Multiplayer gaming is not the future

KillerKing on 18 Jan '12 said:

that man has a point.

Osiris25 on 18 Jan '12 said:

I have to agree that if single player games go then so would I. I play games online and its an enjoyable extra but for me that is all it is. I know some love multiplayer more than the single which is fine, but it is the single player experience that the industry is still built on. Its irritating when some single player games are forced to have multiplayer thrust upon it because it is now seen as compulsory and the single player experience suffers as a result or it gets lower review scores for not having said multiplayer. But its each to their own of course. But if they do want push more multiplayer experiences then at least offer single/co-op modes as standard. Games like borderlands and left for dead where you can play the whole experience with one or more friends and it’s the same as playing single player is the best solution for me and should be pushed more.

a.d on 18 Jan '12 said:

This guy know's his stuff

StonecoldMC on 18 Jan '12 said:

Great article!

If we get to a stage where single player is forgotten about in order to replace it with multi player only Games, then ill be out of my favourite hobby!!

I have friends who buy COD every year and the first thing they do when they open up the case and put the disc into the machine is to go straight into a MP Game and never go back to the SP campaign at all !

Dont get me wrong, I enjoy MP and Co Op (especially) but the thought of a Halo or a Bioshock that doesnt have a SP campaign is actually quite frightening, I dont think this will happen and it has been a knee jerk reaction to the success of COD, but even that bubble will burst, eventually and then where do we go?

Will be a sad day (for me) if Games ever actually go down this route.

ensabahnur on 18 Jan '12 said:

Not a truer word said.

The day we shift to MP only will be the day i give up gaming. Plus there will only be about 10 games max to choose from, probably only 1 or 2 from each genre. COD for the FPS, NFS for the racing, Fifa for footy and Street Fighter for beat em ups with console exclusives making up the other numbers. Games like Bioshock, Uncharted, Batman and Ninja Gaiden will disappear, there won't be a market for a number of shooters so games like BS and UC will never be able to compete with the COD's on MP alone. Batman and Ninja Gaiden (though with NG3 having MP this might change, if its any good) are the types of games where MP just wouldn't work or would be a niche market were low sales would kibosh any future releases.

Pray to your heathen gods it never happens!

DAEDALUS79 on 18 Jan '12 said:

I rarely play online, it just doesnt interest me much. 95% of my games either get minimal online play or none at all.The only exception is MW3, where I havent actually touched the campaign yet.

Dralel on 18 Jan '12 said:

A guy with common sense, holy sh*t..

laslowoodbine on 18 Jan '12 said:

I entirely agree also, multi-player is good and can be great however I have found myself avoiding a lot of the multi-player components in games because I'm focused entirely on enjoying my single player games. Games I've not touched on Multi-player are Dead Space 2, Uncharted 2 + 3, Kane & Lynch, Pixeljunk Shooter 2, Resistance 3, and I'm sure their are more but I can't think right now.

Having said all that I love good multi-player but mainly in the company of my friends, but this generation seems to have forgotten splitscreen on the whole. I hope the next gen open up a little more and do what some have already been offering, splitscreen online & offline 1 - 4 players, not just 1 - 2. All the best fun I've ever had multi-player involved my real friends all swearing and cursing at each other in the same room. Online for me just isn't the same no matter how hard it tries.

Lsnake on 18 Jan '12 said:

Completely agree. While multiplayer ultimately has a very good place, for me it's all in the singleplayer. Batman Arkham Asylum, Arkham City, Deus Ex, Catherine, Dead Space 1 & 2, Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption, Uncharted, God of War, Metal Gear Solid 4..all of those games I remember because of the singleplayer experience. I'vent touched multiplayer in either RDR or MGO, and I only did two matches in Uncharted 3 for the trophy.

