Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Why do you play single player games?

2456

Posts

  • kharvelankharvelan Registered User
    edited May 2009
    I've been playing the shit out of paper mario and the thousand year door on the gamecube.

    I think it's nice to have a story, a controlled setting, a known set of rules and just have fun by yourself, just you and the puzzles the developers set forward. I find that to be the enticement of single player games.

    go fuck yourself PA forums
  • FaffelFaffel Registered User
    edited May 2009
    I ask you -- why is it only fun to play against humans? Especially with all the scrub players out there, if "flanking and feinting" is what does it for you?

    I ask because sometimes I want to experience what it would be like to be a Hero in a world overtaken by swarms of alien monsters, and blast them down as they try to overwhelm me, just to finally put the last one down right as its upon me.


    Alternatively, sometimes I just like conquering challenges. Progressively sloped difficulty curves up culminating in some great challenge that is greatly rewarding upon finally winning. This is something you may have experienced with Ninja Gaiden for example. But it applies to many games.

    I don't have to suspend my disbelief when playing with human opponents. They are people, they act like humans will act when they're doing what they do. I can't get over the fact that beating an AI opponent means absolutely nothing at all, because I've simply defeated a pattern. There's no reward to the gameplay, and I only seem to be able to witness art and can't absorb it. I think that's why the majority of singleplayer games just do nothing... I only ever see it for the gameplay mechanics. I shoot things and move on and it doesn't evolve much beyond that.

    Again, occasionally that gets transcended like in SoTC, where I was actually dismayed by Agro's fall and felt a sense of bitter-sweet finale that I didn't want to go away as the credits rolled, but I think SoTC is the only time in my life I've ever experienced the emotional side of art.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • GoombaGoomba __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2009
    Faffel wrote: »
    Goomba wrote: »
    Moioink wrote: »
    Because I like both apples and oranges.
    I hate doing this but this is pretty much the best response.

    I just want to see if I can learn to enjoy singleplayer games by learning why other people enjoy them. I sometimes feel I lack the ability to perceive art as anything but colours and shapes, because I almost never get any emotional content out of it.

    It seems that people just seem to enjoy it... because they do. It's not something I've ever been capable of. Shitsux.
    Multiplayer games are either side A versus side B or co-op. And co-op can suck, for example, when you are trusting your team to not be stupid but then Canis is always stupid and Akira runs into a platform because he is also stupid. Singleplayer games can do stuff like stealth or multiple arcs or dialog. I guess what I'm saying is you have to look at it from another perspective.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • CherrnCherrn Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Generally, I find multiplayer games are incapable of holding my interest for more than a week at a time. It's just in, kill a few dudes, out again. The exception being WoW, but I'm done with that on anything more than a strictly casual level.

    In the case of MMOs, there is at least a social aspect that can keep me tied to the game. In session-based multiplayer games, unless I'm playing with a friend, I really don't give a shit. I will also, without exception, choose single-console multiplayer over online.

    For me, single player games are an experience; I will get to see/do something interesting/fun, and witness the (hopefully) quality game design. Since multiplayer games are, by their nature, always going to rely on people other than myself, I often find the results unpredictable, arduous and too erratic to be compelling in the same way as a single player game. Again, MMOs are the exception, but I tend to play them as single/two player games anyway - if I can't solo, I won't bother.

    It'd have to take something really special for a multiplayer game to be more appealing to me than its single player equivalent. Maybe when someone really refines online storytelling (SW: KotOR?)

    All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
  • slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Different games are rewarding in different ways. Multiplayer games are rewarding because you're playing human opponents. But that's only 1 way of millions of ways games can be enjoyable.

    Why is that hard to understand?

    I personally find myself straying away from internet multiplayer. Half the time the opponents are too easy, and it becomes more rewarding to play higher-difficulty-set Bots. The other half the time I enter a match and get raped, and that's no fun.

    My big problem with team based multiplayer is that it's hardly ever a team. Just a bunch of people randomly put into a server, and most of them are self-interested at best. Team tactics? Gimme a break. That only really works if you can do a clan or play with PA people or something. But that's not always convenient to set up.

