PDA

View Full Version : 'Massive Multiplayer/Online' vs. Single Player



John
02-04-2001, 10:11 PM
Seems like now is the tip of the iceberg for 'massively mutliplayer/online RPGs' and the like, and I'm just wondering... Anybody else just prefer playing by themselves? I mean, there are certain qualities to single player games; I hope these aren't underrated as technology progresses.

For instance, an exciting part of any video game is understanding the AI; watching yourself progress as you become more familiar with the game and its constructs. With online gaming, there is nothing to become familiar with. It's not so much a 'game' anymore as it is an intense competition.

Also, games like Phantasy Star Online can only be fully experienced with a group of people. I've read that certain levels can only be accessed with no less than four in a group. I don't want my gaming experience to depend on or have anything to do with total strangers! Especially with an RPG! Sports and one-on-one type games I can understand, but I would never conceive of enjoying a role-playing game while relying on someone else as part of the gameplay.

Tom
02-04-2001, 10:44 PM
Your right. There are great things about the single player gaming experience. What I like to see is immersive story lines in single player games. I find myself pointing out games such as half-life as an example. That, by far, was the most impressive first person shooter game I've ever played. The story was great the game was plain fun. I think that the day of the deathmatch is slowly coming to a close and more team oriented games are taking over. By this I don't mean team games like capture the flag and the like. So far the best team oriented game I've played lately has been the counter strike mod for half life. It gives lots of variety in how you and your team can go about accomplishing goals and the action is well paced. Not to fast and not to slow. But that can get old after a while. (I.E. part of the XboxAddict staff just finished an all day lan game with some of our fellow gamers from the area and I'm counter striked out for now!) But it was a blast. It's a lot of fun to play as part of a team and share in the joy of winning and the pains of losing together. (And the joy of heckling the other team after losing terribly bad...Gotta luv that pistol whipping I gave you while you were fumbling with reloading your gun Kevin!) I must say that I'm also drawn to the massive RPG games that give players the ability to become more than just an adventurer. I love the idea of the next Ultima series allowing players to be weapon smiths and the like. It adds variety and gives a game the ability to offer something unique each time you play. But there isn't alot out like that now. I look forward to the day I can join a massive on line game that lasts for months. And if I want to be the guy who sweeps the streets then there's a place for me. I just want variety. After a while the whole run and gun thing gets old. (Or kick and smash, fly and shoot, etc. It all boils down to the same thing.)

My 2 cents.
Or 2 bucks, depending on how you look at it. :)

John
02-05-2001, 02:29 PM
Sidebars like 'Deathmatch' and 'Capture the Flag' are one thing. They aren't necessary and most of time aren't very intregal to the plot/content of the game. But when it comes to the fact that I can't play the new Phantasy Star without 1) a broadband connection, and 2) depending on the cooperation of strangers, it gets a little frustrating.

Ideally, I would have liked to see PSO made as a single-player RPG in the typical sense, with the online quests as a sidebar. Is it so hard to make everybody happy? :(

Tom
02-05-2001, 02:56 PM
lots of those decisions are made by what will sell the most. Which makes sense it its own way. I can only think of a handfull of games that balance single and multi play well. Hard to say...but we'll find out soon enough.