Ben-DutkaIt's not the conversation I ever expected to have. But it only reminded me how much things have changed.
Anonymous Moron: "Wait…so you don't ever play multiplayer?"
Me : "No, I do when I have to. Like for reviews. But no, very rarely do I do it for fun."
Anonymous Moron: "…who the hell even lets you review games if you're not a gamer?"
Boy, I must've missed a meeting. I've been playing games for 27 years and now I'm being squeezed out of the group? I have to hand back my gamer card? I don't qualify because I'm not part of the mainstream? You will notice we weren't referring to any one particular game in that brief conversation; it was just online multiplayer in general. Things like this always make me worry about the future of the industry but developers will always say single-player campaigns can't possibly die out.
However, this got me thinking: the single-player and multiplayer elements of a game are often very different (although it stands to reason that if one is great, the other will be great, too). I mean, we see entire development teams for big-budget projects dedicated to one or the other…might critics and game reviewing sources soon have to take a similar approach? I.e., one person to review the single-player and another to handle the multiplayer? I admit, I find it difficult to give both the attention they deserve. There are only 24 hours in the day.
But I had never expected someone to say I'm not a gamer because I don't play online. That's a new one. But I suppose there are people out there who aren't surprised at all; the same people who ignore all campaigns and care exclusively about multiplayer experiences. Evidently, they're in the majority. …either that, or this guy is just a colossal douchebag.
For me multiplayer is more of an option than a requirement. I prefer playing solo but there are times when I do like to play with other folks online: MMO's, RTS, and some shooters. I much prefer the old days when multiplayer meant you and some friends would sit around the tv, each with a controller, all sharing a split screen. But those days are pretty much gone now as most games require that everybody own their own copy to play with other people.
Excellent post. Anti-Social gaming is the way to go sometimes!!
"For me multiplayer is more of an option than a requirement…" – indeed Garibaldi, indeed…
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
I agree with Geobaldi, online is just extra gameplay. A long time ago there was no internet and people played on their consoles at home or at the arcade. It's not a necessity and definitly doesn't make you a non-gamer if you don't play online. Someone's comment was kinda dumb…
No Ben, your right, that guy is just a super douchebag. I will voluntarily hand over my gamer card if there are no stories in games. That being said, it will never come to that. Not with the likes of Naughty Dog, Quantic Dream and Hideo Kojima around.
Quantic Dream and Hideo Kojima?? The guys that have put out ONE game each in the past FIVE years? Those guys? I'm all for stories too but come on, those two aren't saving the medium.
I'll take one really great SP experience over 5 half assed storyless patchworks that are really aimed at multiplayer fans.
It doesn't change the fact that they are great storytellers. Just because they have longer dev cycles doesn't mean they are taking anything from the medium. Also, QD is very much helping the medium by pushing how a story can be told. How much emotion can be displayed in games.
@PasteNuggs
Thumbs up for you, friend! Lovely reply.
Alienange –
That should tell you something if QD and HK can only put out one game in five years and have that big of an impact.
multiplayer is there…I play alone most of the time…or when friends are over…sadly not enough games have online co-op or offline racing…thankfully fighting games do have offline multiplayer so we still crowd around a tv. a gamer doesnt have to play multiplayer imo
Colossal douchebag. Multiplayer is here and it's a form of gaming, but saying those who don't mp aren't gamers is not only ignorant it pretty much proves HE'S not a gamer.
Take a good hard look at mp. Devs are dying to figure out why some games have extremely popular mp while others are ignored. The thing is, mp itself is still in its infancy. Devs are still trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.
So to say you have to mp to be a real gamer is not only ignorance, it's proof that you don't play enough games to know what gaming is.
I guess I'm not a gamer either. Wish somebody could have told me that back in the late '80s so I wouldn't have wasted so much time on a hobby of which I, apparently, don't partake.
That guy has the COD disease.
I don't know… I think he's just stupid.
yeah @ Alienange That's why he has the COD disease.
you gotta admit though, its kinda hard to tell those two apart, hahaha.
don't listen to those fools Ben, I have been very busy last couple of months and i haven't played multiplayer games in a little while, does that make me a non-gamer?? i don't think so, another thing too is that line between single-coop-multiplayer is getting thiner and thiner every year.
Collosal is an understatement. I don't always agree with everything on this site, but I know when something is total BS. I respect people's opinions but saying someone isn't a gamer because they don't play online is just dumb. If you say I'm not a gamer because I only own PS3, that's all fine and dandy but you're still wrong. (I do own more than that btw, I just play my PS3 most often.)This guy is entitled to his opinion by all means but that doesn't make him right
A gamer (whether hardcore or casual) is defined by traits like playing the games you like in the style you like and having fun doing it. By no means should anyone feel like they're being "squeezed out of the group." How does this guy feel about games with no multiplayer?