Singleplayer games will never die, because they represent something multiplayer games can't do. A story, told in your own pace, in your own way. Your choices, your impact, your experience. It can't be replaced.

ensabahnur on 18 Jan '12 said:

this generation seems to have forgotten splitscreen on the whole. I hope the next gen open up a little more and do what some have already been offering, splitscreen online & offline 1 - 4 players, not just 1 - 2. All the best fun I've ever had multi-player involved my real friends all swearing and cursing at each other in the same room. Online for me just isn't the same no matter how hard it tries.

This.
For me MP was never better than when we were all huddled round a 28" screen playing Mazza Kart 64 and Goldeneye 4 player split-screen, swearing at and punching each other, we used to put in marathon sessions on those 2 games. Before that it was Bomberman and Super Tennis on the SNES.

OracleOfPokemon on 18 Jan '12 said:

Multiplayer games are boring. Except for Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros.

Also, I wouldn't worry about the death of single player games, because while the PS3 and XBOX 360 might have hardly any first party single player games, good old Nintendo has the likes of Metroid, Pokémon, Zelda etc. to carry it on.

JD_Method on 18 Jan '12 said:

I definitely don't want single player games to die, but I do love a good bit of co-op.

I feel a lot of gamers are quick to write off multiplayer these days, and while I understand as a lot of it is just tacked on deathmatch, I actually welcome more multiplayer (mainly co-op) in my games. Of course, I would like to see some fresh uses of multiplayer and more creative, innovative multiplayer design, but for me personally, I just love co-op gaming with mates.

Nobody wants to see multiplayer included to the detriment of single player, but I feel that more games should include co-op. I tend to play a lot of older co-op games because there's not a lot these days that three or four of us can play at a time. There's Halo, but I'm not really a fan of that. The same goes for Gears 3.

While not everyone's cup of tea, multiplayer has just as much right to exist as single player. I can agree with you lot that it would be a great shame to see the death of single player games, but I would be equally saddened to see no more multiplayer/co-op games.

Edit: Also, I'm with laslowoodbine. More split-screen please!

richomack360 on 18 Jan '12 said:

Having said all that I love good multi-player but mainly in the company of my friends, but this generation seems to have forgotten splitscreen on the whole. I hope the next gen open up a little more and do what some have already been offering, splitscreen online & offline 1 - 4 players, not just 1 - 2. All the best fun I've ever had multi-player involved my real friends all swearing and cursing at each other in the same room. Online for me just isn't the same no matter how hard it tries.

This.

True MP fun and hi-jinx was formed by splitscreen Goldeneye, LAN Halo:CE, beer, pizza and some friends with questionable forms of tourettes. Online will never be as good as having your friends in the same room, as its one thing to hear them swear over a microphone - but it's much more satisfying to see their faces when you pip them to the last kill, or getting them with another cheap shot. I call it sex-face gaming.

slick loose on 18 Jan '12 said:

Agree with the article and all the comments above. I don't touch multi-player and now we have this PSN pass, I'm not even tempted (I get more money selling it on if I don't use the code). Competitive multiplayer just becomes a dick waving contest...but with less class. I've had fun online but that was back on Counter Strike, when team work actually meant something.

Online has no appeal to me what so ever, it's far too frantic and pointless for me. The actual campaign of a game is where it's at, co-op or on your own.

rbt2 on 18 Jan '12 said:

Both single and multi player can surely co-exist, can't they?

Personally, the loss of single player would be the end of a near lifelong hobby for me.

I can't imagine a gaming life without a Nintendo single player game.

El Mag on 18 Jan '12 said:

That settles it then. Mario Kart 64 and Timesplitters 2 all nighter round Slick's house.

I'll bring the cheap foreign bottles of something resembling booze.

slick loose on 18 Jan '12 said:

That settles it then. Mario Kart 64 and Timesplitters 2 all nighter round Slick's house.

I'll bring the cheap foreign bottles of something resembling booze.

