StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Didn't want to necro this thread http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... c&start=25

But, what Pablo was saying about the comparison of single player games to books, I pretty much agreed with. Reading a book is a solitary experience. I thought of ways you could make reading a book "multiplayer." I suppose if you had a big enough book, tome sized weighing 70 pounds you and your friends could read it together, or as we used to do in middle school, read the same book all class.

But............wouldn't you rather read it on your own? Wouldn't you rather read it alone and not hear people's emotional reactions and discussions of the book, which could be not only be spoilers to parts you haven't read yet, but distracting, some of the best games I ever played were single player- legend of zelda series, and various other RPGs.

Also, what about the problem with the game not having a plot? Traditionally, multi player games have had the notorious aspect of wherein a multiplayer world, a player doing something (except for games like diablo 2, for example, well, it killing diablo would deprive someone of the opportunity) would change the course of the story. Take Ultima online for example, where most of the interaction happens between players on a shard, there really is no coherent story, just certain activities you can participate in, no long drawn out plot, if any plot at all. I suppose it could be done, with great hardship and a hell of a lot of programming to program every outcome to a player's actions effecting the non-players in the world, but hasn't yet.

And, finally, convenience, not having to gather players for a game, and instead diving into the story. Though, there is no AI yet that's smart enough to beat me in some single player that are also multi player games, like Starcraft and Warcraft 2 (yes, war2 is old, and there's almost no one playing on Bnet anymore.)

Don't get me wrong I like multi player games as well, but I think single player games are here to stay.

As much as many gaming companies think so, I doubt so many people are enamored with being forced to play online.

Playing single player might be called "anti-social," but it also means I don't have to coordinate with anyone schedule for playing but mine. It also means I get to focus much more on the game itself, the storyline, the plot, the characters - instead of some jackass cheating.

My two pennies' worth, anyway.

Single player also has the advantage over co-op in that you don't have to worry about whether or not your partner is a fucking idiot. All it takes is one wrong move, and you fuck up someone's game. I've played with idiots before. Not pretty.

I'm different to Pablo (ie, I'm right, lol in that I don't like videogame plots or stories: they're usually nonsense such as you'd find in a fantasy novel. However, you're absolutely right, in that in an MMO context the number of simultaneous players means that storywise nobody can ever actually DO anything that everyone else hadn't already done.

Thus, those crazy 'achievements' and 'grinding for faction', etc.

The whole idea of 'zomg sp is dead' is stupid. SP and MP are different, and there will *always* be people who don't want to be bothered by idiots. Then again, that article suggests GalCiv2 (a great SP game) is actually multi because you can compare scores.

rhoenix wrote:Playing single player might be called "anti-social," but it also means I don't have to coordinate with anyone schedule for playing but mine.

In this way I think single player games fit better with my social life. There's no obligation to play, as there would be in a clan or just close, online-only friends. This makes my gaming schedule subordinate to my social/education/work schedule, rather than the other way round.

I play on the Wii socially, but to me that's different - the Wii games I play focus on gathering a bunch of people in the same place, which is really just chillin', not serious gaming.

Stark wrote:I'm different to Pablo (ie, I'm right, lol in that I don't like videogame plots or stories: they're usually nonsense such as you'd find in a fantasy novel.

You'd prefer games that are just a set of context-free missions/levels, with a generic objective for each?

Starglider wrote:You'd prefer games that are just a set of context-free missions/levels, with a generic objective for each?

Thanks for taking me out of context! My thrust certainly wasn't that I like SP games for reasons other than their cripplingly stupid stories, right? Clearly being unimpressed by poor game stories means I think games shouldn't have stories!

Stark wrote:Thanks for taking me out of context! My thrust certainly wasn't that I like SP games for reasons other than their cripplingly stupid stories, right? Clearly being unimpressed by poor game stories means I think games shouldn't have stories!

Have you never liked any single game story? It's not so much that I want to argue with you over the overall quality of game plots as much as I have a hard time believing that you never liked any story in any game.

I do believe he's talking in general terms, which is something I can agree with. Quite a few single player stories only exist to get you from point A to point B.

rhoenix wrote:As much as many gaming companies think so, I doubt so many people are enamored with being forced to play online.

Playing single player might be called "anti-social," but it also means I don't have to coordinate with anyone schedule for playing but mine. It also means I get to focus much more on the game itself, the storyline, the plot, the characters - instead of some jackass cheating.

