Gogogic CEO Says Single-Player is a "Gimmick"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Yeah... right...

The thing is... most people that play MP games are usually asshole that I dont care to associate with. Now, of course not all MP gamers are assholes, Ive played games with other people often enough to know this. But likewise, Ive played enough mp games to know that yes, there are assholes that play these games, and make my experience of playing these games worse for it.

Of... wait, he makes social games... well fuck his opinion all the same.

Antonsson fails to realize that for most people, gaming is a distraction. It's hard to be distracted when you're stuck with guys who take what is very much entertainment so seriously as to throw fits when you deny them a kill.

I play single-player mostly to avoid that kind of annoyance. I'd much rather share stories about my playthrough of Game X than endure joining a game that's crawling with pubbers I don't know from Adam.

The one exception is when I play with very good friends I've known for years on end. I don't mind multiplayer in this case, because we'll just laugh at each other's failures and help one another out.

bafrali:
Single player gives you a consistant and immersive experince that has no risk of being ruined by other people.

Agreed. I generally dislike online gaming for that exact reason.

Azuaron:

The only multiplayer game I've played in months was Mass Effect 3's multiplayer (speaking of gimmicks), and I only did that to get my galactic readiness level up for the single player.

Me, too. I was so desperately bored by the multiplayer, as well, and the immaturity I ended up having to deal with only added to my lack of enjoyment. I haven't touched any form of multiplayer since.

BiscuitWheels:
Yeah, because people weren't playing tag or catch since the freaking Stone Age. Games existed before the Atari 2600, kids.

Actually no, first "game" was born when some lone man, perhaps a child, perhaps some hunter, gatherer started to daydream to kill some time and amuse himself, which isn't that different from modern storytelling.

That's the flaw of this whole trolling - it recognizes only organized play as "gaming".

However, indulge me : the first computers weren't mean to run any games at all. Should we drop this gimmick and make PCs what they are really made for ?

*Facepalm* So enjoying epic stories of saving the world and fighting the villains in games like FinalFantasy 7, Skyrim, Mass Effect, and ect. are a gimmick? I'm SUPPOSED to try and get deeply involved in a story/game universe through getting paired up with obnoxious people online, who may or may not be trolling me and trying to ruin my enjoyment of the game for their own amusement?

I'm sorry, but that's just the blind/ignorant ramblings of someone who simply wants more money for the games HIS company produces. It'd be the same if I went outside and told people "Hey, don't read a book! Books are just a cheap gimmick! You need to ONLY watch TV, Books aren't interactive enough!".

This guy has a voice... why? The CEO of a company that "create[s] games for social networks, web browsers and Apple devices" has something important to say about the state of the whole medium... how? I mean, look at this. This is the stuff being developed by Gogogic. Hell, I could do that (probably). Oh, I'm being unfair, you say? They have also cross-platform MMOs? Like "Project Rupture", which "will be the biggest Gogogic project in 2011" and it is "coming soon"?

sadshitwhichisabitfunny.flv

I don't know, guys. He DOES have a point. Look closely.

Solo-Wing:
"Now we can connect people in and around a game through real time PvP and PvE mechanics and the need for pure single player games had gone down. We have multiple plots and stories and build the meta-experience for the entire audience. The premise for making games has changed - reverted back to building multiplayer experiences that are true to the game form," he said. "This doesn't mean that we have run out of room when it comes to great single-player titles or games that make you sweat and curse every couple of minutes. It means that those titles have to be very appealing and cater well to the hardcore audience."

Now THAT I can get behind. Only allow single-player campaigns if they don't suck? I'm all for that.

Just let him try bringing multiplayer to Elder Scrolls, I'll have console ready with "kill" and crosshair pointing. Perhaps I don't want some obnoxious person spamming mic or text chat, or ruining my exploration.

Giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, I'd say he trolled you all good.

I hate high scoreboards, it doesn't matter what game I'm playing, I just want to enjoy the game, I don't want to know that I am number 348645 on the scoreboard seriously.
Also, Skyrim anyone?

