Our Properties: Gamasutra GameCareerGuide IndieGames Indie Royale GDC IGF Game Developer Magazine GAO
My Message close
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
February 10, 2012
 
What drives the developers of Unity?
 
Analyst questions validity of unusual January NPD results [13]
 
Road to the IGF: Lucky Frame's Pugs Luv Beats
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
February 10, 2012
 
arrow Virtual Goods - An Excerpt from Social Game Design: Monetization Methods and Mechanics
 
arrow Principles of an Indie Game Bottom Feeder [21]
 
arrow Postmortem: CyberConnect 2's Solatorobo: Red the Hunter [1]
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
February 10, 2012
 
Irrational Games
Systems Designer
 
CCP - North America
Lead Character Artist
 
CCP - North America
Sr VFX Artist
 
CCP - North America
Sr. Tech Artist
 
CCP - North America
Animation Director
 
Toys for Bob / Activision
Senior Programmer
spacer
Blogs

  Single-Player Videogames
by Emanuel Montero on 10/02/09 10:36:00 am   Featured Blogs
10 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
  Posted 10/02/09 10:36:00 am
 

Games are a social activity. Without players, there's no game.

But videogames seem doomed to remain single-player software games. Of course, there're massively-single-player-online software games where there’re tons of players but still each player is having a single-player game experience. So let's forget about MMOs for a moment.

I'm tired of the single-player game tyranny. I want to play with my friends. Hand to hand. In the same room. Remember the old times of Capcom games? 2 player games were the rule. Why does my XBOX 360 have 4 player capability if there're no games (except sports games) that make good use of it?

And why story-driven games have to be single-player games? I want to play a story-driven game with my friends. Hand to hand. In the same room. And that's exactly what I'm working on.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies feature a group of youngsters as the main characters. Indeed, the whole horror movie genre uses a group of characters as a genre convention, where all characters die one after another until the last survivor confronts the evil antagonist.

The audience easily identifies with this convention becuase they're actually seated with their own friends watching the movie. So it’s part of the horror movie experience to be with friends. Why shouldn't it be part of the horror videogame experience to be with friends?

My Texas Chainsaw Massacre videogame (which of course is not official and therefore will be properly renamed) is a 4 player horror game for XBOX 360. Each of the 4 players creates a young player character. They begin the story together and can explore together or make smaller groups: a threesome, couples or individual groups. Eventually they will confront the evil antagonist and die one after another.

Each time the antagonist kills or captures a player character, the other characters grow stronger. So by definition the last character, the survivor, is the strongest character in the story. In fact, the survivor holds all the tension of the horror story since it’s forced to become the hero of the story.

But even within a single game story, many characters can wear the mask of the hero. Therefore, a survivor can save other player characters which in turn may become the survivor. So there’s a dynamic survivor role shifting. Interesting. Everyone can play the main character of the story. Everyone can become a hero.

But becoming a hero entails great risks. The survivor is the only player character that can win or lose the game. The survivor is the only character that can save the group, kill the antagonist and bring a happy ending to the story. But if the antagonist kills the survivor, everything ends with a frustrating sense of non-closure. The evil remains alive.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies feature a group of youngsters with very strong emotional relationships. Here’s another horror genre convention. Love and sex precede scare. That’s why all player characters have unresolved emotional tensions which players would try to work out during gameplay.

And of course, the evil antagonist will attack them in the worst moment. Here’s a little example. PC1 is a cute girl whose bigger brother, PC2, is flirting with a beautiful girl, PC3. PC4 is the strong boyfriend of PC3. Being PC3, would you have an affair with PC2? Or remain loyal to PC4?

Being PC2, would you go for PC3? Even if PC4 may kick your ass? And what if during gameplay PC4 falls in love with PC1? What a mess. Hope you get the idea. Four players exploring the emotional relationships of their characters. And at the same time the evil antagonist is trying to kill them all.

Worth playing with your friends. Hand to hand. In the same dark room. 

 
 
Comments

Jay Johnson
profile image
This sounds extremely interesting! I definitely agree with you in the idea of wanting to make more games accessible to multi-play. I think there are a lot of games already heading in this direction. For example, Halo ODST's firefight mode, while available with a single player option, is much more fun and all but impossible to complete without the help of more players. Left 4 Dead also taps into this idea. I am looking forward to your game - do you have a website or anything like that where interested parties can follow its production?

Elliot Green
profile image
I have this game that is based on Lord of the Rings. It is a regular hack and slash with singleplayer, but it allows multiple players to play every level. There are not even different cameras as there are in other multi player games. I think that most single player games, especially those that have AI companions, can be converted to have multiple players.

Dirk Broenink
profile image
Hm, I agree that videogames should more often be a group experience. I disagree that is not possible with the current games yet. Wii games are all about the group experience. Most pc games are played with voip or with several pc's in the same room, with much larger numbers than just 4 (in fact, most pc players I know personally never play alone, only together, I think this is a visible trend seeing how more and games are designed to be played together). I do not know much about the 360 or PS3, but the most popular games for those, don't they have a co-op and so on?

I like your idea of making it both a horror game and trying to engage the social aspects within the group as a gameplay element.

Emanuel Montero
profile image
Thank you all for your comments!

