Ben-DutkaIn some ways, I get his point. In others, you really can't say the single-player mechanic is a "gimmick." …that just comes out the wrong way.
In a recent [a]listdaily interview with Gogogic CEO Jonas Antonsson, we find that some game designers believe all games should be social, whether they're being played simultaneously with others or not.
Antonsson admits that the hardcore still appreciate the single-player campaign style, but the game really has to be special to capture widespread attention. He also said that all games were initially supposed to be multiplayer, anyway, but they just didn't have the technology to make it happen.
"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. The first games were designed as multiplayer experiences, but when computer and console games became a thing there was a need to construct an antagonist and/or a protagonist for commercial purposes. You couldn't depend on people coming together to have a synchronous experience over a game. That would have simply stifled sales. And since there was no reasonable way to connect people in other ways – the arcade was the only serious attempt – it became an industry need to project the game as the other player. Playing a game is a multiplayer activity and can easily be seen as such when you watch young toddlers play by themselves. They invent someone to play with, someone that they talk to and interact with."
One note, my friend- It is a much greater artistic challenge to create a magnificent and memorable single-player experience because it requires writing, character development, and things of that nature. Multiplayer may require more technical expertise but that doesn't encompass every aspect of interactive entertainment. Furthermore and to be blunt, to say single-player is a "gimmick" is not only inaccurate at this point in time, it's just downright asinine. Sorry, but that has to be said.