    Seeking out a clan or community to play with is a positive experience though. Or at least can be. Plenty of games I've played online I wouldn't have done so without other PA folks present.


    The problem is that it's inconvenient. Is for me. I have a busy, busy life and my free time varies an enormous deal.

    But anyway, why is it hard to see how being immersed or experiencing a story from within it or overcoming challenges or solving puzzles and such, why is it hard to see how fun this can be?



    It's just different, rewarding experiences... Sometimes for story. Sometimes for overcoming challenges. Sometimes for putting your reflex/timing/coordination on overdrive. Sometimes for laying back and relaxing. And indeed, sometimes for playing against human opponents. But human opponents only work for select types of gameplay.. can't work for everyhting./

  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Leitner wrote: »
    Immersion is impossible in a multiplayer game. Simple as that.

    No it's not?

    It's rather hard to get immursed in an epic dragon slaying quest to liberate the four ancient metal forests of Gortundra when your communication to your fellow players goes like this.

    "K, we gonna pull the mobz."

    "Hold the agro!"

    "Heal me!"

    "I'm dead lolz"

    "I @#!$ your mom."

    RP'ers aren't much better. I do not want to hear about your lovey-emo-angstfilled character's bullshit while in the middle of the spinning death fortress of Raydor the Imperious.

    Why doesn't anyone RP a well adjusted, humorous hero these days? I'd play a lot more WoW if I could find a party of RPers who played like Zaphod Beeblebrox or Indiana Jones. But no. Every time it's always like someone's dragging me into their Twilight fan-fiction filtered through this MMO.

    Fuck you very much, Vargothia, Queen of Vampire-Elf Pain. I'm going to go play Morrowind as a wise-cracking treasure hunter who got along with his parents and has reasonable relationships with adult women.

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • SoaLSoaL fantastic Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The reason I mostly play multiplayer is because I get lonely.

    STALKER makes me feel so isolated. I need a podcast or vent or something to listen to. But I can't listen to a podcast and play something like STALKER because I'd be missing out on so much of the game.

    DKFA7.gif
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Streltsy wrote: »
    But really the question is so broad is may as well be "why do you engage in non-competitive entertainment?". So, I present an equally vague answer to your question; "people play single-player games because sometimes they're fun".

    Single player games can be competitive. Remember high scores? Or timed runs? I guess the competitiveness isn't immediate in this sense but it's there.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • AllforceAllforce Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    The answer to the OP is very simply: Achievements.

  • FaffelFaffel Registered User
    edited May 2009
    slash000 wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Different games are rewarding in different ways. Multiplayer games are rewarding because you're playing human opponents. But that's only 1 way of millions of ways games can be enjoyable.

    Why is that hard to understand?

    I personally find myself straying away from internet multiplayer. Half the time the opponents are too easy, and it becomes more rewarding to play higher-difficulty-set Bots. The other half the time I enter a match and get raped, and that's no fun.

    My big problem with team based multiplayer is that it's hardly ever a team. Just a bunch of people randomly put into a server, and most of them are self-interested at best. Team tactics? Gimme a break. That only really works if you can do a clan or play with PA people or something. But that's not always convenient to set up.

    Seeking out a clan or community to play with is a positive experience though. Or at least can be. Plenty of games I've played online I wouldn't have done so without other PA folks present.


    The problem is that it's inconvenient. Is for me. I have a busy, busy life and my free time varies an enormous deal.

    But anyway, why is it hard to see how being immersed or experiencing a story from within it or overcoming challenges or solving puzzles and such, why is it hard to see how fun this can be?



