Single player games doomed?

[CaptHawkeye]

Wasn't it found that a substantial number of people who bought consoles such as the XBox 360 don't even use the online functionality? Though their are probably numerous reasons for this, I don't think it's out of the way to conclude one of the reasons would be sheer lack of interest in playing online with other people who you can't even see.

Another point is Halo 3, people at E3 weren't clamoring for Bungie to show multiplayer, I got the distinct impression they were demanding info on the game's single player campaign. Remember how everyone voiced their disgust at the handling of Halo 2's shitty SP?

Let's also not forget one of the most popular games of last year, The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion is a dedicated single player game. Among others such as Final Fantasy XII.

Given these little tidbits, I find the "lol single playar is domed" arguments make about as much sense as the "pc gamin is dieing" that console wankers like to scream every time a new batch of systems is released.

[Molyneux]

Wasn't it found that a substantial number of people who bought consoles such as the XBox 360 don't even use the online functionality? Though their are probably numerous reasons for this, I don't think it's out of the way to conclude one of the reasons would be sheer lack of interest in playing online with other people who you can't even see.

Another point is Halo 3, people at E3 weren't clamoring for Bungie to show multiplayer, I got the distinct impression they were demanding info on the game's single player campaign. Remember how everyone voiced their disgust at the handling of Halo 2's shitty SP?

Let's also not forget one of the most popular games of last year, The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion is a dedicated single player game. Among others such as Final Fantasy XII.

Given these little tidbits, I find the "lol single playar is domed" arguments make about as much sense as the "pc gamin is dieing" that console wankers like to scream every time a new batch of systems is released.

Halo's multiplayer is an amazing thing.
It only really shines, however, when you have two or more XBoxes set up on separate TVs, each filled with players, all playing in one gigantic deathmatch...or even better, 4v4 team play. Trash talk just isn't the same when you're not in the same room.

[chitoryu12]

Wasn't it found that a substantial number of people who bought consoles such as the XBox 360 don't even use the online functionality? Though their are probably numerous reasons for this, I don't think it's out of the way to conclude one of the reasons would be sheer lack of interest in playing online with other people who you can't even see.

Another point is Halo 3, people at E3 weren't clamoring for Bungie to show multiplayer, I got the distinct impression they were demanding info on the game's single player campaign. Remember how everyone voiced their disgust at the handling of Halo 2's shitty SP?

Let's also not forget one of the most popular games of last year, The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion is a dedicated single player game. Among others such as Final Fantasy XII.

Given these little tidbits, I find the "lol single playar is domed" arguments make about as much sense as the "pc gamin is dieing" that console wankers like to scream every time a new batch of systems is released.

Halo's multiplayer is an amazing thing.
It only really shines, however, when you have two or more XBoxes set up on separate TVs, each filled with players, all playing in one gigantic deathmatch...or even better, 4v4 team play. Trash talk just isn't the same when you're not in the same room.

And it prevents easy screenwatching. Me and my friend both consider looking at your opponent's screen (And I mean staring at it, not catching a glimpse of something obvious out of the corner of your eye, like a teleporter), yet he still does it. It's terrible because he'll just stand around a corner and wait for me because he looked at my screen and saw where I was walking.

[RogueIce]

Let's consider for a moment

Single Player games - you can go at your own pace, go over things a few times, and enjoy a nice long story, and immersion. If it takes you 50 hours to play a 20 hour game because that's how you want to play, that's fine.

You can'd do that in multiplayer games nearly as well.

Hell, alot of multi-player games I don't bother playing because of that.

I find something lacking in most multi-player games. Call it "heart"

i.e
I've tried playing a few shooters multi-player. example; Jedi Academy. I find the multiplayer got boring real real fast. Meanwhile, I have no problem tossing the game back on aftera a few months and playing it again.

I'd tend to agree. Take The Sims for example. I rolled around on Gamefaqs for a bit, looking at their stuff for the games, and I came to realize that I did not build my house as "effeciently" as I could have. My Sim wasn't really starving or dying or anything, but it wasn't "effecient" as they put it.

And you know what, I was perfectly fine with that. I like the way the house looks and you can take your effecient little selves and go cram it. Whereas if I tried to play that multiplayer I'd get tons of assholes with the "lol j00 n00b" taunts while they get their Sims up to levek 10 careers or whatever.

