image

I played World of Warcraft a few years back, and got quite addicted to it. That's one of the reasons why I diligently self-flagellate every evening, but I digress. I got all the way to level 58, but then, like a flicking of a light switch, all my interest in playing further instantly evaporated. Why? Because I'd seen and explored every single territory on the world map. That's what had been keeping me going, I realized - the desire to always see what was over the next hill. And avenge myself on the giant spiders that had completely ripped my booty apart the last time I set foot on their turf.

I really don't get people who can play end-game content and games like Counter-Strike over and over and over again. Nothing ever changes and nothing is ever achieved. And you're taking your own time away that you could be using to get to grips with the wonders of the unexplored worlds in the next game on the pile.

4. Because the single player must stand up by itself.

There was a very grim period of PC gaming, the whole Unreal Tournament, Quake 3: Arena era, when the emphasis was on multiplayer. This was thankfully ended by the arrival of a new generation of shooters like Half-Life, which reminded us what multiplayer is supposed to be: a nice bonus attached to an already strong single player experience. If the multiplayer ever becomes the main selling point, then something's gone wrong. The fact is that most people are going to play the single player first, and if that fails to impress, they're less likely to move onto the endgame multiplayer content (this is especially true of games that force you to play the single player first to unlock shit).

Other human beings are basically unreliable. If you play with them online they're an unknown quantity: an internet connection can drop out at any time, and there's no way to know if the people you're playing with are playing from some kind of prison for sociopaths. And if you try to get your friends around to play LAN or splitscreen, you have to make sure everyone's schedules sync up, and there's a strong possibility that most of your guests will vote to switch over to Tekken half an hour in.

No, if you're trying to get into a game, the only person you can rely on is yourself. So games must always have single player by default, because there will always be factors standing in the way of multiplayer that the game cannot help. All of which brings me to my last and most important reason:

5. Because people are shit.

When you play online with someone, you're not a human being to them. You're just another little mewling voice in the magic box of secrets. If you're not in the same actual room, poised to punch them in the face, only their entertainment matters. You might as well just be an AI bot that swears. Surely playing against an actual AI bot would be preferable. They might not speak and get stuck in corners a lot, but at least they'll never ragequit, and you can program them not to shoot you, and you don't have to pay broadband internet fees for the privilege.

I'm a believer of Penny Arcade's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: "Ordinary person + audience + anonymity = fuckwad." I would suggest a few alterations, though, such as removing the "+ anonymity" part. And the "+ audience" part. The default state of all human beings is fuckwad. The only reason they don't always act like fuckwads is because they're afraid of getting punched. So they're not just fuckwads, they're cowardly fuckwads.

Yahtzee is a British-born, currently Australian-based writer and gamer with a sweet hat and a chip on his shoulder. When he isn't talking very fast into a headset mic he also designs freeware adventure games and writes the back page column for PC Gamer, who are too important to mention us. His personal site is www.fullyramblomatic.com.

RELATED CONTENT
KATIE WILLIAMS | 4 Oct 2011 13:00
SEAN SANDS | 14 Nov 2009 15:00
RUSS PITTS | 17 Nov 2009 14:00
RUSS PITTS | 16 Mar 2010 12:30

Comments on