What was once just a highly-craved, welcomed add-on tacked on to a game designed to be played by an individual at a time, has now manifested into a popular, ever-expanding feature practically deemed necessary by gamers and some developers for a game to be considered adequate. Entire libraries can be filled talking and touting all the intricacies and details that entails how, when, where and on what game should such a feature be implemented toward. Some feel every game should come equipped with it while others feel none should at all. A delicate yet stern, resounding integration of this feature is pertinent in establishing a stronghold on a developers fanbase, revenue, rapport and overall stance in the gaming industry. If decided to be put to use, how well a developer executes this feature ultimately defines who they are and who their target audience is. If by now you haven't a clue at what I'm hinting at, I'm referring to gaming's new backbone--Multiplayer.
How is it then, that of which was once just an extension of a self-sustained experience, have now come to be a veritable triumph in its own right? When said out loud, the word alone--"Multi-player& quot ; -- should immediately send the readers mind down a tunnel of unmeasurable, almost unattainable possibilities. Those of which can only be achieved by a platform that allows a user to control the outcome of a scenario ( a video game in essence), and doubles it. Whatever was happening in your game, can now be done by another, sometimes simultaneously. Yes, Multiplayer, or the act of playing a game with another user, can be enjoyed and experienced in a multitude of ways. Today, developers offer gamers the ability to team up with other players on the same screen or in a different time zone. They can also annihilate that very same person, often times within the same game. The possibilities are almost limitless. When attempting to grasp the massive potential to be harnessed by the concept, it almost proves fruitless to imagine another entity that can stand against it. Yet, one exists. It has always and continues to dwell, if even ever more so gallantly.
Its tough to imagine an activity thats so engaging and empathetic, that when its experienced by anyone else besides the user at the time its happening, it actually loses its worth. A technique that was designed to make a game more fun by adding more users into the experience, actually taints the experience when additional users are forced into it. Many gamers feel adding co-op to a game, limits the impact of the campaign by forcing other gamers to be involve in the story. The Single Player experience thrives off its ability to concentrate all of its resources into delivering an unadulterated experience designed to only affect a single individual at a time. Imagine if a movie was directed by two different people. However similar these different directors viewpoints on the plot of the movie may be, its hard to imagine the movie being completed as it would have originally been, had one person directed it. This isn't bad in the least, however it is highly improbable for two individuals to respond the same exact way emotionally to every scene. Much like a movie in its production phase, a Single Player game being played is only truly recognized for its brilliance if one individual controls the outcome of the product in the way he/she sees fit. Anything designed that's so desperately dependent on the emotional attachment of the user to the product via its storyline, gameplay, length, entertainment value, visual fidelity and musical scores, can only be understood as the result of a person or group of individuals, who understand the value of the human beings ability to understand a person's vision. It is because of this notion, Single Player games are both held on high pedestals and remain so popular. When the ideology is finally realized, it becomes very easy to understand why Single-Player games are in a league of their own.
If we're to assume that this is all true, then which experience remains the better of the two? Unfortunately, this question can't be answered by conventional means. Anyone of us in here can go on for days as to why each respective component is better than the other. Not before long, we'll come to the inevitable conclusion this subject isn't as black and white as we'd hoped it'll be. To truly find out which component of gaming reigns supreme, we have to come into terms with how trends work. This is the only true way to coming as close to a solid conclusion as anyone can hope for. There's a great debate ready to be tried with the subject matter at hand for those who wish to undertake the task in finding out which is better. However, I personally believe that to even begin to understand the overlying point that is present in a case such as this, is to look towards the status quo.
The state of the gaming industry is seldom in a standstill. Most times it's pretty useless to use it's current performance as a means of providing solid proof in any case. There is in one instance however, where the industry's constant fluctuation plays a vital role in supporting a case. That is when the case is proving what's hot and why? It's as simple as that. Only in an industry such as this, can a feature/game/graphic style/genre/etc reign for years at a time and then suddenly, overnight, become superfluous. This is the case with the "What's more important/better, Single Player or Multiplayer" debate. As it stands, both can exist successfully as their own embodiments. However, only a developer who implements both features inside of a game whose very SP/MP components compliment each other so well and transition between each other so seamlessly, reserves the right to be accredited a winner. Many titles execute this technique very well in fact. Isn't it ironic? In an age where mere components that once couldn't exist without each other, are now only regarded as great when they exist within each other? This says much more about the games we play and the gamers who play them, then it ever could about the components themselves.
As it stands, Multiplayer now lives as its own entity in the gaming universe. It has emerged and to many, evolved further than its Single Player counterpart ever could have hoped to. Entire, fully-priced games are being designed around Multiplayer alone and the general "hardcore" consensus leans towards multiplayer based games, over single player campaigns. Suffice it to say, games that ONLY include MP are generally priced at $39.99 USD....which leaves one wondering about its integrity in the industry. Now so more than ever are Multiplayer components (meaning some sort of multi-user gameplay) being implementing into games whom which were once designed to just deliver a single-player experience. Many gamers feel the forcing of this application is where the problem lies. Its difficult to determine if a game could've been better or worst with or without multiplayer added to it. Much like its difficult to tell if a song would've been as great if it did or didn't have that artist guest featured on the track. Declaring a winner on a subject as grand as this has little chance of succeeding by simply referring to one article's perspective. C'est la vie. Alas, this is just one observers attempt to understand what's at hand. I have my viewpoints, as you have yours and we both have our preferences. However, to get involved means to be support what you stand for, so do so by continuing to support the games and developers that generate the titles that you find deliver the respective features that are the most entertaining
No comments:
Post a Comment