people have to construct and fortify bases out in the wasteland, and others can destroy the base and kill the players inside while they sleep. Once all puritron parts are found, after a few days the game resets and everyone starts from level 1 again.
TradeWars 2002 was similar, the game went for a certain amount of time and eventually would be reset. It was a common thing in those sorts of games.
I think the reason games are going more to multiplayer is the lack of a know how to program a better ai. Most people i know that play multiplayer is for the challenge.
Honestly, I play a singleplayer game for the same reasons I can enjoy a good book; A deeply involved storyline, well-built world combined with interesting and matching characters inside this world.
This can happen across multiple genres, I've enjoyed the storyline missions of Red Alert with their wacky videos as well as the excellent writing of the Witcher. Star control gives a sense of adventure, combined with the many quirky aliens you can meet and get to know about (which was honestly one of my favourite parts about Star Control 2 - I'd try to follow each and every dialogue line there was.)
For all of the reasons above, I can't really play multiplayer games the same way. People tend to dick about, don't care much about lore, background information is irrelevant. Instead min/maxing both skills and equipment mostly becomes a priority, apparently battling for e-peen and renown. This is fine, and I do sometimes join in, but it shows that the reasons for playing are (most of the time) different.
Because the reasons for playing are different, singleplayer games tend to be in a different market segment in my opinion. They can exist alongside multiplayer, and for that reason don't compete all that much with one another.
I've seen arguments that multiplayer games tend to .. stay fresh longer - in that regard I'd agree with many others, but the deep dive into a good written single player experience is unlike any other and something a multiplayer game can't hope to provide. I also want to point out the ability of mods to make this freshness last longer. Bethesda's games especially have especially been embraced by the modding community and are alive on PC to this day thanks to their modability.
The only MMO I've enjoyed was City of Heroes (was in there from launch to shutdown, 9 years I think? It's been a while). That was because it was all PVE, you could play solo *or* with friends. The only PVP was in a special zone that IMO was created just because the PVPers cried the loudest; it was almost always empty after the initial release. How do I know? I'd go in there to pick up location badges. The PVP zone brought in the worst players, the absolute griefers.
Now, the PVE parts, that was fun working together. You still could do some min-maxing of powers, but you didn't *have* to join up with anyone. You could find a pickup group if you wanted, or get together with friends.
Anyway, I really enjoy the single player games, delving into each and every storyline, dialog tree, exploring everywhere and everything, and doing it on my own schedule (so to speak) without feeling like I'd better hurry before some rando shoots me and/or the NPC I'm talking to and/or grabs the resource spawn, etc. (The in-game schedule of "get this thing done!" is a different thing!)
Some of my friends have mild disabilities and also prefer to play single-player where they don't have to feel rushed.
In a single-player game, I can get really immersed in the story, feel the drama, and get caught up in the storyline. In an MMO there's always some dork in voice chat who insists on talking over the cutscene or making weird noises/obscenities/dinner with clanking plates because they can. (Yes, that has happened! You'd think the middle of an MMO would be a bad time to put dinner together...)
So for me, single-player is my style of choice.
Both Trade Wars and Barren Realms Elite are partial inspiration for Pirate Dawn, in a very "loose" kind of way. If Bionic was being honest in his demands for answers he would have read about that. But his interest in "discussion" was only to attempt to feed his own ego, he essentially admitted that he doesn't have an interest in an honest discussion and just wants to play that silly game with me.
If it weren't for the fact that I am not free to defend myself on this forum we could play that game, but I am not allowed to defend myself on this forum. He would be allowed to attack me and I would not be allowed to defend myself, so I can't continue the discussion with him because the moderators here will silence me while allowing him to attack.
I probably won't be posting here anymore, because there is a moderator here who will allow people to attack me but not allow me to defend myself. I can't post here because of that. Which is fortunate for Bionic. If he wants to play this game with me we can take this discussion to Reddit where there are no moderators to save him from making that fatal mistake.
I would very much like to be able to play Galciv3 multiplayer. However, it has never been stable enough to get through a single game.
Yet I keep trying. Perhaps I am insane. Perhaps I enjoy taking over the galaxy with friends against a moderately clever AI.
That is all.
Both Trade Wars and Barren Realms Elite are partial inspiration for Pirate Dawn, in a very "loose" kind of way.
Nice that someone else still remembers BRE, I actually liked Falcon's Eye and Solar Realms Elite quite a bit as well.
Not sure why the rest of that was in reply to me though.
Frogboy,
First, as a "casual" gamer (since Pong), I didn't know about Star Control until E3, so good marketing move. (Outside of GalCiv III, I don't really follow the forums and news.)
To your question: on PC, I play only single-player games, mostly 4X strategy (GalCiv III and Civ 5). I still love those games, and I never play them multiplayer. (Same with Sins, and I just took advantage of the sale to try Offworld.)
On console, though, it's mixed. I HATE PVP!!! Mostly because of trolls and the new word I learned from E3: griefing. Fortnite is a perfect example. I tried it single player. It was fun for a few hours. No real story, so not really interested long term. I asked friends to play PVE. Nope. They wanted to play Battle Royal. I haven't played Fortnite since because of no real story, and Destiny and Ark Survival Evolved (public servers) completely turned me off to PVP gaming.
What do I play on console (XBOX)? Bethesda single-player RPGs mostly (Fallout series and Elder Scrolls, minus Elder Scrolls online,). I also loved Zelda: Breath of the Wild on the Switch. Why? Story. World building. Exploration. Getting invested in a character and an experience. And, recently, base building, which is as much fun as ship design in GalCiv III!
With the announcement of Fallout 76, I'm not so sure. I still burn from PVP in Destiny (I &, briefly, II) and Ark (which I love playing single-player or with a few friends, but WILL NOT play on a public PVP server ever again). Not until Bethesda leadership announced the controls they plan to "soften" PVP was I willing to consider pre-ordering Fallout 76, even given as much as I love the Fallout series.
Back to PC. I find I am playing fewer games on PC and more games on console. I still come back to PC for 4X. I have no interest in PC PVP. I might consider PC PVE, but many of my friends no longer own gaming PCs. (Another reason why the single player experience holds an interest.)
Please continue posting updates on Star Control: Origins. Game looks interesting.
Kavik, stop making off topic responses. People get upset with you because you hijack threads. You have very insightful thoughts on a lot of issues but there is a time and place for them.
HER demands, thankyouverymuchindeed.
#SavePlayer1
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
