• CEO of Gogogic Says Single-Player is a 'Gimmick'
    70 replies, posted
are there any leisure activities on this planet that aren't pushing a bullshit "social" agenda all i can think of is reading
He's probably referring to single player "social" games. Most likely the flash games with microtransactions.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;38208622]He's probably referring to single player "social" games. Most likely the flash games with microtransactions.[/QUOTE] Yeah, those games aren't even multiplayer. They're only social in that you have to bug your friends for "energy" and "building materials". Which is a great way to [i]lose[/i] friends, by the way.
I actually don't mind what he's said, because it moves the thought of a singleplayer videogame away from being a game and more towards a piece of artistic medium you'd find most people would be hard pressed to call something that's a game in the traditional sense (ie, sports, pen+paper games, videogames) as art by making the distinction, that changes what exactly a singleplayer videogame is
Hi all, As the owner of these comments I want to point out that the sentance is taken out of context to create a controversial headline. I'm simply saying that most single player games aren't really single player as the player is playing with or against (or both) the computer. This is a construct, a design. I'm not trying to be dismissive, simply trying to make the point that this design is forced because of contraints. We had to find ways to allow people to enjoy playing by themselves. Single player games can be amazing experiences and I absolutely think they have a long future ahead of them (I even explicitly say so in the original article, which is much more detailed and in two parts). Modern games are an art form where tremendous skill is applied to design an experience. But it is important to realize that "single player" games have to be designed with a built in opponent or companion. Something has to take on the role of "the other". This is an illusion. Those familiar with illusions know that the term "gimmick" means what the illusionist does to distract the audience to make the illusion appear real. If properly done the audience believes the illusion and the experience is complete. We also find other ways to socialize around single-player games to enhance our experience. We tell others about them, we compare scores and achievements. We blog, capture screenshots, tweet, watch others play, etc. The point is I'm just happy that we now have the technology needed to support real social interaction through computer games, that frees us from casting the game itself as an antagonist, to a certain extent at least. It should also be stressed that the original article is only a part of a larger two-part interview. It isn't great when things get taken out of context but I am glad that it creates room for discussion and contemplation. I should also mention that I think pure puzzles fall into a different category. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;38208622]He's probably referring to single player "social" games. Most likely the flash games with microtransactions.[/QUOTE] Nope - I'm not making any comparison between types of games. I'm simply trying to point out that increased accessibility and connectivity open up new ways to think about and design computer games. I think Legue of Legends is an excellent example - a game that is highly social, massively popular, competetive and well on its way towards changing the image of esports in the West.
[QUOTE=Civil;38208220]I read that as CEO of Google Says Single-Player is a "Gimmick" I am pretty sure most of fp would be giving the op winners if that is the case.[/QUOTE] Nah, because that would effectively be Google vs Valve.
[QUOTE=ShaunOfTheLive;38208749]Yeah, those games aren't even multiplayer. They're only social in that you have to bug your friends for "energy" and "building materials". Which is a great way to [i]lose[/i] friends, by the way.[/QUOTE] I agree. Most "social" games aren't really. They are actually single player games that have some interaction mechanics tied to them that create the illusion of social play. Many of these mechanics are pretty lame, in my view.
Regardless of him being wrong, I would like to see more immersing/engaging games in multiplayer.
[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;38208497]I've never even heard of this company before, who is he to define how games are supposed to be played? Is he that ignorant of the MASSIVE list of successful singleplayer games out there?[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to define it. I'm simply stating that games are social by nature. They are something we do with others - even if these "others" are real or not. Single player games are designed in such a way that the game can act as both protagonist or antagonist, thus creating the illusion of conflict (or collabouration). I'm not saying single player games aren't good or other types of games are better - I'm simply stating that this way of design is because of constraints that have begun to give way and that's great because it increases our options when it comes to game design! I'm absolutely not ignorant when it comes to the MASSIVE list of successful single player games. If you read the full and original interview (two pieces) that should become clear. At the moment I'm mostly playing Dishonored which would certainly classify as a first class single player experience in my view. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mingebox;38208421]That opinion doesn't mean very much coming from someone who is to the gaming industry what someone who writes jingles for car commercials is to the music industry.[/QUOTE] Ouch [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JeanLuc761;38208286]No, they definitely wouldn't. Regardless of who says it, this is a stupid statement.[/QUOTE] It is, when it is taken out of context and used as a controversial headline...
