Mark Cerny is one of the sharpest guys I’ve met in the videogame business, so when he says that traditional single-player games aren’t long for this world, I listen. At a recent Sony Computer Entertainment event during GamesCom 2011, Cerny had a lot of say about how a “connected” world is changing single-player videogames. Here’s a quote from Eurogamer:
I believe the traditional single-player game experience will be gone in three years. Right now you sit in your living room and you’re playing a game by yourself — we call it the sp mission or the single-player campaign. In a world with Facebook I just don’t think that’s going to last.
We’re already seeing the wall starting to crumble a bit. Demon’s Souls, even though on one level it’s a single-player game, as you’re walking through the world you’re seeing the ghosts of everybody who died in that world via the internet. You can leave messages for them. They can leave messages for you. There’s actually a boss you fight in that game which is controlled by another player.
I think he’s right to a large degree. Videogames on consoles and PCs are definitely moving in that direction. Will they become the norm in five years? I’m not sure, but Cerny is exponentially smarter than I am, so why not?!? As for the “traditional” single-player experience, I’ve been using my iPad 2, PlayStation Portable, and Nintendo 3DS for gaming that’s more along the lines of what I grew up with. The portable consoles are becoming more social, but “real” gaming on phones and tablets is in its infancy. While phones and tablets are obviously connected devices, they still offer that solitary experience I’m used to because the development environment isn’t as sophisticated as consoles (yet).
A lot of you know that I’m a Cerny mark and won’t question his word (I’m slightly exaggerating). With that in mind, please let me know what you think about his prognosis. Are traditional single-player games done? Does a world that has become smaller through social networking require single-player videogames that are more connected? Leave a comment and let me know (please)!
[I wanted to post this story yesterday, but my crap web host decided to take the day off. Never use AnHosting.]
Not until all of their customers have online connections.
Then again he might not be talking about the US.
I have to disagree with him.
First off… not everybody is connected. My brother lives on a hundred acre spread in the styx of Pennsylvania. The only (non-dial up) internet he can get out there is satellite and it's crap service. In order to update his consoles, he drives several miles (or even into Pittsburgh or Cleveland where his girlfriend lives) and either updates at a friend's house or he leeches the free wi-fi from a Starbucks or McDonalds.
Secondly (and more importantly)… the sp missions are not ready to die. The art of them is still growing. Bethesda will be dead in the water if this happens. I remember when I first played Fallout 3, I kept wishing it had co-op. Once I was done, I realized how badly that game would have suffered by having co-op. Oblivion is the same way.
I think there are to many gamers that want to selfish delve and explore their worlds alone. And god damn it… they should be able to do so.
Sure, but people like your brother have unusual circumstances. Problematic Internet access in rural America is certainly a problem, but highly uncommon from a global perspective. Remember, compared to a lot of first-world countries, Internet access in America is sucky.
Personally, I hope he's wrong. My favorite games are single-player RPGs. I also like strong linear storytelling. Being connected doesn't add much to the kinds of games that I enjoy. Having said that, he's Mark Cerny!!!
Don't get me wrong… I have mad respect for the guy too… but I also think Marble Madness would have sucked balls if I had to worry about some other asshole's marble getting in my way.
I think the option needs to prevail. If it does go away… it will be limited. Eventually someone will see the place for making money there.
Some games… people need to take at their own pace.
Imagine how terrible Madden or ant team sports game would be if every player on the field was a real live gamer.
Marble Madness was originally a social experience because it was in arcades. Friends and strangers could watch you play or they could compete. (Remember when multiplayer consisted of taking turns? Ha!)
I think the examples he used in Demon's Souls are interesting. Those kinds of things don't necessarily inhibit the single-player experience.
I actually miss the Luigi method of taking turns in action and platformer games at times. I kinda yearned for it playing New Super Mario Bros. Wii with the kids.
As for the "social experience of Marble Madness" angle… it wasn't the game that was social, it was the arcade itself and the gaming scene of the time. Most people I knew that geeked into Marble Madness played it on NES. I knew one guy who would repeatedly rent that game instead of buying it. Why? I have no idea.
I'd give Mr. Cerny's theory and example more vim if Demon's Souls was a mega-smash hit… but it wasn't. How would GTA play out like that? It would be cool if people could graffiti things in the city that showed up in everyone's game… but having everyone active in your city all the time would be too much chaos for the guy who's just trying to finish his ambulance missions.
Try to adapt this principle to the most popular AAA games of right now that may not be 100% single player… but have a big part of the game adapted for single player. How could you put social features into Mass Effect or Batman Arkham City without hindering the experience of the story and drama?
I think the odd title here and there like Demon's Souls or the option of social features (like co-op and multiplayer) is great. Games should be getting more elaborate in the future instead of becoming more stripped down.This statement works on both sides of this argument. Therefore… my theory for the future is a happy medium.
I've been thinking about this since I read it… and I intend to continue to do so.
In addition:
I'm not gonna pick on his timeline of 3 years either. That's completely unrealistic in my opinion. I'll pretend he said 5 to 10 years (or a console lifespan).
3 years is talking about games starting development right now and games that will start development in the rather near future. These are games that may be announced at next year's E3 and be pushed back for 4 years. Or games thought to be dead franchises and Gearbox just happens to pick up and release.
If he means more coop esc games, them I'm all for that, but you can't always tell a story that way. I've been offline for a while now and only hope online at the request of others. It is a rather good break I needed because online play gets frustrating and there aren't any stress free online games. Also, I've been playing a ton of SSB:B with friends offline.
It's an interesting concept, which may work with most games just like adding on multiplayer to any and every game out there worked (I'm thinking of people's statements on Bioshock 2's MP). Sure things will change, and I don't doubt that SP campaigns are MOSTLY on the way out. What I'm not sure of is the severity of this concept, and the timeline he gives. 3 years seems a little quick to me. Maybe 5-8 years. Also, there are games such as Prey 2 or any Bethesda game which are specifically SP only for a reason. There will always be a market for all SP games, but the percentage of those games compared to the rest of the market will likely shrink, with SP games possibly taking cult status among gamers.