    It's just different, rewarding experiences... Sometimes for story. Sometimes for overcoming challenges. Sometimes for putting your reflex/timing/coordination on overdrive. Sometimes for laying back and relaxing. And indeed, sometimes for playing against human opponents. But human opponents only work for select types of gameplay.. can't work for everyhting./

    It's not why the immersion is fun that I don't understand - it's the immersion itself. I understand why people would find it fun if they could get into the world, but I've never been able to wrap my head around how you do it in the first place. I even see people get into the worlds and stories of 4x's, which generally have nothing outside of a very loose lore. People seem to be able to get so into that they can fill in the blanks and feel fulfilled by it. That's a very interesting ability that I've never been able to do myself, and it fascinates me. It also confuses me.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    slash000 wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    slash000 wrote: »
    Different games are rewarding in different ways. Multiplayer games are rewarding because you're playing human opponents. But that's only 1 way of millions of ways games can be enjoyable.

    Why is that hard to understand?

    I personally find myself straying away from internet multiplayer. Half the time the opponents are too easy, and it becomes more rewarding to play higher-difficulty-set Bots. The other half the time I enter a match and get raped, and that's no fun.

    My big problem with team based multiplayer is that it's hardly ever a team. Just a bunch of people randomly put into a server, and most of them are self-interested at best. Team tactics? Gimme a break. That only really works if you can do a clan or play with PA people or something. But that's not always convenient to set up.

    Seeking out a clan or community to play with is a positive experience though. Or at least can be. Plenty of games I've played online I wouldn't have done so without other PA folks present.


    The problem is that it's inconvenient. Is for me. I have a busy, busy life and my free time varies an enormous deal.

    But anyway, why is it hard to see how being immersed or experiencing a story from within it or overcoming challenges or solving puzzles and such, why is it hard to see how fun this can be?



    It's just different, rewarding experiences... Sometimes for story. Sometimes for overcoming challenges. Sometimes for putting your reflex/timing/coordination on overdrive. Sometimes for laying back and relaxing. And indeed, sometimes for playing against human opponents. But human opponents only work for select types of gameplay.. can't work for everyhting./

    I agree with everything in your post except for the busy stuff (since I don't have a busy life), but I certainly understand it. :o

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • akuteakute Registered User
    edited May 2009
    Achievements. I play for achievements.

    I also like to play SP games and do things or figure out how to get achievements, then tell my XBL friends how to reproduce what I did. It's fun, and sometimes I will get paid back in the same way. A friend may notice I don't have achievement that I could easily get if I just "got" the game.

    I enjoy both SP and MP, but probably play much more SP because if I mess up SP, I can cuss and throw my controller and take a break or try again, unlike MP where I may have to wait, or feel like a dooche after losing my cool in front of my team.

    Also I grew up with 56k speeds or less, so MP was never really an option for me up until recently.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Allforce wrote: »
    The answer to the OP is very simply: Achievements.

    That's another thread right there, if we want to measure the weight of achievements and talk about how shitty some of them are in concept.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • AllforceAllforce Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Curse you akute, I got bottom-page'd saying the same thing.

    It's all about dat gamerscore son.

  • ArcusArcus Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I think the biggest, most important reason is what everyone has said several times: Immersion.

    I noticed that you mentioned you have similar problems with movies and books, while thats the thing that draws me in most when it comes to these types of media. Like Slash said above, both SP and MP games are great in different ways. More than likely, SP just doesn't work for you. I'm not sure it's a matter of you missing something, just that it isn't what you're interested in.

  • .Tripwire..Tripwire. Firman Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Faffel wrote: »
    I don't have to suspend my disbelief when playing with human opponents. They are people, they act like humans will act when they're doing what they do. I can't get over the fact that beating an AI opponent means absolutely nothing at all, because I've simply defeated a pattern. There's no reward to the gameplay, and I only seem to be able to witness art and can't absorb it. I think that's why the majority of singleplayer games just do nothing... I only ever see it for the gameplay mechanics. I shoot things and move on and it doesn't evolve much beyond that.

    Again, occasionally that gets transcended like in SoTC, where I was actually dismayed by Agro's fall and felt a sense of bitter-sweet finale that I didn't want to go away as the credits rolled, but I think SoTC is the only time in my life I've ever experienced the emotional side of art.

    If beating an AI opponent means absolutely nothing at all, then beating an I opponent means just as much. You beat the human because you accurately predicted his behaviour. It's just a more complex enemy, but the same achievement.