I've never played Mario Kart 64 but I will kill anyone on Timesplitters 2, first to a 1000 kills no time limit on EVERY map. We could have a game of Virus in between games to help break things up

Sounds amazing doesn't it!?

beemoh on 18 Jan '12 said:

Multiplayer is fine, but make it worthwhile.

Give me online co-op, and make it in such a way that it's easy to play- such as bundling games with a second version that will only work when connected in co-op that I can give to a friend (Now there's an idea for your Project $10 DLC...) or concentrating on asymmetrical multiplayer.

Basically, don't just glue deathmatch to the back of your game and call it a day.

G00N3R on 18 Jan '12 said:

Very good article. I do play some multiplayer at the weekends, but the majority of my time is spent with singleplayer games. I want to enjoy a story at my own pace without having other players making me rush through. Of course most multiplayer experiences are the gaming equivalent of a Jason Statham movie anyway - lots of explosions, no story.

The worst part of multiplayer though, is when it is just tacked on to what is primarily a single player franchise. The best multiplayer experiences are those where the games are designed from the ground up to be about multiplayer. Games like Mass Effect, Bioshock and Assassins Creed will never beat games like TF2, Killing Floor or BF/COD (delete based on which you like/hate most) in the multiplayer arena. Its just a waste of resources to even try. Its better to be awesome at one thing, than be kind of average at both.

Richyrich316 on 18 Jan '12 said:

Well I would have to forget about gaming in a current gen of consoles if multiplayer is all there is left

I play single player pretty much exclusively when i get time as I do not have a lot of gaming time & preffer to progress through the story of a game rather than shoot some obnoxious teenager on COD.

jm3811 on 18 Jan '12 said:

It is quite pitiful that whilst discover multiplayer games I have to face the fact that gaming has become more annoying than ever.

laslowoodbine on 18 Jan '12 said:

That settles it then. Mario Kart 64 and Timesplitters 2 all nighter round Slick's house.

I'll bring the cheap foreign bottles of something resembling booze.

I've never played Mario Kart 64 but I will kill anyone on Timesplitters 2, first to a 1000 kills no time limit on EVERY map. We could have a game of Virus in between games to help break things up

Sounds amazing doesn't it!?

Count me in, as long as no one picks a friggin' monkey. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for Timesplitters 4.. Come on Crytek UK!

As for Mario Kart I'd prefer the original but can live with 64.

slick loose on 18 Jan '12 said:

I am ALWAYS the monkey!!!

Barca Azul on 18 Jan '12 said:

Whats going on, two very good articles in 2 days.

I completely agree. I played Multiplayer in the beginning of this gen, but my hours online in the last 2 years are under 10 hours. In that time ive bought about 10 games.

If single player is dead, then ill be off or to tablets as well! would be a sad day and a mistake.

gmcb007 on 18 Jan '12 said:

If there was no SP then most games would just be modern themed or sci fi themed. It would be a horrible future..

Killermancarro on 18 Jan '12 said:

100% agree with the man in the article, anyone that says shooting 13 year olds online or flinging birds at pigs is the future is simply high off of the fumes of profit. It's a terrifying prospect if the single player were to die as gameplay and graphics make way for an ever increasing number of people piled onto a server.

If it were to come true i'd probably end up reading more, the number of times my virgin broadband drops or has a hiccup i'd be kicked off a server quicker than you can say 'hey noob you stole my kil...'

T12AV15 on 18 Jan '12 said:

Great blog! I completely agree, whilst I do tend to play Fifa 12 and Battlefield 3 online I do infact despise multiplayer in games, especially games like Dead Space 2 where it was never intended to be an online game and doesn't suit the game at all. Fair enough if multiplayer is developed by another developer (like bioshock 2) whilst the single player still gets full focus then thats ok but to be honest the moment I read an article which says something along the lines of a new upcoming game to feature online multiplayer instantly makes this game a lot less desirable to me and always will. If gaming ever becomes purely multiplayer then I will stop playing games.

