Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

Look back over the last 50 years of gaming. You might notice a couple of important patterns...

1. Genres are born, get honed over time, and then assimilated into larger more successful games.

For example, think back to the mid 90s when platformers were all the rage. The industry was trying to learn about controlling an avatar in a 3D space, camera work, responsive controls etc...

Then by 2001, GTA3 is released, takes the industry by storm, and platformers begin to fade away. Rockstar takes the lessons learned from platformers, racing games, action games, story based games etc, adds them all together to huge commercial effect. Now Grand Theft Auto V is basically a multiplayer focused title and it's the best selling traditionally priced game of all time.

2. Over the last 50 years, single player has steadily lost its grip on the industry to make way for multiplayer. The invention of online multiplayer drastically changed the commercial nature of the industry. Multiplayer was mostly an afterthought on the NES. Today, PlayStation has shifted to becoming a multiplayer focused company. That trend, over a 50 year period, doesn't seem to be stopping anytime soon.

Now we're seeing pattern 1 and pattern 2 fly in tandem with one another as multiplayer begins to take single player frameworks to unprecedented heights.

Examples:

FPS games like Doom and Half Life were pretty big back in the day. Now they don't seem to make AAA single player FPS games anymore.

The survival genre has been flying under the radar since the 1980s. It went big time with the arrival of DayZ, Rust, and Ark.

Roguelites have done moderately well over the last 10 years. They went big time with the arrival of PUBG, Fortnite, and Warzone.

Dungeon crawlers had a pulse for a while. They went big time once Diablo, Left 4 Dead, Destiny, Lost Ark injected multiplayer into their DNA.

RPGs used to be massive. Now we have World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XVI that dwarfs them all.

TLDR: Is the medium of gaming really a multiplayer medium by it's core nature? Is single players main contribution to gaming simply being a "proof of concept" before multiplayer gets integrated into design?

In other words, does multiplayer simply appeal to human nature much more than single player? Do its strengths align with our species desire to connect with one another?

Btw, thread was inspired by:

A coop multiplayer game that tries to copy scenes from spy movies / Splinter Cell where HQ is feeding the agent minute by minute information in order to navigate suspenseful scenarios.

 

[AJUMP23]

No

 

[Guilty_AI]

nah

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

She's a 10 but only likes proof of concepts

 

[Jennings]

No

 

[Bonfires Down]

In other words, does multiplayer simply appeal to human nature much more than single player? Do its strengths align with our species desire to connect with teabag one another?

 

[Three]

 

[Nautilus]

 

[badblue]

I want what ever you are smoking.

 

[March Climber]

It depends on how you see it. This is where we started:

Technically quite a few of them were single player but people took turns. Do you consider that multiplayer?

 

[Dancer_BV]

I can see the points you are making. On the contrary, however, MMOs would be a lot bigger and more plentiful if multiplayer was what makes games and genres more prevalent . . . in fact, MMOs have become less popular & plentiful than they once were - hence many saying takes of "MMOs being dead," though those are not my words.

 

[MiguelItUp]

Lmao, no.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It depends on how you see it. This is where we started:

Technically quite a few of them were single player but people took turns. Do you consider that multiplayer?

I don't really consider taking turns multiplayer. If it is, it's very loosely linked. That being said, one reason why arcades were so successful back then is because going was often a social experience. ie It's fun hanging out and laughing with friends.

I can see the points you are making. On the contrary, however, MMOs would be a lot bigger and more plentiful if multiplayer was what makes games and genres more prevalent . . . in fact, MMOs have become less popular & plentiful than they once were - hence many saying takes of "MMOs being dead," though those are not my words.

One thing to consider is that advantages in nature don't automatically lead to success. Just as physical strength didn't guarantee primates would pass down their Gene's, the prevalence of multiplayer doesn't automatically equate to continued success.

There are many factors that contribute to what's happening in the MMORPG space. I'm not familiar enough with the genre to theorize.

 

[Fahdis]

If everything was multiplayer... I would have quit gaming a long time ago.

 

[Dancer_BV]

One thing to consider is that advantages in nature don't automatically lead to success. Just as physical strength didn't guarantee primates would pass down their Gene's, the prevalence of multiplayer doesn't automatically equate to continued success.

There are many factors that contribute to what's happening in the MMORPG space. I'm not familiar enough with the genre to theorize.

Yes indeed, there is nothing that is automatic nor guaranteed in this discussion. You are correct.

I am only showing patterns, exactly as you did in the OP.

 

[Captain Toad]

Are we sure this isn't a GigaBowser thread?

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[wOs]

We are social creatures by nature if that is what you mean. That said multiplayer that isn't coop campaign usually bores me
After a few fun nights.

 

[FatallyYours]

 

[Three]

Look back over the last 50 years of gaming. You might notice a couple of important patterns...