    You seem to be equating the value of the experience with real-time competition. You love competition, that's what makes you feel like you've accomplished something. Your goals have already precluded non-competitive experiences.

    You will like soccer more than you will like hitting a ball tethered to a paddle. Case closed!

    sigi_moe.pngsigi_deviantart.pngsigi_twitter.pngsigi_steam.pngsigi_tumblr.png
  • AllforceAllforce Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    He asked why we play single player games. I play through them for the achievements most of the time. That's my motivation to finish a lot of games anyways. You think I would have slogged through Star Wars Forces Unleash if it weren't for that fat 100-pointer dangling like a carrot at the end of the game?

  • FaffelFaffel Registered User
    edited May 2009

    I enjoy both SP and MP, but probably play much more SP because if I mess up SP, I can cuss and throw my controller and take a break or try again, unlike MP where I may have to wait, or feel like a dooche after losing my cool in front of my team.

    So is winning or losing a big deal to you? That's one thing I've never cared about, especially if I'm simply playing for myself. That was another magical part of SoTC - it wasn't based on winning or losing. You could get stuck, die, or progress but it wasn't like that was the only reason the game existed - the game existed because it exists. It is what it is, and what it is never would have worked in anything else. There's an incredible feeling of life in it - it just is. It makes no attempt to explain or justify itself.
    You seem to be equating the value of the experience with real-time competition. You love competition, that's what makes you feel like you've accomplished something. Your goals have already precluded non-competitive experiences.

    You will like soccer more than you will like hitting a ball tethered to a paddle. Case closed!

    Winning or losing doesn't matter for me. I just like facing off against another person - it's the same reason I practice judo, I think. Win or lose it doesn't matter - it all leads to the same path of knowledge.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • DisruptorX2DisruptorX2 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Faffel wrote: »

    I enjoy both SP and MP, but probably play much more SP because if I mess up SP, I can cuss and throw my controller and take a break or try again, unlike MP where I may have to wait, or feel like a dooche after losing my cool in front of my team.

    So is winning or losing a big deal to you? That's one thing I've never cared about, especially if I'm simply playing for myself. That was another magical part of SoTC - it wasn't based on winning or losing. You could get stuck, die, or progress but it wasn't like that was the only reason the game existed - the game existed because it exists. It is what it is, and what it is never would have worked in anything else. There's an incredible feeling of life in it - it just is. It makes no attempt to explain or justify itself.

    It is after the initial period of learning the game. Unless its one of those really, really rare games that are just inherently fun, win or lose. I can think of a few like that,but nothing recent. Fallout Tactics, Carmageddon 2, stuff like that.

    1208768734831.jpg
  • CherrnCherrn Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    For the people listing achievements as a primary reason: Really?

    How did you play games before the 360? I'm curious as to whether or not it has something to do with growing older and changing habits, or if you genuinely aren't as interested in games as you used to be.

    All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
  • MoioinkMoioink Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I can kind of see where the OP is coming from. For nearly two years I went off single player games because of WoW. I just didn't see the point in them because of the lack of social interaction and the ability to show off my achievements (via gear and guild progress, I still don't care much for trophies or achievement points) in Orgrimmar. I was half decent at the game and had some fanboys.

    Then a switch got turned back in my brain and I went back to single player console games. Why? I guess I realised I needed a controlled gaming experience that is always there for me whenever I have time to play. No worrying about lag, balance patches, whether the right people are online, the repetitive nature of raiding (and of multiplayer as a whole really), getting pissed off at other people making mistakes etc.

    I got a PS3 and Xbox 360 with (among other games) Uncharted and Halo 3 and had a grand old time, immersed in my own little world with no intrusions, speakers blaring, guns blazing being the hero who saves the day and enjoying the stories. I was back on board the single player train.

    Yeah I don't know where I'm going with this :P only to say I know how it feels to be a multiplayer only gamer, there is a lot to like about it and if single player games aren't pushing your buttons then there's no need to force it. You may never come round to liking them but maybe (I hope!) one day your priorities or mentality will shift or you'll find that one game that turns you. :whistle:

  • FaffelFaffel Registered User
    edited May 2009
    Faffel wrote: »

    I enjoy both SP and MP, but probably play much more SP because if I mess up SP, I can cuss and throw my controller and take a break or try again, unlike MP where I may have to wait, or feel like a dooche after losing my cool in front of my team.

