Gogogic CEO Says Single-Player is a "Gimmick"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Aaaaaand another installment of "shit people say for attention"

CortexReaver:
This guy is just an attention whore.

on a side note, you have the greatest avatar since EVER D:

IamLEAM1983:

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. :)

...wut?!

That's how I wrote it but spellchecker said no. Guess i shouldn't be so lazy with my english grammar. It's google spellchecker from now on.
I don't care if I have to copy paste a thousand times to complete a sentence. It will be done.

Nintendo and square enix: what?

Despite the inflammatory initial comment. . . He actually raises an interesting point about the term "game". If you read the article and consider his points, he's not completely off base. I still disagree with some of his opinions but to completely dismiss the nature of his reply would be wrong.

BUT. With gaming nowadays, I think he misses the other aspect gaming has acquired. That it's not exactly a "Game" but in reality it also serves as an interactive story telling device.

Well he's technically right. The oldest games, chess, for instance- is technically a multiplayer PvP game.

Basically video game pushers when I was a kid needed to find a way to get you to play with yourself. I remember there was a sense that this was wrong then; to be shut in from everyone playing against a computer all day.

It's for this same reason that when I hit 13 and went into Jr. High in 1994; kids stopped playing Nintendo. They went into basements, attics, to the goodwill, they went away. If you played video games, you were not cool. You were a loser shut-in and you were a weird nerd that people avoided for fear of contagion.

It may seem laughable to call single player a gimmick now, that was my first reaction, but when you think about it- it does not have quite a history and there was a cultural revulsion to it as close as 20 years ago.

Context. Perspective. Get some.

What a pleb, that is meant as pure spin and nothing more.
It's all advertising and bullshit.
The large proportion of us in the UK, still don't have cheap or consistant access to the internet so single player is all we have to participate in, so try telling us it's just a gimmick... Jackass.
(Sorry, I hate that word but it was rather apt in the current scenario)
Until universal internet becomes a reality and we get rid of solitaire, crosswords, sudoku etc etc (both virtual and physical versions) then you cannot claim that "single player" is a gimmick or on the way out, because even the most social of us creatures enjoy our alone time.

There is one large flaw in this argument.

Multiplayer games are played with -people-.

...I've said enough.

Meatspinner:

That's how I wrote it but spellchecker said no. Guess i shouldn't be so lazy with my english grammar.

It's an English spellchecker. His Latin probably isn't up to scratch.

hahahahahahaha

...

Oh you're serious?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously this guy's an idiot. I see your social gaming and raise you one Skyrim/Mass Effect 2/Assassin's Creed 2.

And don't get me started on single player games with tacked on multiplayer (Mass effect 3 -.-)

Captcha: bath towel. Trying to tell me something internets?

Gimmick?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Am I the only person picturing him wearing sneakers? and also thinking "I don't think I should trust someone who thinks the Tenth Doctor was the pinnacle of good fashion sense?"

Sorry, all the useful points have been mentioned already and I want to jump in, so I'll make fun of his stupid, stupid suit.

I know this is gonna sound insane Mr.CEO.
But please go die in a fire.
You are a large chunk of what's wrong with todays gaming industry.
And for the record, i actually like Multiplayer, i play waaay too much Tf2.
It's just that his statements are...just making him sound pretentious and is outright saying things that dont quite apply to todays market.

So, as I have always preferred playing SP games, I must prefer gimmicks... what the hell?

I don't play SP games because of my friends or lack thereof (not that I don't have any friends); I don't play SP games because I don't like playing with other people (I do play MMORPGs after all); I don't play SP games because of lack of alternatives (there is no lack of alternatives).

I play SP games because of the experience, for the stories, the roleplaying aspects, and because there are times I do prefer to not play with other people. Multiplayer games, however, are a gimmick, and while not always in a bad way - certainly a majority of games going MP have made them worse from my limited experience.

Well, from that article all I can take away is that the Gogogic CEO is a moron which is why he's at the kiddies table of gaming, making flash shit iphones and facebook instead of actual interactive worlds. Multiplayer is the less relevant of the two. Games have always been about entertaining the one who plays it and requiring the use of a second human to provide that entertainment is lazy and wrong. Games are about single-player first and multi player second.

You cannot have sweeping, epic storylines like Baldur's Gate, Deus Ex, Mass Effect or Skyrim if multiple players are all "special". In the case of most modern games, taking EA's as examples, ME3 and the forthcoming DS3, multiplayer is the gimmick. And a shitty gimmick it is too, one I'd prefer to do without.

TOR is the first game that I've encountered that handled this reasonably well. It struck a fine balance between epic story arcs, giving multiple player's unique roles and personal histories, allowing all to make preferred choices but playing only one at random, making a minigame out of it.

The Escapist's own commentators have already explained why single-player isn't "just a gimmick", not a lot more to add.

You know what?

He's half-right.

I notice myself having way more fun when gaming with friends.

Wow. Another win for poor journalistic presentation. A good article with a bad headline to draw people in, and then everyone who comments basically acts like they only read the headline. "OHHH, HE CALLED SP A GIMMICK!" Really people? You can't read the article and see what he's getting at? I'm not saying he's right, but the argument in the article isn't dumb. It's just a headline that's meant to set people off and boy did it ever set you people off.

Better title: "Gogoic CEO is a fucking retard"
Seems to fit more.