I even look at StarCraft the same way. Fuck build orders and all that shit. I prefer the AI because I don't have to worry about my APM or build order while playing against it, and I can make my base (largely) the way I choose to, and also attack the enemy like I want to (again for the most part) whereas in multiplayer I'd be totally wtfpwned for doing so.

And don't even get my started on MMOs and grinding/questing your way to level 70.

So yeah, I think there is a definite place for the single player gaming experience, and I don't see the developers giving up on that anytime soon.

[Covenant]

Multiplayer games are great for satisfaction and enjoyment, but I think singleplayer games will exist for as long as people have stressful day jobs. I'm just now getting into Oblivion and I'm extremely frustrated by a lot of the stuff the game makes me do (levelling up bizzare side-skills so that I can get a bonus? WTF?) but if I was doing this online it'd be infinitely worse. Plus, once the growing pains are over, I can more or less just bob through the game and enjoy it without needing to worry about someone else messing with my shit. There are games you play for excitement and competition, and games you play for relaxation and recreation. Singleplayer games will nearly always better fill the 'recreation' niche than multiplayer.

[Dooey Jo]

He's using a different definition of multiplayer, it seems:

Since the Internet seems to be erupting with commentary on this, a short form of my argument: Very soon, all single-player gaming will happen within a multiplayer context of connectivity, persistent and publicly visible profiles, and awareness of other users.

So basically, all games with something like a highscore system is multiplayer by this definition. And if he includes even talking about a game in that definition well... congratulations Raph, you've essentially defined the single player game into non-existence.

It should be noted though, that playing a single player game with some friend(s) could add another layer of enjoyment to a game, and that's part of what's called "social play". Maybe he's trying to argue that future games will be geared more towards that kind of play. Personally, I'm not so sure about that being true though. For instance, surely, the success of the NDS among different demographics is more due to its accessibility than its possibility to create social play (I could be wrong though, its portability does open up a lot of possibilities in that area too). I think he's basically right though, about people wanting to socialise with other people, but that doesn't mean all games will have players engage in high degrees of socialisation as gameplay aspects. Maybe if a huge corporation forced a shift in the market, but that would be a bad thing, I think. Sometimes people just want to be left alone.

[chitoryu12]

Question: How did he become a game developer if he really doesn't display much knowledge of what he's talking about? I've seen casual gamers display more reasonable thinking than him, what with his "single player becomes multiplayer without others playing" idea. Perhaps he means that multiple gamers will play single player simultaneously and be able to talk and share achievments? First part stupid, second part is called "Xbox Live".

[DPDarkPrimus]

Perhaps the future of gaming is cross-player gaming.

Of course I'm still slightly confused by the concept and it remains to see how well it works in execution.

[chitoryu12]

Perhaps the future of gaming is cross-player gaming.

Of course I'm still slightly confused by the concept and it remains to see how well it works in execution.

Perfect Dark had a similar concept, where in one game mode player 2 took control of the AI enemies. Cross-player gaming is basically where you play through the story and occasionally pop into a multiplayer game in-between levels.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Perfect Dark's implementation sucked, however.

[chitoryu12]

Perfect Dark's implementation sucked, however.

I know. I don't know whether it was that you couldn't pick your guard to control or the fact that Player 1 can just grab up the better weapons while you're stuck with Mr. Generic Pistol, it seemed a little unfinished. Though if Joanna sucks, you get bragging rights because you used a basic weapon to kill an enemy with easy access to explosives and high-powered weapons while you have a semi-auto handgun or small submachine gun.

[Shrykull]

Single player games are great because you can play them WHEN YOU WANT TO. You don't have to wait for a server to fill and hope it's not filling with retards.

Yes, you know how hard it is now and how long you'd have to wait in a chatroom to play a game of warcraft 2 you create on battlenet? I just wish they'd get a better AI for it, even better, one that could gradually get harder. I still have, and always, always, with that and most other multiplayer wargames, got my ass kicked, but I still want to progress to the point where I can hang in there at least, it will be more interesting.

when people say AI, do they mean in this case, a computer player, not an adaptable program (if they even exist yet) they can react to what you do, add it's own lines of code, etc, plan long range strategies, that are computer opponents are just now more complicated flowcharts, with lots of outcomes, but still not able to choose?

