Note: This is a re-working of an older article on my original blog.
I’m going open with my personal gripe with multiplayer and/or co-op in gaming as it stands. I take care of all of my real-life obligations (college, work, etc.) and I want to wind down and escape reality with a night of gaming. Okay, cool, I pop in the game of choice — for the sake of argument, let’s go with Gears of War 3 — and turn on the X-Box 360. I check my friends’ list and cool the gang is on. I send out invites and get the party going in Horde Mode. Of course, it’s late and we don’t finish in the first night. We all agree to continue again another time. Days, weeks, and months pass and we still haven’t gathered the time to come back together and enjoy this as team again — conflicting work schedules and real life obligations come in the way. Of course, I don’t have no problem with that. My issue is this — why does gaming now insists that our maximum level of enjoyment comes from interaction and playing with other players?
My close friends reading this blog entry are prolly uttering what the fuck, as it’s common knowledge that I’m a member of the fighting game community where it’s a necessity to have interaction with another player to enjoy those games. All jokes aside, the fighting game genre is the biggest to blame where multiplayer is required to have the most fun out of these titles. The single player modes are a commonly afterthought whereas the market thrives off competition against other players. In the fighting game genre, I don’t mind it but with the way that genre is heading, online versus other opponents in these fighters is becoming more and more the norm. I can tell you firsthand that NOTHING online is going to come close to the satisfaction of having that said opponent next to you and you wiping the floor with their candy ass. Playing online 24/7 can be a bad practice in the long haul, as certain tactics and strategies won’t work on an opponent sitting next to you instead of behind a wall of lag. In the FGC (fighting game community), online matchmaking for allies and opponents isn't a necessity, just an asset if you don’t have any other means of finding opponents in your local area or the cash to travel out to every tournament thorough the year. Let’s be real here, not everyone is balling (swimming in cash) like that.
Much could be said about refining the single player experience for fighters, starting from better tutorials for both newcomers and pros alike and more modes to practice these said skills before taking those tactics against another living and breathing opponent. The recent revival of Mortal Kombat received high marks for providing a single player experience that has longevity and substance and NetherRealms have continued that tradition in Injustice: Gods Among Us. The early outings of the Soul Calibur series used to take steps in expanding the solo experience, with its extensive Edge Master mode, carrying players across the globe to obtain EVERY playable fighters’ arsenal of alternate weapons, each having their own special effects and bonuses. Bare-bones fighters such as Marvel vs. Capcom 3 and Soul Calibur V have spat on this tradition with the focus entirely on the competitive aspect, while single player modes are near-nonexistent. Skullgirls has taken steps in the right direction with an in-depth tutorial to educate the basics and advanced tricks of the trade, but there’s no escaping that multiplayer/versus play is the norm in this genre.
Let’s look at another genre, shall we? 3rd and 1st person shooters, oh how it disgusts me at times to see what this genre has done to gaming in general over the recent years. Many fans of this genre could care less about the campaigns and/or single player aspects of these games only to jump online upon release day and slaughter randoms in online multiplayer. The developers could package in Duck Hunt as the single player mode and these sheep would buy the annual dosage of rehashed multiplayer chaos religiously. I personally miss the days when single player campaigns in this genre were treated with as much care as the multiplayer aspect. Don’t get me wrong, I know there’s a few exceptions to this case, but let’s face it - it’s becoming more and more the norm that developers in this genre’s main selling points are keeping you hooked to multiplayer.
For example, take Halo: Combat Evolved (original Xbox). The campaign took hours to complete and weaved a compelling story that’s become the foundation for sequels and spin-offs yet to come. After months of waiting then came Halo 2, and disappointed many fans who were looking for another satisfying campaign. Nope, no dice. Halo 2’s campaign is best described as a piss break and utter disappointment, while yet this is the first of many shooters that sacrifices the length of the single player experience only to force you to get your maximum enjoyment out of the title by the multiplayer experience. I’m not knocking that mode as it was highly more enjoyable than the original, but if they were going to put this much effort into the MP modes why not just offer that as a separate title, instead of allowing the other single player experience to suffer as a result? I’m going to expand on this idea more later… (see below)
Another example was TimeSplitters 2 and the original Killzone’s single player campaigns. TimeSplitters 2 used comedy and their Quantum Leap-like narrative to introduce different weapons and subtly educate you on how to use them in it’s Arcade Challenge Modes as well. After completing these modes, you were well-versed and educated to go into the Multiplayer experience if that was your cup of tea, or continue to challenge yourself by besting your own scores and performance. I personally loved the original Killzone for the ability of 4 different playable characters on your team, but each with different means of completing the levels. This offered a level of depth that’s not seen in many shooters, save for those with various player and weapon classes — hello Battlefield 3, Team Fortress 2, and Left 4 Dead… Again, with the original Killzone, multiplayer wasn’t the necessity for your maximum level of fun with the title, more was spent with the option of replaying the game with the other characters while you approach each stage differently (while focusing on each of their individual strengths and weaknesses) on various difficulty settings.
Lastly, let’s take something a bit more modern. Call of Duty: Black Ops’ narrative is heavily influenced by The Manchurian Candidate whereas you’re thrown into one explosive battle followed by the next. But it does little to offer you anything other than grab that weapon, shoot these guys, get to the next checkpoint. Do you learn anything about those oh so special Killperks and special custom weapons you’re going to use in multiplayer? Nope, not at all. Black Ops’ narrative is a fun adrenaline rush, but it doesn’t have a lasting appeal to keep you coming back for more. The only way you’re going to feel satisfied with that $59.99 price tag you paid for at launch is to jump online with multiplayer. Here, it’s essential that you’re not getting your money’s worth if you don’t dive into this mode and interaction.
