Now I know thats pretty much a generalization, but this just clicked in my head as i was responding to Brunchies' thread about what games I will play in 10 years.
I thought of Halo or perhaps Street Fighter IV, but then I realized that in 10 years, those games will probably be obsolete. Some sort of new game (whether a sequel or some other game) will come along, take those games' formula, and make it far more awesome.
The games I responded were Majora's Mask and Metroid Prime, both single-player games. I think that single-player games will remain classics and in play far more than games with multiplayer.
Perhaps I'll come back to Halo 1's campaign or something, and maybe dabble with the multiplayer a bit, if only to say "wow this kind of sucks now"
I'm writing this right before I have to go somewhere so it may sound a little rush, stream of thought kind of thing.
Depends on just how strong the multiplayer was, MW2 in 10 years proooobbably won't have enough ofa community to even play online more, thus just left withs its 5 hour campaign or whatever. Single player games will age but there least playable in comparison to multiplayer servers which will inevitably just close. Speaking for console games of course.
Uncharted 2 despite havin an amazing multiplayer package, i'll still find myself treading through the single player just because of how amazing it is on its own.
It does, but multiplayer is getting more popular. Nowadays, people will pass on a game if it doesn't have some sort of competitive or co-op element. Even the sequel to Bioshock, a game which many would call the trophy single player game, now has a tacked on multiplayer mode. Games are simply more successful with one (read: Call of Duty), so developers will try to include it where they can. Everyone is in this to make money.
@misterpope: So what you're saying is that having a good single player mode adds years to a game's potential lifespan? I agree, but only if the single player is done well. I enjoy multiplayer, but I would never take it over single player. Uncharted. Max Payne. And so on.
Hordes of players still play Counter Strike, Quake 3, Starcraft, and Warcraft 3. Don't forget the thousands of players still enjoying old MMOs like ultima online. Every game i've mentioned, and dozens more that I'm forgetting have all attained the "classic" status solely because of their multiplayer. I'm still not exactly 100% on what you're trying to say with this thread, but a lot of games are remembered and played years after their release because of their multiplayer, not their single player.
" @misterpope: So what you're saying is that having a good single player mode adds years to a game's potential lifespan? I agree, but only if the single player is done well. I enjoy multiplayer, but I would never take it over single player. Uncharted. Max Payne. And so on. "
Exactly. The single-player is going to be what a game is going to remembered for. For instance, Halo 2 was pretty good multiplayer wise in my opinion, and millions of people played it. The COD4 comes along and blows it out of the water, multiplayer wise. That isn't to say it's better than Halo 2's multiplayer, (i think it is) but right now, more people remember COD4 for being awesome than Halo 2.
I think if a game has good local multiplayer, it can make it even more classic. But this gen we've seen the death of split screen and ten years from now online multiplayer games will suffer for it.
" @misterpope: So what you're saying is that having a good single player mode adds years to a game's potential lifespan? I agree, but only if the single player is done well. I enjoy multiplayer, but I would never take it over single player. Uncharted. Max Payne. And so on. "
Exactly. The single-player is going to be what a game is going to remembered for. For instance, Halo 2 was pretty good multiplayer wise in my opinion, and millions of people played it. The COD4 comes along and blows it out of the water, multiplayer wise. That isn't to say it's better than Halo 2's multiplayer, (i think it is) but right now, more people remember COD4 for being awesome than Halo 2. "
Of course people are going to think that COD4 is a better game than Halo 2. But Halo 2 was released in 2004, and COD4 was released in 2007. For it's time, Halo 2 was far more groundbreaking than COD4 and many of the systems that it helped to perfect are part of what made COD4 such a great game in the first place. So you could argue that for it's time, Halo 2 was a better game.
Also, both Halo 2 and COD4 are remember for their multiplayer components. Sure, Zelda is going to be remembered for it's single player, well... because that's all it has. I'm not saying that Zelda needs multiplayer (please, no multiplayer zelda!!!) but your argument that multiplayer in games isn't remembered seems pretty weak. At least to me, seeing as many of my favorite games of all time are old multiplayer PC games from the 1990s and 2000s (that a ton of people still play).
