Don't Single Me Out!!!

EA Proclaims the End of Single-Player Only Games

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.

Medal of Honor Causes Uproar

EA Getting Flagged for Inclusion of Taliban

The revamp of Medal of Honor is coming with a price, and its not just $60

Although this is news that broke late last week, it's beginning to catch steam in the media this week instead. The folks behind the upcoming military shooter reboot "Medal of Honor" are getting their upcoming game pulled from all Gamestop stores that are located within Army and Air-Force compounds, because the game allows players to play as a Taliban members in its multiplayer mode. The Army and Air Force Exchange Service says it will not allow the game to be stocked within its compounds out of respect for family members of servicemen and women who have been affected by the war in Afghanistan. Soldiers can still buy the game and play it in their compound, but they will have to purchase the game off site to do so. Now, I consider myself a hardcore gamer, and I am the first one to chime in when it comes to freedom of artistic liberties in video games, but this is the one time where I can see and fully respect both sides of the argument.

The infamous Call of Duty airport scene.

For starters, the inclusion of allowing gamers to play as the Taliban is a bold move on developers part. Video games have always been in the mainstream in terms of battling the skewed perception many people have of violence in video games, but I think that EA is playing with fire by including real-life militant factions in its game. For the past couple of years, "Call of Duty" was receiving the backlash for its realistic depictions of violence in its games. Most recently, the controversial airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 which forces gamers to play as an undercover CIA agent who infiltrates a terrorist organization, and is forced to partake in an attack on an airport terminal, ultimately killing dozens of innocent, unarmed civilians. As harsh as the scene may look to the average person, I defended the developers decision to include the scene because it was THE pivotal point in the story that drives the game's plot forward. I don't want to spoil it, but it was unpredictable and had an ultimate twist to it. I'll admit, it did teeter on the line of being tasteless violence, but I think Infinity Ward (the guys who created Call of Duty) handled it very well by allowing players an opportunity to opt out of the level all together if they wish. Still, I can't say I'm 100% in support of Medal of Honor.

The Taliban in Medal of Honor. You can see why its controversial

For Medal of Honor, the developers are going for a realistic take on their story. They're including a plot that revolves around the current war in Afghanistan, allowing you to play as members of the US Army Rangers, as well as an elite American Military Unit called 'Tier-1.' Because of the nature of the story, many people are quick to bash the game for its touchy content, but I can't be the one to point the finger at EA just yet until I see how they handle the story. EA should know what it's getting itself into, and so far I think they have the right approach in handling the publicity of their game. EA has gone on record saying that it respects the military's decision to ban the game from Gamestops within military bases. As for its stance on playing as the Taliban in multiplayer, an EA spokesperson talked with AOL news stating "the reality of the game necessitated it. Most of us having been doing this since we were 7 -- if someone's the cop, someone's gotta be the robber, someone's gotta be the pirate and someone's gotta be the alien." I couldn't agree more with that rationale, but still, it's completely understandable for some people to be uncomfortable controlling members of a realistic terrorist organization that kill US military soldiers.

Playing as the bad guys in Red Dead Redemption

Still, when looking at popular games like Red Dead Redemption, Modern Warfare, and even Gears of War, someone is always a bad guy when it comes to online deathmatch games. Red Dead Redemption has you play as federales, bank robbers, etc. while Modern Warfare has you play as an ambiguous terrorist organization known as the "Op-For" or opposing force. Gears of War also has you play as the cannibalistic Locust. While everyone has their take on a bad guy, the only catch with Medal of Honor is that the bad guys are not fictitious. They are very real...and very dangerous. Still, I understand it's really a catch-22 at this point. Although I understand why people are upset with the game's content, I will say that developer's have complete discretion as to what they do with their game. And lets face it, if you opt to buy a military shooter video game, you should know what you're getting yourself into.

Call of Duty Black Ops...This guy is eerily similar to Solid Snake

All this hub-bub over the game is the same thing that happens with a bad joke that pokes fun at a realistic event too soon. There's a very famous comedic quote that says "Tragedy plus time equals comedy." Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this issue is something to be laughed at, but the point the quote makes is that you need to let time pass by before it is socially acceptable to tackle a certain issue. Why do you think a game like "Call of Duty: Black Ops," which takes place during the cold war and Vietnam, isn't getting as much heat from the press? Vietnam was an atrocious event that led to the deaths of  tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and French combined. Still, there have been a number of games released detailing combat violence in the canopy jungles of North Vietnam and yet, the media never really tackled it. Whatever the case may be my point in all this is that I understand where critics of Medal of Honor are coming from. They're banning the sale of the game out of respect for the families. I get that. I find it very analogous with the whole rubbish in the news of building a mosque on ground zero. (For the record I'm against it...which is probably the reason I understand the stance the military is taking on the new Medal of Honor game.) Sure you have the right to build and defend your mosque or video game or whatever it may be, but at the same token there must be a morsel of mutual respect, and for that matter some common sense, in understanding that there are always two sides to every argument.