Gogogic CEO Says Single-Player is a "Gimmick"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 

Surely inventing someone to talk to and play with as a toddler correlates more to playing a single player game than multiplayer? Multiplayer requires a minimum of 2 physical people, either in person or online, whereas single player games create the secondary characters for the player. The toddler's invented character and the game's characters are both fictional. His own argument for multiplayer theory shoots himself in the foot from the start.

Also the day that games stop having dedicated single player modes is the day I stop gaming. Even Assassin's Creed noticeable went downhill after they started spending dev time on multiplayer. On anything other than social networks and mobiles, games dedicated to multiplayer are the niche market. Not the other way around.

Covarr:
I tend to prefer multiplayer games. Longtime favorites of mine include Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Left 4 Dead 2, Draw Something... But don't tell me that Portal was gimmicky because it was single player. No, it was gimmicky because it had a portal gun (proving that gimmicks aren't inherently bad, as well).

P.S. Thanks

The portal gun was the central component of gameplay in portal, thus by definition it is not a gimmick. Gimmicks are peripherally relevant to gameplay. An example you might argue as such could be assassination moves in Halo: Reach (and Halo 4) because you could still get the same effect by just quickly tapping them on the back. Still good for humiliating enemies though.

I could dissect his rambling down and prove that it's bullshit, but I'll just save you some time:

Jonan Antonsson is trolling you. Nothing more.

He states gaming started out as multiplayer, assumes this means it's inherently multiplayer, then states that we can go on making single player games anyway.

So what's the fucking point?

Oh right, he called single player games a "gimmick" because his company only makes multiplayer games, and "gimmick" in this context carries a negative connotation. He's just stirring the shit pot to make himself look smarter and more relevant than he actually is.

"The first games were designed as multiplayer experiences"

Antonnson never played Pac-Man, Asteroids, or Space Invaders, obviously.

BiscuitWheels:

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

Video games, sparky, video games.

If he was in charge of a tabletop game company and the subject was about tabletop games, yea, you'd have a point of course, but we're not. It's video games.

image

This has to be on something because this is sooooooooooooooo wrong...

This is the kind of thinking that could ruin gaming if adopted by more people- which, thankfully, it probably won't. Just because games started with multiplayer in mind doesn't mean they were MEANT to always be multiplayer experiences.That's like saying colored movies are a gimmick because they started out in black and white. With changes in technology and time comes changes in the medium itself.

Yes, in the days of the arcade it was clearly more of a social thing, since you actually had to leave the house to play them and almost always had multiplayer, but that was before the home console market rose to great prominence. By that point, anyone could play games at any time, it didn't matter if you had friends over. Thus why single-player experiences became the focus, at least until online gaming came along. But just because we have that doesn't mean we should just write off the last 20-30 years and say "OKAY WE'RE DONE WITH THIS SHIT!"

If the day ever comes where I can't play something like Skyrim or Metroid Prime without some douchenugget sweeping in to verbally assault me and ruin the atmosphere, I'm putting away my controllers for good.

Tomorrow's headline:

EA buys out Gogogic, staffs the former company's employees as Executive Producers of all their studios.

Well, fuck you too, Jonan!

This doesn't even piss me off anymore, it just makes me sigh

DrOswald:
Books are such a gimmick. The first stories were told in groups, but back when books were invented it was impossible to create a book that could tell its story to a group. Now that we have books on tape, written books will be irrelevant for anyone outside a very niche audience.

My exact first thought. If this guy really believes this, he's the biggest tool in the shed.

I never heard of him, his company, or any of his games.

Not gonna let that change. What a.. something rude.

Inclusion of multiplayer is becoming a negative in my eyes.

Having to explain yourself in another instance is a cheap way of obtaining more time on the soap box.

It also indicates BAD COMMUNICATION SKILLS. A condition seemingly frequent among people whose job description states "Good/excellent comunication skills".

If anything when I play an MMO I think to myself "Damn, this would be so much more fun if all these other people weren't getting in my goddamned way."

1: Who the fuck are you?
2: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
3: *walks away*

KeyMaster45:
If anything when I play an MMO I think to myself "Damn, this would be so much more fun if all these other people weren't getting in my goddamned way."

Also this.