KK-Headcharge78 on 18 Jan '12 said:

I mainly play online but I totally agree that the SP is the foundation of MP, without the SP element there would be no heart, no drivers for the MP substance. However the perception that online gaming is just about shooting teenagers is very wide of the mark.

NEO_SUPERMAN on 18 Jan '12 said:

Both single and multi player can surely co-exist.

I agree with this more than the original article.

Love single player. Love multiplayer. Love for everyone. Who wants some love?

flowerday11 on 18 Jan '12 said:

Couldn't agree more with this article, i only ever go online to play fifa 12 or MW3 (if my friends are online), otherwise i just play singleplayer games and i prefer doing so!

kingjose on 18 Jan '12 said:

Im a single player gamer yea ive played multi player mw3,battlefield, mag the games are fun but I got board quick I started playing on the atari vcs I m sticking to single player that's what I started on if gaming goes towards multipayer im done with the next gen gaming I can barley afford that $60 price tag on games hope they stick with us single player gamers and keep us in the circle if it weren't for us in the past they would of never made it this far

Headsrinker on 18 Jan '12 said:

All people want is BALANCE. Too many games come with either an amazing multiplayer game and a sh*t single player, or vise versa. Basically developers are having to work harder to make a complete game. People will always want good single player games to play, just as they will equally always want good multiplayer games to play for now on. There is a future for both.

shogunreaper on 18 Jan '12 said:

100% agreed.

Stop worrying about multiplayer so much and find ways to make me want to keep replaying the single player.

Budly Moore on 18 Jan '12 said:

I think everyone is tired of the type of mulitiplayer games available, but there are some gems. Some of my best gaming moments came playing Civ 3 online using case's ladder to track scores, or scoring a goal as left back in 11 v 11 on Fifa.

Its just a shame most MP is just simply shooting each other.

Osiris25 on 18 Jan '12 said:

Wow rarely have the forums of CVG seen such peace, love and harmony and everyone agreeing for once. Lets all sit in circle and sing kum by ya and smoke um pipe of peace

1Nightmare1 on 18 Jan '12 said:

I completely agree with the author, single player games are just as important if not more as the multiplayer games. Look at Skyrim for example, pure single player and sold over 10 million copies already, that's very impressive. Playing a good single player game is like you being in the movie, that has narratives and plots. Sure Activision and IW hit the jackpot with MW's multiplayer and it's copy and paste sequals, but I wouldn't expect all the developers get the same cut if they release their own multiplayer game that is half descent and had same amount of popularity. If anything I think the popularity of single player games has increased in this present gen console market with all the cool games getting a lot of attention like Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, Bioshock, Batman, Witcher, etc. Hopefully the balance between single player and multiplayer will stay all the way through next gen.

BOYD1981 on 18 Jan '12 said:

multiplayer just needs new mazes for its rats to run around. Which one really sounds like the future?

Sadly that one, publishers don't want to pour money into a well thought out single player experience when they can just shovel out multiplayer rubbish.

hi0marc on 18 Jan '12 said:

"fire and forget games" says the EA man.
I like multiplayer shooters, (Not CoD, which reinforeces my point) and found BF3 to be exactly that.
Play the maps a few times, unlock some stuff, try a heli or jet, get shot, repeat. Thats the multiplayer experience to a tee.

Single player? Well books are still written, movies are still produced and the ideas and foundations of these media sources have barely brushed the medium of gaming, so with some innovationg and interesting adaptations and so on, sterility will be prevented, to the benefit on everyone.

laslowoodbine on 18 Jan '12 said:

I am ALWAYS the monkey!!!

Oh dear, I'm afraid your monkey would look like he was auditioning for a motion capture part then. I'd pin him with that many plasma grenades he'd look like a christmas tree.

slick loose on 18 Jan '12 said:

I am ALWAYS the monkey!!!