[QUOTE=Jantonsson;38210397]I'm not trying to define it. I'm simply stating that games are social by nature. They are something we do with others - even if these "others" are real or not. Single player games are designed in such a way that the game can act as both protagonist or antagonist, thus creating the illusion of conflict (or collabouration). I'm not saying single player games aren't good or other types of games are better - I'm simply stating that this way of design is because of constraints that have begun to give way and that's great because it increases our options when it comes to game design! I'm absolutely not ignorant when it comes to the MASSIVE list of successful single player games. If you read the full and original interview (two pieces) that should become clear. At the moment I'm mostly playing Dishonored which would certainly classify as a first class single player experience in my view. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] Ouch [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] It is, when it is taken out of context and used as a controversial headline...[/QUOTE] This is a great chance for insight. I've always been curious. Do you guys (the ones who make those "social" Facebook games) start out with the idea to create a TRULY fun and AMAZING game, or do you realize that it's all supposed to be a trap?
I was hoping he meant those yearly shooters like Battlefield and Call of Duty with their 4 hour campaigns... Sigh.
[QUOTE=Jantonsson;38210210]Hi all, As the owner of these comments I want to point out that the sentance is taken out of context to create a controversial headline. I'm simply saying that most single player games aren't really single player as the player is playing with or against (or both) the computer. This is a construct, a design. I'm not trying to be dismissive, simply trying to make the point that this design is forced because of contraints. We had to find ways to allow people to enjoy playing by themselves. Single player games can be amazing experiences and I absolutely think they have a long future ahead of them (I even explicitly say so in the original article, which is much more detailed and in two parts). Modern games are an art form where tremendous skill is applied to design an experience. But it is important to realize that "single player" games have to be designed with a built in opponent or companion. Something has to take on the role of "the other". This is an illusion. Those familiar with illusions know that the term "gimmick" means what the illusionist does to distract the audience to make the illusion appear real. If properly done the audience believes the illusion and the experience is complete. We also find other ways to socialize around single-player games to enhance our experience. We tell others about them, we compare scores and achievements. We blog, capture screenshots, tweet, watch others play, etc. The point is I'm just happy that we now have the technology needed to support real social interaction through computer games, that frees us from casting the game itself as an antagonist, to a certain extent at least. It should also be stressed that the original article is only a part of a larger two-part interview. It isn't great when things get taken out of context but I am glad that it creates room for discussion and contemplation. I should also mention that I think pure puzzles fall into a different category. [/QUOTE] I doubt you are the guy but lets humor it. The point you are making now is much better than the supposedly fake one from the OP (didn't check the other part of the review yet as I'm typing this). However I think your view on singleplayer is pretty skewed. Singleplayer experience is vastly different than multiplayer. Your enemies and friends in single player aren't substitutes for players, nor they are threated that way. Singleplayer is like an interactive movie with challenges to overcome. Enemies in single player are just an obstacle. They are an object. Whether it's a combine sniper in HL2 or a tornado in SimCity. It's there to put me to a test. An obstacle. Doesn't matter whether or not it has a face, a character or humanoid shape. Nobody's trying to beat me, it's me against inanimate environment, much like an obstacle course, the only thing I'm fighting against is my own weakness, it doesn't matter that the obstacles have a humanoid shape and carry guns. As for companions, they are objects too. If they were people or threated as people, we would care what they think and we would depend on them. In singleplayer, we don't give a fuck what our companions think about us and we don't depend on them, the outcome of the challenge depends only on the person playing the game too. We could get immersed in the game and act and react accordingly to your companions' characters, but again, it would be like interactive movie. There is no other person behind that character playing it, it's just the character and whatever that character does it's going to be within it's nature, it's never going to say "come on I wanted you to choose the other way" or "brb 5min dinner" or "lol faggot fag, trolled <trollface> umad?" in the middle of some tense action. You can trust video game characters to always and only be them. What in Portal 1 would be a substitute for other players? Or SimCity, Sims, World of Goo, Amnesia, Minecraft, From Dust, Mirror's Edge or fucking Gmod? You seem to think that enemies or companions are just substitutes for players. That it might as well be other players, but the truth is, the experience is completely different. When it comes to other players you are either competing with them or depending on them. You don't have that in singleplayer. Singleplayers are much like obstacle course.