[Uraniun235]

I just wish they'd get a better AI for it, even better, one that could gradually get harder. I still have, and always, always, with that and most other multiplayer wargames, got my ass kicked, but I still want to progress to the point where I can hang in there at least, it will be more interesting.

when people say AI, do they mean in this case, a computer player, not an adaptable program (if they even exist yet) they can react to what you do, add it's own lines of code, etc, plan long range strategies, that are computer opponents are just now more complicated flowcharts, with lots of outcomes, but still not able to choose?

It's pretty safe to assume that in video gaming, "AI" means the same old scripted computer opponents that cannot really adapt in the same way a living creature could.

Also, that last paragraph is really incoherent.

[Stark]

Some games put more effort than others into making 'human like' AI opponents than others - GalCiv2 has AI that get involved in politics and will shield players they hate to prevent another AI winning a diplomacy victory, for instance.

[chitoryu12]

Some games put more effort than others into making 'human like' AI opponents than others - GalCiv2 has AI that get involved in politics and will shield players they hate to prevent another AI winning a diplomacy victory, for instance.

Brings to mind Company of Heroes, where the AI is intelligent enough to take cover behind whatever is available. Then there's Medal of Honor: Airborn. Each soldier has a different reaction to combat and the different situations you're put in, reflected in both his actions and his facial expressions. Unfortunately, I haven't really seen AI that provides truely human-like behavior past those games. Every game company praises how their AI can take cover, flank, and provide support for teammates, when those things were being done years before.

[Stark]

Sorry, that's just basic one-step scripting. Taking cover is only an AI challenge insofar as avoiding 'hiding' while being in plain view or inappropriate hiding etc. Facial expressions of course have nothing to do with AI at all. This is not 'behaviour', this is unit autonomy.

Since most RTS AI cheats like a motherfucker, it's not really comparable to non-cheating AI like that in GalCiv. Indeed, I'd love an RTS where the AI plans to make peace with you, fund your enemies and then coordinate a surprise attack after separating you from your allies (as in GalCiv), but nothing like that ever happens (unless you count 'ally then build huge army then attack', which again is just simplistic).

I think what Shrykull wants is AI that plays *like a human*, not *perfect*. Most games have AI that is blind, deaf and dumb to anything outside it's 2 or 3 priorities, but some games make an effort to have an AI that monitors all kinds of things (again like in GalCiv where the AI can spot your attempts to economically/diplomatically undermine them). RTS's are buggered by the realtime thing, though.

[chitoryu12]

It's basic, yes, but it's sadly the most realistic thing that I've managed to see in an FPS. It's the same in the new Splinter Cell game, where each person has a different reaction to a bar brawl. However, in the case of NPCs like guards, their reaction (call for backup and then get in the action) is expected. It would be smarter to simply have a large range of possible reactions and just choose one from random, rather than give one person the same attitude towards everything.

[Dooey Jo]

It would be smarter to have a large range of possible reactions and choose an appropriate one based on the circumstances. That isn't actually all that hard to do, so if FPSs don't do that today, I can only blame lazyness and too much focus elsewhere (such as graphics. Though I guess we all know that the Nazis were stupid as all fuck, but at least they looked good).

[Shrykull]

I just wish they'd get a better AI for it, even better, one that could gradually get harder. I still have, and always, always, with that and most other multiplayer wargames, got my ass kicked, but I still want to progress to the point where I can hang in there at least, it will be more interesting.

when people say AI, do they mean in this case, a computer player, not an adaptable program (if they even exist yet) they can react to what you do, add it's own lines of code, etc, plan long range strategies, that are computer opponents are just now more complicated flowcharts, with lots of outcomes, but still not able to choose?

It's pretty safe to assume that in video gaming, "AI" means the same old scripted computer opponents that cannot really adapt in the same way a living creature could.

Also, that last paragraph is really incoherent.

What don't you understand about it? I'm asking exactly about the adaptability of the AI, whether it can modify itself to suit the tactics you are using, or whether it's just a very complicated program that can't, like a flowchart, you know what that is, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowchart

In this case just a very complicated one that it's outcomes are based on what happens, that it has no ability to make it's own decisions, just to follow the ones it has been given. It could not for example, erase one of the choices the flowchart gives it, and write in another choice it came up with on it's own.

[chitoryu12]

In other words, a true artificial intelligence, one that can make it's own decisions and change them if need be while planning ahead.

[Stark]

In other words, a true artificial intelligence, one that can make it's own decisions and change them if need be while planning ahead.

That's not true AI, thanks for playing.

