Is Open World games killing Single Player games?



  • Okay, so... I've been watching the whole debacle of Electronic Arts shutting down Visceral Games, and many outlets are talking about it... like AlphaOmegaSin, and Easy Allies.

    So, I love single player games, and I love open world games, equally. I think they're pretty much the same thing, the only difference is that one is linear, and the other is "do whatever the fuck you want" kind of game.

    The whole point of the Star Wars universe, is the story. Always has been, and always will be. That's why film after film, it's breaking box office records. LucasArts has been "killing it" by giving fans what they want - an engrossing story. In the last film, we got to meet the son and daughter of prospective, albeit popular characters, and one of them has a cliffhanger at the end of the film.

    What about you?



  • As long as The Elder Scrolls VI doesn't have multiplayer or lootboxes, I remain unaffected by the trend.





  • @Carlos said:

    So, I love single player games, and I love open world games, equally. I think they're pretty much the same thing, the only difference is that one is linear, and the other is "do whatever the fuck you want" kind of game.

    Same, I think there will always be a place for both.

    The whole point of the Star Wars universe, is the story. Always has been, and always will be.

    This is where I disagree. When it comes to Star Wars I am a very unique case. I didn't grow up with the original movies. I'm old enough to have, but neither my parents or my friends ever introduced it into my life as a child. Hell, the first movie I saw start to finish was Episode 1, which understandably made me confused as to why people treat Star Wars the way they do. For a long time I kinda thought Star Wars was dumb even, until some video games sparked my appreciation in the franchise.

    The Rogue Squadron series was undoubtedly my first real deal dig into the world I enjoyed, which are sorta linear games consisting of missions of gunning down enemies like Star Fox or w/e, but what really sold me on the concept of Star Wars was Knights of the Old Republic. A more open RPG that just lets you loose in the worlds of the franchise, lets you build your character within that world, lets you build your own lightsaber eventually even! It was only through playing that game that I felt like I finally GOT why people love Star Wars so much and felt an appreciation for the franchise grow within myself.

    So personally, I'm down for an open world Star Wars game. I think both linear and open world games for that particular franchise have reasons to exist. I wouldn't want to see either of them push the other out of existence, but I believe one can find merit in simply immersing themselves into the worlds Star Wars offers, heavy story focus or not.



  • I like to think that focus testing is the real death of linear games.



  • @Mbun said in Is Open World games killing Single Player games?:

    @Carlos said:

    So, I love single player games, and I love open world games, equally. I think they're pretty much the same thing, the only difference is that one is linear, and the other is "do whatever the fuck you want" kind of game.

    Same, I think there will always be a place for both.

    The whole point of the Star Wars universe, is the story. Always has been, and always will be.

    This is where I disagree. When it comes to Star Wars I am a very unique case. I didn't grow up with the original movies. I'm old enough to have, but neither my parents or my friends ever introduced it into my life as a child. Hell, the first movie I saw start to finish was Episode 1, which understandably made me confused as to why people treat Star Wars the way they do. For a long time I kinda thought Star Wars was dumb even, until some video games sparked my appreciation in the franchise.

    The Rogue Squadron series was undoubtedly my first real deal dig into the world I enjoyed, which are sorta linear games consisting of missions of gunning down enemies like Star Fox or w/e, but what really sold me on the concept of Star Wars was Knights of the Old Republic. A more open RPG that just lets you loose in the worlds of the franchise, lets you build your character within that world, lets you build your own lightsaber eventually even! It was only through playing that game that I felt like I finally GOT why people love Star Wars so much and felt an appreciation for the franchise grow within myself.

    So personally, I'm down for an open world Star Wars game. I think both linear and open world games for that particular franchise have reasons to exist. I wouldn't want to see either of them push the other out of existence, but I believe one can find merit in simply immersing themselves into the worlds Star Wars offers, heavy story focus or not.

    I take it you never watched most of the films. Fans love the series because its a story of David vs the Goliath, only in the frame of a "Sci-Fi" genre. David is Luke Skywalker, and Goliath is the Sith group, led by Darth Vader, and later the son. The concept of the story got changed with the Episodes spinoffs which were disguised as prequels. A young kid goes to the dark side because he wanted more power.

    A linear game in the vein of Uncharted [4] would do Star Wars justice if it was helmed by the correct team, which Visceral Games was... EA was dumb enough to use "the game was a mess." What a sabotage if it was true. EA doesn't know how to talk to investors from what I've seen of the tweet there. I'm laughing here, because the only thing EA has managed to do is lose money on its own. It won't be long before the current Electronic Arts shuts down.