[QUOTE=geel9;38210522]This is a great chance for insight. I've always been curious. Do you guys (the ones who make those "social" Facebook games) start out with the idea to create a TRULY fun and AMAZING game, or do you realize that it's all supposed to be a trap?[/QUOTE] I've never made a traditional "social" Facebook game. Our first Facebook game was an attempt to create a full web-based MMOG inside a social network. It had a very heavy Viking theme and we refrained from using some of the "social" festures of that time. We did not force you to invite your friends or do any of that stuff. At the core of the game was a real multiplayer PvP battle system - where you fought in quick turn-based fights with other players. The game we are currently working on attempts to take this a step further. Fuse together an RTS battle system within an MMO that runs across web and mobile. We start with the idea of creating something TRULY fun and AMAZING. We want to bring core mechanics into games that are accessible to many. Is that for everyone? Nope. But at least we are trying to expand on what can be done in game design. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;38210922]I doubt you are the guy but lets humor it. The point you are making now is much better than the supposedly fake one from the OP (didn't check the other part of the review yet as I'm typing this). However I think your view on singleplayer is pretty skewed. Singleplayer experience is vastly different than multiplayer. Your enemies and friends in single player aren't substitutes for players, nor they are threated that way. Singleplayer is like an interactive movie with challenges to overcome. Enemies in single player are just an obstacle. They are an object. Whether it's a combine sniper in HL2 or a tornado in SimCity. It's there to put me to a test. An obstacle. Doesn't matter whether or not it has a face, a character or humanoid shape. Nobody's trying to beat me, it's me against inanimate environment, much like an obstacle course, the only thing I'm fighting against is my own weakness, it doesn't matter that the obstacles have a humanoid shape and carry guns. As for companions, they are objects too. If they were people or threated as people, we would care what they think and we would depend on them. In singleplayer, we don't give a fuck what our companions think about us and we don't depend on them, the outcome of the challenge depends only on the person playing the game too. We could get immersed in the game and act and react accordingly to your companions' characters, but again, it would be like interactive movie. There is no other person behind that character playing it, it's just the character and whatever that character does it's going to be within it's nature, it's never going to say "come on I wanted you to choose the other way" or "brb 5min dinner" or "lol faggot fag, trolled <trollface> umad?" in the middle of some tense action. You can trust video game characters to always and only be them. What in Portal 1 would be a substitute for other players? Or SimCity, Sims, World of Goo, Amnesia, Rock of Ages, Mirror's Edge or fucking Gmod? You seem to think that enemies or companions are just substitutes for players. That it might as well be other players, but the truth is, the experience is completely different. When it comes to other players you are either competing with them or depending on them. You don't have that in singleplayer. Singleplayers are much like obstacle course.[/QUOTE] I am the guy, believe me... I'm jantonsson on twitter as well and can see that I've been repying to threads there. Ok - I see what you are saying. But my point is not about the characters in the games. It is about the games themselves - as a whole. I'm pointing out that real-world play is tied to playfulness which is a social behaviour mechanism. So playing games is playful and social, by nature. Of course we can play by ourselves but we use mechanics (or "gimmicks" ... I've really started to regret using that word) to complete the illusion of some sort of social interaction. But the simpler point is this. I'm simply pointing out that because of changes in the environment we are now free to explore more game design possibilities. Like narrative multiplayer games. Or games specifically designed for eSports! Many of my favorite games are single player games. I do not think that's going to change any time soon. But the statement - although it sounds bad on its own - only refers to the fact that single player games are designed like they are because of limiting factors in the early days. We've done a great job elevating this to an artform but going forward we should keep in mind that those limitations have been lifted and that allows for further exploration.
[QUOTE=Jantonsson;38210980] Ok - I see what you are saying. But my point is not about the characters in the games. It is about the games themselves - as a whole. I'm pointing out that real-world play is tied to playfulness which is a social behaviour mechanism. So playing games is playful and social, by nature. Of course we can play by ourselves but we use mechanics (or "gimmicks" ... I've really started to regret using that word) to complete the illusion of some sort of social interaction.[/QUOTE] I see what you're saying too. But what about LEGO or Solinarie? They aren't socially based, they are challenge based. Not all games are made to compete or cooperate. Some are there just to test ourselves. It's not a trick to make me believe I'm playing on my own. I am indeed playing alone and the only thing I'm fighting against is my own weakness. Or there are games that are just fun to be interacting with, even on your own. Like Gmod or Skyrim. The first comparison I can think of would be taking your rifle to your field and shooting bottles or other targets, just for the sake of it being fun and challenge. No social interaction in there. And no illusion needed to mask it. [QUOTE=Jantonsson;38210980]But the simpler point is this. I'm simply pointing out that because of changes in the environment we are now free to explore more game design possibilities. Like narrative multiplayer games. Or games specifically designed for eSports! Many of my favorite games are single player games. I do not think that's going to change any time soon. But the statement - although it sounds bad on its own - only refers to the fact that single player games are designed like they are because of limiting factors in the early days. We've done a great job elevating this to an artform but going forward we should keep in mind that those limitations have been lifted and that allows for further exploration.[/QUOTE] I think you are missing the point here. It's not matter of limitation but preference. Much like with the shooting targets with rifle comparison. It's just completely different experience. Some people will prefer to do it alone and some will prefer to compete with other people. Not all hobbies are social, it's kinda like that. Just different product for different audience. Single and multi player are different experience. And it's not because of an illusion. It's because the objective and motivation is different. Singleplayer is "Can I beat it?" and multiplayer is "Can I beat that guy?". One is challenging yourself the other is competition. And there is also the story telling part. I find singleplayer much more immersive, but that might just be me so I won't go in depth there.
[QUOTE=Jantonsson;38210980]I've never made a traditional "social" Facebook game. Our first Facebook game was an attempt to create a full web-based MMOG inside a social network. It had a very heavy Viking theme and we refrained from using some of the "social" festures of that time. We did not force you to invite your friends or do any of that stuff. At the core of the game was a real multiplayer PvP battle system - where you fought in quick turn-based fights with other players. The game we are currently working on attempts to take this a step further. Fuse together an RTS battle system within an MMO that runs across web and mobile. We start with the idea of creating something TRULY fun and AMAZING. We want to bring core mechanics into games that are accessible to many. Is that for everyone? Nope. But at least we are trying to expand on what can be done in game design. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] I am the guy, believe me... I'm jantonsson on twitter as well and can see that I've been repying to threads there. Ok - I see what you are saying. But my point is not about the characters in the games. It is about the games themselves - as a whole. I'm pointing out that real-world play is tied to playfulness which is a social behaviour mechanism. So playing games is playful and social, by nature. Of course we can play by ourselves but we use mechanics (or "gimmicks" ... I've really started to regret using that word) to complete the illusion of some sort of social interaction. But the simpler point is this. I'm simply pointing out that because of changes in the environment we are now free to explore more game design possibilities. Like narrative multiplayer games. Or games specifically designed for eSports! Many of my favorite games are single player games. I do not think that's going to change any time soon. But the statement - although it sounds bad on its own - only refers to the fact that single player games are designed like they are because of limiting factors in the early days. We've done a great job elevating this to an artform but going forward we should keep in mind that those limitations have been lifted and that allows for further exploration.[/QUOTE] I think you're looking at roles in games in the wrong way - yes, we're creating an illusion, but not a social one. Single player games are like movies - although they can have more than one outcome - you're just trying to shape a bit of that movie yourself, or just have fun. We well aware of the fact, that the people in the game are fake, but they aren't substitutes; they are exactly what they're supposed to be. Now, let's take a movie: Saving Private Ryan (because why not). You don't care about the loads of people dying, because they're really just a part of the environment. When Tom Hanks (or any of the other important roles) dies, you actually care, simply because he has a back story and you understand the implications of his death. And isn't that exactly the same as when [sp]Faridah (okay, maybe not the best example, but I'm tired)[/sp] dies in Deus Ex: Human Revolutions? It's kinda hard for me to word, but my point is that if your point applies to games, it applies to movies as well. The game is just a way to immerse yourself more in the "movie" - hell, games like BF3, COD, etc. are basically all just movies with you slapped on top.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;38211467]I see what you're saying too. But what about LEGO or Solinarie? They aren't socially based, they are challenge based. Not all games are made to compete or cooperate. Some are there just to test ourselves. It's not a trick to make me believe I'm playing on my own. I am indeed playing alone and the only thing I'm fighting against is my own weakness. Or there are games that are just fun to be interacting with, even on your own. Like Gmod or Skyrim. The first comparison I can think of would be taking your rifle to your field and shooting bottles or other targets, just for the sake of it being fun and challenge. No social interaction in there. And no illusion needed to mask it. I think you are missing the point here. It's not matter of limitation but preference. Much like with the shooting targets with rifle comparison. It's just completely different experience. Some people will prefer to do it alone and some will prefer to compete with other people. Not all hobbies are social, it's kinda like that. Just different product for different audience. Single and multi player are different experience. And it's not because of an illusion. It's because the objective and motivation is different. Singleplayer is "Can I beat it?" and multiplayer is "Can I beat that guy?". One hallenging yourself the other is competition. And there is also the story telling part. I find singleplayer much more immersive, but that might just be me so I won't go in depth there.