Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Marutia Ortia -> Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/17/2014 12:44:53 PM)

Games traditionally feature both single player and multiplayer as separate entities. With the rise to prominence of PSN and Xbox Live, the two modes have been competing with each other. Underwhelming multiplayer in strong single player experiences and lacking single player gameplay in exciting multiplayer focused games were all too common in recent years.

At last year's E3, there was a clear tide shift in the game industry as the two modes began to harmonize. Destiny, The Division and Watch Dogs offered glimpses into games that acted like MMOs with players in huge connected worlds and raids, but all with the polish and mechanics of a top-tier AAA action game.

While The Division may not end up hitting until 2015, expect to see more and more games that are both announced and released featuring this melding of single player and multiplayer. It's another way to effectively make games "always-online." Do you think that this is the future of games development?



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/17/2014 4:09:23 PM)

Nah not for wargames or strategy games and thas all we's cares about. [:-]



Kuokkanen -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/17/2014 5:32:59 PM)

I dare to disagree. Starfleet Command II has multiplayer that can be played alone without any other players on the server. So multiplayer can be much like single player, but (possibly) with the other players directing (some) of the other ships. This since year 2000.



vonRocko -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/17/2014 7:03:10 PM)

I can't stand this trend of multiplayer. Every damn game has to have multiplayer anymore. This is done at the expense of single player mode. Time and resources that
could make for a better solo experience, are wasted on something that just a few percentage use. Usually developers to lazy to make a decent ai.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/17/2014 8:05:57 PM)

Looks like the choir has arrived. [:D]



KG Erwin -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/17/2014 8:09:07 PM)

With working a full-time job, I have no time for PBEM, much less a multi-player game.

I agree that developers seem to pay little attention to AIs, as it's the toughest part of game design. I don't attribute that to laziness, but simply to the trends of the present time. With social media being so prevalent, it's a natural development.



Alchenar -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/18/2014 9:55:28 AM)

It seems an odd thing to complain about given that virtually all wargames are designed as multiplayer games (that is to say, your singleplayer experience is the multiplayer game with the computer sitting in for the missing people).



Perturabo -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/18/2014 10:00:13 AM)

Armored Brigade is designed as single-player from the start.



Gilmer -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/18/2014 11:44:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

With working a full-time job, I have no time for PBEM, much less a multi-player game.

I agree that developers seem to pay little attention to AIs, as it's the toughest part of game design. I don't attribute that to laziness, but simply to the trends of the present time. With social media being so prevalent, it's a natural development.


I have played a grand total of 4-5 PBEM games, and every single time I lost. And the people I played against did not seem to want to try another game. So, I tend to shy away from it now. That's why I like games to have good AI.



Ranger33 -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/18/2014 1:36:30 PM)

I really like what they do in the Dark Souls/Demon's Souls series. It's primarily single player, but you see the ghosts of other players in the world, and people can leave somewhat vague clues on the ground. You can also summon people into your game to help with a boss or whatever, but communication is very minimal. There was one part where you play as a boss in a another person's game. Stuff like that is pretty cool I think.

Of course none of that really has anything to do with wargames :)



Alchenar -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/18/2014 2:16:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Armored Brigade is designed as single-player from the start.


No it isn't - the fact that multiplayer functionality isn't built into the game doesn't change the fact that the design is very much multiplayer in nature - it's a symmetrical game where another person could easily sit down and play the other side if that function existed.

Here's another example of what I mean by 'single player design': Any of the Elder Scrolls games (um, aside from Elder Scrolls Online, obviously). Skyrim is a 'singleplayer designed game' not because it lacks the option for multiplayer but because Skyrim would cease to be Skyrim if multiplayer existed - it would be a very different game.




e: anyway to answer the OP, across the entire games industry (wargames included) the stats are that 80-90% of customers never ever touch multiplayer. That even goes for games like Battlefield where the whole point is that it's a multiplayer game. That's why having a strong single-player experience is so important if you want to be successful. But those same people who don't actively opt-in to multiplayer still enjoy 'social online interaction' in their games, which is why things like game achievements and drop-in multiplayer are becoming more and more commonplace (It doesn't hurt from a commercial side of things that it's great advertising when your social media is telling all your friends that you are playing a certain game).