My two pennies' worth, anyway.

Usually game text cheats (like those in warcraft and starcraft) aren't allowed, or do you mean people playing with map hacks and the like? Those are only good until they get caught and banned, though there may have been some that someone has gone a long time with and hasn't gotten caught yet, I don't know.

I would never really feel like I won using a cheat (I never used one) , anyone can, there really just isn't any satisfaction in it, anyone can do that. I remember one time though, I won a school cook-off with Goulash that my mom insisted on making instead of me. I still felt satisfaction though, at least I thought of the idea.

Ypoknons wrote:Have you never liked any single game story? It's not so much that I want to argue with you over the overall quality of game plots as much as I have a hard time believing that you never liked any story in any game.

Like Erik says, it's that they're generally weak. Even games apparently driven by their great story, like Baldurs Gate etc, seem to me to be the worst kind of generic fantasy drivel. Games like Halflife 2, being more action-oriented, have far worse stories (that make as little sense as 'I'm being chased by the aliens who conquered the world I guess I'll go to that secret resistance base! Oh no it's been attacked how could they have known it was here!). Many games have predictable but ignorable stories, like STALKER or Freespace or whatever, but the strength of a story is never a big draw for me in games. I like SP games, but I want to make my own story, not play some nerdy programmer's idea of great fiction.

In direct answer, I think I liked game stories more when I was young (and less jaded) and when the stories were more 'fill in the blanks with your imagination' than 'watch a bunch of cutscenes and listen to a bunch of dialogue'. I guess I enjoyed the stories for SC2 and Starflight, but that's probably due to the fact that you had to LOOK for it and TRY to follow it, rather than the game railroading you down it: it was drama and a sense of achievement rather than playing a Star Wars novel like KotOR. Ironically I think the -writing- for KotOR was good, but the actual plot/story was retarded (EU-standard silliness, though, not the game's fault).

On the topic of cheating, I've known people who play Counterstrike constantly while cheating, and have no interest in playing properly. I've also known people who only enjoy MMO's when they're griefing - they're quite honest, they get a kick out of ruining someone's character or wasting their time. This is not a good thing, but every multi game has to put up with it.

Stark wrote:I like SP games, but I want to make my own story, not play some nerdy programmer's idea of great fiction.

Indeed, that's probably one of the more annoying aspects of most SP games. Take GTA: San Andreas for example; the way CJ acts in the cutscenes is totally out of character with the gameplay! Even if you do it low-key and don't go off on random civilian/cop-killing rampages like I did, it still made no sense!

"Hey, I just did a frontal assault on a military base and lived. Why the fuck don't I just kill Tenpenny and break my brother out?"

I like Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2 because it did give you a sort of choice between the whole Light Side vs Dark Side thing, even though it didn't really amount to a whole lot (a few less cut scenes and one different saber battle for the Dark Siders). But still, the idea was there and it did change the story's ending, for what it's worth.

As silly as the Civ games can be, at least there you can make up your own "story" if you choose: are you a war-mongering, tyrannical overlord bent on global domination? A benevolent ruler who is more interested in trade and science and prefers diplomacy over war? Something in between? You decide!

I really prefer single player games. And I like to have - though sometimes shitty - stories and pots.
I tried multi, but apart from a half-a-year meeting with very good friends for a gaming session I never had the burning need to play multi or even online. Tried Eve, Guild Wars, DnD, but I never wanted to keep on playing.
So single-player all the way.

RogueIce wrote:"Hey, I just did a frontal assault on a military base and lived. Why the fuck don't I just kill Tenpenny and break my brother out?"

'I rule 45% of LA with an iron M4. Aww man I can't ever get out of the hood! Running a business is too hard, I'll always be crushed by the man y'know?'

And yeah, the Civ games are flexible (as are most strategy games, only RTS's really have proper 'stories'), except in most of them there's only one way to win (kill everyone) and thus your options are limited. But I've been playing Majesty a bit lately, and while it's a good idea (hands-off kingdom management with little AI dudes) there just isn't enough to it due to the same kind of 'only one right way' situation.

Stark wrote: On the topic of cheating, I've known people who play Counterstrike constantly while cheating, and have no interest in playing properly. I've also known people who only enjoy MMO's when they're griefing - they're quite honest, they get a kick out of ruining someone's character or wasting their time. This is not a good thing, but every multi game has to put up with it.