1. Genres are born, get honed over time, and then assimilated into larger more successful games.

For example, think back to the mid 90s when platformers were all the rage. The industry was trying to learn about controlling an avatar in a 3D space, camera work, responsive controls etc...

Then by 2001, GTA3 is released, takes the industry by storm, and platformers begin to fade away. Rockstar takes the lessons learned from platformers, racing games, action games, story based games etc, adds them all together to huge commercial effect. Now Grand Theft Auto V is basically a multiplayer focused title and it's the best selling traditionally priced game of all time.

2. Over the last 50 years, single player has steadily lost its grip on the industry to make way for multiplayer. The invention of online multiplayer drastically changed the commercial nature of the industry. Multiplayer was mostly an afterthought on the NES. Today, PlayStation has shifted to becoming a multiplayer focused company. That trend, over a 50 year period, doesn't seem to be stopping anytime soon.

Now we're seeing pattern 1 and pattern 2 fly in tandem with one another as multiplayer begins to take single player frameworks to unprecedented heights.

Examples:

The survival genre has been flying under the radar since the 1980s. It went big time with the arrival of DayZ, Rust, and Ark.

Roguelites have done moderately well over the last 10 years. They went big time with the arrival of PUBG, Fortnite, and Warzone.

Dungeon crawlers had a pulse for a while. They went big time once Diablo, Left 4 Dead, Destiny, Lost Ark injected multiplayer into their DNA.

RPGs used to be massive. Now we have World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XVI that dwarfs them all.

TLDR: Is the medium of gaming really a multiplayer medium by it's core nature? Is single players main contribution to gaming simply being a "proof of concept" before multiplayer gets integrated into design?

In other words, does multiplayer simply appeal to human nature much more than single player? Do its strengths align with our species desire to connect with one another?

Online multiplayer isn't something different in terms of gameplay. That's why they have similarities. GTAV made it big online because it was GTA. remember APB before GTA Online? It wasn't a massive hit.

The only reason multiplayer has more presence and importance now is economical. Publishers found that in a multiplayer environment we are more likely to purchase that emote or skin because what's the point of buying something cosmetic others can't see or something that shortens your playtime in a single player game where you aren’t competing with anyone?

Why spend time and money creating some detailed world people experience for 8 hrs vs selling them constant junk for years on the same map. Things they would buy or earn to show to their friends.

Multiplayer is about human competition and showing off. Single player is mostly about experiences and challenge. They are monitised in different ways and have their own gameplay. You're confusing using a brand to launch multiplayer games into success as the game before being a proof of concept. It's just use of the brand and gameplay would always be shared.

Most people don't want to "connect" with other people, most people just want to compete/beat other people.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Interesting topic but your click-bait title has betrayed you.

 

[Captain Toad]

Not voting with those terrible poll options. They all make it sound like single player games aren't still being made or popular, which obviously is not true.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Most people don't want to "connect" with other people, most people just want to compete/beat other people.

I think this is the big point many people miss.

People want to have fun, period. Fun is derived in a multitude of ways when it comes to gaming.

Single player games, which I'd argue is more mature than multiplayer, can provide players with fun by...

Exploring, collecting, killing, story, designing etc...

Multiplayer up to this point, has mostly been about killing.

Multiplayer is leaving its zygote (killing) phase, and will begin pursuing exploring, collecting, story, designing etc...with much more vigor. As this happens, multiplayer will grow its audience.

 

[Griffon]

Would it be better if I could take any single player game I'm currently on, and have the ability at any time to bring in a friend to play together on a whim?

Yes.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

You premise is wrong. Single player is not "Just proof of concept" for multiplayer.
da fuq my dude?

You should be canceled

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I think this is the big point many people miss.

People want to have fun, period. Fun is derived in a multitude of ways when it comes to gaming.

Single player games, which I'd argue is more mature than multiplayer, can provide players with fun by...

Exploring, collecting, killing, story, designing etc...

Multiplayer up to this point, has mostly been about killing.

Multiplayer is leaving its zygote (killing) phase, and will begin pursuing exploring, collecting, story, designing etc...with much more vigor. As this happens, multiplayer will grow its audience.

In other words, does multiplayer simply appeal to human nature much more than single player?

I think this is the big point many people miss

Nah.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

Is masturbation just a proof of concept for sex?

No, both have differences, despite being on the same hardware with the same peripherals. Sometimes I want to share my hobby with others and sometimes I wanna mash X in the living room at 3 AM until I have post coital regrets and turn the console off in shame.

 

[Robb]

Not sure I agree that singleplayer games have fallen behind at any point.

