Multiplayer gaming has taken the world by storm, it seems. But where does this leave the gamer of yore? The lone teen, sitting in his darkened room, playing feverishly by himself? (I'm sorry, that really was awful. But you can't write a single player-multiplayer article without a masturbation joke. It's a law of the world. Like how cake is good and newbies are there to be kicked. Again, I apologise.)
The True Meaning of Pain
It was the first-person shooter that first heralded the dawn of multiplayer gaming. Quake 2, upon its release, showed the world what gaming could be like.. no modem-to-modem dial up, no wide-area-networks.. it brought us through a pixelated tunnel to a realm of deathmatch, of clans. And we loved it.
Today, thousands of people come online to play Counter-Strike alone. Thousands more for Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, et al. Battles rage across the persistent-universe battlefields of MMORPGs like Dark Age of Camelot and EverQuest. Human brain meets human brain in a battle of wits in the crater-pocked surface of Age of Empires, or Sudden Strike. Many games are released today in a paradox to the tradition of 5 years ago.. great multiplayer, badly thought-out single player. Because, today, it is multiplayer that sells. Or so it seems. The spawning of games like Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament would suggest that the future of gaming is in pure multiplayer fragfests. But there is much more to it than this.
Where do all the lonely hearts go?
Do they find their way home? Or, more applicably, are the fans of a good ol' comp-stomp being shoved out of the gaming industry? The usual response when a gamer is put to this question is "no, but it is much more satisfying to play against a human opponent. Victories mean more, and no computer makes descisions as quick and devious as another person. Hang on, my poptart is done." This is very true. But the matter doesn't end here - there are some important issues to be discussed yet!
For the purpose of this article, I shall take a couple of games as examples. Unreal Tournament, because of its focus on multiplayer, Jedi Knight 2 for its balance of single and multiplayer, and Max Payne for its single player-only-ness. All were successful and received good reviews.
First up, Unreal Tournament. Most will agree that its single player, for want of a better word, sucks. It is a time-waster for when you can't play multiplayer. It is simple and repetitive.. like Galaxians with balls. However, dial up to your internet service provider and join a server with some buddies and you've got yourself a great game.. its fast, furious, and bloody good fun. It may be simple, but that just means the gibs just flow faster and thicker.
Max Payne, then, doesn't have a multiplayer. Why? Because it would be a logistical nightmare to fit the key game mechanics (bullet-time) into a multiplayer environment. Its a shame, but its true. Yet, while it lasts, the single player game is great, with a very engaging story line and genuinely exiting gunfights. This is where the statement "AI cannot mimic human behaviour" comes into question - does it really need to when you can do things you would never be able to do in a multiplayer game, like dive sideways in slow motion, taking out 5 guys in seconds with your trusty dual uzis?
The force is strong in his one
Jedi Knight 2 is my personal favorite out of these three games. It has a great, long and hard single player game, and to boot, its multiplayer is superb. It took a genre (FPSs) and added great new ideas, such as force powers and the very intelligent Lightsabre control method. Many of my best multiplayer experiences have been from this game.. because to fight like a true Jedi, a level of skill needs to be obtained that is greater than that which you need to pwn in counter-strike. Seeing two l33t players clash is something to behold, as lightsabre clashes with lightsabre, people jump through windows, blaster bolts get deflected wildly and people fall down really, really deep holes.
So, its all great, right, but multiplayer just beats singleplayer in the end? Wrong. Multiplayer has its restrictions too. Balancing is one. Every multiplayer game has to be tweaked, retweaked, patched, tested to death, repatched, and retweaked until every player has a fair chance of winning. This makes for samey teams and places huge restrictions on the games. I'm going to use Jedi Knight again as an example. In single player, you can blast peoples lightsabres out of their hands, then pull it out of their reach with the force. It is a really well-done game mechanic that can be genuinely panic-inducing when it happens to you. This obviously wouldn't work in multiplayer, as the game would be more a case of disarming your opponent of all his weapons than beating him in combat. As such, it is removed. Also, lightsabres lock a lot less in multiplayer, because when two players are stuck in mortal combat some cheeky bugger always has to lob a thermal detonator between them and get two cheap kills. So, in this respect, single player has it - due to the nature of the game, developers have much more freedom to make their games.. well.. fricking cool.
Playing against another human may be more challenging and realistic, but it is much, much less immersive. It is hard to feel that you are a counter terrorist fighting evil terrorists when the enemy team bounds towards you in short hops, AK-47s firing wildly. Believe it or not, bunny hopping is not a tactic wildly utilised by the military. Neither is rocket jumping. Multiplayer games lack buckets in atmosphere and immersion. In Jedi Knight 2 single player, when you confront another Jedi, he looks the part. Dark robes, flashing red lightsabre. The works. Somehow I don't get the same feeling of "being-there" when I confront a stormtrooper with a pink lightsabre called "SpankMe". Likewise, the Sven Co-op mod for Half-Life was ruined for me by the stupid, stupid skins they included. I mean, I like the idea of fighting my way out of Black Mesa, with Barney, Gordon, and.. Yoda?
Great People, Great Times
So, there you have it. My analysis of the age-old question. To conclude, I'd say that for what multiplayer games lack in immersion, they make up for in fun, and especially, longetivity. I will, however, stick to my guns and say that single-player allows for game dynamics that are truly original, and as such it should not be allowed to die. From my own perspective, schoolroom discussions of a gaming nature are more focused around "how do you get past that boss" rather than "how many people did you pwn last night". Single player games are much more accessible than multiplayer games for many people, and I think its safe to say that there is little danger of us losing this prized facet of gaming. I think the future is bright for both sides of the gaming world - on one hand we have Unreal Tournament 2003 and Star Wars Galaxies to look forward to - on the other, we have Doom 3 and Neverwinter Nights. And new games can only be good, right?
The End (or is it?)
--
Spyder