The AI he describes is concocting new behaviours on the fly, which is a bit more complicated than 'make it's own decisions' and 'project into the future'.

I maintain this isn't necessary - only it's *appearance* is necessary. Sure, RTS AI is incredibly linear and often even uses simple timetables and flowcharts as Shrykull describes. But so long as the AI *appears* to be making human-like decisions based on human-like sources of information (ie, watching the game not magical omniscience) it would be fine, if not necessarily smart.

[Shrykull]

In other words, a true artificial intelligence, one that can make it's own decisions and change them if need be while planning ahead.

Of course- how do we know we truly make our own decisions? Couldn't it be the result of a very complicated flowchart in our heads, and the "programming" we have received from our senses, based on the knowledge and probable outcomes of those decisions?

Or in some cases, going on gut feelings, or strong feelings, at that doesn't influence computer behavior, at least not yet, but could our decisions just be algorithmic with neurons instead of transistors?

[Dooey Jo]

In other words, a true artificial intelligence, one that can make it's own decisions and change them if need be while planning ahead.

Of course- how do we know we truly make our own decisions? Couldn't it be the result of a very complicated flowchart in our heads, and the "programming" we have received from our senses, based on the knowledge and probable outcomes of those decisions?

Or in some cases, going on gut feelings, or strong feelings, at that doesn't influence computer behavior, at least not yet, but could our decisions just be algorithmic with neurons instead of transistors?

An AI in a game doesn't need to re-write its programming. At any given moment, the player only has a finite number of things that he can do, and the only thing such an AI could do exclusively is to give itself new options in the game; ie really cheat. You don't want that. Instead you can give it the same options as the player, such as moving and firing and scanning an area (that is, looking around), and give it some facts, such as "this area is good for sniping", "med packs increase health", "player with large gun that can see me is dangerous", "low health is undesirable", "shooting player is good" etc., give it some way to "think up" tactics based on the available facts, options and observations of the current state of the game (you'd want to hard-wire some tactics though, so it doesn't have to start from scratch), and give it some kind of memory to remember how well a given tactic worked before. This would work just like a human player, because all a human can do is to adapt to the rules of the game and remember what works and what doesn't. The problem is that for non-trivial games, those rules can be quite complicated to "teach" to an agent (not to mention getting the thing to work...), and a stupider or different AI may well suffice.

If something can be accurately modelled by a flowchart (for instance) in a game, it doesn't really matter if that isn't the way it actually works in the real world. You want to keep it simple.

[Covenant]

AI's in games are more complex than that, and the biggest problem is getting the AI, the levels, and the challenges to perform together. For example, Quake 4 had a really great combat AI system that you absolutely never saw, ever. However, on my own, I got sick of this "survive in this room for a long time against multiple bosses" challenge and spawned myself about 10 soldiers. They did some amazingly clever things with the cover in the room, things they couldn't have been programmed specifically for, they just picked it up on the fly. That's awesome, but I only would have seen it in action if I spawned them where they weren't supposed to be.

So really, you can make good AI, but if it has nothing to get traction off of, it'll end up looking sub-par. Q4's AI was unimpressive until that moment, when it adapted and did extremely well in a group. However, most of the time, AI consists of "challenge the player by throwing yourself at him."

A game I definately want to see is a game where it's you versus a Beast. The Beast and you have complete run of a massive area, like a full-size starship or something, and it's coming for you. It's not very intelligent but it adapts and learns, and it'd basically be a game consisting of a massive, complex, highly dedicated AI, and you. If you could narrow down the variables to one single environment to test, one single enemy to coordinate, and one single target (the player) then I think the AI's could afford to be smarter, both in terms of gameplay and resource usage. Otherwise, it's really hard to make an AI that is light enough on the system to afford non-cheating, but it is also more than just a number cruncher DoomBox like you see in "HARDEST" level RTS games.

SupCom, however, has moronic AI. Even at the top level, the AI is childish impotent. Can't do shit.

[Uraniun235]

Also, that last paragraph is really incoherent.

What don't you understand about it? I'm asking exactly about the adaptability of the AI, whether it can modify itself to suit the tactics you are using, or whether it's just a very complicated program that can't, like a flowchart, you know what that is, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowchart

Mainly this sentence here:

"that are computer opponents are just now more complicated flowcharts"

There's got to be a wrong word in there somewhere.

Also, you use way too many commas, which makes it very disjointed, and so, it becomes hard, to read.