Is online/co-op gaming ever going to usurp single-player?

[HappyTree]

Branching out from the "rip-off" thread, I was wondering if the time will ever come when the single-player game becomes obsolete.

These days almost every big game that comes out has a hefty proportion of development devoted to the online co-op or versus experience. Since I personally am not interested in playing games with other people online I would hate to see the single-player campaigns and stories sidelined in favour of the multi-player aspect. Some games I will not buy because they're not good enough for one person.

That's not a problem quite yet, there are more than enough games to go around and often the big games' online play is rather tagged on and poor, but do any of you feel there is a growing trend towards online play to the single-player's detriment?

Given that EA has decided to charge more to unlock online play for NFS: Hot Pursuit, this could be another revenue stream which, let's face it, companies will exploit if they can. The world is becoming more connected and so everyone will try to make money off the back of this connection. Stands to reason.

My view is that I hope single-player games will continue to be as good as they are now, but is it only a matter of time?

[Still Not George]

I'm in kind of the same mindset. I gave Left4Dead a go, but I just couldn't bring myself to give enough of a shit abouit it to keep playing it.

I can't see single-player dying out, though. As much as publishers and platform owners might be constantly pushing multiplayer (there's a whole section of the form entry for Stage 1 Concept Approval  to release on PS3 devoted entirely to explaining how your title will "exploit the multiplayer capabilities of the console"), devs love single player because it's a) easier to write, b) easier to test, and c) easier to get non-core-gamers involved in.

[Big Jack McBastard]

Not if you're anti-social and/or the people playing the game online are pricks.

Single player is good for story and narrative, multiplayer for mindless fun [nb]Unless you're in a tournament and there's money on the table[/nb] for most people in my experience.

I suppose WOW and Eve Online are examples of MP taking a bite out of the market, but MMORPGS are a whole level of geekdom and faggotry I cannot be bothered to open my wallet for, or invest the time in and I suspect it's much the same for the vast share of gamers. The Matrix Online was a flop and as I understand Star Wars Galaxies disintegrated through a lack of users. They do keep coming though, there's another go at a Star Wars MMO out soonish which has been getting both huge amounts of praise and turds flung at it since it was announced.

[loveable bobbi bundles]

My main preference is offline single-player vs CPU. Then offline player vs player {ie. face to face}.

Online multiplayer is way down my list, though i do enjoy it now and then, but it is definitely not the first thing i consider when buying a new game!

[HappyTree]

I would agree with that. I like the solitary, intimate experience of playing a game by myself. It's akin to reading a book. I can have fun and think about the philosophical issues raised along the way. Yes there are philosophical issues to think about in gaming! Well, there are in a well-written story which is the genre I prefer (adventure/rpg).

Having said that, one of the most fun times I had on the PC was playing DOOM linked to a friend's PC with a serial cable. It was fun because we were both physically in the same room and could call out and taunt each other, laugh together and enjoy ourselves in a communal experience. I imagine it's largely the same thrill nowadays but I have no friends into gaming near me. I don't even have a second controller!

But online gaming is not appealing in the slightest. I used my 1 month XBL Gold membership and tried playing Test Drive Unlimited with other players I didn't know. Total disaster. They were all at a level far above me and just spent their time pissing me off. Had I been into multiplayer deathmatches à la COD, etc., I'm sure I would have met the same fate.

When the online experience can weed out shitheads and obsessed teenagers then it will be attractive. I wonder how that can be done, realistically.

[Sovereign]

I honestly prefer co-op, but only when done well. There is no better enemy than another human brain. There is no AI or game mechanic that can really match it.

Football Manager or some types of RPG, Fallout New Vegas as an example, are probably better alone, but certain games the co-op thing is really good.

Remember Defcon? the simplest, lo-tech game I can think of, elevated to sheer genius and incredible depth by the fact that when played against a fellow human it requires real cunning and brainpower to succeed, and the feeling of satisfaction when you do win is just untouchable.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I rarely play online, generally because I'm always a lot worse than the people I'm playing, and I don't find the overall goals to be satisfying enough. I'd much rather play through a single player campaign with a storyline. Modern Warfare 2 is an example, I'm loving the immersive single player campaign, but I've tried the multiplayer and just find it kind of boring and frustrating.