  • I don't think it depends on it being open world or not, it depends on the company, EA has made pretty clear what they think, Rockstar, pretty much the pioneer of open world games, for example sees things differently

    "We would love to do more single-player add-ons for games in the future. As a company, we love single-player more than anything, and believe in it absolutely – for storytelling and a sense of immersion in a world, multiplayer games don’t rival single-player games."
    http://www.gamezone.com/news/rockstar-explains-why-there-was-no-gta-v-story-dlc-3460462

    And the guys who make Wolfenstein 2 also are against pushing MP into everything

    "The only way we can create these super immersive narrative experiences is if we can solely focus on the single-player," said Björk. "Having a multiplayer component in this work process would just dilute it all. That's the danger if you try to do two things at once.
    "We just keep our heads together, and focus on making a really good single-player game... Doing our thing is what makes the game great."
    http://www.gamezone.com/news/wolfenstein-would-be-diluted-by-multiplayer-says-machinegames-3460471

    And then there is japan of course, most of their games are still very linear, open world isn't as popular there as here.

    So no, I don't think the concept of open world alone will ever kill single player games and as long we have these compaanies focusing successfully on singleplayer, it won't die anytime soon, it's really just EA's bullshit, and I guess Activision too.



  • @Carlos said:

    Fans love the series because

    I guess I'm not a fan then, because I love the series because of reasons inspired by Knights of the Old Republic, which is why I don't find it inherently bad to have a more open world game in the universe. The whole EA things sucks more or less cause they promoted a game people were excited to play, then announced they'd be radically changing how said game plays while fucking over yet another studio as EA has a habit of doing. I get people are super bummed out about this, but I'm also not ready to say the game that results from this won't be interesting anymore. If anything I'm more interested in it now, because I'm not a fan of the Uncharted 4 experience.



  • @Mbun said in Is Open World games killing Single Player games?:

    @Carlos said:

    Fans love the series because

    I guess I'm not a fan then, because I love the series because of reasons inspired by Knights of the Old Republic, which is why I don't find it inherently bad to have a more open world game in the universe. The whole EA things sucks more or less cause they promoted a game people were excited to play, then announced they'd be radically changing how said game plays while fucking over yet another studio as EA has a habit of doing. I get people are super bummed out about this, but I'm also not ready to say the game that results from this won't be interesting anymore. If anything I'm more interested in it now, because I'm not a fan of the Uncharted 4 experience.

    I'm not a huge fan of the Star Wars universe, but I understand it. I understand why fans love it, because the universe is vast if you really dig into the series. The problem is, film producers nowadays are trying to pander to the fans of the first 3 films - which is why Battlefront 2 includes iconic characters. They want to sell this game to fans of the original Star Wars films.

    I like Uncharted 3/4 because of the story, the set pieces, and the experience it gives you. You can do pretty much anything in Uncharted, it allows you to be stealthy, it allows you to run n' gun, it allows you to get caught so you learn where to go next. It's linear in the sense that it tells you to go to B.

    We're going to get more Open World games and less story-based, set-pieces. The problem with linear games is that there isn't a way to re-play the game over and over again. That's the fault of the developer; they need to add a little bit more content into the game to warrant the $60 price tag. That's where the problem lies. We often buy single player games, but we never get more out of the $60 experience. Star Wars is a universe that's evolving, and expanding every day - and so, developers need to use the actual content that Disney/LucasArts provides them and/or allows them to use.

    I love the God of War series because it's this epic story with set-pieces to show me the next big bang. It's a world that I enjoy exploring, and experiencing, but we're not going to get that experience more often because of the stupid focus testing bullshit that tells corporations the wrong information.



  • It depends on where you are looking it seems to me, if you are looking at games produced by the tests groups at EA, Ubisoft, Activision, which are the ones that get most of the spotlight then it might seem that way, I honestly have stopped looking their way for the most part, with a few exceptions from Ubisoft (South Park, Beyond G&E, Mario & Rabbids).

    There are many games still being made with single player as the focus, they may not have the same budget or refinement some of the most popular titles in the industry may have, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily any lesser in quality, just this year has been great in my opinion with many great examples, Persona 5 is my GOAT, Yakuza 0 still has people talking and has seemingly increased the reach of the series, and Hellblade is a far more interesting game that any of what the AAA games with huge budgets and hundreds of people developing them have produced in recent memory, and best of all they have been financial success for their companies.

    So no I don't think single player is being killed, you just need to look for it beyond the trash that the giant publishers want you to spend hundreds of $$$ on, to find something you'll like.



  • If Single Player's getting killed, how is Cuphead doing so well?

    What gaming as an industry needs is not less open world games, but less "open world for the sake of being open world" games. If you catch my drift.



  • Huh, open world games are single player games.



  • @ChaosBahamut i think we migh see less AAA single player from Ubisoft, EA and Activision. Thankfully we will still get single player from Sony, Nintendo, indie games and Japanese games.



