The Game Boy: Single-Player and Multiplayer -- Two Tastes That Go Great Together?
Every gamer has a story. A story assembled from countless in-game experiences, a collage of victory, defeat, heroics, and villainy. There is, however, a schism in the way these stories play out. Ask someone who’s lived out their gaming days in solitude and they’ll tell you of superhuman feats, epic dramas, and non-player characters who may not have been real boys, but were certainly close enough that Geppetto would’ve been hard-pressed to tell the difference. Pose the same question to multiplayer-centric gamers, though, and you’ll get an earful of teamwork, commitment, practice, and good old fashioned competition.

Neither side, of course, is wrong to enjoy games for their respective reasons. It’s merely a case of different strokes for different folks. However, what happens when single-player and multiplayer modes get married and pop out a child? Well, if you ask developers like BioWare and Splash Damage (who are working on fusing multiplayer and single-player with Star Wars: The Old Republic and Brink, respectively), they’ll tell you such all-encompassing modes are just The Next Big Thing. And they may very well be right about that.
Forgive me, then, for objecting to this holy matrimony.
Now, I’m not saying that Brink and Star Wars: TOR are going to be bad games, nor am I claiming that they won’t knock our collective socks off. However, I’m not so sure aspects of both single-player and multiplayer games can dance together without stepping on one another’s toes. Why? Well, let’s break it down.
Central to my fears are the goals that single-player and multiplayer modes seek to achieve. Single-player games – at least, as they are today – strive to guide players through an experience. BioWare games, especially, focus on story and well-developed non-player characters. Meanwhile, multiplayer games revel in competition, chaos, and adversity. Fail in a multiplayer environment and the developer’s certainly not going to kiss your bruised ego and make it feel better. That’d only get in the way of other players’ good times. Suddenly, you’re no longer some big damn hero; you’re just an unskilled rookie. This fact alone makes many multiplayer tropes inhospitable to the types of experiences many single-player games try to carry you through.
![]()
AntiHero
July 09, 2009 at 10:20am
Like the dungeons of World of Warcraft, you get a single player experience, that the last few levels have been striving towards. The Burning Crusade was basically level 10 times to learn the story, then work your way through the dungeons to take down Illidan Stormreaver, the leader of the Burning Legion.Newest one, Wrath of the Lich king, same basic idea, level 10 times, go through dungeons with your guild, and in the end take down the Scourge's leaders. So really we sorta have that function, in MMO's today, and nobody is a hero in this, since you need healers, tanks, and dps, you may do exceptionally better than your main healer some day for some reason, or take more aggro than the main tank, but still, no sole heroes. I like the idea, and hope it can become more prominent.
I don't like Microsoft, I associate with it.
![]()
nekollx
July 09, 2009 at 10:05am
I dunno, depends how you do it.
Fallout 3 the MMO? Probably wouldn't work
But Fallout Fortress 3 might, rember even Final Fantasy has more then one hero. Craft a MMO where your the Magnificent Seven and it can drive a story. Hell imagine a Team Shepard (Mass Effect) where each character is a player but one is a spacer, one is a war vet, one is a survivor...etc. IT works small scale just not "oh and there are 10,000 other heroes" Hell do it like Guild Wars. City are a MMO hub but outside the wall only your little pary exists.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.














