Lately, game developers seem to be turning towards making games more “social” than they were in the past. The final talk at MIGS 2011, “When Socialization Meets High-Definition Gaming” by Yves Guillemot, really made me think about the direction that modern games are turning towards.
Now, obviously this is not true for all games nowadays, but more and more game developers seem to be stressing making games that would normally be single-player into games that are more reliant on multiplayer aspects and an internet connection. I have no problem with games that are intended to be multiplayer, because these games work, and players enjoy them knowing from the beginning that they will have to play these games on multiplayer mode to get the highest level of enjoyment from them. I also have no problem with single player games that give players the option of playing on a multiplayer mode in order to enrich the experience, while remaining mostly separate from the single-player mode from the game, such as a single player game where you could break away from the main game to fight another player, just for fun. Maybe players could even get minor bonuses from multi-player mode. However, I can’t stand games that disguise themselves as single-player, but they were built so that players cannot completely enjoy the game without playing with others. I believe that games should NOT be designed this way, because many gamers have their own reasons why they cannot or do not want to play multiplayers. Because of this, these gamers end up being frustrated with these “single-player” games that still require multiplayer for some things.
One reason why I believe this is a bad direction for games to turn is that some gamers do not have friends that will play these particular games with them. In the MIGS talk I mentioned above, there were examples of where games could turn in the future, such as requiring two friends to connect to each other and help each other out in a game, such as giving each other crucial weapons, etc. I distinctly remember that when someone in the crowd asked, “What if a player does not have friends to play with?” the response was, “Then go out and make some friends.” I remember when I was young, I had no friends to play games with. Why? None of my friends were gamers. Therefore, I could never play games that required me to play with friends, and I became a solo gamer. I remember finding it frustrating playing Pokemon when I was younger, because even though I loved (and still love) the games, one of the major goals, “catching them all”, would be impossible to complete without having a friend to trade with. And even now that I have plenty of friends that play games, it can STILL be difficult to find friends that play a specific game that I want to play. Thus, I think it’s a bad idea to push players into “connecting with their friends” in order to finish their single-player games because this excludes many gamers from the target market. I feel that this is a design tactic that is used to get gamers to get their friends into the game, but this is a very cheap tactic, and could hurt more than it could help.
Another problem with this is the fact that game developers seem to often assume that since their technology is evolving, every gamer will have the best, most up-to-date technology. In this scenario, I am thinking about the internet. If a game is “single-player”, gamers that do not have a stable internet connection, don’t have wifi, or don’t have internet at all will probably assume that they are fully capable of playing this game. However, if the game cannot be fully completed without an internet connection, these gamers will be a little bit peeved. Using the internet to enrich game experiences can be a very great thing, but single-player games should not REQUIRE the internet in order to function. After all, they’re SINGLE-player, so internet should not logically be a requirement in most cases. Once again, designing games in this way feels like discrimination against certain types of gamers – in this case, gamers without access to the internet. If a single-player game requires the internet, it should have a good reason, otherwise it should have a no-internet option. For instance, games like Minecraft are enriched by an internet connection, and obviously multiplayer mode requires the internet, but single-player can still be played without the internet, with only minor differences. I believe that game designers would do well to follow this idea – making games playable with or without the internet.
Finally, we can’t forget that some players simply don’t like to play games with others. I know because I personally prefer playing games by myself most of the time. It seems that many game developers nowadays assume that since more and more players are getting into multiplayer games, the solo gamers have gone extinct. This is a very foolish assumption. As game developers, we should make games that satisfy these types of gamers as well rather than ignoring them entirely. The best option would be to make single-player games have an OPTION to have multiplayer, but the game can be played through to its fullest without using this option. In this way, the greatest variety of gamers will be satisfied.
All in all, I believe that single-player games should not feel like half an experience without the internet or friends to play with. Sure, single-player games can be enriched by multiplayer aspects, but they should still feel complete without them if they truly are single-player games. I believe going in the direction of making all single-player games more reliant on friends and the internet is a bad design decision. If we, as game developers and game designers, still want to give our players the richest experience possible, we shouldn’t make them feel forced into playing in a particular way. If we give them the option rather than pushing them into playing with friends, I believe games will move in a more positive direction in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment