An increasing trend for games seems to be the multi-player focus. Games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Bioshock 2, or even Portal 2 whose predecessors were a strictly single-player narrative are turning to at least include a multi-player mode, whether cooperative or competitive. At the core of this shift is the desire for game makers (developers and publishers alike) to extend the longevity of their product - which is a noble enough aim. Where single-player is limited to the extent of the content created by the programmers and the designers, the crux of multiplayer lies in human-to-human interaction, which is a dynamic that rarely rests stagnant.
Multiplayer has changed a lot as the years pass. Most notably the shift has been made where we expect multiplayer to be online, and not local. This is not inherently a bad thing. One rarely gets the opportunity to play games with a faraway friend were it not for the Wide Area Network. Online play also means learning (through competition or cooperation) with a higher skill ceiling as we are not limited to getting smoked by the smartest or fastest kid in the neighborhood. What it does mean though, is a physical segregation of people, which at times can feel almost counter-intuitive to the purpose of multi-player - the bringing together of players.
The most relevant example that comes to mind must be the hot-from-the-oven (and in this respect, controversial) Blizzard title that is StarCraft 2. While LAN parties have become a less relevant through the past couple years, omission of a LAN mode from StarCraft 2 caused for outcry and weeping for both the casual and serious tournament scene (if a casual tournament is at all possible). First Person Shooters like Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 whose earlier installments considered LAN play to be part and parcel shipped without. Racing games like Burnout Paradise also have no local multi-player, save for a content update that allowed for pass-the-controller, turn-based play.
Why is this happening? I would hazard the guess that for the most part, it is the exertion by the publisher to increase sales, increase the number of unique units to be bought and played. Where LAN mode is available, a single copy of the game is sufficient for a group. Where there is split-screen play, one copy can usually cover four people at any given time. The business mentality might just be that sales could easily quadruple or more if everyone had to purchase a unique copy.
Consider me an old man for still valuing the traditional game enjoyed with friends in-person. A game in particular would be New Super Mario Bros. Wii, which features old-style shared-screen local multi-player. It has become my 'go-to' game when friends are around, and it would seem that time-and-time again, it excels as a game experience. Half its effectiveness lies within the video game, and the other half lies within the players and their interaction in the physical environment.
(Image from Destructoid)
While it definitely seems conceivable that a game experience could be impaired through physical separation of its multiple players, I don't think the inverse holds true. While online play is still very important for convenience's sake, to thin the already-existent ability for people to play together in a close (and closed) environment seems like a pirate-paranoid, cash-hungry tactic to me.
Addendum: A new look courtesy of Blogger's new template tool. Still nothing 'original', or saussage-relevant, but that may just come in time.
No comments:
Post a Comment