• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Single player is a "gimmick" says Gogogic CEO

Slamtastic said:
Multiplayer is a gimmick used to avoid putting the effort into AI.
Click to expand...

AI is shit excuse for humans in most games that have any form of competitive mode to them. Also it's not AI it's heavy scripting that over time you can find a lot of weak spots to loop and abuse. Until we get ram and quantum based machines I refuse to play against code that is often 1 or 2 dimensional in it's thinking.
 
KojiKnight said:
I can sort of see where he's coming from... but he misuses the term. Think about what kind of experiences are the best single player ones. They are in depth stories, fairly heavy on cinematics, etc. They are much more movie like. Gameplay is kind of at a disconnect from what makes a great single player game great (versus what makes any game great in general).

That's not to say that's not going to change eventually... when VR actually exists, then you'll see gameplay flow into cinematics much more because you can fully interact with what's going on.
Click to expand...

cinematics and story driven BS are not what make great single player games. Those have been around long before that crap took over the industry.
 
I'm sure he's 110% behind that statement until the exact point in time when his company creates a single-player game.
 
Yeah, Europa Universalis was imagined as multiplayer where every nation is played by a human player and an average game takes at least four lifespans.
 
Considering how far people went to last gen to label great gaming concepts as "gimmicks", id say the guy doesnt sound as moronic as he is.
 
Number of human players is irrelevant, playing chess against a computer is no different than playing against another person except that there are certain obvious advantages to having an opponent that is always ready to play and can raise or lower their game to test/meet your current skill level.
 
Amalthea said:
What's a Gogogic?
Click to expand...

Sounds like what Inspector Gadget use to say before that helicopter would come out of his hat.

51lOVdoJOkL._SX250_.jpg
 
What a stupid statement. What's Gogogic anyway? I searched for it on Wikipedia and got no match. If you're a game developer/publisher with no Wiki page, then you must have failed MISERABLY.
 
First though when clicking on the thread: another mass attack on something obvious
Second though on reading the OP: guys got a good point
Third thought on reading [most of] rest of thread "?"

I don't know and don't care who this guy is, but he has a point. Games have been competitive for a long old while. Kind of like the difference between games and books is that games are competitive while books aren't.

Seems fair enough to me.

Not that I actually like online gaming at all. If I'm going to get competitive I'll do so with people I know and can take the piss out of afterwards (or vice versa) - gloating and mock-punching is at least half (and for some games most) of the fun.
 
KojiKnight said:
I can sort of see where he's coming from... but he misuses the term. Think about what kind of experiences are the best single player ones. They are in depth stories, fairly heavy on cinematics, etc. They are much more movie like. Gameplay is kind of at a disconnect from what makes a great single player game great (versus what makes any game great in general).
Click to expand...
I disagree.

I REALLY disagree.

From times to times, I enjoy a decent story, but most of the time, if it's what I'm looking for, I take a book or watch a movie, they're better at this.


Most of the game I enjoyed are not story-related. I spent an awful lot of time on Arkanoid twenty days ago, and I can still spend a lot of time in an arcade game (even as simple as Arkanoid, I played a lot of Alphabounce recently).


I'm doing it to see if I'm able to overcome the challenge. Finish a platforming game, including the most difficult and hidden routes, for example. Complete all the levels of a puzzle game. Etc. Leaderboards could be interesting, but I probably wouldn't look at them anyway... I remember seeing leaderboards on Disgaea 3, I haven't even looked at them them once.

In fact, even in many games where competition could be interesting, I'll pass. I probably prefer playing F-Zero against CPU, no wait time for a race, no problem leaving when you want, no stupid people that don't like to lose (granted, I'll probably be the one losing in F-Zero, but you see what I mean). Of course, it's better with friends, but most of the times, it's difficult to find great players that play the games you like at the time you want to play them.


I probably wouldn't mind if all games were single-player personally, except some games that can be played by anyone at a friend gathering...
 
You know, I would take this opinion with more merit, if he didn't happen to be working for a company where their goal is to make social games. His message only matches what his company does, not what's really going on.
 