I won't lie, I DO enjoy multiplayer. I play Uncharted, Demon's Souls, Guitar Hero, ModNation Racers, and more games online, but by no means would I be absolutely devastated by the inability to do so. The single player experience is what gaming was founded on. If you play nothing but online, you are more than likely a casual gamer. And this being probably the longest comment I've ever written on this site, I'm gunna leave it at this: Don't even consider him to be right Ben, he has no idea what he's talking about.
Last edited by Riku994 on 7/26/2011 10:04:18 PM
Thanks. Personally, I just define a hardcore gamer as someone who says video games are their #1 hobby. They just have to love games; that's all. I don't put a time or genre requirement on them.
…..well, unless they only play the same type of game over and over.
Yeah Ben, that's what I believe I said it was too.
However I consider multiplayer a genre in itself. Does that mean I'm saying what I think I'm saying? :0
I mean, it's like people who play strictly play solo, are kinda like people who play COD..bear with me 😛
Because, if they're not willing to go give multiplayer a try (and I know for a fact some people on this site haven't) then what seperates them from the COD addicts? They're both not willing to try another genre. Which in my books doesn't make them a proper gamer. So I think your little douchebag does have a point 🙂
I don't play alot of multiplayer with a room full of people. If I play multiplayer it's usually with a buddy and we'll play rock band or borderlands. I just don't see the appeal of hearing foolish annoying chatter as you're playing (I'll mute the room on any chance I get). Also, I'm not a teenager anymore with 8-10 hours after I get home from school to waste away on anything I please. So the few times I do try out the multiplayer aspect of say COD, I get killed almost instantly because some people live in there. Zero fun factor for me so I'll just stick to my single player campaigns thank you. Save multiplayer for visiting my buddies house passing the controller
yeah if anything you're even more qualified than all the other nonsense reviewers out there. By far my favourite at that.
Last edited by Teddie9 on 7/27/2011 11:32:49 AM
First off, I would love to me meet this fool, just so I could laugh at him. I rarely play multiplayer, yet I buy at least one or two new games every month, maybe more. I am definetly a gamer, though. Its my favorite hobby and one that I'll never get tired of.
Gamestop employee?
Random person at Starbucks?
What was your reply to his last comment? o.O
A face palm perhaps or maybe Ben started to look for a tree…
Although I've got to say, maybe you SHOULD let someone else review the mp portion of a game seeing as how it's not a true expertise of yours. Let's face it, MoH's mp was utter crap and you didn't warn us.
No, I didn't. And that's a good example.
Like I said, it's a valid question. I DO try to be as accurate and helpful in all reviews, but clearly, times are changing. Times HAVE changed.
Why so many down votes? That was a good point.
Last edited by iwillbetheone on 7/26/2011 11:18:07 PM
I didn't up or downvote him, as I neither agree nor disagree, but merely find his comment interesting. (See, I've never played MoH. lol)
It's a good point, but perhaps it just means the downvoters liked the Multiplayer, perhaps. Never know. Downvotes don't mean it's a bad post, necessarily.
It kinda gets you down though.. admit guys it does LOL. Especially when everyone is being mean and gives you tons of them..xD
Unless you're like _____, who gets them as general practice, or Beamboom who just loves playing devil's advocate ;P, anytime I've ever gotten a ton of downvotes are during a controversial issue where everyone on both sides of an argument are bound to get a bunch of downvotes.
In those cases, it doesn't bother me at all. Only on one, possibly 2 occasions, have I ever paid it any heed. And that's usually like 1 upvote to 10 downvotes. In those instances, I might actually re-evaluate what I've said.
As a rule, though, I pay more attention to upvotes than downvotes. A personality thing, perhaps. 😉
Down votes sometimes just reflect a difference of opinion / perspective. They're also apparently also sometimes caused by bots. Don't take them personally.
It is occasionally perplexing why you got a down vote when you didn't really offer an opinion.
I also don't understand why people down-vote corrections. Do they relish errors? It must be the work of The Eye Of Moron.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 7/27/2011 10:56:03 PM
I rarely if ever play multiplayer for multiple reasons, and the huge increase in CoD/other FPS gamers is really saddening. What happened to the good ol' days when stories and plots and character development were more important then Hit Ratios and Kill Counts and all that stuff?
I'm sorry, but if it gets to a point where I'm forced to play multiplayer, I'm gonna stop playing altogether. There are way too many disrespectful, immature gamers online nowadays, it's just disgusting sometimes…
Wow you make it sound like we've all been enjoying steven king books for years and now all we get is highlights magazine?
Since when has gaming become a consistent source of story telling and character development?
There is a couple games periodically that actually have an interesting story line..Your mass effects, heavy rains, etc…most games (INCLUDING MGS SERIES) are convoluted and boring for most (very difficult to know what is going on).
I think gaming can be what you mentioned, but just like in the movies or in the books, not every title is going to be epic. You have your tops and you have your bottoms. For every mass effect 2 there is a two worlds 2.
I'm just saying that the interest in plots and character development is greatly dropping. Just look at the sales, what is constantly topping the charts? Halo and CoD. I know a lot of people in my school who spend hours on end playing pointless shooters. IMO, games where multiplayer is the main focus are a waste of money. I like campaigns and stories and good AI systems.