Excuse me for a moment while I cry tears of laughter.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Well, fuck you too, Mr. AndersonAntonsson. If it's a gimmick then it's a gimmick I require.

"...it became an industry need to project the game as the other player."

And it still is.

I remember when EA said something like this.
And I just want to paraphrase my favorite comment someone else said (If it's yours feel free to claim it).

Meanwhile the CFO of Zenimax is laughing his way all the way to five different banks.

What a fucking moron.

Well, multi-player is where the money is right now, so that is of course what most companies are going to want to defend at the moment.

One also has to remember that with all the masses being brought into gaming, the guys who want to be interconnected by things like Twitter and Facebook, serious gamers, many of whom are the solitary "geek" types are now a minority within the hobby.

I disagree with this guy, but I do understand where he's coming from. Personally I like both kinds of games, for the most part I prefer single player experiences though because to be honest other people being involed frequently ruins immersion or inevitably leads to them being obnoxious. As fun as MMOs and such can be, a time inevitably comes when I feel my brain cells melting listening to other people talk or chat, and just need to get away to do my gaming elsewhere.

In the end though, the lowest human denominator that has been brought into gaming represents the most profit, and does outnumber the more serious gamers. Catering to them, and being able to sell say virtual shirts and such to people to show off to each other is a big business. Few companies can resist the temptation to chase after the biggest profits possible, what's good for gaming itself, espcially in the long term, be damned. Companies will always try and find some way to justify their actions and position, including doing things like spouting banality over how single player is a gimmick.

Andy Chalk:
Gogogic CEO Says Single-Player is a "Gimmick"

snip

That's like saying masturbation is a gimmick because sex was meant to be done in pairs (or groups). What if you don't have (or want) friends and wanna do it on your own? BAM.

...that metaphor is gonna get me in trouble ˘_˘

everything thats wrong with the gaming industry ill never buy a online only game unless it blows my mind never buying cod for that reason terrible game made by the worst developers out there sooner devs realise online isnt the primary thing people want the better

Jadak:

Bernzz:
Yeah okay. Have fun convincing Bethesda that single player is a gimmick and nothing more.

You mean the company that is taking their historically single player franchise and making an MMO out of it?

I was talking about Bethesda Game Studios, the people who make the main Elder Scrolls series, not ZeniMax Online Studios, the team developing The Elder Scrolls Online.

And The Elder Scrolls Online doesn't mean Bethesda will stop their single player Elder Scrolls series. It's, uh, way too damn successful. Therefore, single player isn't just a gimmick.

Some guy I've never heard of who makes games I've never heard of and don't care about made a comment about the validity about the way I play? RAAAAAAAAAAEG!

leet_x1337:

VoidWanderer:
Sounds as pretentious as Jonathon Blow...

Here's the thing - Braid was actually pretty freaking awesome, whereas, as has been demonstrated many times before, nobody knows who this guy is.

I'm not debtaing that, while I haven't played Braid it seeems like a great game, I have heard nothing but good things.

However, some of the things Jonathon Blow has said in articles since then come off as pretentious.

I kinda agree with him. I mean, he is basically saying that you can't earn anything by making shitty single player games and therefore need to make actually good single player games.

ThunderCavalier:

Solo-Wing:
It means that those titles have to be very appealing and cater well to the hardcore audience."

Now THAT I can get behind. Only allow single-player campaigns if they don't suck? I'm all for that.

Are you 100% sure that it's what he said ? Because as far as i understand, it can also mean that everything below Mass Effect epicness is shit. Which, of course is pure nonsense as proved by let's say "Faster Than Light" or other indie gems.

This guy is just an attention whore.

Rabble rabble rabble ad hominid rabble!!!

/me flips a car and starts a riot

Am i doing it right?

webepoop:
I think he might have a point, even if he doesn't realize it. Think about it, all AI is is another person that has been made to play with. Almost every single player game has some sort of AI or something that represents another person to play with.

thats it in one the major difference is that the Ai will continue to remain in character and wont be a complete dick and ruin your game just for the lols

take the concept of the rpg. take that multiplayer and what happens? you walk into a server and the first thing you see is someone spamming chat or bunnyhopping around.