And I can only speak for myself, but even when playing multiplayer I never interact with people outside of playing the actual match/game itself. For all I know every single player I go up against could be a bot and with enough advances in AI I, and I assume most people, probably wouldn’t know the difference.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Not sure I agree that singleplayer games have fallen behind at any point.

I don't think you see all this multiplayer investment from the biggest publishers if single player was still the dominant form for gaming.

In fact, if it was close, I'd think you'd see companies maintaining their single player focus considering how difficult and risky change is by nature. In fact, what's the biggest publisher that makes majority single player games today? Square Enix?

 

[Three]

I think this is the big point many people miss.

People want to have fun, period. Fun is derived in a multitude of ways when it comes to gaming.

Single player games, which I'd argue is more mature than multiplayer, can provide players with fun by...

Exploring, collecting, killing, story, designing etc...

Multiplayer up to this point, has mostly been about killing.

Multiplayer is leaving its zygote (killing) phase, and will begin pursuing exploring, collecting, story, designing etc...with much more vigor. As this happens, multiplayer will grow its audience.

I think multiplayer/singleplayer hybrids have passed that already. For example something as simple as Hay Day.

I think you will see many IPs move to multiplayer and mtx monetisation though because it's a sure fire way to attract attention and get people who were accustomed to buying games spending money on mtxs. If you want to see how hard it is to have a muliplayer game that shares gameplay mechanics without the IP recognition look at the troubled APB, basically GTA online before GTA online.

 

[Captain Toad]

I don't think you see all this multiplayer investment from the biggest publishers if single player was still the dominant form for gaming.

In fact, if it was close, I'd think you'd see companies maintaining their single player focus considering how difficult and risky change is by nature. In fact, what's the biggest publisher that makes majority single player games today? Square Enix?

How much do you think God of War Ragnarok cost to make? The Last of Us Part 2? Starfield?

Yes, more money is being spent to make multiplayer games than ever before. But, guess what? More money is being spent to make single-player games than ever before too.

 

[Robb]

I don't think you see all this multiplayer investment from the biggest publishers if single player was still the dominant form for gaming.

My take is that publishers just see money and want to find a cash cow - which is why they invest in multiple projects in order to get lucky and find something that sticks.

Once/if they manage that they’ll keep supporting that one franchise for a very long time while the rest of their attempts die.

But I might be wrong of course.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Is masturbation just a proof of concept for sex?

So masturbation is single player and sex is multiplayer?

I think the human species values sex over masturbation by a large degree.

I think multiplayer/singleplayer hybrids have passed that already. For example something as simple as Hay Day.

I think you will see many IPs move to multiplayer and mtx monetisation though because it's a sure fire way to attract attention and get people who were accustomed to buying games spending money on mtxs. If you want to see how hard it is to have a muliplayer game that shares gameplay mechanics without the IP recognition look at the troubled APB, basically GTA online before GTA online.

There were a lot of flops when it came to early 3D single player games as well. I don't think cherry picking is beneficial when trying to look at the industry from a pulled back lense.

Yes, more money is being spent to make multiplayer games than ever before. But, guess what? More money is being spent to make single-player games than ever before too.

This phrasing muddies the waters. While true, it doesn't address my point. That being...the whole industry seems to be shifting from a single player focus to a multiplayer focus because multiplayer appeals to human nature more.

TLoU2 and GoW Ragnarok are much more likely to be the end of their genetic chains as Naughty Dog and Santa Monica figure out how to more effectively spend their resources.

 

[MDSLKTR]

"No but the OP does bring up some interesting points"

How can one be so full of himself

 

[Three]

There were a lot of flops when it came to early 3D single player games as well. I don't think cherry picking is beneficial when trying to look at the industry from a pulled back lense.

Absolutely but my point is that GTA Online saw success because it is GTA otherwise APB would have been a huge success being essentially GTA Online before GTA Online and GTA San Andreas/GTA4 being "The proof of concept".

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Absolutely but my point is that GTA Online saw success because it is GTA otherwise APB would have been a huge success being essentially GTA Online before GTA Online and GTA San Andreas/GTA4 being "The proof of concept".

 

[Topher]

 

[Topher]

"No but the OP does bring up some interesting points"

How can one be so full of himself

Meanwhile....

 

[TheInfamousKira]

So masturbation is single player and sex is multiplayer?

I think the human species values sex over masturbation by a large degree.

Yes, but subjective personal values aren't what's up for debate in the OP's stated question, it's more a matter of if one preceeded the other and lacks any purpose or application once the bigger, better thing is introduced.

To which I argued that, while ostensibly preferable to the other in terms of engagement and interactivity, masturbating still has a clear, distinct role in my pastimes that sex/multi-player won't meet, whether by virtue of time constraints, circadian rhythm, preference at the moment, etc.

