Why I like Single Player

[Nigel_Strange]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... aming-scam

When Chinese prisoners are forced to play a game or they are severely beaten, it is not a game, but a form of torture.

This is what multiplayer has done to the gaming world.

This could never happen with single-player games.

[Edited on 5-29-2011 by Nigel_Strange]

[MMaggio]

I am flabbergasted! I never would have dreamed you could make money playing World of Warcraft. Obviously, I am playing the wrong game! :o

[Ravenfeeder]

Sorry, Marvin, I didn't know that you were in the nick. I guess it much be torture, if you're only allowed to play SP.

I much prefer MP, to SP, as there are other people to share with, and inter react. Of course, if you suffer from the hermit syndrome, then SP is the one for you!

[Jack Dandy]

I know what you mean, man.

A solid SP experience just isn't something that can be replaced with MP.

[Marvin]

What?

[Dingo]

I think of SP in evochron as a new pilot training simulator. then you earn your wings and go out into the real world of Remula 1. A remarkable accomplishment because I like no other MP games.

[soulsacrifice]

Blaming "multiplayer" on what happens in chinese prisons is crazy. "This is what multiplayer gaming has done to the world", i'm not sure if you're serious or not.

[Maarschalk]

Multiplayer depends completely on the multiplayer comunity and the Server Operators....I agree with Soulsacrifice on this one....I never would play World of Warcraft or any Multiplayer game where you are forced to pay to play or play to pay, Of course in the case of the Chinese prisonners the Chinese Goverment should be held responsible for what happens in their prisons....

[Marvin]

I never would play World of Warcraft ....

Me either. WoW, in itself, is a form of torture.

[SeeJay]

I have never been much of a MP player myself, before I stumbled upon this game/community.

I would never pay to achieve stuff once I have bought the game.

I have made a lot of friends through this game in MP and this forum.
I never play SP unless I'm just gonna try out a mod I'm working on.

Conclusion: I just love the MP aspect of this game thanks to the great people flying there
and R1 himself.

[Nigel_Strange]

Soul, I am half-kidding, but not totally.

My point is that the multiplayer aspect of WoW is what makes them design the game to be a grind. The goal is to separate the committed players from the players who just want to have fun, and to reward the committed players hours and hours of grinding with the gold or whatever that they use to buy status symbols.

IN essence, you have an operant conditioning box with a variable ratio reinforcement schedule, which is what you might use to train rats to press a lever until it drops dead of exhaustion. The multiplayer aspect is what causes them to make the game into a grind, and people then try to avoid playing the game (grinding) by paying real money to prisoners in China.

If the game was truly fun to play, then nobody would feel the need to pay someone else to play it for them.

As for multiplayer in Evochron, it's not designed that way. The multiplayer part is strictly optional and voluntary, so players can opt out if they want and still have an enjoyable Single Player experience.

By making money and equipment fairly attainable without having to grind for hours and hours on boring single-minded farming, you eliminate the desire that people might have to pay someone else to play the game for them. (The possible exception being gaining military rank in order to get the better milspec frames by doing hundreds of military missions.)

Also, the game has cooperative missions, which means that everyone is not constantly trying to kill you.

Finally, unlike most multiplayer games, the Evochron community is fairly decently mannered for the most part, and that makes a huge difference.

[soulsacrifice]

You can't really blame Blizzard for rewarding their players for the time they put in. Most games work this way, although I realise to a certain extent that they want their players to be hooked. Even most the people who're sending money over probably don't realise the cost or extent of damage they're contributing to.

I don't think what they're [Blizzard] doing is particularily wrong in the same way that I don't think companies that sell alcohol or gambling are wrong. Some people will have problems sure, and bad things can happen but the majority will be fine and it's great to have the freedom to be able to choose to play it. Pity for those who're were force to play it in chinese prisions but ultimately it is not Blizzard who're responisble. I also imagine that it is against their terms and conditions to let someone else play for you.

Finally, i've never played it but if the game wasn't fun to play then I doubt millions of people would continue to invest the amount of money and time into it month on month. Lets face it, the people who're sending their accounts to level up in China are the exception rather than the rule.

[Edited on 31-5-2011 by soulsacrifice]

[Nigel_Strange]

The grind mechanic is just a device to make people pay a monthly subscription fee. People support it because they don't want someone else to get the goodies that they spent hours and hours grinding to get. It s a Ponzi scheme of suffering.

"I spent 200 hours to earn enough gold to buy these boots. If these boots suddenly became available after 2 hours of play, I would be enraged." Thus, the need to grind is perpetuated. In a sense, this sentiment stems from a sadistic desire to make other people suffer. "I suffered, therefore I want you to suffer." Regrettably, this is a quality that I often see in multiplayer gamers. The cycle of suffering is deeply ensconced in the collective subconscious. In single-player games, there are no other people, and so there is no desire to make them suffer.