[/QUOTE] Many great points. And to be fair there are many views on what constitutes as a game, what playing really means, etc. Of course I'm just expressing my own view on games and game design, based on my own beliefs and theories I subscribe to. I think some of the things you describe aren't truly games. They are fun activities. Fishing isn't really a game and I'm not sure shooting cans can be considered a game. It is a challenging activity though, and can be a lot of fun. And where does playing with LEGOs transition from open play into playing a game? I'd think it is when the player comes up with a fixed set of rules, a setting and a narrative. When he introduces conflict of some kind. And I totally get the preference think. I was simply stating that originally first person game mechanics came from limiting factors. Like I state in the original interview I think single player games have a bright future and I fully acknowledge that there is a strong core audience that prefers those to multiplayer games. That's how it should be. I was just trying to embrace the chance given to us as game developers by recent advances in technology and platforms. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;38211670]I think you're looking at roles in games in the wrong way - yes, we're creating an illusion, but not a social one. Single player games are like movies - although they can have more than one outcome - you're just trying to shape a bit of that movie yourself, or just have fun. We well aware of the fact, that the people in the game are fake, but they aren't substitutes; they are exactly what they're supposed to be. Now, let's take a movie: Saving Private Ryan (because why not). You don't care about the loads of people dying, because they're really just a part of the environment. When Tom Hanks (or any of the other important roles) dies, you actually care, simply because he has a back story and you understand the implications of his death. And isn't that exactly the same as when [sp]Faridah (okay, maybe not the best example, but I'm tired)[/sp] dies in Deus Ex: Human Revolutions? It's kinda hard for me to word, but my point is that if your point applies to games, it applies to movies as well. The game is just a way to immerse yourself more in the "movie" - hell, games like BF3, COD, etc. are basically all just movies with you slapped on top.[/QUOTE] Thanks for replying. Just to clarify I'm not focusing on the characters introduced in the games. I'm focusing on the mechanics used to immerse us and draw us into the experience. That combines narrative, perspective, conflict, functional design, etc. So the point was that these mechanics were honed and created because games NEEDED to be fully single player experiences for them to work, because there were no networks, there was no email and there was almost no way to play asynchronously with others. Computer games could do what board games could not because they could be designed to be interactive. To interact by themselves with the players. Anyway - I want to more awesome single player games but I also want to explore new ways of designing games based on the increased access we now have.
[QUOTE=Jantonsson;38211708]Many great points. And to be fair there are many views on what constitutes as a game, what playing really means, etc. Of course I'm just expressing my own view on games and game design, based on my own beliefs and theories I subscribe to. I think some of the things you describe aren't truly games. They are fun activities. Fishing isn't really a game and I'm not sure shooting cans can be considered a game. It is a challenging activity though, and can be a lot of fun. And where does playing with LEGOs transition from open play into playing a game? I'd think it is when the player comes up with a fixed set of rules, a setting and a narrative. When he introduces conflict of some kind.[/QUOTE] The lego and shooting cans was just a comparison from real life to a sandbox and challenge-based singleplayer video game. The purpose and motivation of playing lego would be the same for a sandbox video game. Shooting cans would be like playing Skyrim, both fun and challenging. And no social factor in there. I think our disagreement comes from difference in definition of "game". For you games are social based. For me it's an activity with a set of rules that gives someone (or a group of people) a challenge or makes people compete with each other. And the activity doesn't have any practical point by itself, the point of that activity is fun and said challenge or competition. Now this is a very broad definition when you use it in real life. But for video games I think it's pretty accurate. I actually think that the definition of "game" is broader when it comes to video games than real life. See my comparisons with LEGO and shooting cans. Something that you wouldn't call a game in real life, would be called a video game if programmed to have the same purpose and motivation to play as lego or shooting cans. So your misinterpretation comes from you thinking that video games similar to activities that wouldn't be called "games" in real life are gimmicky and an illusion of non-social activity (because following your logic all games must be social based, so if a game isn't, then it's just a gimmick to make it look like it's not). I just think your definition for a game is bit too narrow. Singleplayers are not social on purpose. I don't want people in my singleplayer, I'll be the only one shaping the experience. I sure hope my english is good enough for you to understand what I'm saying. [QUOTE=Jantonsson;38211708]And I totally get the preference think. I was simply stating that originally first person game mechanics came from limiting factors. Like I state in the original interview I think single player games have a bright future and I fully acknowledge that there is a strong core audience that prefers those to multiplayer games. That's how it should be. I was just trying to embrace the chance given to us as game developers by recent advances in technology and platforms.[/QUOTE] I think the change from singleplayer to multiplayer isn't from base to something more and better but from base to something more and different. Kinda like from regular cars to jeeps. You know just because jeeps are using new technology, which regular cars aren't, it doesn't make jeeps better just makes them different. And yeah, with more new technologies you get new chances. There's a market for social games as well as making completely new types of game. The game you've mentioned few posts back seems interesting.