Oh dear, I'm afraid your monkey would look like he was auditioning for a motion capture part then. I'd pin him with that many plasma grenades he'd look like a christmas tree.

Man you wouldn't see me, you would see a brown blur and then you would be peppered by bullets exiting from my twin SMP90's

The_Jaster on 19 Jan '12 said:

I miss split screen multiplayer, it trumped online MP in every single way. (still does)

KK-Headcharge78 on 19 Jan '12 said:

All people want is BALANCE. Too many games come with either an amazing multiplayer game and a sh*t single player, or vise versa. Basically developers are having to work harder to make a complete game. People will always want good single player games to play, just as they will equally always want good multiplayer games to play for now on. There is a future for both.

Agree with this 100%. It's easy to knock MP as it now sits at the forefront of games like BF, COD and Halo. However it clearly has brought gaming on somewhat it's just a shame when it comes at the cost of SP. I feel I got a great deal with GOW3 as it's MP and SP components offered many many hours of gaming, sadly a game like BF3 screwed this for me as the SP was dog awful while the MP is epic. For me, although I play a s**t load online, the SP has to be good to be considered truly great, I still see the MP as an added bonus.

barrybigwood on 19 Jan '12 said:

This is by far one of the best gaming articles I've read in a long time. Multiplayer is killing the quality of games.

LordVonPS3 on 19 Jan '12 said:

Gaming today is a mix of everything and it's simply not possible to say X or Y is the future when it's both.

1p will always come first for me personally. I also loved games with co-op because it would be easier to progress through a game's main campaign / story and it was that factor of wanting to see what comes next that used to drive the experience even further than playing 1p. These days, co-op is a pale shadow of what it used to be and that's a shame.

People expect modern 1p campaigns to last 6, 12, 24+ - hours. Well, for me, the likes of Ikari Warriors, Forgotten Worlds, Double Dragon, Bubble Bobble, Silkworm, Target Renegade say different. These would provide maybe a couple of hour's 1p and / or co-op play at most in either a 1p session / a "games bash". Gaming was about skill & perseverance, not cinematography and story. The definition of a 1p and co-op experience today is quite different then. In my experience, even co-op in Modern Warfare 2 is limited to playing through a mission map or two. The length of single player campaigns means I'm much less likely to return to a game once I've finished it. Shenmue and 'mue II? Great experiences but not games I'll ever play again - I'm quite certain.

The only MP versus games I ever used to play were sports, racing and old school shoot-em-up games until DOOM and then we can start adding FPS. Considering I'd play all of those in 1p MORE than I did MP says it all.

MP is a fantastic addition that every game should have and co-op is another addition in that space but the 1p experience is what gets me into a game. The many hours I've wasted completing Super Mario Kart implies that those of you who say Super Mario Kart is a "MP" game - missed out. Luigi has probably received the worst abuse from me compared with any character in any video game ever. That being said, many hours were also wasted in battle mode and I always thought it was a shame that there wasn't a 1p CPU option for that.

SavageEvil on 19 Jan '12 said:

Once upon a time Single Player games were the crux of gaming but no more. Single player gaming has gotten pretty stale, stories are garbage and the pacing is rubbish. You have few single player games that are compelling enough to play through a few times in this generation. I am not sure if I really like single player games anymore, it just feels like I am some recluse in a basement playing all by myself. When I do something awesome I have no one to witness it, as I am by myself. Gaming only came out of the basement because of multiplayer, head back to our lowly N64 with Classics like GoldenEye and Super Smash Bros., Perfect Dark...these games for console games were all about multiplayer but GE and PD both had pretty good storys to go with the SP experience and a wealth of things to do once you beat it like target time for clearing a stage and the like. Games these days just aren't up to snuff, we have some SP games but they are PC games and not core console games yes Deus EX, and Bioshock...great stories but PC gamers have been used to excellent SP games along with compelling MP. Console gamers not so much, it's either one of the other. It's quite rare to find a game out now that excels in both SP and MP, well a game that supports them both.