Even ignoring video games, has this guy seriously never seen a child playing alone? It happens all the time. What about the monks in china that would play Go against themselves as a sort of meditation?

JesterRaiin:

ThunderCavalier:

Solo-Wing:
It means that those titles have to be very appealing and cater well to the hardcore audience."

Now THAT I can get behind. Only allow single-player campaigns if they don't suck? I'm all for that.

Are you 100% sure that it's what he said ? Because as far as i understand, it can also mean that everything below Mass Effect epicness is shit. Which, of course is pure nonsense as proved by let's say "Faster Than Light" or other indie gems.

I was kinda more twisting what he said into something completely against what he meant. I'm well aware what the guy's trying to say, and he's a complete prick.

However, quality control on single-player games could use a step-up. Games with deeply immersing stories (Mass Effect) or gameplay (Minecraft) could try to be more prevalent in the market, all things considered.

Dear everyone: If you are making a point that can be described as, "Games should always be X", then you are wrong. Also, possibly an idiot.

Multiplayer is great. It brings about a wide variety of Aesthetics that are wonderful, and the inclusion of multiplayer is one of the greatest innovations in video game history, if not THE greatest. But there are aesthetics that are distinctly the realm of single player only. I'd give a list of wonderful, awe inspiring games that would be made significantly worse by the inclusion of multiplayer, but I know that every person reading this has fabricated their own lengthy list. So I guess it ends there. No real gain to be had in arguing against a point that is so obviously dumb.

Games are meant to be played in multiplayer, you say?

Half Life, The Witcher, The Elder Scrolls, Thief, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. , Fallout, Dwarf Fortress...

Do you want me to go on?

Yeah, cause games are meant to have fun with others. *looks at FGC* Pure fun.

This guy is a nutjob.

So I guess those of us who played alone without inventing any imaginary friends as toddlers... those of us who are problem solvers by nature, not social butterflies... we don't factor into this equation?

I think this dude has a less than stellar grasp on the diversity of human psychology.

**edit**
I'd also like to say that I tried to figure out what games Gogogic has made... but couldn't find anything in English. In fact, this article and several others regarding the CEO's gaffe dominated the first page of the google search.
/facepalm

Oh for crying out loud... I am getting sick and tired of all this hype-mongering.

This whole argument relies on a very specific and inflexible definition of games, and either this guy's being disingenuous or isn't willing to admit that games can serve a purpose other than enjoyment in a social context. It's like saying that the only interesting part of Magic: The Gathering is that you play against other people - ignoring the collecting, deck-building, and strategic aspects which also go into the experience. It's like saying that chess has no value as an intellectual exercise, only in having something fun to do with your pal Bob over drinks.

Games with a focus on Single-Player move beyond what traditional, more simplified games have usually done and in addition to having gameplay, create story and characters and a finely tooled, immersive experience.

And let's face it, there are PLENTY of people who play games, and love single-player and hate multiplayer, because playing games with other people, for them, was a previously necessary evil which has since been done away with. Some people don't care for the social dimension, and some folks don't really mind one way or the other.

CAPTCHA: Which one does not belong. There is a list of options:
1. Emo Kid

... And that's the whole list, I kid you not.

Andy Chalk:

single-player experiences are becoming largely irrelevant to anyone outside a very niche audience.

Tell that to the 10 mill+ people that bought skyrim

Meatspinner:
Rabble rabble rabble ad hominid rabble!!!

/me flips a car and starts a riot

Am i doing it right?

It's "ad hominem", but close enough. :)

AC10:
Even ignoring video games, has this guy seriously never seen a child playing alone? It happens all the time. What about the monks in china that would play Go against themselves as a sort of meditation?

What he said is probably motivated more by the fact that half games without single player are easier and cheaper to design, and thus probably more profitable to guys like him.

But saying "I want to design multiplayer only, because I'm a greedy bastard who doesn't care about my buyers" is a thoroughly unpopular message, so instead he said this.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here