But on the reverse, side, its also fun to win against cheaters and griefers. I known players who either ally with others or even bait griefers so as to "defend" the community so as to speak, and the thrill one gets when one overpowers a maphacker in DOTA is great.

In my opinion, single player games, and video games in general, have suffered from several effects:

1) First and foremost, the use of advanced graphics engines to "Wow!" people over and draw attention away from inferior gameplay, plot, characterization, mechanics, or unoriginal ideas. The most recently produced single-player game I remember having honest-to-goodness fun with was probably Half-Life 1 or 2 or Homeworld 1 or 2. Incidentally, this also seems to be the shortcoming of many multi-million-dollar-budget films -- how often do we see a truly memorable movie? Many seem to be special-effects / CGI extravaganzas with little in the way of unique, intriguing characters or a moving story. I think one could go on and on.

2) A lot of people just want to hop on, blast a few enemies, run a raid or two, etc., and not have to devote time and attention to learn the details of the game and develop a personal strategy, and experiment. Perhaps this is due to available time, but games like Master of Orion or UQM (Star Control II) take a LOT of patience to get anywhere in. Incidentally, the theme of instant gratification also receives total glorification in the media -- how many movies show relationships as sprouting up in minutes? "Hi, I'm Kevin." "Let's sleep together." Sick.

Before I digress further, I'll turn back to where I was going. I think many single player games can be like books, in the sense that they take time to get into and can be very rewarding. However, certain single-player games like Splinter Cell 2 seem to be lacking in the plot development department. Schemes are farfetched and little explanation is given before throwing you into the next mission. For some truly awesome single-player action, I would recommend things such as "The Lost Vikings", Half Life, Homeworld, Star Control II, and Alpha Centauri. How could I forget -- I also highly recommend TIE Fighter and X-Wing Alliance. And, if you *really* like simulators and are not intimidated by what is probably the steepest video game learning curve, Falcon 4.0 or the sequel, Allied Force, are immersive, challenging experiences. A good joystick is mandatory.

Multiplayer games would be great if you didn't have to play with other people.

Bean wrote:Incidentally, this also seems to be the shortcoming of many multi-million-dollar-budget films -- how often do we see a truly memorable movie? Many seem to be special-effects / CGI extravaganzas with little in the way of unique, intriguing characters or a moving story. I think one could go on and on.

There are many, many movies churned out by Hollywood every year, made on the cheap, which are as forgettable as the multimegabuck SFX extravaganzas.

If ultra-shiny graphics effects didn't exist, there would still be a whole lot of mediocre and shitty games churned out every year.

IMO, the plots were way better back in the 80's and 90's golden age of 8-bit gaming. Not as pretentious as today and not locked down with having to mimick watching a movie. Honestly, it's as if the "interactive movie" fad never died and instead got stronger so any given game today plays much like Dragons Lair with better gameplay. It's still canned stories and you can never influence the main plot no matter what.

Shrykull wrote:But............wouldn't you rather read it on your own? Wouldn't you rather read it alone and not hear people's emotional reactions and discussions of the book, which could be not only be spoilers to parts you haven't read yet, but distracting, some of the best games I ever played were single player- legend of zelda series, and various other RPGs.

Very many people seem to come to message boards (like this one) after reading a book they found to be good (or crap) and want to hear what other people thought about it.

Also, what about the problem with the game not having a plot? [...] I suppose it could be done, with great hardship and a hell of a lot of programming to program every outcome to a player's actions effecting the non-players in the world, but hasn't yet.

That is demonstratively not necessarily in order to have a coherent plot, as there is not a single-player game in existence that gives the player that kind of freedom to affect the story. One could easily conceive of a multi-player game where different players take different pre-written roles, playing the NPCs, so to speak (and make no mistake, in the vast majority of single-player games, your player character is completely pre-written. The choices you make in the game does at most only superficially affect the story). A game like that would face different storytelling problems than single-player games, but it can be done and can have as linear a story as any other game. It's just that no-one has really bothered, for whatever reasons.


And yes, stories in games suck ass. How many RPGs (and these are supposed to be the story-driven games, mind) are about saving the land/world/universe? Yes that's right, all of them. How many books and films have such stories? Surprisingly few. Then you have some other games, like Super Mario, where you're only saving the princess (except when they make an RPG of it; then it's really about saving the world! Plus hilarious dialogue, but the story is really same-old).