    So is winning or losing a big deal to you? That's one thing I've never cared about, especially if I'm simply playing for myself. That was another magical part of SoTC - it wasn't based on winning or losing. You could get stuck, die, or progress but it wasn't like that was the only reason the game existed - the game existed because it exists. It is what it is, and what it is never would have worked in anything else. There's an incredible feeling of life in it - it just is. It makes no attempt to explain or justify itself.

    It is after the initial period of learning the game. Unless its one of those really, really rare games that are just inherently fun, win or lose. I can think of a few like that,but nothing recent. Fallout Tactics, Carmageddon 2, stuff like that.

    Yeah... I'm chalking it up to me being hard to entertain, but it's frustrating me because gaming is the only thing that can take a large portion of my not-judo time and there's only one good multiplayer game on the market right now. Two if you count UT3, I guess. It seems I just don't have a single-player personality.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • .Tripwire..Tripwire. Firman Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Mike Krahulik expressed similar sentiment in one of the podcasts. He didn't feel rewarded anymore getting shit in Kingdom Hearts because he couldn't show it off like the items he acquires in WoW.

    sigi_moe.pngsigi_deviantart.pngsigi_twitter.pngsigi_steam.pngsigi_tumblr.png
  • akuteakute Registered User
    edited May 2009
    I think it also comes down to what you enjoy. I know people on my friend list that play all games, some play only COD4 or Gears2 almost exclusively, some that play only arcade games, and some that play barely any games at all.

    Just do what you like, I reckon. If you like TF2, then play TF2 if that's all you can find that is enjoyable. =]

    I like to diversify though!!

    BC:Rearmed...wow that was a fun SP game to master.

  • StreltsyStreltsy Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ITT scrubs rush to make excuses as to why they're playing single-player and thus staying scrubs.
    Henroid wrote: »
    Streltsy wrote: »
    But really the question is so broad is may as well be "why do you engage in non-competitive entertainment?". So, I present an equally vague answer to your question; "people play single-player games because sometimes they're fun".

    Single player games can be competitive. Remember high scores? Or timed runs? I guess the competitiveness isn't immediate in this sense but it's there.

    No I don't remember, never went to arcades but that just seems like another form of multi-player of faux multi-player. The latter is sometimes present in single-player games where you compete against yourself, like racing games where you compete against your shadow.

    410239-1.png
  • AllforceAllforce Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Cherrn wrote: »
    For the people listing achievements as a primary reason: Really?

    How did you play games before the 360? I'm curious as to whether or not it has something to do with growing older and changing habits, or if you genuinely aren't as interested in games as you used to be.

    For me personally, I don't think I played nearly as many games to completion before the 360 came out. Now for some reason I look at games like movies to be digested in like 2-3 sittings. I never play a game on any difficulty over "Normal" or "Default" and I often times will knock it down to Easy just to get through the story and send it on back to GameFly.

    I play pretty much everything but I'm not a collector like some people are. The achievement points add a stupid incentive to keep playing through even a lackluster game sometimes.

  • SeolSeol Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I'm trying to understand what the query is here. There are types of gameplay that are appropriate for single-player games that simply aren't appropriate for multiplayer, and those elements include story, puzzles, achievement leading to discovery or expansion, and so on. That seems to be well-established, and then there's the question of why we enjoy those things when Faffel doesn't, or why he doesn't enjoy them when we do.

    People like different things. I don't like watching sport, and I don't like most desserts. I doubt that there's any answer to why I don't like those things that will suddenly allow me to appreciate them, or will give me a more satisfying understanding of myself as a person. All I need to know is what I like, and then I can act on that.

  • SoaLSoaL fantastic Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    Mike Krahulik expressed similar sentiment in one of the podcasts. He didn't feel rewarded anymore getting shit in Kingdom Hearts because he couldn't show it off like the items he acquires in WoW.

