http://www.tokipost.com/2008/08/02/gamer-debate-no-onlineno-sale/
I consider myself an old school gamer. The first system I can remember having was an Atari (I still have it, but don’t think it works), the orignal console wars were fought between Sega and Nintendo over the Master System and the NES (NES is still the best system of all time), and 2D fighters are still more fun than the current 3D games. Multiplayer then was when your buddies or family got togther to play a game of Hard Drivin while playing a form of horse that resulted in the loser getting a punishment that we named the “tasty marker” (meaning the loser stuck his toungue out of his or her mouth and the winner got to draw a nice long streak on it, non toxic marker only if you choose to use this!). Insults were hurled, threats were followed through on (never beat an older sibling in a fighting game when he can beat you in real life) and challenges were laid all in the comfort of your own gaming space.
As we all know, this has changed. The multiplayer sphere has moved to the online realm and while most people still play with friends, internet friends have also taken places on our gamer “play card”. Insults are still hurled, threats are too but hopefully never followed up on unless you meet a crazy onliner, and the threat of a tasty marker is not nearly as threating when you know that even if you lose the enforcer of said punishment is in another home. More and more games come with an online mode and some have gone so far as to say that a game with no online isn’t worth a purchase at all.
Is the single player gaming era coming to an end? In my mind it has not. While even I have hesitated on purchasing a game due to lack of online play, it is not a solid deciding factor in my choice of game. For example, Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm appears to have a fantastic single player experience judging by the demo. Would online create great ninja battles or massive frustrations as the camera angles attempt to dance as fluidly around two players as they do around one. Other games, such as Call of Duty 4 and many other FPS games, nearly require a multiplayer mode unless systems are added to make you want to play the game again. Some games, like Warhawk and Shadowrun, have crossed into primarily online only. These games may be fun, but what happens if your internet goes out or you move to a new area without the required connection (and why would you do that?). Point is, without online, some games can even beceom somewhat worthless.
So where do we draw the line? Some games such as Stranglehold or Kane and Lynch seem to throw in multiplayer modes just to boast that they have one, resulting in a crappy online experience and equally marred single player games due to time focusing on the multiplayer aspects. Gamers have seemed to start defining online as replayability in a game. While I agree that an online system can add thousands of hours to a game (I’m still hooked on COD4 as are many others), true replay is the ability to play the game again and again. The Rachet and Clank games have gotten this point well in offering weapon upgrades past the first play through or skill points. Certain gamers, such as Earth Defense Force 2017 suck countless hours away with the fun they bring alone or with others.
So while online modes are fun and are valuble game adds, they are far from needed. If the game has enough action, or story, or collectible elements or even a New Game+ mode replayability is present. Online systems also add to that, but should be seen as an added feature, something that will not take away from the main game. Besides, you play harder when you know someone is waiting right behind you to give you another taste of the blue (or any other color) marker.
What do you think? Will you use the tasty marker in the future? Leave your thoughts below!
tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"