My life is single player :(
[QUOTE=Jantonsson;38211708] Thanks for replying. Just to clarify I'm not focusing on the characters introduced in the games. I'm focusing on the mechanics used to immerse us and draw us into the experience. That combines narrative, perspective, conflict, functional design, etc. So the point was that these mechanics were honed and created because games NEEDED to be fully single player experiences for them to work, because there were no networks, there was no email and there was almost no way to play asynchronously with others. Computer games could do what board games could not because they could be designed to be interactive. To interact by themselves with the players. Anyway - I want to more awesome single player games but I also want to explore new ways of designing games based on the increased access we now have.[/QUOTE] Well, first of all - I'd like to say that it's actually cool to see a CEO (how little your company may be, I don't know its size) responding to people without any PR filter. But anyhow, I don't think you're right. Of course there was no internet, and it's probably a reason why single-player was (and is) very predominant. I must say that I'm not totally clear on the point you're actually making, but if I'm getting this right (hold on), I don't really agree. There is no real narrative in multiplayer - take a clean slate and start drawing on it with a couple of other people, you make it up yourself. In single-player games, there is one - it's (oftenly, at least) a carefully guided tour that shows you everything it can, with maybe a few choices thrown in. It's the difference between playing a role in a play with a manuscript and improv-theater. Both can be fun (and here I'll agree with you that we should explore more ways to do such in games), but never will I say that the play is just trying to be the other, because it's not. They're doing it in two different ways, and I don't think one could ever substitute itself with the other.
something tells me he can't be that retarded though can he? Let me actually read the article now. I doubt he's being this silly. Maybe he's actually god a good point? "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," If I even tried to create a rant to debate how mentally retarded this guy is, I would have seizure. Hl2, portal1/2, MP3, gta4, skyrim, stalker series, Serious sam (though coop is boss), alan wake, painkiller, prototype, dead space, saints row, sniper elite, dues ex series, every nintendo game, every XBox1 game, every PS1 game, every star wars KOTOR / Jedi knight game, far cry series, dishonored, fallout, Solitaire, pinball, tetris, pacman. all of these games are all gimmicks now never mind the fact that most of them wouldn't do well as multiplayer games they're all gimmicks, especially compared to Superior facebook flash games! [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] sure, coop is a great option (portal 2 / Serious Sam / Halo) but when it comes down to it, the only way to truly appreciate a story is by soloing it.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;38212198]The lego and shooting cans was just a comparison from real life to a sandbox and challenge-based singleplayer video game. The purpose and motivation of playing lego would be the same for a sandbox video game. Shooting cans would be like playing Skyrim, both fun and challenging. And no social factor in there. I think our disagreement comes from difference in definition of "game". For you games are social based. For me it's an activity with a set of rules that gives someone (or a group of people) a challenge or makes people compete with each other. And the activity doesn't have any practical point by itself, the point of that activity is fun and said challenge or competition. Now this is a very broad definition when you use it in real life. But for video games I think it's pretty accurate. I actually think that the definition of "game" is broader when it comes to video games than real life. See my comparisons with LEGO and shooting cans. Something that you wouldn't call a game in real life, would be called a video game if programmed to have the same purpose and motivation to play as lego or shooting cans. So your misinterpretation comes from you thinking that video games similar to activities that wouldn't be called "games" in real life are gimmicky and an illusion of non-social activity (because following your logic all games must be social based, so if a game isn't, then it's just a gimmick to make it look like it's not). I just think your definition for a game is bit too narrow. Singleplayers are not social on purpose. I don't want people in my singleplayer, I'll be the only one shaping the experience. I sure hope my english is good enough for you to understand what I'm saying. I think the change from singleplayer to multiplayer isn't from base to something more and better but from base to something more and different. Kinda like from regular cars to jeeps. You know just because jeeps are using new technology, which regular cars aren't, it doesn't make jeeps better just makes them different. And yeah, with more new technologies you get new chances. There's a market for social games as well as making completely new types of game. The game you've mentioned few posts back seems interesting.