While I disagree with his idea of single player becoming a gimmick, the man does sort of have a point with the last sentences of his quote.

Andy Chalk:
"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."

It also kind of ruins the whole point out awesome single player games as a counter example.

Before I accidentally start something I don't want to, I need to reemphasize that I love games of almost all types, single player included and am not siding with the "Single player is a gimmick" thing (which I can't find him actually saying within the article).

Auberon:
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.

But... they're making an Elder Scrolls Online...

OT: Are people really getting worked up over the parroted words of a person that most of us have likely never heard of before? The guy doesn't make games designed to appeal to the people he's talking down on, and I doubt he has the power to encroach on the space of all those Deus Ex's and Elder Scrolls and Final Fantasy's and Fallout's and Fable's and God of War's and so on and so on.

And it could just be a mistranslation. Happens all the time.

I dislike multi-player whenever I can help it, too, but you're not much better if you're adopting a mob mentality of hatred just at the mere mention of the word.

Yes, except Multiplayer games usually suck because of...wait for it...OTHER PEOPLE.

Nothing ruins a game like other people do. Just last night, had a fun game of TF2 going...and a hacker shows up and ruins the server with his speedhack/wallhack/aimbot for a good 30 minutes before he finally left.

In fact, I don't think I've ever played a heavy multiplay game that wasn't ruined by other players.

I'll stick to properly crafted single player experiences, thank you.

DVS BSTrD:
Every time I take a nap, Every. Damn. Time.
Maybe he's a Mormon and doesn't aprove of people playing with themselves.

Please....PLEASE stop taking naps. your dooming us all.

OT: Who is this idiot, and where can I email him a punch to the joy department.

Seriously, SP GIMICKY?

This man can eat some urine-soaked rotten shark as far as I'm concerned. Of course, being an Icelander, he may already do so.

Look at those glasses. Those must be the smuggest glasses ever. The glasses don't even matter, but because he wears them, they are tainted with pure smug. It burns me to look at him.

If I had a nickel for every time something stupid is said on the internet- Whoops, economy's already bankrupt.

Apparently, this man does not play with other people. Otherwise, he'd be aware of the sheer amount of bad-mouthing shits that are on these things.

Single player is a gimmick? I think this guy is the gimmick.

Why do we keep allowing this garbage to set the example?

Personally i think Jonan Antonsson can stuff Gogogic up his ass and shuffle off if he thinks his opinion is remotely relevant. I'm personally offended that he feels the need to make such a ridiculous point.

After searching through all of my reaction images, I decided this one works the best in my personal opinion. Why? Because that's just wrong. I rarely buy games for their multiplayer modes. I love a good single player game. The awesome stories, funny characters. It's all so amazing.

soren7550:
Welp, he's delusional. Or just plain stupid, hard to tell sometimes.

Better go off and tell the folks at Bethesda and BioWare[1] that their games are only gimmicky fads.

You forgot the abomanation known as TOR, though yes Bioware still is mainly single player.

This guy is talking out of his ass. If I had to choose which is more gimmicky I would actually say multiplayer. Also Games were created singleplayer. Plus all of my favorite games(minus WoW and me3's multiplayer(which sucked because of the way you get stuff)) are single player.

[1] Yes, I'm aware ME3 has multiplayer, but hush you.

He sort of has a point. Most games in the course of history were social experiences. However, calling a single player component a gimmick is going too far.

I guess it depends on the kind of experience you want. If you want something akin to an interactive novel, a great singleplayer campaign will scratch that itch. If you want something more like a traditional game, then a multiplayer focused game would be better. It's all what you prefer.

teh_gunslinger:

soren7550:
Welp, he's delusional. Or just plain stupid, hard to tell sometimes.

Better go off and tell the folks at Bethesda and BioWare[1] that their games are only gimmicky fads.

*cough* TOR *cough* Dragon Age Facebook game *cough* Mass Effect social games integration for war readiness *cough* Elder Scrolls Online *cough*

*cough* POST-EA ERA *cough*

As for the Icelandic Scandi, well, everyone knows people from Iceland are just fucking weird, even other Scandis.

[1] Yes, I'm aware ME3 has multiplayer, but hush you.

Single player - the most successfully "gimmick" in video game history.

I'm going to put this down to a poor choice of words on his behalf rather than outright incompetence. Either that or a mild brain aneurysm.

ravenshrike:

teh_gunslinger:

soren7550:
Welp, he's delusional. Or just plain stupid, hard to tell sometimes.

Better go off and tell the folks at Bethesda and BioWare[1] that their games are only gimmicky fads.

*cough* TOR *cough* Dragon Age Facebook game *cough* Mass Effect social games integration for war readiness *cough* Elder Scrolls Online *cough*

*cough* POST-EA ERA *cough*

As for the Icelandic Scandi, well, everyone knows people from Iceland are just fucking weird, even other Scandis.

Post EA it may be, but that's been the state of affairs for many years by now.

I was merely remarking on the fact that pointing to Bioware and Bethesda for single player developers is not the best of examples. Even Baldur's Gate had multi player. As did Neverwinter Nights. It was basically predicated on it. So really, Bioware was only a pure single player dev for a short time in the early 2000s.

If you want to point out some devs that do single player only and does well you could point to CD Projekt Red.

[1] Yes, I'm aware ME3 has multiplayer, but hush you.

Games like skyrim show you that single player just does not work anymore.

oh WAIT

 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