That's funny, I think Gogogic is a gimmick, no wait, that's not the right word, what's that word for a phrase with a comical ending? That's right a JOKE.

image

I play like three games online, Wow, Eve and Cs
Though i might check that DayZ thing out

I have 83 games on Steam and several moving boxes full of tangible games

I can see where he is coming from, but i disagree with him. Its like saying that watching a movie alone is a gimmick. yes first real games were made for multiplayer. that does not totally remove singleplayer games legality. by that logic, any 3d game is a gimmic, because first there was 2d ones. He has his opinion and unlike many other CEO hes done at least basic research so hes already above average, but he is sitll wrong.
I think there are two type of games: singlepalyer and multiplayer.
Singleplayer i play only singleplayer and never even look at multiplayer.
multiplayer are what we call MMOs now.

I play like three games online, Wow, Eve and Cs

Id never though id see a person that liked wow and eve and CS at the same time. the three are like the worst enemies.

So I take it he calls his friends to come over and read a book together?

Printed books for personal reading are a gimmick - stories are meant to be told to groups of others.
The stories were designed by travelling storytellers that would tell stories they had learned and made up by campfires or in city streets, but when printing technology became a thing there was a need to construct a narrative structure for commercial purposes. You couldn't depend on people coming together to have a synchronous experience over a story. That would have simply stifled sales. And since there was no reasonable way to connect people in other ways - the theatre was the only serious attempt - it became an industry need to project the book as the storyteller.

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

image

The CEO of social gaming company Gogogic says that games are naturally meant to be played with others.

Reykjavik-based Gogogic specializes in casual and social gaming, so it does have a certain bias about how people play games, but even so these comments by CEO Jonan Antonsson are a little extreme. In a recent interview, he effectively dismissed single-player gaming, saying that while there's a "strong audience for hard and unrelenting games" like Demon's Souls, games are meant first and foremost to be played with others.

"The single player mechanic is a gimmick - games are meant to be played with others and it doesn't matter if it's in-person or online," Antonsson said. "The first games were designed as multiplayer experiences, but when computer and console games became a thing there was a need to construct an antagonist and/or a protagonist for commercial purposes. You couldn't depend on people coming together to have a synchronous experience over a game. That would have simply stifled sales. And since there was no reasonable way to connect people in other ways - the arcade was the only serious attempt - it became an industry need to project the game as the other player."

"Playing a game is a multiplayer activity and can easily be seen as such when you watch young toddlers play by themselves," he added. "They invent someone to play with, someone that they talk to and interact with."

I can see where he's coming from - historically, especially as children, people have played with others - but videogames have changed the definition of "play." You don't read multiplayer books, after all, and listening to music or watching television isn't an inherently social activity either. Antonsson hedged his bet somewhat by stating that even something as simple as a high score list is enough to make a game social and "transform it to an asynchronous multiplayer experience," but he then went on to restate his belief that single-player experiences are becoming largely irrelevant to anyone outside a very niche audience.

"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."

Source: the list daily
[b][a href='/news/view/120358-Gogogic-CEO-Says-Single-Player-is-a-Gimmick' target='_self']Permalink[/b]

And despite that I'm watching the death of the MMO and most muliplayer experience that aren't 'social' single player games like Farmville.

I'm not going to say multiplayer games are a gimmick but I will say that now's not the best time to try to say the MMO is the wave of the future...

who gives a shit what this asshole thinks anyways? This stupid dick is entitled to his opinion, but I find it hard to believe that strictly single player games are a gimmick. Given such masterpieces as Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate I&II, and the Fallout series as well as the TES games. All fucking great games that you don't play with anyone else.

Urgh. Single player is a gimmick in the same way some movie genres are a gimmick. Romantic comedies are no more likely to be phased out because summer action movies exist than quality single player experiences are because multiplayer games exist. I personally believe this is because there are some experiences that cannot be recreated in multiplayer (and if you're the developer who can convert Amnesia to a multiplayer experience while still keeping the same atmosphere, your talents would be better served curing cancer and AIDS, because you are a fucking genius). So, if single player is going to be phased out like any other gimmick, it'll be time to relinquish that old argument of "games are art," because art stops when creativity dies.

Here we have a man who has no real knowledge of video game history.

Multiplayer may be popular now, but it can never trump a quality single player experience. And as for other "games" being invented with multiplayer in mind, allow me to point out that just about every game out there, barring perhaps board games, has a single player equivalent that is played just as often as it's multiplayer equivalent.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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
Registered for a free account here