[/QUOTE] I'm not even sure we disagree that much. I absolutely acknowledge that single player games should not be social (or socialized). They are a complete experience. My original point was basically that the mechanics used in single player computer games are gimmicks to create interaction between the player and "the other" - which, in a single player game is the game itself. And we completely agree that no type of game is better than any other. Games live and die on their individual quality, outside of genre, type, platform, etc. Finally - can I just say that, if nothing else, I'm happy that this conversation is happening. I've been playing games for 30 years. I went into the industry because I love games and what they stand for. I even went so far as to write a thesis on the history of computer games as part of my university studies somewhere in a previous life. Thanks! [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;38212959]something tells me he can't be that retarded though can he? Let me actually read the article now. I doubt he's being this silly. Maybe he's actually god a good point? "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," If I even tried to create a rant to debate how mentally retarded this guy is, I would have seizure. Hl2, portal1/2, MP3, gta4, skyrim, stalker series, Serious sam (though coop is boss), alan wake, painkiller, prototype, dead space, saints row, sniper elite, dues ex series, every nintendo game, every XBox1 game, every PS1 game, every star wars KOTOR / Jedi knight game, far cry series, dishonored, fallout, Solitaire, pinball, tetris, pacman. all of these games are all gimmicks now never mind the fact that most of them wouldn't do well as multiplayer games they're all gimmicks, especially compared to Superior facebook flash games! [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] sure, coop is a great option (portal 2 / Serious Sam / Halo) but when it comes down to it, the only way to truly appreciate a story is by soloing it.[/QUOTE] Ok - I never said the games themselves were gimmicks (that was stated in a headline I didn't write). I was talking about how the mechanics for single player games came to be and why. Also, this is a single comment taken from a 2-part interview. The comment is from the second published part that can be found here: [url]http://www.thealistdaily.com/news/exclusive-gogogic-on-branded-games-accessibility-and-more/[/url] There, you can also find a comment like: "As much as I am for increase accessibility, I'm firmly against dumbing down games or using psychological tricks as the only means to get people playing. With our latest game, Godsrule, we are trying to make sure we strike a great balance between access, deep gameplay and a great story. It's a high fantasy MMORTS and it will be the first mid-core MMO game that implements a real RTS where you're dependent on your skills as you take on opponents in real-time." That should have sparked some interest - a "social game maker" denying the use of skinner box tricks... but it didn't. However, an out-of-context answer used as a controversial headline, along with only a part of the interview is great for creating a flame war. Funnily enough the full interview did not spark such a reaction... [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;38212931]Well, first of all - I'd like to say that it's actually cool to see a CEO (how little your company may be, I don't know its size) responding to people without any PR filter. But anyhow, I don't think you're right. Of course there was no internet, and it's probably a reason why single-player was (and is) very predominant. I must say that I'm not totally clear on the point you're actually making, but if I'm getting this right (hold on), I don't really agree. There is no real narrative in multiplayer - take a clean slate and start drawing on it with a couple of other people, you make it up yourself. In single-player games, there is one - it's (oftenly, at least) a carefully guided tour that shows you everything it can, with maybe a few choices thrown in. It's the difference between playing a role in a play with a manuscript and improv-theater. Both can be fun (and here I'll agree with you that we should explore more ways to do such in games), but never will I say that the play is just trying to be the other, because it's not. They're doing it in two different ways, and I don't think one could ever substitute itself with the other.[/QUOTE] We actually agree, for the most part. My entire point was to the reason why single player games were designed the way they are. They use mechanics and elements to create interaction with the player. And single player games are neither inherently better or worse than social or multiplayer games. Each title needs to survive on its own quality and merit. And thank you for the kind words in regard to being here. The company is mid-size but that shouldn't matter either. At the end of the day I'm a gamer with 30 years of play-time under my belt. I don't need a PR filter to speak to other people that love games as well.