I remember back in the PS2/gamecube days where games focused on single player and split screen.
I'm just trying to figure out how a story like MGS you can't follow well means it's boring or poorly written… I've never been into MGS, as I missed that bandwagon, but based on what I've heard from other respected members here, I find it extremely hard to believe from you it could be a boring experience…
Actually, makes you wonder what I might assume about you when you say you can't follow the story well. lol
@ A Capella, I wouldn't go so far as to call those games pointless. They are actually fulfilling their mission. Ultimately the players are ENTERTAINED. That is what it's all about isn't it? It's not for everybody though. Run, Gun, Die, Rinse Repeat! I can mess around in that environment for a few but I enjoy my single player experiences most.
@Palpatations911
Thats a great way to put it and thats exactly how I feel. When I 1st started gaming, almost all the huge title and even most of the sleepers had decent stories with a few games on the lacking side, now seems the trend is reversed with storyless games overtaking the market. and to see people defend said games so militantly is just sickening.
How is it someone can't follow the story in MGS? That's new to me. Either you don't like the game, or you didn't pay any attention at all.
@Palpatations911
Your point is somewhat valid, despite singling out MGS, but….
Steven King is your example of *good* writing?
You need to read more.
No hate for King intended, but he's hardly top-notch.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 7/27/2011 11:03:46 PM
lol, Fane, I didn't even notice he said that about Stephen King. Read too fast…
Oh dear….
Some people are just unable to grasp the storylines of MGS games.
You do not wanna know what I think of people who couldn't understand MGS or think it is boring.
Ok we know you don't like multiplayer. What was the point of this article?
Your reviews would be more effective if you didn't let everyone know you don't enjoy playing games socially because your reviews will not be fair.
You gave dungeon siege 3 a positive review and didn't even review the multiplayer aspect which is what turned out to be the most important part of the game for most players, and that aspect was severely lacking. I do enjoy reading the site but this article makes it clear you have a predisposition towards the multiplayer aspect of games.
Last edited by Palpatations911 on 7/26/2011 10:19:04 PM
Considering the fact that you basically signed up to bash my Dungeon Siege III review – and continue to do so at every turn, with nothing else to add to any conversation – I would suggest just shutting up. Of course I reviewed the multiplayer; you just didn't like that I said it was fine.
I don't even know how DSIII pertains to this article, and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I invented the whole thing. Don't respond again unless it's to say something worthwhile or apologize.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/26/2011 10:23:53 PM
Just my impression: The article is meant to draw attention to the gaming landscape, which is shifting in favor of stuff that most people over 25 aren't particularly interested in. As this is a gaming site, analysis of the gaming landscape falls within the acceptability range for publication in my mind.
@World
Spoken like a true writer. Not that I disagree in the slightest 🙂
Also, I'm not yet 25 and have barely any interest in MP
Last edited by PasteNuggs on 7/26/2011 10:37:25 PM
"the multiplayer aspect which is what turned out to be the most important part of the game for most players"
Wow, the multiplayer aspect should never be the most important part of a game unless it really doesnt have single player. Thinking like that got us rehashed COD after COD. In my opinion, if you need to have a multiplayer session to have the best experience in a game, you cant really be immersed in the game's world. i prefer to play campaigns single player so i can loose myself in the game. having someone else wandering around is just going to be a distraction to me.
wait….. are you the same person ben was talking to in the article?
Last edited by johnld on 7/26/2011 10:42:14 PM
World: Get out of town. That's just WAY too practical. That's not inflammatory at all…how BORING.
😉
I apologize if my asking what the point of your article was perceived as "bashing", but quite honestly I did not see the point of your article other than to rant about a conversation you had regarding multiplayer games. As your audience we received no news, no updates, no reviews, no previews, nothing related to any specific sony products (your website is named psxextreme.com). One could wishfully think that the quote in the title of this article came from someone in the gaming industry…If John Carmack or anybody significant in the gaming industry said that and had reasons behind it, then it *could* have been an interesting read, but alas, it was some "Anonymous moron", so who cares what they think? Your anonymous moron could be a 12 year old at Dave and Busters for all we know, or were you just stereotyping people who thinks drawn out single player games are stupid, the same way you feel about multiplayer games? Pot, kettle, black; If that is the case. Dude, we live in a recession right now and people are looking to cut costs and finding a hobby that can engulf your time is a great idea. You have to have $$$ to be able to only play single player games and keep a steady stock incoming because once you finish the main storyline there is little reason to continue playing. Most single player games are approximately 10-12 hours, neglecting games like Oblivion, Dragon Age, etc. A solid multiplayer game can provide hundreds, if not thousands of gaming hours if you truly enjoy the game. I prefer a great MP game over single player and most single player games I play I do not finish with a few exceptions for high quality games. I would never provide an effective review on a game when I completely skip the single player portion.
Feedback is a gift, bashing is mean spirited.