  • @Carlos said:

    You can do pretty much anything in Uncharted

    Youtube Video

    We're going to get more Open World games and less story-based, set-pieces.

    I'm okay with that, because set-pieces don't always do it for me. I also like to make my own stories in games, not only be force fed ones others have decided to expose me to, only walk the paths they've specifically laid out for me to traverse in the exact ways they've designed them to be treaded. I like creativity in games and the freedom to tackle challenges in varied ways. Instead of a vista at a set point for you to find and admire from a specific angle designed by the developer, I like to discover my own breathtaking landscapes that weren't necessarily intended for such but are beautiful none the less.



  • @Mbun I think there is room for both. Personally like play linear single player some times.

    Also, I might get lot of hate for this but if we do end up getting more open world I want it to be less like Horizon. I personally hated that game's open world. The game just doesn't let you find things on your own. Everything is on the map, the game doesn't even trust you to find Tallnecks on your own. There also nothing to find, there is no weapon or armour to find. Everything can be bought on shop.



  • I don't have many compelling opinions that I'm willing to type out at great length here, but I will summarize a few simple thoughts.

    Remember how "every game" was a first person shooter last generation? For example, Sony invested in Killzone, Resistance, MAG, and prob some more and those were just exclusives.

    Remember how "every game" had that XP unlock progression system in the multiplayer mode? For example, Resistance 2 changed among other things, the entire competitive MP mode to have an unlock system similar to Call of Duty which was drastically different than R:FoM.

    That to me was the major trend I saw last generation. Now it is 2017 and we survived. Every other game is no longer an FPS and our multiplayer modes went from crack addiction "+10 XP" on screen every 2 sec to literal gambling with lootboxes. Likewise, companies are making more games like Horizon, and Shadow of Mordor. My point here is that the trends have certainly changed but the trends of last gen didn't kill anything this gen. Third person games didn't go away because FPS was so popular. There will be more linear single player games in the future. If anything, they will find new ways to introduce campaign modes that involve online connectivity such as the new co-op game A Way Out.

    The Last of Us allegedly sold something like 7 million and that was an exclusive game mostly aimed at the story mode. Story mode will survive the current gaming climate.



  • @Danjin44

    I really liked this verbal essay. I'd only disagree in that I think he's forgetting that a lot of linear games are successful currently. FPS last gen was about MP. This gen it is almost a renaissance for the linear fans: Wolfenstein, DOOM, Metro Last Light. Then on the other hand, we have linear action-adventure games like: Tomb Raider 2, Uncharted 4, The Last of Us 2. Hell, even some RPG games like Yakuza 0, Persona 5, and Nier Automata feel very linear by design despite the fact you can approach things at your own pace. Nier Automata has an open world, but within it there are distinctly linear levels and your progression through the story is very linear.

    I suppose I agree with everything he says but he's acting like these types of games are dead or dying when I personally have enough to satisfy my needs. I usually never play open world games (in the traditional sense i.e. Far Cry 4), and I still have a ton of linear SP games I need to get through like P5, RE7, and more.

    He also said The Witcher III is his second most favourite game and that hurt me because I found the linear nature of the first two suited the game much so much more. But that's kinda besides the point.

    Thanks for sharing!



  • A pretty interesting quote from a ex-Bioware Montreal gameplay designer.

    Manveer Heir said to Eurogamer:

    "It's definitely a thing inside of EA," he said, "they are generally pushing for more open-world games. And the reason is you can monetise them better. The words in there that were used are 'have them come back again and again' [not quite but that's the gist - see above]. Why do you care about that at EA? The reason you care about that is because microtransactions: buying card packs in the Mass Effect games, the multiplayer. It's the same reason we added card packs to Mass Effect 3: how do you get people to keep coming back to a thing instead of 'just' playing for 60 to 100 hours?

    So it seems like EA's preferring open world in order to have people come back to the game more, hopefully also spending more time and money on multiplayer. That didn't even cross my mind, but I suppose it makes sense. I really thought it was just because they focus tested the games to hell and back, and the responses they got were that people wanted open world and the ability to play with their buddies.



  • Hopefully not, I love open-world games, Skyrim, Breath of the Wild, No Man's Sky, Ori and the Blind Forest, Minecraft, Horizon Zero Dawn, Forza Horizon 3, are among my top favorite games of all time. I'd be devastated if the next Elder Scrolls had an online focus, I've already lost one favorite in GTS to that annoying trend. I'm a single player offline gamer and I really wish devs would let me stay that way. I don't care if the game has an online mode, it doesn't bother me at all. Just don't force me into that world.



  • i don't really mind games being open world. Just make them different. What is wrong with having more things to play with? I really hate linear games if i am being honest. I like a game the most when i get to do things at my own pace