" @misterpope: So what you're saying is that having a good single player mode adds years to a game's potential lifespan? I agree, but only if the single player is done well. I enjoy multiplayer, but I would never take it over single player. Uncharted. Max Payne. And so on. "
Exactly. The single-player is going to be what a game is going to remembered for. For instance, Halo 2 was pretty good multiplayer wise in my opinion, and millions of people played it. The COD4 comes along and blows it out of the water, multiplayer wise. That isn't to say it's better than Halo 2's multiplayer, (i think it is) but right now, more people remember COD4 for being awesome than Halo 2. "
Of course people are going to think that COD4 is a better game than Halo 2. But Halo 2 was released in 2004, and COD4 was released in 2007. For it's time, Halo 2 was far more groundbreaking than COD4 and many of the systems that it helped to perfect are part of what made COD4 such a great game in the first place. So you could argue that for it's time, Halo 2 was a better game. Also, both Halo 2 and COD4 are remember for their multiplayer components. Sure, Zelda is going to be remembered for it's single player, well... because that's all it has. I'm not saying that Zelda needs multiplayer (please, no multiplayer zelda!!!) but your argument that multiplayer in games isn't remembered seems pretty weak. "
I'm not exactly saying that multiplayer isn't remembered.
In 10 years, will people go back and play a round or two of COD4? Will people go back and play some Halo 2? Will those game's be considered "classics"?
Maybe, maybe not. But I think that people will be going back to Zelda or Ocarina of Time for a long long time because those games are still good games, and classics.
I'm just saying that it will be the single-player of games that will keep us coming back to them, and not the multiplayer, 10 years in the future.
I have very few games I revisit from time to time.
Secret of Mana Final Fantasy VI Axelay Rollcage 1 & 2 World of Warcraft
Multiplayer games are community driven and get frequent updates/improvements and iterations. Why would I play Battlefield 1942, even if I could play Battlefield : Bad Company 2? Why would I play Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo instead of Super Street Fighter 4? Why go back from the up-to-date and improved version to an outdated multiplayer game? Sports games are the best example. Why would I play Madden 99 instead of Madden 09? The only reason could be to take a trip down memory lane with the friends with whom I played said multiplayer games back in the day. Otherwise - no there's no reason to go back to do so.
Singleplayer games have a more personal impact and a more personal appeal - my fondness of the game isn't related to any friends I shared the experience with, it's soley mine. So yes - singleplayer games are classic, because their appeal is personal and thus they don't need the qualifier of having old friends over. The exception are MMORPGs. I can imagine to revisit WoW in 2014. I know I would meet a couple of people I knew from way back when. Which is kinda awesome. Kinda like moving out of town and returning every now and then to visit my townies.
That's one thing I really hate about games that focus on online play. In 99.999% of cases, in 10 years noone is going to be playing the thing at all.
The first Halo is already a certified classic (well, except not with braindead fanboys, but in 10 years they'll come around too), but then again it didn't have built in online play. Street Fighter IV doesn't dwell on online so much either. You can bet the Modern Warfare 2's and Team Fortress 2's will qualify as abandoned though.
In 10 years time, Valve will still be updating Team Fortress 2, so maybe that one. Then they finally announce Episode 3 is no more and Half Life 3 will be coming soon.
I'm not big into multiplayer games, so single player for me.