    I guess in the same vein, I like playing multiplayer shooters because when I do something spectacular (every few years) there are people around to lord it over.

    DKFA7.gif
  • Fatty McBeardoFatty McBeardo Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Because I generally dislike people, especially squeaky 12 year olds who scream 'faggot' every other word.
    .Tripwire. wrote: »

    AI never calls me a fagoggot n--ger 10 times for no reason.

    Unless you're playing a GTA game.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Streltsy wrote: »
    ITT scrubs rush to make excuses as to why they're playing single-player and thus staying scrubs.
    Henroid wrote: »
    Streltsy wrote: »
    But really the question is so broad is may as well be "why do you engage in non-competitive entertainment?". So, I present an equally vague answer to your question; "people play single-player games because sometimes they're fun".

    Single player games can be competitive. Remember high scores? Or timed runs? I guess the competitiveness isn't immediate in this sense but it's there.

    No I don't remember, never went to arcades but that just seems like another form of multi-player of faux multi-player. The latter is sometimes present in single-player games where you compete against yourself, like racing games where you compete against your shadow.

    You didn't even have to go to an arcade to experience it. There were scores on NES games and such. I mean yeah the batteries wouldn't save the scores but there were cameras. :P

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • RainbowDespairRainbowDespair Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Why do I play single player games?

    Single player games are reliable. You don't have to worry about lag or people losing the connection. You don't have to worry that everyone's skill level is close enough to make things interesting.

    It's nice not to have to rely on other people. I mean, I enjoy RE5 co-op a lot, but I can't play it whenever I feel like unless I want to play with strangers since sometimes, none of my friends are online or want to play it. Similarly, I like free-for-all Civilization Revolution, but occasionally, you log in and you have to wait half an hour or longer to start a game because nobody is starting games at that time. Similarly, older multiplayer games eventually lose their fanbase with the result that pick up and play multiplayer games are no more and you have to actually plan games. And sometimes, you need to pause which can be difficult or impossible in multiplayer games.

    I'm competitive. I like being able to compete against other people on highscore tables knowing that everyone is on a level playing field. Multiplayer leaderboards just don't have the same appeal for me since who is to say that the highest scores weren't achieved due to luck (getting matched up with easy opponents often).

    Multiplayer games often lack the feeling of progress that singleplayer games have. Like with Left 4 Dead, I enjoyed the game, but at the end of each gameplay session, I was pretty much at the same place I was when I started. Compare that to a singleplayer game, where at the end of a session, you're at a later level, have some new high scores, or unlocked some new features.

    Certain genres just don't translate well to multiplayer.

    Single player games can elicit a much wider variety of emotions than multiplayer games. Horror, for example, is really hard to do in a multiplayer game.

    I like fiction. Some single player games have good stories.

  • ArcusArcus Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    SoaL wrote: »
    .Tripwire. wrote: »
    Mike Krahulik expressed similar sentiment in one of the podcasts. He didn't feel rewarded anymore getting shit in Kingdom Hearts because he couldn't show it off like the items he acquires in WoW.

    I guess in the same vein, I like playing multiplayer shooters because when I do something spectacular (every few years) there are people around to lord it over.

    This is exactly why I love playing multiplayer games, especially those in person like fighting games. Those are the types of things I appreciate, whereas I don't really care too much if someone has Achievement X which must have been really hard or something, but I wasn't there so I can't really care about it that much.

  • DadouwDadouw Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I would say I play single player games to have fun

    I would also say that I play multiplayer games to have fun

    :I

  • exoplasmexoplasm Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I agree that single player games most often have better immersion than multiplayer games.

    With that said, EverQuest was one of the most immersive games I've played, ever. Of course, that was before I picked up on raiding and such. But being new to the game, meeting other new players, oh man the adventures were indeed epic for a good while.

    I think that was the exception to the rule, though. :(

    Left 4 Dead was also very immersive for me at first, before I played VS mode. It felt like real survival and teamwork. It was awesome. Now it's all about high scores and stuff, oh well, still fun.

    Now for single player games...