Multiplayer gaming might not be the future but SP gaming isn't doing it's best to solidify it's position. Multiplayer isn't going away, gaming itself is social and with the advent of social gaming you'd be hard pressed to find games coming out that do not support some sort of social interaction. I'll be damned if gaming goes back into the hidden recesses of the backroom in your house behind the furnace. Developers need to learn to find more compelling ways of telling stories and making gaming engaging. Why is it AI still suck rocks with all this damn processing power being touted for gaming systems? So is it the system or the man behind the programming? I'd rather play a human any day over dumb AI or AI that pulls of superhuman feats to win which to me in this day and age of gaming is lazy bullcrap programming. Now if this ridiculous hype for CoD dies down to where games can get some show time perhaps pubs will stop forcing dev houses to make MP addon for games and causing the SP to suffer or worse both ends to end up being turds.

360_Fan on 19 Jan '12 said:

Both single and multi player can surely co-exist.

I agree with this more than the original article.

Love single player. Love multiplayer. Love for everyone. Who wants some love?

Suprised no one has taken up your offer yet. I'll have a hug thanks.

furry_gizmo on 19 Jan '12 said:

The day there is no more single player, is the day I give up gaming!

You shlaaaag on 19 Jan '12 said:

A sentiment clearly shared by pretty much everyone. The biggest problem is the quality and quantity of the dedicated single-player games being released nowadays - it's more often than not complete sh!te. Whilst there will always be exceptions (Arkham City, Deus Ex: HR and Skyrim being recent examples) that do excellent numbers, they are few and far between.

For me great single-player games are like Chris Nolan-directed blockbusters. They treat you like an intelligent adult, are compelling and very entertaining. The only problem is they only occur about once every 2-3 years. If more people took the same stance and tried hard enough than we wouldn't have this problem. The same goes for offline games. Devs need to stop thinking about checking off features on the back of the box and start focussing on quality. Bioshock Infinite, Dishonored and Half-Life 2: Ep 3 will hopefully be proof of this when they are finally released.

rhyfel on 19 Jan '12 said:

if games went multiplayer only a 35 year love affair would come to a sad end plus iam getting sick to death of the way game devs try to think up more devious ways to rip there customers off even more than thay do now, call of duty is whats wrong with the industry, its a 18 rated game but you wouldn't think that if you played online its just full of small brained helium voiced foul mouthed rugrats who shouldn't even be playing the game, would you let your 8 year old watch a 18 rated horror movie NO you wouldn't so why let your little cherubs play ADULT aimed games, please call of duty die a quick death so the games industry can get back to making games with style and imagination once again.

Cinaclov on 19 Jan '12 said:

(Wether rightly or not) Nintendo's been proving for the last however-long that single player and offline multiplayer can provide some of the strongest gaming experiences. I'd be perfectly happy if more games took the route to online multiplayer that Mario Kart has taken; yes the online's there, and reasonably competent at that (not perfect but with abit of tweaking it'd be more than good enough for me, it's pretty much there as is), but most of the content is directed toward the split-screen multiplayer or even single player experience. Which is fantastic for me personally, as I can't get anything online whilst at Uni besides my laptop

And if you tried to shoe-horn online into a game like Mario Galaxy or Skyward Sword I can't help but feel it wouldn't add anything besides the notion of playing with someone; which in itself is nothing new or amazing. There are games designed for online multiplayer, let them deal with desires for that kind of stuff. A mix between both would be the best, and hopefully will continue.