I think on balance it's probably a good thing not just for the game industry but for the perception of gaming as a more normalised pastime.



Max 86 -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/18/2014 2:39:35 PM)

I think it would be a good move too but only if companies are going to put a serious effort into the AI. There are so many game makers out there that I can see a situation arise that many games that are advertised as single player will have an AI so inadequate that it is mostly unplayable.




Mad Russian -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/18/2014 3:01:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

I can't stand this trend of multiplayer. Every damn game has to have multiplayer anymore. This is done at the expense of single player mode. Time and resources that
could make for a better solo experience, are wasted on something that just a few percentage use. Usually developers to lazy to make a decent ai.



I would highly disagree with that statement.

Our game has an AI that has been kudos from everyone that played it and we still did multiplayer options. It's not that we were lazy. It's simple economics. If we put multiplayer in the game more people will buy it. While, I don't seem to be getting rich doing these games, I would like to get as much money for my efforts as possible.

Good Hunting.

MR



vonRocko -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/18/2014 3:56:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

I can't stand this trend of multiplayer. Every damn game has to have multiplayer anymore. This is done at the expense of single player mode. Time and resources that
could make for a better solo experience, are wasted on something that just a few percentage use. Usually developers to lazy to make a decent ai.



I would highly disagree with that statement.

Our game has an AI that has been kudos from everyone that played it and we still did multiplayer options. It's not that we were lazy. It's simple economics. If we put multiplayer in the game more people will buy it. While, I don't seem to be getting rich doing these games, I would like to get as much money for my efforts as possible.

Good Hunting.

MR


You are an exception of course![;)] There are some.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/18/2014 4:41:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

With working a full-time job, I have no time for PBEM, much less a multi-player game.

I agree that developers seem to pay little attention to AIs, as it's the toughest part of game design. I don't attribute that to laziness, but simply to the trends of the present time. With social media being so prevalent, it's a natural development.


I have played a grand total of 4-5 PBEM games, and every single time I lost. And the people I played against did not seem to want to try another game. So, I tend to shy away from it now. That's why I like games to have good AI.


Wow my long lost brother. Do they also want to pick the map and scenario and when they beat you have a jolly ole time rubbing it in your face?

I had one PBEM one time that I let that happen and talk about reliving the Battle of the Bulge initial assault. He LET me be the Americans and he picked the germans. Gave me a nice little defense force of nothing but infantry a handful of bazookas and a couple of mortars and he came at me with 3x the number of TANKS to my units with a contengent of infantry an inf guns. Needless to say I was slaughtered. What chance did I have against all that? I've learned not to play with anyone online or PBEM unless "I" pick the battle, scenario and side. Most don't want to play by those rules cause they want to cheat in some way and the way I set it up prevents that except the hacker types who can change a die roll in a second.

F2F wargames I can see being multiplayer but online or computer should be first and foremost single solo player made with the best ai possible. I was sooooo disappointed with Field of Glory because it has such a terrible ai and is really promoted as an online multiplayer game first and foremost by Iain. Shame on you Iain forgetting about us solo generals. [:-]



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/18/2014 4:48:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Max 86

I think it would be a good move too but only if companies are going to put a serious effort into the AI. There are so many game makers out there that I can see a situation arise that many games that are advertised as single player will have an AI so inadequate that it is mostly unplayable.




Hey, that sounds a lot like Rome 2. [:D]



Werewolf13 -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/18/2014 5:53:42 PM)

I've been playing PC games since 1979 and in all that time every single multi-player game but one that I've tried has been populated by DICKS!

The single exception has been Steel Beasts.

"Social online interaction" in your typical mp game - I guess you could call it that. Maybe - if being a DICK qualifies.