Let’s visit another genre, sports games. Another year, another shiny new Madden, FIFA, or WWE Smackdown vs. Raw title graces the store shelves. At the end of the day, what are you really paying for? Roster updates — additions and stat tweaks that you possibly could have done yourself. But what they do offer is some sense of a narrative, whether it’s reliving a particular athlete’s road to glory or managing a struggling team to greatness, that is one single player aspect that cannot be ignored. You hone your skills in this solo modes while the multiplayer aspect is only there as an option if you want it to be to test your limits against another player. Again, these MP modes are OPTIONAL but not essential for you getting the most out of your game as a player.
What I’m getting at is this, the farther we seem to advance in gaming, it seems that multiplayer is being shoved down our throats, even when don’t ask for it at all. Not every game needs competitive multiplayer or co-op of some kind. My personal favorite gaming experiences have ALWAYS been single player experiences. You can’t make those moments more powerful by having to share that victory with someone else. That’s like killing Superman and you have to give Lex Luthor and the Legion of Doom props for keeping the Superfriends distracted. No, call me selfish but I want my highlight reel of gaming conquests to be my own personal victories. I don’t need anyone hogging MY moment in the limelight.
Let’s look at some hits and misses on multiplayer being slapped onto established franchises:
Bionic Commando (2008) - Most people didn’t even know this was included and it was a clusterfuck of bad ideas. Perfect example of the bad practice of just slapping on a MP mode.
Batman: Arkham City (2011) - Most players weren’t aware that prior to release there was a trailer that got leaked out from Europe, that teased Batman and Joker working together as a tag team in a possible multiplayer mode. No gameplay was shown, but Rocksteady QUICKLY addressed the masses to say they were scrapping the idea. Players were quick to make their voices heard that they did not want ANYTHING like that taking away from the sequel of the best superhero game in recent memory. As a result, that exclusion allowed the single player aspect to shine and earn this beauty a few Game of the Year awards. Good call there, Rocksteady. Unfortunately, it seems that the next game in the series, Batman: Arkham Origins will have a multiplayer component.
God of War: Ascension (2013) - Take a franchise that’s known as a single player action-adventure epic and you toss in a MP element. Many reviews and players have expressed that the game is mediocre at best. The multiplayer element shines at the cost of their established single player experience.
Mass Effect 3 (2012) - BioWare receive hell from its fanbase about the inclusion of non-competitive multiplayer mode, but once news got around that the mode was clearly optional, people settled down for a bit. The beta for MP mode wasn’t so bad and people actually grew to like it. The sad part of this story is that those who don’t have the means to or prefer to solo the game’s story will be FORCED to play this mode if they ever hope to 100% complete everything in the game and obtain the best ending. That’s just low right there IMO. If I'm honest, that reason alone is why I'm like one of the last nerds on the planet who has not finished the fight against the Reapers.
Ninja Gaiden III (2012) - The game already suffers from reviews bashing the new series’ direction with the dumbed-down difficulty and level design and yet Team Ninja adds in a MP element to this game. The co-op option to the Trial Mode is a nice touch but the competitive MP element is a complete mess. If you don’t have any friends who own the game as well you’re screwed as you won’t be able to get 100% completion here either.
Resident Evil 5 (2010) - A few months after release, Capcom adds “Versus Mode” as DLC. It turns out to be the normal Mercenaries Mode but with another team of 2 players or 4 solo players besting each other and the zombie hordes. Sounds good right? Not really. The mode makes the aging RE controls stick out like a sore thumb when you have to stop and shoot at your opponent(s) in a stationary position. You’d have more fun watching paint dry than this.
Resident Evil 6 (2012) - Continuing the trend that was started in Resident Evil 5, Capcom throws another wrench into players' co-op plans. At certain parts of the campaign, the game forces you to split up and team with random other players (if you are connecting online via co-op) before connecting you back with your desired partner. This issue can be remedied by playing solo offline if you don't want any miscellaneous randoms ruining your experience.
Tomb Raider (2013) - Crystal Dynamics slaps on an easily forgettable multiplayer mode. Fortunately, the single player campaign shines on its own to make most players completely forget about its shortcomings. Why the developers even wasted resources on that mode is a mystery while they could have spent that time adding additional post-game content to single player component.What I’m asking for from developers is to stop shoving that multiplayer element down our throats. If you want to add that element in it’s cool and all, but don’t let your original creative vision on the title’s single player campaign and story suffer in the process. I appreciate options but if I can’t enjoy the game to its fullest unless I play with the masses, then I’m more inclined to pass on the title altogether. I don't know about anyone else, but getting my money's worth on a gaming purchase is NOT measured by whether or not the game has a multiplayer component or not.
With the ongoing trend of MP modes, I think those annual release titles that thrive on just updating MP every year should just do a simple DLC update (include the new maps, weapon balances/upgrades/additions, new classes, etc.) while those who wish for a new content for single player can wait for DLC for that. Those without the net could buy these ‘upgrades’ via cards in retailers that installs these files as well. This way your single original disk purchase last you YEARS instead of until that next fall holiday season. Maybe this can convince the CoD and Halo fanboys to quit selling their souls to these companies…
At the end of the day, we all just want to have fun with our games, but when in-game options turn into requirements and necessities of personal interaction with friends and/or strangers to complete the said game, then our personal escapes into the world of gaming turn into just as much of a taxing task as our real-life daily endeavors. Super Mario saved that Princess all on his own, he didn’t need fuckin’ Luigi’s help and you know it. Luigi is the back-up for if and may if he needs it, and that’s how the multiplayer aspect in gaming should stay - an option for if you MAY want your friends to join it if you wish it, NEVER a necessity.
Post a Comment