    Deus Ex and Morrowind are probably on the top of my list for immerrsion. Holy shit did I get into those games!

    1029386-1.png
    SC2 NA: exoplasm.519 | PA SC2 Mumble Server | My Website | My Stream
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    You know if everyone in multi is insulting you, making fun of you and being a dickhead, well there's probably something wrong with each and every one of them. What a bunch of jerks. You just keep on trucking.

  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    So, OP having the same problem with movies...you want them to have the unpredictability of the human mind? What's wrong with movies and books?

    Is it not enough that video games have been designed by an unpredictable human mind? Even the first time playing Mario, when you see that guy zipping back and forth across the top of the screen dropping eggs, that's new, isn't it? You couldn't have predicted that guy was there. You are opposing the intelligent mind of the game designer as he throws up walls and roadblocks in your way.

    And why are human opponents the only thing that matters? Aren't the maps boring for being predictable? The guns and their spawn points?

    What was fun about Shadow of the Colossus? The colossi behaved the same way each time you fought them. You'd stab them a while and they'd throw you off and you'd stab them again. Boring, right?

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • BlueDestinyBlueDestiny Registered User
    edited May 2009
    Dadouw wrote: »
    I would say I play single player games to have fun

    I would also say that I play multiplayer games to have fun

    :I

    Any sufficiently advanced friendship is indistinguishable from magic.
  • DockenDocken Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I prefer single player most of the time.

    For one thing, I love a good story that unfolds at the proper pace. Planescape:Torment is my favourite game and that could not be replicated in a multiplayer context. There is no pressure and you can explore a game and its mechanics at your own pace. You can be put into incredibly contrived circumstances and win, which is great fun too (despite knowning that a human opponent would have had the intelligence to beat you, you are still pushed to the limit).

    On the other hand, playing online activates my competition reflex, which ultimately makes a game extremely unfun to me - I am compelled to be awesome, which at the start is great because I am learning how to do that, but ultimately the game becomes more like work because you have to end up practising all the time to keep up the skills. Dawn of War was like this - I started off having fun, then got increasingly fed up with all the research, practise and discussion I would have to have just to be confident I was keeping my skillset up to date...

    steam_sig.png
  • Hotlead JunkieHotlead Junkie Registered User
    edited May 2009
    I play Left 4 Dead and Gears of War 2's Hoarde modes singleplayer because I play games these days for a quick breather inbetween projects and like to pause/switch off my games whenever the hell I feel like and not feel like I'm letting anyone down. I don't commit to games anymore really.

    I only play multiplayer games with close buddies or people from PA. Buddies really because I wanna chat to them while we hang out in a game, and the guys on PA (L4D and used to play TF2) because there is always a fun, competent group of talkative people. I play multiplaer mostly to be social. I tend to avoid playing random public games in most games because it's usually a case of having to 'catch up' and learn what everyone else has learned so far in the game to have a chance. Frankly I don't really care that much about winning a multiplayer game, I just enjoy using them as chatrooms mostly. If I am serious about wanting to beat a game, I'll play a singleplayer game since I have 100% control over the input of the game. For instance, 90% of the time I prefer to have 3 bots following me on L4D since i know what thay are going to do.

    tf2_sig.png
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I play mostly single player games for a couple main reasons.

    I enjoy the story aspect a lot. I get the sense, by the fact that you are similarly bored by books and movies, that you're not a big story guy. So, you probably don't care about having a consistent narrative, well told over a series of time. I'd imagine you prefer sports to lots of other things as well. You just prefer straight up competition.

    I enjoy the puzzle aspect a lot. I like figuring things out, solving riddles and puzzles, etc. I love adventure games for this reason, as well as the story part. There's not really a lot of this in multiplayer games (tale in the desert? uru?)

    I like turn based/slow paced games a lot, which don't work as well in multiplayer. I like sim/tycoon type games, which don't really work in multiplayer. I like being able to think things through, and build up things. I like creating. Maybe in the lego mmo?

    Basically there's a lot of things you can do in single player which we haven't figured out how to do well, if at all, in multiplay.

Sign In or Register to comment.