Sorry this took so long to get up. Been busy but anyways do enjoy:
The Other Side is a series of editorials written by yours truly. They are meant to take popular arguments and give the side that no one defends or easily dismisses, although this isn't guaranteed. The reasons for doing these editorials is that some discussions just deserve justice rather than two arrogant, conflicting opinions. Thus, I seek to accomplish this. Remember these are opinions and not fact but I will argue it as fact because that is what an editorial is. Don't take it personally just be open minded.
As video games advance through its history, they became the most flexible form of electronic entertainment. It did this through options of entertaining the individual and then of course the masses. Many would argue that you can listen to a song with multiple people or watch a movie with friends. However, this is still a single experience while the only interaction with another person might be through conversation and/or laughter. Video games, although, allow you to interact with characters inside the game and experience a cooperated experience.
Despite this flexibility, there are numerous debates and discussions trying to determine which experience is more fundamental to a game or if one experience is even necessary. Lots of these debates get heated when reviews of certain titles come out. Usually multiplayer only titles don't get reviewed as highly as single player only titles. Sometimes games with incomplete versions of both get reviewed higher than the best there is in a single experience. Thus these questions must be asked:
1. How important is replay value in a game?
2. Is one experience inherently more fundamental to the quality of a game?
3. Does a title need both to be a complete package?
To answer these questions I will once again use insight from other members who answered three questions about the topic. Participators in the survey were Squilliam, Outlawauron, trestres, and sc94597.
Anyways, the first question discussing replay value is an important aspect of the single player versus multiplayer argument. Numerous discussions about this subject involve the questioning of replay value for either side. In general, though, replay value is always important to a game. Most gamers want to feel they got their money’s worth for buying a certain game. Thus determining its importance will give us insight into which areas is it more important in.
The first question our surveyors were asked to answer is as follows:
How much does replay value weigh into your buying decisions?
I personally enjoyed a short tidbit from the answer Outlawauron gave. He stated, “I love playing fun games.” A very modest answer indeed but modesty is usually something most gamers need. When you buy a game you pay for an experience not a time clock. Too many times nowadays we see people lingering on the aspect of longevity of a game rather than its core elements. A game that is absolutely stunning for five hours is better than any mediocre game of forty hours. When you purchase a game you are purchasing fun not time.
It’s interesting, though, after all that is said and done, that they focus on an online multi player aspect of a game. If a title is to not have this aspect, then it is deemed lesser. However, a series like Zelda would hardly benefit from and online multiplayer. Actually, most games available wouldn’t benefit from playing with your friends online. Most wouldn’t benefit from an offline multiplayer. This is how this question relates to the single versus multi player discussion. Replay value is almost irrelevant in a game because if the core experience is superb, replay value will exist instantaneously. Same can be said with both a single player and multi player game. If you enjoy playing battles online, then it virtually allows itself to be replayed.
With this in mind, the next obvious question is what aspect is more important. Does the core single player experience matter more than a multi player experience? It’s a difficult question to answer which is why, once again, I allowed my surveyors to help me out. They were asked this question:
Are single player driven games inherently better than multiplayer driven ones?
Now, it’s obvious I took a side when presenting this question. However, none of the answers really were what I was personally looking for in this editorial, but Outlawauron did agree with me. He essentially stated that one isn’t better than the other.
This was something I actually had to think about. I’ve always been a person that’s big on single player games and believe that they are the core experience of video gaming. Yet, looking back at the aspect of replay value, it doesn’t always have to be the core experience. Let’s take Goldeneye 007 for instance. This was the console revolution in not only first person shooters, but multi player games. Games still do it the Goldeneye way which shows you just how large of an impact it had on gaming. I started to remember playing the game and the countless hours I put into the multi player aspect. Then it hit me that I replayed this game not because of the single player (don’t get me wrong single player is still a great experience that hasn’t been touched by many), but because of the multi player.
It is quite a concept actually that for one of the first times, a game’s social multi player aspect was the reason you kept going back to it. Thus, how can single player be the better experience if not every game’s best experience is the single player? Although Goldeneye 007 doesn’t fit in that category, am I supposed to say that games like Mario Kart 64 and Super Smash Brothers are worse games than a game that had a more solid single player experience? Absolutely not! Gaming is about the experience and the fun it brings to you. To suggest that this experience is limited to a single player experience would be spitting on the face of great games like Goldeneye 007, Super Smash Brothers, and Mario Kart 64. There is more to gaming than story, character development, and extensive dialogue. Gaming is at its best when its core is the ideology that is fun.
Getting over the corny but necessary aspect of this editorial, we move into our third question which questions the necessity of each in a game. Thus I asked our surveyors one last question:
Can a game be good, nowadays, without a single player? Multiplayer?
Is it required for a game to have each or is the experience naturally better with a focus on one? These are the questions that need to be answered after understanding replay value and ranking of the two experiences. I personally like sc94597’s answer the best. He stated, “I prefer when a game ONLY has one or the other. It allows for more focus on that one thing. It actually makes a game better imo. So yes a game could be good without one of them, and imo it actually makes a better game.”
Once again this plays heavily back into the last answer. One experience isn’t inherently better than the other one and usually we don’t find too many games that do both of them well. Thus the idea that a game needs a single player or a multi player to be good is simply nonsense. I think we have seen that some of the best experiences in each don’t have the other. Some of the best single player games include Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Half Life 2 which don’t have any form of multi player. Also, the polar opposites, being games like World of Warcraft and Counter Strike: Source.
We even see this division in games that do include both. Usually the strength of one experience greatly outweighs the other. Halo series, Gears of War series, and Call of Duty series are great examples of this. Although the single player experience is getting progressively better, that is not the main focus of the game and never has been.
So why include both? Developers have a skewed misconception of thing called replay value. Reviewers help to maintain that as well. Earlier, we determined that replay value is based on the experience. Too often developers think that replay value is based on content. However, if the experience isn’t worth playing, is there any point in playing it in the first place? No one beats a game one hundred percent through if they didn’t enjoy it. No one beats a single player experience with mundane game play and storytelling. No one plays a multi player religiously if it is lacking.
Thus we have an answer for our final question. Games need core experiences and that’s it. They don’t need an extensive single player with an online multi player. They don’t need one hundred hour single player campaigns with an extra one hundred for full completion. They sure as hell don’t need uninspired multiplayer maps with lackluster modes. Games need a solid experience first and then extras second.
The battle of single player and multi player is almost nonexistent. It’s not about the replay value because replay value is based on experience first and features second. Neither experience is better than the other nor is it required to have both. The battle is silly and disturbing.
Gamers need to get back to the basics and realized gaming is about the experience. To be corny, it’s about having fun. If a five hour single player experience was one of the best ever, then you spent your money well and the developer spent their time well. You enjoy a game because of the experience and then continue to play it because of that. Whether that experience is a short or long single player, extensive online battles, or fun with friends in Goldeneye 007, it’s fun that drives the experience.
So instead of wasting all this time discussing a single player experience or a necessity of a multi player setup, find a game that is at the heart a solid game. The best experience can’t be found in a feature but only within you so give it a chance every now and then.
