Zoned in

August 31, 2007

Single-player versus multiplayer in game design
By Michael Lafferty

The journey should be the focus, not tacking on familiar multiplayer for replay value

It is a tricky bit of game design, one that has to be addressed early on in the production cycle of a title. With the advent of next-gen console gaming and leaderboards, accomplishments and the like, there is a growing call for online gaming in titles coming out.

A lot of publishers are promising the moon and delivering the same chunk of well-tread dirt. Deathmatch, team deathmatch and capture the flag are the standard bearers when some games look to add that element to their single-player campaign modes. It seems that those formats have been around for as long as players have been going online to play against others. That makes them familiar, not necessarily great modes of play.

Some titles are predicated on only offering those types of game, spreading the ‘blast-the-other-guy’ love across numerous arenas, enabling voice so the taunting continues long after player A has pumped several rounds into an unsuspecting player B. But in light of the graphical splendor that the next-gen systems are capable of, or the unique gameplay mechanics, is trotting out the same old game elements worth the price of losing the immersion factor in games?

Games are, in most cases, an interactive story. Players take on the role of protagonist, or antagonist, and live inside a world created for the story. To immerse players into the game is the goal of a lot of developers, only to have that immersion level ruined through stories that drop in references to something that is out of the scope of the created world. For some games, the humor drives the game. Take the Sam & Max series, for example. Pop culture references abound because they can. Sometimes the humor is obvious. The goal is not to draw players into the psychology of the game, to make them feel part of the Sam & Max universe, but rather to entertain. Telltale knows that and has it down pat.

But then you take a game that wants players to be part of the world, and you want them to experience the wonder of discovery or feel the tension of impending doom, or the spine-chilling tremors of certain terror about to leap out and startle them – that is part and parcel of the worlds and can be ruined with references to the familiar … like a pop culture reference … or the same multiplayer modes.

Folklore, the pending PS3 action-adventure-mystery game from SCEA, takes the BioWare approach to online content (like the Neverwinter Nights community). The game is the game, but players can build and upload their own dungeons for other players to try. It is level modding, in essence, and does not detract from the immersion of the game because it challenges players to remain within the realm, to create as part of the lore of the game and to challenge their creativity in an attempt to stump other gamers.

In my opinion, online modes are not always necessary. I would rather play a great single-player game, one that has depth to it and allows the players to dive into a world and breathe its air rather than have developers feel it necessary to have an online mode and dilute the content so that the great game, in looking at the whole, is merely an average experience. Online gaming is great, there is no doubt about that. The opportunity to share a gaming experience, to bask in the glow of victory over another human – within the friendly context of gaming (and not talking about those arrogant individuals who take it way too seriously and forget it is recreation and supposed to be fun) – can be time well spent in a social and mentally challenging task (or it may simply be a reflexive exercise – it’s all good). But there are titles that are geared for online gaming and titles that are not.

It seems, with increasing frequency, that developers are tacking on that online mode when they should be spending the time, instead, to make the single-player experience deeper and more rewarding.

Too often we talk about the replay value of the game, and developers throw in multiplayer for that reason. But, to reiterate, games should be about that story and making players feels as though they are part of it. Consider this – what is the replay value of a novel? Once read, you know how it will turn out, so all the surprise is gone. But those who have libraries will tell you that re-reading a book is like experiencing the journey again with a good friend. Surprises are not necessary, it is the nuances and the immersion in the world that counts the most.

I do believe that video-game storytelling is making strides in that direction. And that can only mean bigger vistas for the industry and new excitement for gamers.