WHERESMYMONKEY on 19 Jan '12 said:

I say there's room for both, but the future of gaming is single player. If we ever want gaming tobe taken seriously as an art form its going to be the bioshocks, and the To the Moon's that prove that. Not Call of Duty and Street Fighter. they have their place, and show how great a community spirit gaming has but as for going, look this is what we can do and this why we are culturally relevent single player games are where its at.

bamozzy on 19 Jan '12 said:

There is definitely room and I think a need for both. I cannot imagine that Single player games are going to 'die' There does appear to be a trend of adding a multi-player to what was a single player franchise and not often successfully. Certain games benefit from a multi-payer and often prolong game time. There is something great about beating a real life opponent but I must admit there are a lot of times when I just want to play a game on my own and enjoy a good story too.

tassletine on 19 Jan '12 said:

Games have to designed only for Multiplayer for them to compete against single player games, and right now most of them aren't. Most of the games around have tacked on multiplayer that is based around the COD model and that's about it. So why play those games when you have COD already?

Most companies aren't willing to take the gamble as multiplayer games are much harder to get right and perfect. Personally I prefer single player games, but if a game is designed to be multiplayer (ie, racing, sports, L4D.) then the single player versions usually pale in comparison. If a game is good and succeeds on it's own terms then it should be profitable.

Personally I think one of major things holding back multiplayer is the waiting (and other problems) you have to endure to get a match. Once these have been sorted out we will see more of a shift towards multiplayer.

budge on 19 Jan '12 said:

I read this in the latest PSM3 mag, cracking article.

TheLastDodo on 19 Jan '12 said:

Multiplayer isn't the future (I'm not saying it will go away) but I think online features is the future, predominantly UGC or User Generated Content, games like Little BiG Planet offer an incredible amount of longevity without the need for tacked on Team Deathmatch.

slick loose on 19 Jan '12 said:

The Holodeck is the future!

ensabahnur on 19 Jan '12 said:

Nope, now garlic bread, that's the future!

RetroSteveUK on 19 Jan '12 said:

Speaking as a hardcore gamer of 30 years; if all games were multiplayer only, I wouldn't .. no, I couldn't be a gamer anymore.

ptechg on 19 Jan '12 said:

I may be on Xbox Live (blackvv is my gamertag if you want to join me for a Forza 4 race) but I still prefer to play single player most of the time. Games like Dead Space 2 as mentioned in the review simply work better as an experience when not shared.

Yellow6 on 20 Jan '12 said:

everything from the news to washing powder adverts is still imploring you to go online and add your facile, ill-informed bleatings to the ocean of drivel already there. And no serious TV show would dream of having a phone-in these days, but Tweet Jeremy Paxman about how David Cameron has shifty eyes and the poor, educated bastard will be forced to read it out as if it had dripped from the lips of God.

At the risk of adding my bleatings to the drivel already here.....I loved this.
Well said Mister Williams.
You've got balls son.

WHITEyy118 on 20 Jan '12 said:

I do agree with the article but then the same can be said for SP gaming. For me a game is primarily SP and MP comes second, but a game that's just SP won't cope/have the same longetivity as a game with both SP and MP. So like a few have said, there is room for both so lets keep it that way. There's no room for discussion IMO.

I also agree that splitscreen MP has quickly disappeared from games which is a real shame. I think it's because they want us consumers to play with our friends online on our own consoles because all they see is $$$$$$.

Cinaclov on 22 Jan '12 said:

Thinking about it, I think Pokemon had the future of multiplayer almost perfected back in the 90's. A solid single player game that you can happily throw hundreds of hours into but supported by a strong multiplayer incentive; co-operation was required to completely master your own game (specifically the Pokedex) and a competitive battling element (both through link cables with friends and in the form of Stadium) to promote spending more time in single player. In that case multiplayer definitely was the future (can you think of any other gameboy game that used multiplayer so effectively prior to 'mon?) but it also encouraged you to get even more out of the single player. Maybe games should try and combine the two experiences more like this?

FiarHors on 22 Jan '12 said:

I have never been a fan of multiplayer gaming. Should single player gaming come to an end that would be the end of a great deal of entertainment for me. I'd have no reason to ever buy another game.