Browsing through the magical internet today, I came across an article on some hefty words from the man behind gaming giant Electronic Arts. EA Games' label President Frank Gibeau says he believes the days of single player only games are over, and that "online is where the innovation, and the action, is at." If you can't grasp the implications of this, then grab the nearest electrical outlet with your fingers. EA is one of the biggest monster developers/publishers in video games, followed closely by Activision. These guys either develop or publish Triple-A title games the likes of Dead Space, Mass Effect, and Medal of Honor. That's not to say there's some truth behind Gibeau's statements, but there's something unsettling about his words.
Hey...nice plasma cutters |
The fact that Gibeau singles out single-player only games is something we as gamers should be wary about. For those of us who have been playing games since before our eyeballs were fully developed, we've been bred on the single player gaming experience. Over the years, games have become more and more advanced in terms of graphics capabilities and story telling, and with each great game I play, my anticipation is ignited to wait and see what can possibly come next. Unfortunately, this announcement; this off-hand statement from EA's top boss, could derail the progress developers have made in creating these lush worlds for us to jump into.
I can't knock on the popularity spike multiplayer has gotten over the past decade. Games like Goldeneye for the N64 and Halo really paved the way for a new style of gaming, which ultimately requires us to bring a friend along for the virtual ride. The thrill of playing with another person soon took hold of the internet, and multiplayer has since ballooned into an obese cash cow for developers, who are displaying brilliant marketing tactics by offering downloadable content online. Just think about it, you pay $60 for Halo:Reach, only to be duped into paying another $10 for every new set of multiplayer maps, not including purchases like clothes for your avatars, which also costs some dough. At the end of it all you're paying upwards of $80 for a single game! It's absurd! There's no denying that online multiplayer games ARE the way of the future, but it would be a tragedy to completely ignore the significant audience that enjoys single player games.
To those of you who have played an online multiplayer games...or for that matter, watched someone else play, you can tell it's, for lack of a better word, chaotic. Online adversarial games like Halo or Call of Duty feature some of the most obnoxious human beings to grace this planet. I can't tell you how many times I come across a 13-year-old who shotguns me in the back of the head, only to run up to my corpse and embarass me even more by pretending to be a necrophiliac (all this of course is happening while he's calling me a bitch who just got effed in the A). While I do still continue to play these adversarial games online with other people, it's gotten to a point where I don't put on my headset anymore. I just don't have the lung capacity to get into a back and forth argument with a child who tells me the reason why my penis is small. The point is I don't want to be forced to always play games online with other people. Sure there is loads of fun to be had when you can get together with an honest, good natured group of players who simply want to have fun, and those are the sweet moments I cherish, but 9 times out of 10 gamers will have to brave the toxic pools of incoherent gamers, and that's something I can avoid by dabbling in the single player.
This is what happens when you devote yourself to multiplayer |
EA's top dog went on to clarify his explanation of the single player/multiplayer argument, saying "I volunteer you to speak to EA's studio heads; they'll tell you the same thing, they're very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay – be it co-operative or multiplayer or online services – as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours-and you're out. I think that model is finished." In the words of my favorite flap-head Canadians from South Park "F**k You Buddy!" But seriously, how can I sit by here like a defenseless deer about to become a hood ornament and not be upset by this? A good single player game offers great gameplay mechanics, a sense of control, and if done correctly, a great story to be immersed in. I also have to point out, if you're playing a 25-hour single player game then sign me up right now. I'm hard-pressed to find games that can make it past the 10 hour mark.
Some of my all time favorite single player experiences came with Resident Evil 4 and Bioshock. Both games told an immersive story, had tight controls, and were riveting adventure. Even years after their release, I can comfortably sit down, pop in the disc, and enjoy the experience all over again, and guess what, no 13-year-old will shove his nuts down my throat. Ya can't tell me that isn't worth the purchase alone. Seriously, all kidding aside, this statement should also be taken with caution considering the source. EA doesn't really have the best track record when it comes to delivering a great online experience. Sure Battlefield 2 and the plethora of sports games under EA can qualify as great online games, but we're also talking about the company who released Dante's Inferno and Army of Two. Still, I'll give EA the benefit of the doubt once their highly anticipated sci-fi horror game Dead Space 2 releases this winter. For the first time Dead Space 2 will feature competitive online multiplayer, which is rightfully creating a buzz. Still, the original Dead Space didn't have a multiplayer component to it, and was a surprisingly engrossing and lengthy single player experience. I tend to appreciate developers who spend all of their time and talent meticulously detailing their environments and animations, while setting up great pacing in a game. Pacing is one of the most pivotal things a developer can create in a game, and unfortunately it's impossible to do in a multiplayer game.
In the end, it troubles me that this is the philosophy EA is approaching to creating games. I love multiplayer as much as the next rude teenager, but I also love to engage in a single player experience. I know that Gibeau's announcement doesn't mean single player is dead, it's just when a company usually tends to put all of its eggs in the multiplayer basket, things don't always end up so well. Just look at Bioshock 2 or even Resident Evil 5. Still, I hope EA can be professional enough to create the best of both gameplay worlds without sacrificing too much to either side. It's almost like a movie production company saying "hey, we know that people really like bonus features on their DVD's/Blu-Rays, so we're gonna give you more features and less movie." I dunno, at least that's what it seems like to me.