I'm only really interested in single player games, so if they go the way of the dodo, I'll just find another hobby.
 
To be fair to him, he says
The high score list is a simplest way to make a game social, to transform it to an asynchronous multiplayer experience.
Click to expand...

which is no issue to me.

But calling single-player a gimmick? Eh, I think I preferred when subversus called it inferior.
 
Htown said:
Complete nonsense.

Gameplay is core to what makes a good single player game. Story is entirely irrelevant.

Unless you're suggesting that it was the story that kept people coming back to Mario all these years.
Click to expand...


Surely the only reason people played Mario 64 was to find out what sort of cake Peach had made for Mario.
 
If you guys bothered to read the article he does state a few times that he enjoys single player games and that there is a place for great single player experiences.
 
Using the word "gimmick" may raise some hackles here on GAF, but he has a point. AI on the characters you interact with (usually involving a weapon) in single player is a substitute for a human being. The satisfaction gained from beating a hard game or enemy is partly because of the game becoming your AI opponent, and personally I imagine the (human) developers when I'm beating a hard game. When that game is "beaten" it's a victory over the developers too.

There's always some emulation of the human element. If the game doesn't create it, we will. The only problem with a competitive multiplayer video game world is the inability to be the "one true hero" within the game, and the inability of the developers to tell personalized stories.
 
Not a gimmick, but a trend in decline. The technical limitations of early video games condensed a traditionally social human experience into an antisocial one. The idea that they're a "gimmick" is ignorant, but they're definitely on the decline for good reason.
 
KojiKnight said:
I can sort of see where he's coming from... but he misuses the term. Think about what kind of experiences are the best single player ones. They are in depth stories, fairly heavy on cinematics, etc. They are much more movie like. Gameplay is kind of at a disconnect from what makes a great single player game great (versus what makes any game great in general).

That's not to say that's not going to change eventually... when VR actually exists, then you'll see gameplay flow into cinematics much more because you can fully interact with what's going on.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute. What in the actual fuck?
 
I would argue that games are meant to be interactive, and we simply haven't had the technology to create interactive experiences that do not require another living thing on a wide scale prior to the last 50 years.

I suppose in that sense single player games are a gimmick, in the sense that any new technology is a gimmick.

I would also suggest that he re-examine his definition of "games," as well. Sports are a subset of games, correct? Does that mean that anyone who participates in an individual sport in a non-competitive way is "not doing it right?" If you like to go skiing or swimming or running, is that less valid because you're not racing against someone directly?
 
Cronox said:
Using the word "gimmick" may raise some hackles here on GAF, but he has a point. AI on the characters you interact with (usually involving a weapon) in single player is a substitute for a human being. The satisfaction gained from beating a hard game or enemy is partly because of the game becoming your AI opponent, and personally I imagine the (human) developers when I'm beating a hard game. When that game is "beaten" it's a victory over the developers too.

There's always some emulation of the human element. If the game doesn't create it, we will. The only problem with a competitive multiplayer video game world is the inability to be the "one true hero" within the game, and the inability of the developers to tell personalized stories.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I feel like the "one true hero" when carrying a team of noobs in TF2. : P
 
"I also think that it is worth to note that the single player mechanic is a gimmick - games are meant to be played with others and it doesn't matter if it's in-person or online"

haha what a fucking preposterous premise hahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Single Player Games are TOO Risk, and Sony is right
2
61
843
Orpheus replied
Since Sony is Reportedly pulling back single player games on PC
35
585
SNG32 replied
Next single player game to break 1M daily players on Steam?
2
82
868
Idleyes replied
[GamingBolt] 12 Single Player Games That Had GOTY Hype And Blew It
44
489
PauloRoberto replied
Ex-ND director says Naughty Dog had at LEAST 2 single player projects in development, one led by Shaun Escayg, which is seemingly an Uncharted game
Opinion Rumor Game Dev  2 3
105
929
DEAD ORIGINAL replied
Top Bottom