[Mister Six]

I'm always a single player first and foremost, largely because the kinds of games I play usually lack mulitplayer anyway. Give me a juicy RPG or survival horror and I'm like a pig in shit. And those games will never go away, nor will they ever - I believe - feature a satisfactory MP element.

As for MP, I'll always pick co-op over deathmatch gameplay. Partly it's because I don't really have much of a competitive edge but mostly it's because I'm too casual to really compete against serious players. By the time I get around to firing up the MP on a game other players have usually got all the skill points/power ups and have become experts at head-shotting. There's not much fun in getting totally PWNED because you're carrying a pea-shooter and they're calling in airstrikes.

And I'll always, always play split-screen over online play. Multiplayer gaming is, for me, about having fun with friends (and beer). I can't imagine anything more soul-crushing than playing Guitar Hero or Call of Duty with a friend who's miles away, only interacting via shitty lo-fi headset.

[Still Not George]

And I'll always, always play split-screen over online play. Multiplayer gaming is, for me, about having fun with friends (and beer). I can't imagine anything more soul-crushing than playing Guitar Hero or Call of Duty with a friend who's miles away, only interacting via shitty lo-fi headset.

I think a lot of that is comfort zone for long-term gamers, though. My experience with Guitar Hero at parties was that it tended to be "multiplayer by performance", ie multiple games played in single player trying to better each other's results, rather than actually using the MP mode. In casual one-on-one I can see younger gamers having little issue playing it online.

[Zetetic]

I honestly prefer co-op, but only when done well. There is no better enemy than another human brain. There is no AI or game mechanic that can really match it.

Do you mean co-op or playing against another human? There's obviously a trade-off if you mean the latter - if you win, it feels so much more of an achievement, but chances are that you'll be losing a lot more (after all, unlike in single-player, human victories and defeats are going to sum to zero).

That's why I still find it difficult to play online RTS games - I'm a bad loser. It's ameliorated somewhat by playing on a team, since you're not faced with the conclusion that it was all your fault and you could've done better.

You're spot on about DEFCON, albeit with the caveat of how curiously balanced that game is.

[Sovereign]

Do you mean co-op or playing against another human? There's obviously a trade-off if you mean the latter - if you win, it feels so much more of an achievement, but chances are that you'll be losing a lot more (after all, unlike in single-player, human victories and defeats are going to sum to zero).

That's why I still find it difficult to play online RTS games - I'm a bad loser. It's ameliorated somewhat by playing on a team, since you're not faced with the conclusion that it was all your fault and you could've done better.

You're spot on about DEFCON, albeit with the caveat of how curiously balanced that game is.

I meant to say multiplayer, sorry.

I know it's insanely hard to compete with some of the nerdlingers on the internet, but that just makes my point even more true, there is no AI better than a human brain.

And yes Defon is special, an awesome game. I'm still playing it and by god it's hard now, there's only a hardcore cadre of nerds playing it now and they've got it down to a proper painful art, although you can still win if you know what you're doing.

We used to have a few games on here actually when first came out, if anyone is interested in a match we should get one going again it would be a laugh.

[VegaLA]

It's no secret that i'm pro MP. Specifically online Co-op though. As much as I love the single player campaign I find it much more fun working with a friend online, as I like to keep the real estate of my TV screen. Multiplayer arena is fun for quick thrills but the meat of it is the story of the game itself so for me online co-op is a must. I'm looking forwards to GoW3 as it will now have 4 player co-op this time around.
That said of course I dont believe it will unsurp single player. There are still some heavy story based games that can't technically allow online co-op such as RDR and GTA games and they are the games I play in my own time at my own pace. (Took me a year to complete GTAIV and still playing through RDR).

[HappyTree]

Yeah I suppose it comes down to if you have real friends who also play online. That would be fun, but none of my actual friends have Xboxes.