...They will be replayed, studied, and regaled for their brilliance for many years to come.
Some might say comparing this game to The Godfather is taking it a little too far.
I say those people haven't played Super Mario World.
The idea that multiplayer alone facilitates replay value is ludicrous.
Sure, one could argue that the experience is unique in that your opponents are actual human players and of course since there are both dumb and smart people in the world your gameplay experience will vary based upon that. But assuming the multiplayer portions of those games are online only (as they are in many cases), what becomes of them once their servers get shut down? Do they become worthless, devalued pieces of plastic? The recent departure of Xbox Live in its original incarnation cut the lifelines of fan favorites like Halo 2. Similarly EA recently pulled the plug on MP for games like Army Of Two. This helps to showcase two points in particular:
- Consoles should stick to their strengths by including some sort of offline / split-screen multiplayer.
- Strong single player games will always get replayed simply because they CAN always be replayed.
When the years roll on and developers finally deem a game to be overstaying its welcome by incurring them extra fees you can bet your ass they'll be shutting servers down as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, the single player portions of these games will always be accessible. But the question is: Do THEY have replay value? The notion that multiplayer is the definition of replay value gets circumvented when it no longer becomes an option. Now the single player only game and the game that feature a prominent multiplayer are on equal footing.
So who takes the prize?
We're all no stranger to games (particularly FPSs) being described as such:
"The single player campaign was decent / okay / sucked, but the multiplayer is SICK!!!"
Note the obvious dichotomy between SP and MP. So once that MP becomes an impossibility, what then? Do the merits of the game still hold or is it devalued by the absence of the star of the show? The answer should seem obvious. It almost makes you wonder how games that are obviously focused on multiplayer would rate if there was a separate review for both SP and MP. My guess is that 9 times out of 10 one is going to have a noticeable jump or drop in quality over the other.
So do I think multiplayer games should go the way of the dinosaur (which is the way of "awesome", by the way)(Editor's Note: Dinosaurs RULE! :P)? Not in the slightest. I'm of the opinion that both SP and MP can be important elements in any game. Moreover, I feel that devs should place more emphasis on crafting an enjoyable single player experience. There are games that manage to do it, but they are becoming few and far between. Everybody's looking for the next great multiplayer game. I've been guilty of it. We all have. Just remember that no MP component will ever be an adequate substitute for a masterfully crafted single player story.
A mainstream single player FPS with a great story?
"Breaking The Mold?" You're goddamn right you are!
I'd ask you to look into the future to see how Modern Warfare 2's campaign holds up 10 years from now, but there will probably be at least a six-hundred twenty-seven other Call Of Duty games to choose from at that point. :P
Don't worry kids. Bobby Kotick loves money WAAAAAY too much to just let these games die.
And on a final note, Red Dead Redemption looks AMAZING. A huge open world, a great single player story set in the Wild West, and an innovative online component that aims to be the first open world game to incorporate free roam into multiplayer. Hopefully it lives up to how it looks. But the great thing about it all? If 10 years from now I decide that I want to have that great Western experience all over again, I know that it will be at my disposal.
Play on, players. 8)
- Ryan
P.S. The above blog may include some subtle innuendo. Reader discretion is advised. :P