" @misterpope: So what you're saying is that having a good single player mode adds years to a game's potential lifespan? I agree, but only if the single player is done well. I enjoy multiplayer, but I would never take it over single player. Uncharted. Max Payne. And so on. "
Exactly. The single-player is going to be what a game is going to remembered for. For instance, Halo 2 was pretty good multiplayer wise in my opinion, and millions of people played it. The COD4 comes along and blows it out of the water, multiplayer wise. That isn't to say it's better than Halo 2's multiplayer, (i think it is) but right now, more people remember COD4 for being awesome than Halo 2. "
Of course people are going to think that COD4 is a better game than Halo 2. But Halo 2 was released in 2004, and COD4 was released in 2007. For it's time, Halo 2 was far more groundbreaking than COD4 and many of the systems that it helped to perfect are part of what made COD4 such a great game in the first place. So you could argue that for it's time, Halo 2 was a better game. Also, both Halo 2 and COD4 are remember for their multiplayer components. Sure, Zelda is going to be remembered for it's single player, well... because that's all it has. I'm not saying that Zelda needs multiplayer (please, no multiplayer zelda!!!) but your argument that multiplayer in games isn't remembered seems pretty weak. "
I'm not exactly saying that multiplayer isn't remembered. In 10 years, will people go back and play a round or two of COD4? Will people go back and play some Halo 2? Will those game's be considered "classics"? Maybe, maybe not. But I think that people will be going back to Zelda or Ocarina of Time for a long long time because those games are still good games, and classics. I'm just saying that it will be the single-player of games that will keep us coming back to them, and not the multiplayer, 10 years in the future. "
Like I said before, Counter Strike, Quake 3, Quake live (which is quake 3), Starcraft, and Warcraft 3 are all beloved games that thousands of people still play to this day. I guess it's all a matter of taste, I'd much rather boot up WC3 and play a round of dota instead of firing up my N64 to play Ocarina of Time (Especially when twilight princes is more or less the same game with better graphics.)
Every time I see a game with Multiplayer and no split screen or no local lan support I shed a tear because I feel that is the part that will really last if the game is good with multiplayer, But give me single player any day of the week I love an epic adventure, certain things are fun with friends but you can't replace the ability for me to just sit down and get away from the world for an hour or two.
I think if a game has good local multiplayer, it can make it even more classic. But this gen we've seen the death of split screen and ten years from now online multiplayer games will suffer for it. "
I miss couch play, Only a few are being released, and it's sad.
" Now I know thats pretty much a generalization, but this just clicked in my head as i was responding to Brunchies' thread about what games I will play in 10 years. I thought of Halo or perhaps Street Fighter IV, but then I realized that in 10 years, those games will probably be obsolete. Some sort of new game (whether a sequel or some other game) will come along, take those games' formula, and make it far more awesome. The games I responded were Majora's Mask and Metroid Prime, both single-player games. I think that single-player games will remain classics and in play far more than games with multiplayer. Perhaps I'll come back to Halo 1's campaign or something, and maybe dabble with the multiplayer a bit, if only to say "wow this kind of sucks now" I'm writing this right before I have to go somewhere so it may sound a little rush, stream of thought kind of thing. But what are your guy's thoughts? "
Street Fighter III isn't obsolete. Fighting games are different unless a new version comes out, then the previous one is usually obsolete.
I don't know who should be insulted: TF2 players because you said multiplayer inherently ages poorly, or JRPG fans because you said single player is inherently a dated concept.
Most multiplayer games aren't going to be remembered simply because now they're generic cash cows, not because they lack a singleplayer component.
Ofcourse no one in 10 years is going to play Call of Duty 4 because we will have Call of Duty 14: Revenge of Zombie Makarov.
Games like Counter-Strike, Warcraft and Quake all brought something new to gaming, they're original and don't have sequels being ejaculated out every year (Plus they're PC games, and PC games generally last alot longer than Console games).
" Most multiplayer games aren't going to be remembered simply because now they're generic cash cows, not because they lack a singleplayer component. Ofcourse no one in 10 years is going to play Call of Duty 4 because we will have Call of Duty 14: Revenge of Zombie Makarov. Games like Counter-Strike, Warcraft and Quake all brought something new to gaming, they're original and don't have sequels being ejaculated out every year (Plus they're PC games, and PC games generally last alot longer than Console games). "
Of course we will remember the most influental multiplayer games fondly forever. We will just never play them again. Unless we meet up with the friends with whom we have enjoyed these games together.
I will never forget the time I spent with my buddies playing Tekken 3 and Soul Calibur back in the day. Or playing World of Warcraft with 50+ peers on regular basis. Or any Battlefield game I ever played seriously. Battlefield Moments never die! Or losing entire nights to Street Fighter 4 just like that. Or playing Killer Instinct or Rock 'n Roll racing as a kid. Or playing Rollcage on a splitscreen. The list of memorable multiplayer experiences goes on and on and on.