I love it when this happens. Can you prove though that you are the real guy? Like some sort of tweet to @garrynewman just to confirm?
[QUOTE=benjojo;38213937]I love it when this happens. Can you prove though that you are the real guy? Like some sort of tweet to @garrynewman just to confirm?[/QUOTE] i just tweeted. Incidentally, that was my 666th tweet... makes you think, doesn't it ;)
[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;38213942]he tweeted me without me mentioning him. i'm pretty sure he's the real deal, and was probably looking around for reactions to the article. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] [url]https://twitter.com/jantonsson/status/262333053563703296[/url][/QUOTE] Still, worth finding out. Edit: -Got Ninja'd at the same micro sec-
[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;38213942]he tweeted me without me mentioning him. i'm pretty sure he's the real deal, and was probably looking around for reactions to the article. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] [url]https://twitter.com/jantonsson/status/262333053563703296[/url][/QUOTE] It's me. But I wasn't looking for reactions. It took me by complete surprise to be mentioned in a handful of angry tweets this morning, along with getting emails, etc. It was more surprising to find out it was over something I said in an interview that went live 10 days ago... Another media outlet found a good angle for a headline and decided to run with it. Fun.
Good story driven games are usually singleplayer because it's silly if every player is the ~chosen one~. Co-op usually works though.
[QUOTE=Jantonsson;38213427]I'm not even sure we disagree that much. I absolutely acknowledge that single player games should not be social (or socialized). They are a complete experience. My original point was basically that the mechanics used in single player computer games are gimmicks to create interaction between the player and "the other" - which, in a single player game is the game itself. And we completely agree that no type of game is better than any other. Games live and die on their individual quality, outside of genre, type, platform, etc. Finally - can I just say that, if nothing else, I'm happy that this conversation is happening. I've been playing games for 30 years. I went into the industry because I love games and what they stand for. I even went so far as to write a thesis on the history of computer games as part of my university studies somewhere in a previous life. Thanks! [/QUOTE] Okay I get it I think. So you're not saying that enemies and companions in singleplayer could as well be replaced with people, that the tricks in single player are there to make it feel like you're playing with other players. You are saying that there are "gimmicks" in singleplayer to make people feel like they have real interaction with in-game characters, which could be called a social contact. It took a while to dig this out. I misunderstood the whole "the other" thing. I thought that "the other" meant other players. Actually I misunderstood most of your first post. Also I think you should stop using the word "gimmick". And yeah, we don't disagree much, if at all. It was a giant misunderstanding.
[QUOTE=Jantonsson;38210210] As the owner of these comments I want to point out that the sentance is taken out of context to create a controversial headline. [/QUOTE] now you know why people like steve albini don't talk to the press
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;38214664]Okay I get it I think. So you're not saying that enemies and companions in singleplayer could as well be replaced with people, that the tricks in single player are there to make it feel like you're playing with other players. You are saying that there are "gimmicks" in singleplayer to make people feel like they have real interaction with in-game characters, which could be called a social contact. It took a while to dig this out. I misunderstood the whole "the other" thing. I thought that "the other" meant other players. Actually I misunderstood most of your first post. Also I think you should stop using the word "gimmick". And yeah, we don't disagree much, if at all. It was a giant misunderstanding.[/QUOTE] 2 hour interview over the phone plus not speaking in my native tongue... I agree that the word gimmick was not a good choice. But as someone who likes illusionist tricks I'm stuck with the meaning associated with the word in those circles. There, it doesn't have any negative meaning attached to it. It simply stands for the distraction that the illusionist creates to complete the illusion, thus delivering a complete and believable experience to the audience. But yeah... in retrospect, not a good word to use - especially when it is then used to fuel a flame-throwing headline [editline]28th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;38214732]now you know why people like steve albini don't talk to the press[/QUOTE] Lesson learnt.
[QUOTE=Jantonsson;38213966]i just tweeted. Incidentally, that was my 666th tweet... makes you think, doesn't it ;)[/QUOTE] sorry for making fun of your face
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.