Crytek: 'The notion of single-player has to go away'

[Pulsar_t]

http://www.destructoid.com/crytek-the-n ... 7397.phtml



Everyone is entitled to opinions, but this is a bit ironic coming from a firm that makes pretty tech demos with afterthought SP elements. The future is identikit, microtransactioned F2P shooters.

[Michi]

And Crytek is......*looks them up*.......Ah. A company that makes games I don't play.















Oh, and getting rid of the single player gaming experience for all game types is a stupid idea, by the way.

[BurningDoom]

That is completely retarded. It shouldn't ever be only multiplayer OR only single-player. It's better to have variety and to be able to have both types of games.

[Pulsar_t]

Big publishers tend to listen to one another; it's a globally homogeneous culture. A recent example is EA one-upping Activision with ridiculously outrageous DLC and microtransactions.

[Ack]

Saw this earlier, but I don't think it will actually happen. Maybe in mass-market big name titles, sure, but there's the indy market, where single player continues to dominate.

That said, this being Crytek, you know what I would like to see done away with? Linear level design in a supposedly open world, guys named Psycho, and ridiculous game plots that are overblown despite not really being interesting or giving me a reason to care. In fact this argument might be a direct result, because Crytek couldn't write a story to save their lives in a game, so maybe they would just prefer to go full multiplayer and not have to worry about it.

[BurningDoom]

Multiplayer is more like a competition. Where single-player is an interactive story or experience. Take out the single-player and you don't have that feeling where you're controlling the narrative.

[Menegrothx]

I am sick of disposable multiplayer games. I'm starting to sound like a broken record since I've ranted about this subject on multiple occasions on this forum, but back in the day developers made multiplayer games that are still being played to this day, even on a professional/semi-professional level. Quake, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, Counter Strike, Warcraft 3, Street Fighter 2, Marvel vs Capcom, Starcraft, Day of Defeat etc. MMORPGs are multiplayer by default, but Ultima Online and Everquest are still being played to this day. World of Warcraft will be 9 years old in November.
Either make a proper multiplayer mode (=server hosting, modding, game and map design that is deep and balanced enough for competitive, professional gaming) or don't bother with it at all. I'm sick of single player games that really don't need a multiplayer having one. Who buys Dead Space 2, Bioshock 2 or Max Payne 3 for multiplayer? More importantly, how many people still play those games? Conversely, if you have a game that is deep, balanced and good enough for real competitive gaming, you don't need a single player mode. Most fighting games don't really have a story, nor do they need one. Counter Strike is one of the many FPS games that doesn't have a single player mode at all.

And to say that single-player games as a whole should go away/change is someonefirethisvapidmoronwhentherearecompetantpeoplewhoactuallylovevideogamesunemployedwrarrhguhauhfuiahsifsuahifsuahifsuh retarded. Only a minority of games have/need multiplayer (or can utilitze it properly) when you look at the whole spectrum of gaming from late 1970s to present day. And out of games that do have online multiplayer, only a tiny minority actually have a meaningful multiplayer mode (=either the game is being played as an eSport, is an MMORPG or atleast has a decent online community otherwise)

"I think the notion of a single-player experience has to go away," CEO Cevat Yerli told IGN. "However, I'm not saying that there will be no single-player experiences ... it could be it's called Connected Single-Player or Online Single-Player instead.

In other words he wants all games to have Diablo 3 (one of the biggest gaming disappointments in the recent history besides Duke Nukem Forever) style DRM.

Online and social can reignite single-player in a new type of context and provide benefits that will make you want to be a part of a connected story-mode rather than a disconnected story-mode. Sure, if the technology forces you to play a traditional single-player game online, that doesn't make sense but if it's offering actual benefits to be online then you want to be part of it."

And what will the benefits be? Singleplayer, yet connected story-mode? The first thing that comes to mind is that some jerks will find a way to exploit the system for the sake of ruining the gameplay experience of others. And what does the word social refer to in the context of single player games? Sharing your game progress in Facebook and Twitter?

[Hazerd]

I loved the first Crysis on PC, it was a graphical achievement in 2007, but the games there after didnt set anything new i was interested in other than furthering the Crysis story.

As for single player going away... as soon as the internet is FREE, meaning no ISP charging a monthly fee, and everyone, everywhere in the world, even the most isolated, desolated places on earth can get high speed internet, then we can talk about REQUIRING Internet to play games and making them online only.

Multiplayer is more like a competition. Where single-player is an interactive story or experience. Take out the single-player and you don't have that feeling where you're controlling the narrative.

I severely dislike games that are sold purely on Multi-player, unless its an MMORPG. It needs to have some "backup" single player campaign at least if im going to spend money on it.

[irixith]

I am sick of disposable multiplayer games. I'm starting to sound like a broken record since I've ranted about this subject on multiple occasions on this forum, but back in the day developers made multiplayer games that are still being played to this day, even on a professional/semi-professional level. Quake, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, Counter Strike, Warcraft 3, Street Fighter 2, Marvel vs Capcom, Starcraft, Day of Defeat etc. MMORPGs are multiplayer by default, but Ultima Online and Everquest are still being played to this day. World of Warcraft will be 9 years old in November.

That's exactly, EXACTLY what they DON'T want. They don't want you sitting there modding Starcraft and happily playing it with your friends. That game came out 14 (soon to be 15) years ago! Where's the MONEY in that for them? There's no revenue stream, no upsell, no way to track your potential purchasing habits, no DLC, no microtransactions. No money!

Today, the gaming model has been reduced to the purest profit potential -- keep them connected to an ecosystem where they buy lots of little things frequently. Once the developers have had a taste of THAT candy, there's no way they want to go back and make boring old regular games.

Not when there are millions of mooks just waiting to throw money in their pockets for the privilege.

[o.pwuaioc]

Not when there are millions of mooks just waiting to throw money in their pockets for the privilege.

Aaaand we've hit the nail on the head.