Alcohol: Kills people, whether slowly, from poisoning or having the brain eaten away, or quickly because it impairs judgement and causes traffic accidents (often killing innocent bystanders).

Gambling: Money is the lifeblood of the economy. You earn money by providing a good or a service. For someone to get your money simply by tricking you out of it is pretty much the same as stealing. Paying people who do no work devalues the currency by making it meaningless.

Both of these are wrong in my book.

[soulsacrifice]

If you believe these things are wrong then there's not much else to say then really, I don't see how they can be as under normal circumstances noone is forced to do these things and if they are then it's not the companies fault. I would hate to live in a world where I was unable to make my own descisions. Treating people like children in my opinion is wrong, everyone should have the freedom to make their own choices (good or bad it's all about education).

I'd hate not to be able to have a drink with some friends at the weekend just because some idiot has decided they will drink and drive and ended up killing someone - again these people are the minority, the exception rather than the rule. Going back to your OP, yes what happened there was wrong but you have to look at who's actually responsible and that's the individual prison wardens that decided to profit from the power they have over inmates.

[Edited on 31-5-2011 by soulsacrifice]

[Nigel_Strange]

My point exactly.

Video games have descended to the same level as drunk driving and gambling, thanks to multiplayer.

Blizzard is not responsible for what they do in China. However, consider: Have you ever paid for farmed gold? Do you know/care under what circumstances that farming occured? Where do you draw the line that should distinguish innocent entertainment from slavery?

It wouldn't bother me so much except that so many of the gaming resources are devoted to this new vice that there is hardly anything left over for single player game development.

[Maarschalk]

The difficulty in creating or developing an unpredictable interesting single player Space Flight Simulation game is one huge chalenge so that when you achieved all that is to be achieved does not become boring. While in a good Multiplay game with a good comunity there is nothing to compare the like and unpredictability and fun you get playing with or against your friends or the decent comunity online. In Single player games the AIs become prety much predictable and there is only so many scripts or routines they follow even if they are at random.....

[Nigel_Strange]

Maarschalk: In theory, I agree with you. In practice, people can be just as boring

[soulsacrifice]

My point exactly.

Video games have descended to the same level as drunk driving and gambling, thanks to multiplayer.

Blizzard is not responsible for what they do in China. However, consider: Have you ever paid for farmed gold? Do you know/care under what circumstances that farming occured? Where do you draw the line that should distinguish innocent entertainment from slavery?

It wouldn't bother me so much except that so many of the gaming resources are devoted to this new vice that there is hardly anything left over for single player game development.

What do you mean "my point exactly"? What i'm saying is it isn't multi player or the companies fault. It's the individuals who choose the way they do. If there was no World of Warcraft then the prison wardens would have just have found another way to exploit their prisoners to make money.

By the same logic you were using earlier, a car company would be as equally responsible if someone decided to drink drive and ended up killing someone. Also, drink driving isn't compariable to gambling, what's wrong if I (or any other adult) wants to spend money placing a bet, or going to a casino?

I think it's obvious from what i've said already that I think sending money to Chinese prisoners in this case is wrong, but i also guess that a lot of the people who were doing it probably weren't even aware. Maybe some were but i'm not responsible for their decisions. I think it's wrong and perhaps it's right to make it clear within the law that it should not be done if it is not already.

I've never played an MMO and don't really have any inclination to try one either, but I enjoy many multi player games and it can be very good fun. I don't think we should be denied products or services because some people abuse the system or choose to act "immoral".

What would you suggest is the solution? Surely, in my opinion, it is better legislation that is needed to prevent the problem arising rather than declaring that the game itself is wrong or bad?

[Edited on 1-6-2011 by soulsacrifice]

[MMaggio]

Here, here, Soul, I agree with you 100%!

[Nigel_Strange]

The solution is awareness. I've already done my part. If people know that gold is farmed with slave labor, maybe they'll dry up the market by refusing the participate.

The other thing I wanted to get across is that Multiplayer is not the end-all-be-all to all gamers. There seems to be an expectation that everyone loves multiplayer games. It's just assumed. The opposing viewpoint is almost never aired for some reason. If a game comes out, everyone simply expects that it will (or should) have multiplayer capability, and if it doesn't, it is somehow lacking.

I disagree. Not only is single-player more important to me, but multiplayer can ruin the enjoyment of the game, because whenever you involve other people, corruption is an expected outcome.

For example: slavery (see above).