But there is no reason why games should have to be confined to retarded stories like that. Most gamers just doesn't seem to care though, and as long as they don't, things are going to progress slowly. And that's sad, because all this graphical advancement really opens up a lot of possibilities in terms of storytelling. I can forgive NES adventures for telling trivial stories, because they really didn't have much to work with, but that games today are following the same kinds of storylines is crap.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Bean wrote:Incidentally, this also seems to be the shortcoming of many multi-million-dollar-budget films -- how often do we see a truly memorable movie? Many seem to be special-effects / CGI extravaganzas with little in the way of unique, intriguing characters or a moving story. I think one could go on and on.

There are many, many movies churned out by Hollywood every year, made on the cheap, which are as forgettable as the multimegabuck SFX extravaganzas.

If ultra-shiny graphics effects didn't exist, there would still be a whole lot of mediocre and shitty games churned out every year.

I thought the movie always outnumbered with Lawrence Fishburne was just this sort of movie, contains practically NO special effects, but the story and dialog, and drama was fantastic.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Bean wrote:Incidentally, this also seems to be the shortcoming of many multi-million-dollar-budget films -- how often do we see a truly memorable movie? Many seem to be special-effects / CGI extravaganzas with little in the way of unique, intriguing characters or a moving story. I think one could go on and on.

There are many, many movies churned out by Hollywood every year, made on the cheap, which are as forgettable as the multimegabuck SFX extravaganzas.

If ultra-shiny graphics effects didn't exist, there would still be a whole lot of mediocre and shitty games churned out every year.

I thought the movie always outnumbered with Lawrence Fishburne was just this sort of movie, contains practically NO special effects, but the story and dialog, and drama was fantastic.

As far as a games go, sometimes I admit, I do enjoy thier graphics more than the game, take for example- Donkey Kong country.

I highly prefer singleplayer over multiplayer; the number of reasons for that is just too numerous. In multiplayer I am forced to rely on my fellow player, who may or may not play as he (or she) should. There is nothing worse then having a team if idiots and having my ass constantly kicked.

So the single player stories are not really good. So what? If I play Max Payne, then I play because I want to shoot criminal butt. Half-Life 2 didn't make much sense. Nor did it have to (although I think that vagueness is a deliberate point). Really, do you need a good excuse for killing headcrabs?

Stories are most often a backdrop: something to help you immerse yourself in the gaming world you are playing in. Sometimes the stories are relatively good, sometimes I just want to punch the guy who wrote it. Yeah, the fact that every goddamn RPG is about saving the world is rather boring. But you get a kick out of it.

Good gameplay includes a relatively good story, but a good story does not make a good gameplay.

Although, making a good plot is rather hard with most games, especially when the gameplay must make sense along with it.

Most of the time I play games for one reason: To let my brain relax in between more creative pursuits. Engaging in some minor gorefests in Diablo 2, doing a little Unreal Tourney adrenaline-gut-reaction fun is a great way to get some necessary vegging out time before jumping back into story-writing, or setting up role-playing games with friends.

The only time I prefer my games to have a strong, compelling storyline is when *I'm* the one who can create and dictate the storyline. Maybe it's just the writer in me, but being forced to glide along someone else's storyline, unless it's in a damn good movie or book, always ends up disappointing me.

It's because of this I'm absolutely in love with Neverwinter Nights. The original game was...meh as far as storyline goes. But the scenario creator is an absolute godsend. A complete freeform map-utility, item-creation, monster-creation, and quest creating programs allow an infinite supply of fantasy-type worlds whose only passing resemblance to D&D is 'Hey, that polygon model kinda looks like a beholder!'

Right now I'm in the process of recreating Diablo 2, slightly modifying the storyline, and adding in a shitload of elements, background scenes, additional character-building, and the like so that I can create a full, pretty free-form quest structure Diablo 2 mod for Neverwinter Nights that still manages to stay true to the original storyline.

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear: I prefer single-player games over multi-player. If I'm playing 'multi-player', I prefer it to be at least as free-form and versatile as a competently run role-playing game.

What I dislike in multiplayer games are not so much the lame-asses, but the psychotic wanna-be Pattons with that "gotta win gotta win gotta win gotta WIN, goddammit!" mindset. They have to run/control/be in charge of everything, they flip out if you don't (or can't) hold the flank, whatever...

The best type of multiplayer is you and a few friends in a closed system like a LAN line. You get that "thinking adversary" challenge and more tactical flexibility. MP is too full of shitheads, griefers, lameasses, wanna-bes, etc to be able to truly enjoy it.