Multiplayer is the best of times - all the time. Only it's related not soley to a game, but also to the people I was playing with and the times we shared together. Unless those people are around, it's hard to recapture that magic.
Ah, Metroid Prime. Perhaps the best game of last gen. What a marvel. Yeah, generally I agree about what you've said. Multiplayer is much more of a temporary thing.
your reasoning for saying that single player games will remain classic is not flawed... it is retarded. Games are classics for one reason and one reason alone, they were fucking good in their time. A few lucky ones were the pinnacle of their genre and have not really been improved upon. (tetris, super mario world for 2d platforming) Ocarina of Time was amazing but it sure has had its problems. I think the Pinnacle of that style of play was Wind Waker. Half-Life was awesome but Half-Life 2 just took it and improved on it. Does that mean Half-Life is not a classic? And Street Fighter 4 is a terrible fucking example. Street Fighter 2 may not have current graphics but it is far from obsolete. And Halo may not be played in 10 years and it will be obsolete but can you say Unreal Tournament is not a classic, even though that has been improved upon in many other shooters and its own series and that it is multiplayer only? No of course not, UT will always have a special place in people's hearts. GoldenEye, also a good example, way obsolete both in single player and multiplayer. But it is a classic. Your definition of classic is short sighted in that you think it means the game will always be playable and that it is future proof. Not so. They are classic because when they came out, there were fucking awesome, and we remember them as such and in the few years had such a lasting impact that we remember them today. One game I feel people will remember as being good is Batman Arkham Asylum, I have a hard time thinking that in 10 years people will regard that as a classic even though it is really really good.
"your reasoning for saying that single player games will remain classic is not flawed... it is retarded. Games are classics for one reason and one reason alone, they were fucking good in their time. A few lucky ones were the pinnacle of their genre and have not really been improved upon. (tetris, super mario world for 2d platforming)Ocarina of Time was amazing but it sure has had its problems. I think the Pinnacle of that style of play was Wind Waker. Half-Life was awesome but Half-Life 2 just took it and improved on it. Does that mean Half-Life is not a classic? And Street Fighter 4 is a terrible fucking example. Street Fighter 2 may not have current graphics but it is far from obsolete. And Halo may not be played in 10 years and it will be obsolete but can you say Unreal Tournament is not a classic, even though that has been improved upon in many other shooters and its own series and that it is multiplayer only? No of course not, UT will always have a special place in people's hearts. GoldenEye, also a good example, way obsolete both in single player and multiplayer. But it is a classic. Your definition of classic is short sighted in that you think it means the game will always be playable and that it is future proof. Not so. They are classic because when they came out, there were fucking awesome, and we remember them as such and in the few years had such a lasting impact that we remember them today. One game I feel people will remember as being good is Batman Arkham Asylum, I have a hard time thinking that in 10 years people will regard that as a classic even though it is really really good. "
I guess i didn't get my point across well enough. And perhaps my examples weren't that good. Oh look someone on the internet is apologizing. Anyways,
What I mean is an overall generalization that I will probably keep coming back to single-player games more than multi-player games. Of course i will come back to some multiplayer games that I loved, but I think single-player games just "age" better than multiplayer. And I also think your and mine definition of "classic" are a little different. Good examples though.
" @misterpope: So what you're saying is that having a good single player mode adds years to a game's potential lifespan? I agree, but only if the single player is done well. I enjoy multiplayer, but I would never take it over single player. Uncharted. Max Payne. And so on. "
Exactly. The single-player is going to be what a game is going to remembered for. For instance, Halo 2 was pretty good multiplayer wise in my opinion, and millions of people played it. The COD4 comes along and blows it out of the water, multiplayer wise. That isn't to say it's better than Halo 2's multiplayer, (i think it is) but right now, more people remember COD4 for being awesome than Halo 2. "
Of course people are going to think that COD4 is a better game than Halo 2. But Halo 2 was released in 2004, and COD4 was released in 2007. For it's time, Halo 2 was far more groundbreaking than COD4 and many of the systems that it helped to perfect are part of what made COD4 such a great game in the first place. So you could argue that for it's time, Halo 2 was a better game. Also, both Halo 2 and COD4 are remember for their multiplayer components. Sure, Zelda is going to be remembered for it's single player, well... because that's all it has. I'm not saying that Zelda needs multiplayer (please, no multiplayer zelda!!!) but your argument that multiplayer in games isn't remembered seems pretty weak. "
I'm not exactly saying that multiplayer isn't remembered. In 10 years, will people go back and play a round or two of COD4? Will people go back and play some Halo 2? Will those game's be considered "classics"? Maybe, maybe not. But I think that people will be going back to Zelda or Ocarina of Time for a long long time because those games are still good games, and classics. I'm just saying that it will be the single-player of games that will keep us coming back to them, and not the multiplayer, 10 years in the future. "
Like I said before, Counter Strike, Quake 3, Quake live (which is quake 3), Starcraft, and Warcraft 3 are all beloved games that thousands of people still play to this day. I guess it's all a matter of taste, I'd much rather boot up WC3 and play a round of dota instead of firing up my N64 to play Ocarina of Time (Especially when twilight princes is more or less the same game with better graphics.)