Jay: Shamefully, Halo ODST and Left 4 Dead only allow 2 players offline. I don't know why it's necessary to go online to play with 4 players. And about my game, I really appreciate your interest. Keep an eye on my Gamasutra blog for updates. I'm still prototyping so there'll be a lot of posts before I get something running.

Elliot: You're totally right. Any single-player game can be re-designed into multi-player. My point is that we NEED to design for multi-player, make good use of the unique multi-player dynamics. Converting single-player to multi-player requires much more effort than the other way around. So my advice is to design for 4 players and then add some extra rules for single-player, in case someone doesn't have a friend to play with. Anyways, good luck on your LOTR game. Sounds really interesting!

Andre: I probably used the wrong words. I ment that Capcom arcade 2 player games were cool. And of course, going for single-player or multi-player is a design decision to be considered in each project. My point is that most designers are not exploring the full potential of multi-player games, just because of the single-player tyranny.

Dirk: Good point. There are some Wii games and PC LAN games that are multi-player. Still, there are lots of single-player games for Wii and PC. I just hope that some day I could play all games with my friends.

Enrique Dryere
profile image
While I'm normally a big proponent of multiplayer games, I would never make the argument that ALL games should be multiplayer. Perhaps every game, development costs permitting, should contain multiplayer elements, but should not be exclusively multiplayer.

The point of "games," in broad terminology, can range from sport-like competition to interactive storytelling. Would you want to read a book with your friends or alone, privately, and at your own pace? Certainly, you may want to discuss the story with them, but most books are better enjoyed alone and pensively. The same can be true for certain games whose intent is to provide experiences that are better enjoyed alone, which can be of any genre.

Furthermore, single-player experiences can often act as elaborate tutorials that players can go through before engaging in multiplayer competition.

Coop can be lots of fun, but it would certainly seem forced in many games. Take Metroid for example. For me, that franchise has always been about a feeling of isolation, exploring a strange and dangerous world on your own. Throwing in cooperative play may result in a good game, but it would be a very different game.

Christopher Wragg
profile image
Also why do people always forget system link, Case in Point CoD4, can play split screen multiplayer upto 4 players....BUT if you want 5 players you will need the following extra, 4 more tvs, 4 more xboxes, and 4 more copies of the game.

Same deal with ODST, why do they force 2 per screen, why not 4 per screen, is there some sort of physical limitation??? Does it apply both over system link and live? Or is it some sort of moneymaking scheme, forcing more players to buy the game if they want to play multiplayer. Or alternatively is it simply laziness or a time constraint?

Jorge Hebrard
profile image
Your forgetting about Terminator Salvation. Oh, and LAN Parties.

Matthew Woodward
profile image
I'd argue that if the market was there, it would be being served. I have no data to support this, so it is just an assumption, but I strongly suspect that co-op gaming tends to be expensive to implement and only has a small (albeit vocal) audience.

I also suspect that the main limiter on that audience size is not desirability or inherent gameplay value (I'm not going to argue that playing with a friend isn't better than playing on your own for probably the majority of genres), but simple logistical difficulty. L4D works because you're committing to a single shared session; longer co-op games (almost all story-driven titles would fall into this category) require you to line up many consecutive sessions to get any kind of value out of it. And obviously, the more players you're trying to involve, the more difficult this becomes.

Sure, playing through the Baldur's Gate series with five other friends would be exceptionally good fun, but generally speaking there's a very small overlap between "people who have money to buy lots of games" and "people who have time to devote to extended co-op gameplay", because achieving the former generally requires a job, which precludes the latter.

The tl;dr here is - I suspect, sans data - that adding co-op /generally/ doesn't make a whole lot of additional money, and that "better" co-op implementations /generally/ both cost more and earn less.

Emanuel Montero
profile image
That's a very good point, Matthew. I've found some data about multi-player gaming (Essential Facts About The Computer and Video Game Industry, Entertainment Software Association, 2008): "59% of gamers play games with other gamers in person. This is a rise from 56% in 2007 and from 51% in 2006". Well, 6/10 seems enough market to me. Imagine what could be the percentage if we were developing more multi-player oriented games.
Still you're totally right about game length. I think it would be easier if story-driven games were shorter, closer to a 30 minute TV series episode than a 20 hours never-ending movie. Games would gain a lot of replay value and it would be easier to team up with your friends for multi-player.

Horatiu Prica
profile image
I have always thought of the single player experience like reading a good book or watching a movie but you are the main character. I think that this the main attraction for the single player experience but once you have finished the “story” there aren’t a lot of rewards for the player to continue playing. This is where the multiplayer option kicks in. It can be really enjoyable to play any game with a friend but three for players isn’t the best idea.

I imagine that not every household has a projector or a huge flat screen so for the general public it can be very uncomfortable to play a shooter on a screen that is split between four or more players. I think developers are creating games for the general public not for a certain group and this is why 3,4,5,6 co-op will never be fully enjoyable.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Techweb
Game Network
Game Developers Conference | GDC Europe | GDC Online | GDC China | Gamasutra | Game Developer Magazine | Game Advertising Online
Game Career Guide | Independent Games Festival | Indie Royale | IndieGames

Other UBM TechWeb Networks
Business Technology | Business Technology Events | Telecommunications & Communications Providers

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Contact Us | Copyright © UBM TechWeb, All Rights Reserved.