 

[Dancer_BV]

To which I argued that, while ostensibly preferable to the other in terms of engagement and interactivity, masturbating still has a clear, distinct role in my pastimes that sex/multi-player won't meet, whether by virtue of time constraints, circadian rhythm, preference at the moment, etc.

The magic of evolving conversations.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Yes, but subjective personal values aren't what's up for debate in the OP's stated question, it's more a matter of if one preceeded the other and lacks any purpose or application once the bigger, better thing is introduced.

To which I argued that, while ostensibly preferable to the other in terms of engagement and interactivity, masturbating still has a clear, distinct role in my pastimes that sex/multi-player won't meet, whether by virtue of time constraints, circadian rhythm, preference at the moment, etc.

I agree, but I think my premise "Human beings prefer multiplayer" leaves room for people who don't prefer multiplayer.

It's like saying "Hey you guys ever notice that human beings are genetically drawn to sugar, fat, and salt" and then being hit with "There are a lot of people that don't like that stuff."

 

[SeraphJan]

Incredibly biased poll, even the last option seems like single player already failed

 

[Jigsaah]

It certainly used to be back in the day. I remember there being a stark difference between the quality of singleplayer and multiplayer in some games. I think Mario Kart 64 and GoldenEye007 was evidence of this. Given that multiplayer wasn't online, it meant there was more processing needed for multiplayer moment to moment, than singleplayer. Therefore, singleplayer always had the quality advantage. If my memory serves me right, with the exception of games where singleplayer and multiplayer were largely similar, such as in fighting games, Halo may have been the first time I believe singleplayer and multiplayer (co-op) were much more aligned in quality. So really it was the OG Xbox and PS2 era where the quality matched.

I'm sure if I tried I could probably find examples that preceeded these. This is just off the top of my head.

 

[p_xavier]

Multiplayer is for the plebe dudebros. Don't want to have anything to do with them.

 

[Shifty]

Where's my poll option for "No, single player never fell"? I ain't clicking any of those discussion-leading choices.

To the point itself:

I agree, but I think my premise "Human beings prefer multiplayer" leaves room for people who don't prefer multiplayer.

<Large contingent of people> favour <thing I favour> - i.e. argument to majority - is a pretty weak basis on which to build a thesis unless you want it to devolve into arguments over quality versus mass appeal.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I'm sorry,

did OP just call Left 4 Dead a Dungeon Crawler?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

<Large contingent of people> favour <thing I favour> - i.e. argument to majority - is a pretty weak basis on which to build a thesis unless you want it to devolve into arguments over quality versus mass appeal.

My opinion is irrelevant. PlayStation, arguably the most successful single player oriented company in modern times, has now shifted to a multiplayer focus.

Are they doing this because multiplayer is a smaller piece of the pie? Are they doing this because multiplayer isn't growing? Do you not see Steamcharts and XBL most played? Honestly, how do you navigate these questions?

You have to throw your preferences to the side and read the market.

 

[Raonak]

Where's the "OP is dump" option?

PlayStation, arguably the most successful single player oriented company in modern times, has now shifted to a multiplayer focus.

Providing more multiplayer games doesn't mean a shift in focus when most of their major franchises are still single player franchises.
PlayStation has already dominated the single player space, and are putting some renewed effort into multiplayer, Esports and VR games.

It's not about shifting focus. It's about complete control of the gaming space.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Where's the "OP is dump" option?

Providing more multiplayer games doesn't mean a shift in focus when most of their major franchises are still single player franchises.
PlayStation has already dominated the single player space, and are putting some renewed effort into multiplayer, Esports and VR games.

It's not about shifting focus. It's about complete control of the gaming space.

Single player has fallen. Here's what you need to be asking:

What does 2027 look like? 2029?

There's a John Carmack Lex Frieman thread on the main page right now.

"Oh John Carmack. He made Doom (single player FPS). Do they even make single player FPS games anymore, or is the FPS genre further proof that single player builds to multiplayer?"

We've had a lot of people disagreeing with the premise in the OP. We haven't had a lot of cogent counterarguments though. Why do you think that is?

 

[Generic]

Yes, games are always more fun in multiplayer:
- Platforming games are better in coop.
- The best shooters are either coop or pvp (or both)
- Open world games work better when you have a lot of players to do crazy stuff.
- There was nothing better than spending some time trying arcade games with buddies.
- RPGs? Ultima Online, Ragnarok, I even remember how good was to play Baldur's Gate 2 with a friend.
- Fighting games are boring when playing against AI.
- The best VR game is multiplayer (VRchat)

Also, the most complex games are multiplayer because human beings push the gameplay mechanics to their limits in a way NPCs can't do.

Experimental gaming like asymetrical gameplay or PvEvP isn't something possible to do in single-player.

And of course, the first game was multiplayer.

So yes, OP is right. Haters (single-player-only gamers) gonna hate!