Also, QUIT FORGETTING ABOUT THE PC BRO. "
Personally, I don't think Quake 3 or Starcraft, or even Warcraft 3, have had direct sequels yet which have used that formula again.
And I totally don't forget about the PC. My example of Street Fighter IV comes from the PC copy. (which I legally bought.)
I still play Quake 3 from time to time and that was, what? 11 years ago? Games with lasting appeal stay played for fucking ages. Counter Strike is still huge and all of Blizzard's games are still played fanatically online. In fact, I just came from a WarCraft II match on Battle.net (I got so fucking crushed it's not even funny).
my biggest thing is i don't have the time anymore to be a top MP player in games so single player really is all i got. i'm such a competitive person that i can't play mp if i'm not ripping it and that requires time to hone some skizills.
a good sp experience is going to have to do even though my best gaming memories are from mp :-/
Personally, I'd take a solid multiplayer game over single player anyday. Even the finest single player games I've ever played will be lucky to net 50-100 hours of play time, whereas the better multiplayer games (Starcraft, Quake, Counter Strike, and particularly for me Warcraft III and Age of Empires II) can easily stay interesting for thousands of hours.
" i totally agree, i'd rather live through a 10+ hour single player journey than playing all da kewl multiplayer games out there "
This. As much fun as multi can be it's always going to be a pale shadow of the experience which a good single player campaign can deliver.
I think of it like comparing movies and books. Movies are great and they definitely be even more enjoyable with a bunch of friends and strangers, but a book is something which is a much more personal experience and seems, at least to me, to resonate more strongly in my mind after I reach the end of a good tale. Games work that way for me too.
" i totally agree, i'd rather live through a 10+ hour single player journey than playing all da kewl multiplayer games out there "
This. As much fun as multi can be it's always going to be a pale shadow of the experience which a good single player campaign can deliver. I think of it like comparing movies and books. Movies are great and they definitely be even more enjoyable with a bunch of friends and strangers, but a book is something which is a much more personal experience and seems, at least to me, to resonate more strongly in my mind after I reach the end of a good tale. Games work that way for me too. "
Ehhh, I see your point but I don't necessarily agree. Ocarina of Time was very similar to Twilight Princes or vice versa (whatever). I had never played Ocarina of Time but I played Twilight Princess and I like it. I went back and tried Ocarina and I hated that game with a passion. Not only this, but I cannot see the value in the game or how it was considered playable without a guide back when it was released. I can't stand it. I know I never had the nostalgia for it to begin with, but it has been through its own share of evolution.
I also believe that the way you portray classics is not always the case. A classic is merely an opinion. Something that survives the test of time and is still enjoyable and remarkable is something that everyone must decide on their own. I can see myself years from now playing quake 3 online and still enjoying it. Better yet, I will always love Counter-Strike 1.5 or 1.6, even though it will be old, due to what it has done to open me up to online shooters. In my eyes, Counter-Strike is a classic. To some, Counter-Strike will be a classic. I think all good multiplayer games have the potential to be a classic in someone's eyes. I understand what you were trying to say, I just have a "not so set in stone" belief in how classics are established.
It was a good thought though, and something cool to bring up.
Log in to comment