MrsWargamer -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/19/2014 11:53:34 AM)

Some observations.

I think people are calling head to head games multi player which seems a bit comical. I tend to think multi player is a term that best belongs being applied to games where more than 2 is considered expected. 2 player while not single player, is hardly worthy of the term multi player.

I don't think anything polite of AI design. It's not hard to laugh at the value of AI design though. If you have no interest in playing other persons, that your business. There's nothing stopping game designers though from making game that permit a person from playing both sides. It's only when they make the designs incapable of the player being both sides that they have screwed up. Because being told thou wilt play the useless AI or not at all, is the only time that the game is worthless to me. I can handle playing the AI when I am feeling a combination of bored and not really concerned about a serious challenge. But I require the option to play both sides, and NOT be incapable of cutting out the AI.

Not all of us want to play an opponent that couldn't think there way out of a wet paper bag. Computer AIs are even worse than the oft maligned obnoxious teens said to infect too many MMOs out there. It should be mentioned, I have actually never met one of these mythical obnoxious teens, but, I have met countless full of themselves supposedly superior miserable old men :)

Some games are just not realistic to play online vs a person though. The turn sequence, or the complexity of the design is just not wise unless you are a rare individual. I love playing Battle Academy vs other players. I currently have 6 games under way at the same time. I am unsure I care if they deliver the multi player for my World in Flames. I don't think I really want to play my War in the East online vs a person. I'd likely prefer to play those similar to how board games are played..... with the opponent in the room with me. The computer would simply mean I could be playing the game in my kitchen or my living room equally. Computer games are very handy on space concerns.

If you can't find a person to play in person, that is a short coming of the person, you can't blame the game for you inability to find friends.

I don't think the thread title makes any sense. In the last 20 years, wargaming has produced a complete deluge of designs, and they have been more or less all capable of being played solo and in most cases also multi player, and in most cases the term multi player has meant 2 player, which really just means it isn't an arcade game. They haven't merged, they were never separated to begin with.



histgamer -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/21/2014 5:42:45 AM)

I didn't find it till the later years in both cases but Age of Sail 2 had a great online community (small by the time I joined) in the Virtual Fleets clans and Sid Meier's Gettysburg likewise had a phenomenal multiplayer community and I had a great experience in both of those cases, neither came imho sacrificed single player gameplayer for multiplayer, I humbly suggest Scourge of War as another series which added multiplayer without hurting the single player game. The first two games predate the rush to Multi but I do think it can be done and done well without sacrificing the player experience.

I think the games that struggle with it are the games where the single player and the multiplayer are fundamentally different games. Shooters are very guilty of this because no one is playing through a campaign in multiplayer they are literally two different games, games like AOS or Sid Meier's Gettysburg or Scourge of War the game-play and game mode is the EXACT same playing with a player or an ai and hence that allows the design to focus on both at the same time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

I've been playing PC games since 1979 and in all that time every single multi-player game but one that I've tried has been populated by DICKS!

The single exception has been Steel Beasts.

"Social online interaction" in your typical mp game - I guess you could call it that. Maybe - if being a DICK qualifies.




e_barkmann -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/21/2014 8:33:50 AM)

I generally don't consider a game unless it offers me a multiplayer option. There are very few games I have played where I have been pleasantly surprised by the ai, and it doesn't take long before a brain dead AI move will remove me from immersion. That said, many multiplayer implementations are flawed and disappoint. So I have relatively few games on my ssd :-)

Probably the longest a game has stayed on my ssd is about 4 years - Scourge of War Gettysburg - both the single player and multiplayer games are a delight. Runner up would be the CMx2 games.

cheers



Fred98 -> RE: Single Player And Multiplayer Begin To Merge (7/21/2014 11:46:32 AM)

My fav way to play a wargame is PBEM.

An AI opponent will do something the same way every time. A human will come up with a clever idea - and I can use it against the next opponent :)

.





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375