Another example: griefers.

Another example: Punkbuster.

These things all either make the game less fun and are an inevitable result of multiplayer.

I never said to ban multiplayer or to pass legislation of any kind. I only wanted you to be aware that multiplayer can be a game-ruiner, and to not discount a game that provides a good single-player experience simply because it lacks multiplayer capability. There are good reasons why single-player experience is better.

[Flash]

The difficulty in creating or developing an unpredictable interesting single player Space Flight Simulation game is one huge chalenge so that when you achieved all that is to be achieved does not become boring. While in a good Multiplay game with a good comunity there is nothing to compare the like and unpredictability and fun you get playing with or against your friends or the decent comunity online. In Single player games the AIs become prety much predictable and there is only so many scripts or routines they follow even if they are at random.....

I agree entirely with your comment tho some will obviously not agree with mine. Multiplayer adds a randomness that really makes the battles more real to life. In this world there are a lot of unethical people. They kill the totally innocent and feed on others misfortune. In Mercenary its those people who hang out in Saphire and prey on the newbies. You also have the people trying to make a better world like the GDF and everything inbetween. If everyone was a villian or a hero, life (or a game) would get pretty boring rather quickly in my mind. That is way I commend both the GDF and the Reavers. In order to make a game interesting for any length of time you need heros and villians. Neither exist without the other. Villians and heros need to be thinking individuals, each coming up with new and innovative ways to outwit the other. So keep it up both Reavers and the GDF and all you others that pride yourselve as heros or villians (Or Both!). If it weren't for you both I'd have traded in my joystick for a fishing pole long ago.

[Edited on 6-1-2011 by Flash]

[Marvin]

Here's what I think about single-player: it's for games you want to play sloooooolllllyyy.

It seems that nobody, in MP, wants to take the time to actually read through any given quest. Nobody but me, that is. I played LOTR with my daughter for awhile. But, for her, it was about doing as many quests as possible as fast as she could. She never read the backstory. Never bothered to think ... or plan ... or worry about how to actually do any of the quests. She just went and did them, come heck or high water.

Same goes for "simulation" games. You can rush through them, launching from a set-up where approach tactics and strategy aren't necessary ... or you can start from square one and plan a very long engagement. Then sweat it out as your plan develops ... or starts to fall apart. It all depends on if you're doing this by yourself, in SP, or hurrying along to keep up with everyone else in MP.

I do both. But tactics takes longer. And, if they work, it gives me a real feeling of accomplishment.

[Maarschalk]

I disagree. Not only is single-player more important to me, but multiplayer can ruin the enjoyment of the game, because whenever you involve other people, corruption is an expected outcome.

For example: slavery (see above).

Another example: griefers.

Another example: Punkbuster.

These things all either make the game less fun and are an inevitable result of multiplayer.

There are many Single Player Games that have Corruption built in to them where the AIs are Corrupt, and where every imaginable Atrocities are commited and are expected to be commited by the player. No need for Multiplayer Coruption in those games.....And no I do not play those games either....Although Renegades, Legends and Mercenary could fall relatively under some of the corruption categories......:P


[Edited on 6-2-2011 by Maarschalk]

[Flash]

Wow, this thread has really become a social commentary. Thanks NigelStrange for starting it since I am always willing to chime in on that. Though I believe no one falls entirely into these stereotypical categories, lets break it down into 2 groups, the social and anti-social, the optimists and pessimists , the conservatives the liberals, those that immediately look at the good side of people and believe there is ray of hope in all of us, and those that judge people only by the evil they have done. Either you can forgive the person because you yourself have done bad things, or you don‘t. You can say “That’s not fair� or you can say (in this case) “It’s just a game, get over it�, he should have warned me before he fired on me� or ‘Let’s do this, it‘s just a game�, “He should have read the manual first “ or “It’s just a game I want to play in my spare time, can you help me?� Now I don’t believe anyone falls entirely into one of these groups (I’m a optimist) but I do believe people tend to gravitate to one or the other. If you can relate to the pessimistic group and need predictability and structure, SP is for you. If you can relate to the optimistic group and need randomness and human input however good or evil it may be, MP is for you. As expressed in a previous thread, when it comes to something as trivial as a video game, give me human ingenuity, good and evil and unpredictability. In real life give me Utopia

[Nigel_Strange]

I counted eight groups.

As for me, I'm an anti-social pessimistic liberal conservative who has done bad things and does not forgive others easily. I look at the good side of people and believe there is a ray of hope in most (not all) of us, but that good side disappears when the individual becomes part of a crowd, and that individuality is devoured by the herd instinct.

Thanks all for the lively repartee.